[ Page 7025 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

TMA takeover of Inland Natural Gas. Mr. Macdonald –– 7025

Northeast coal. Mr. Lank –– 7025

Mr. Leggatt

Use of prisoners for ship-conversion work. Mr. Macdonald –– 7027

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Strachan –– 7027

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7028

Workers' Compensation Board annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7028

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Lea –– 7028

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7033

Mrs. Wallace –– 7036

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7040

Mr. Cocke –– 7042

Tabling Documents

Document relating to size of public service in B.C., 1872-1981.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7044

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Davis –– 7044

Motion

Reaffirmation of commitment to country. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7047

Mr. Howard

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a delegation representing the Canadian Federation of Students is in the gallery or precinct this afternoon. They represent a generation of students who ask only that they be given the same opportunity that other generations of students have had. Their names are Gordon Moore, Gene Beuthien, Regina Costa, Rudy Van Berkel, Imtiaz Popat, Andrew Mackie, Donna Morgan, Jean Kirk, Sophia Hanafi and Russ Collier. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Michael Allerton and Donald Cook. Donald is president of the Vancouver Symphony Society and Michael Allerton is managing director.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to explain why I have my arm in a sling today. I've had a number of inquiries and I think it would save me time if I simply explained. It's nothing to do with my opposition to the government's heavy-handed programs, and I haven't had any fights with the Sergeant-at-Arms. It is the result of a skiing trip that I took to Cypress Bowl about three months ago, believe it or not. I unfortunately fell and tore a ligament and it took me three months to realize that it hurt. That's the truth. I was well-conditioned for hard knocks and pain, having been a football player for many years; however, I wasn't getting much sleep so I went down to the emergency this morning. They suggested that I had better put this thing in a sling and immobilize it for a while or I'd be operating with the use of only one arm. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope no one will be inquiring during the next few days about this sling.

I would like to introduce two people who are with us in the galleries: Mr. David Cadman and Mr. Gordon Bailey. Mr. Cadman is president and Mr. Bailey is secretary of the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees Union. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Now would you like to hear about my scars? [Laughter.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I just couldn't resist.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, would you like to hear about my sore jaw?

On behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Hon. Alex Fraser, I would like to introduce to the House three members from that great Cariboo riding. With us in the galleries is His Worship Mayor Tom Mason, who used to be an old pal of mine in the Ford business; with him are Alderman Saini and Alderman Cobb. I hope the House will make these gentlemen from the great city of Williams Lake welcome here today.

Oral Questions

TMA TAKEOVER OF INLAND NATURAL GAS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Did the government on Tuesday last make any approaches through the minister's department or any other department of government to the Utilities Commission or the Supreme Court of British Columbia to forestall the takeover by TMA of the shares of Inland Natural Gas?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: What did the government do at that last moment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this question has been the subject of question period on another occasion in the House, and at that time I assured the second member for Vancouver East that the government intended to intervene in the matter of the TMA takeover and that we would intervene at an appropriate time, which would be when a public hearing was held. That still remains the objective of the government and we intend to intervene when that public hearing is held, which I expect will be in a matter of a week or so.

Without treading on the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') responsibilities, I can say that we have today passed an order-in-council under a section of the Utilities Commission Act, which allows us to give direction to the B.C. Utilities Commission, instructing that Inland Natural Gas not proceed with the transfer of shares until such time as the public hearing can be held, that a full review of the share transactions take place, and that interveners and others have an opportunity to ensure that the transfer of shares, should it take place, is in the best interest of the people of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question. Have the shares not yet been transferred to Anderson and Ben Macdonald? Have they not picked up the shares?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's our understanding that that share transaction has not fully taken place.

MR. MACDONALD: Fully.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It has not taken place at the present time.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Tokyo Doeki Ltd. and Mitsui Mining Co., 40 percent equity owners of the Quintette Mine, have indicated that they are concerned about the possibility of construction overruns and wish to bail out of the northeast coal project by trying to sell their interests. Can the minister confirm that this is the reason why neither Teck nor Denison have been able to arrange long-term financing totalling in excess of $1 billion for their mine developments in the northeast?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, the name is Tokyo Boeki Ltd., for your information. There are negotiations going on from time to time between the coal companies and their partners in Tokyo and their partners in France, I would presume. I will not confirm or deny press statements to the effect that they're bailing out. I think that's a statement by the member opposite which I will not confirm or have anything to do with, other than to say that the project is proceeding, and from the reports I get finance is proceeding. There will be other great announcements in the very near future to prove that this great project has been well designed and is coming in on budget and on time.

[ Page 7026 ]

MR. LAUK: The reports that we have are that these two 40 percent equity owners are seeking to sell their interest to the very steel mills that will be purchasing and using the metallurgical coal from this area of our province. This kind of vertical integration means that they control the source of their supply, the price and the future negotiations for contracts. In other words, they will be negotiating with themselves. Has the government decided that this arrangement can take place and is consistent with government policy with respect to the northeast coal project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I cannot be responsible for information that that member seems to dig up. If it is like most of the information emanating from that side of the House, it isn't founded on any great basis. However, having said that, I think that negotiations that take place between the owners of the coal companies are their business. They have the responsibility to bring the mines onstream. I must add to that that if the steel mills in Japan should decide to take some equity position, it would not be unusual and it would not be the first time that it has happened.

MR. LAUK: If these companies, Boeki and Mitsui, do withdraw, has the government decided on some form of subsidy or guarantee to the private sector part of this coal project?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I was just trying to determine if the question is hypothetical. The minister wishes to answer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's a very hypothetical question. Therefore I don't think I'm going to answer it.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister met with Teck or Denison to discuss this important withdrawal of these two major partners?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have to state again that the member seems to be trying to put out the fact that Tokyo, Boeki and Mitsui mining are withdrawing from the project. I would suggest that that statement is unfounded.

MR. LAUK: I take it then that the minister is denying the public reports that both these companies are desirous of selling their interests. Is that not the case?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I read that report in the Vancouver Sun, I believe it was. I gathered from the article I read that they were interested in disposing of a portion of their interest. I just go by what I read in the newspaper. I didn't gather from that report that they were trying to dispose of their entire assets. So, you see, the information on which the question is based is, I would say, unfounded.

MR. LAUK: Well, when a bookie takes a bet and he figures it's a bad debt, he tries to lay it off.

My question is to the minister. The British Columbia Railway is now borrowing upwards of $200 million to continue construction of the Anzac line. The government has not budgeted to pay BCR for the cost of construction. What steps has the government taken to ensure payment to this Crown railway to cover their construction costs?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I'm not an expert on the rules of the House, but I would suggest that that question hinges on future government policy.

MR. LAUK: Last year the government paid BCR $45 million by special warrant. Has the government decided to do the same this year?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that member has been in the House almost as long as I have, and he knows that that question is out of order.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is also directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. One thing does seem clear, and that is that neither Teck nor Denison have been able to get their financing in place up to now. Would the minister advise the House what, specifically, the bonding arrangements are with regard to both Teck and Denison and the developers of the two projects — the private side — to guarantee that the minister hasn't squandered a pile of public money into the Anzac line? What are the specific arrangements which will require those two companies to complete their end of the deal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I would have to say that the taxpayers of British Columbia are well protected.

MR. LEGGATT: I know the minister would want to bring us into his confidence and expand on that phrase, "well protected." What is the protection that the taxpayers of British Columbia now have legally in place to guarantee that both Teck and Denison meet their end of the deal and complete the private sector? What are they? Are they insurance guarantees? Are they in writing? Are they by letter?

MR. SPEAKER: It could be a very lengthy answer. Are we prepared to...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it won't be a very lengthy answer. I realize that member hasn't been in the House very long, but there was sufficient time during my estimates last year and there will be sufficient time during my estimates this year for that member to ask the question. He's been discussing this and trying to put out the information that the coal company's finances are not in order. That's information for which he will have to be responsible.

However, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the question is not urgent.

MR. LEGGATT: The question my colleague asked the minister dealt with the attempt by Tokyo Boeki and Mitsui Mining to lay off their investment into the steel mills. That will mean that we have an international vertical integration with regard to the coal resources of British Columbia. If the steel industry becomes both the seller and the buyer, we will not get a fair price for British Columbia's product. My question is this: what policy has the minister in place to prevent that kind of international integration whereby we will not receive a fair price for our product?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not really a past master of the rules of the House, or anything like that, but I

[ Page 7027 ]

would say that the member's question draws an inference and is therefore out of order.

USE OF PRISONERS FOR SHIP-CONVERSION WORK

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, 17 inmates from the Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre are now engaged in the conversion of two vessels at Surrey Docks. The Sunshine Queen from the old B.C. Ferries fleet is one of them. The boats are now owned by Gulf Oil and they've contracted with Canarctic for the conversion. These inmates are getting $4.50 an hour and I like to see the work being done, but they're displacing regular union work in a commercial field in a time of high unemployment. Is this the policy of the department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would take the question on notice, as the particular circumstances to which the member refers are not known to me. I can say, however, that the policy was established during the time he was the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, as House Leader, and as notice to the House, I would like to inform the House that I will be filing at the table a motion proposed and moved by myself, and seconded by the Hon. Attorney-General, that this Legislature regrets the publication of an editorial in the Province dated April 15, 1982 relating to a decision given by the Speaker of the House on Tuesday, April 13, 1982.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, if I might have the leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House and bid a very special welcome to Sir John Biggs-Davison, Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, who is on a speaking tour across Canada for the Monarchist League of Canada, and to Miss Molly Ingram, the chairman of the Victoria branch of that league.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. STRACHAN: In the time that I have left, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment further on a few items that are left: the restraint program, comments made in the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) about the small business program. I would also extend my very, very best wishes to the hon. member visiting us from Westminster. I understand he has been in Prince George, and I sincerely hope he enjoyed himself there.

In any event, with respect to the restraint program, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments with reference to the small business assistance that is mentioned in the opposition amendment, and some comments regarding restraint as it applies to education. First of all, I guess the underlying reason behind the restraint program is the fact that our government, the Premier, the Minister of Finance and cabinet had to take a hard stance and begin recognizing the way things were around us. As a government, we have to recognize the world around us. No government can go along with their heads in the sand and pretend that things are fine out there in the real world. The restraint program was not invented; it was not fabricated. It is a realistic answer and approach to the state of the North American economy.

In the private sector there is restraint, and for a lot of people in this province it is entitled "layoff." That is how the private sector is restrained. If there is no more profit to the company, dividends aren't paid and unfortunately men and employment have to be cut back. That is a very hard-line restraint that the private sector takes. Our province had to recognize that there was this problem in the private sector, problems with general revenue, problems that we had to face, and in fact we did, with an eminently fair and realistic restraint program. As a matter of fact, it is interesting that most of the comments we heard as government members — I am sure hon. members opposite might have heard the same comments; I know the Premier did — were that our restraint program wasn't tough enough. That is one of the criticisms we've heard on this side of the House. But it is eminently fair to all concerned, and it does recognize the problems that our North American economy is going through. Of course, essentially what it does is get the taxing authorities' hands out of the taxpayer's pocket. I would submit to all hon. members that that is an admirable program to embark on in this time of our economic history.

A few comments about teachers. I know the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has spent a lot of time, as I said earlier, with teachers and teachers' representatives. It is ironic that if you travel through a riding and speak to many teachers, as I have, you learn that by and large the rank and file of the teachers who are out there in the classroom doing a good job, recognizing what is going on in the world around them, are in favour of the restraint program themselves. I think that fact has been amply demonstrated to the British Columbia Teachers Federation, and I would submit that the teachers have a more realistic view of the current economic situation than their own federation does. I think that has been evidenced in the last six weeks.

I guess the one comment I thought of as soon as I heard about the restraint program and spoke to my school board was that we might even see things improve in the classroom because of the program. It is no secret to me as a former trustee, and I'm sure it's no secret to many of the members here who have served on school boards or who have been teachers or principals, that when times get tough and your budgets get down you look for your best people. I know, for example, that right now as the spring staffing starts to take place, the principals will he starting to protect their best people and make sure that their best staff are in place in September. The administration and school boards will be doing the same thing in light of the restraint program: they will be ensuring that their best, most productive teachers are in place for September, recognizing the budget constraints ahead of them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to remind the House that in the presence of bills which are on the order paper which perhaps care for this matter in detail, we must not now go into the debate which those bills anticipate. A casual reference, of course, is in order, but certainly the debate on that particular measure should be saved until that time.

[ Page 7028 ]

MR. STRACHAN: A fair comment, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, I would expect we could see some improvement in the standard of teaching because of this.

There has been a concern from some college students, some of whom are in the gallery today — I am again speaking of the restraint program in general and not of specific legislation — about tuition increases. I think it is fair to point out to this assembly that in post-secondary institutions, when you consider inflation and all the other factors involved in the way we relate the economic conditions of our time, student tuition is 38 percent down in terms of inflation in the last ten years. I don't think our students have a big problem there. As a matter of fact, British Columbia has the lowest post-secondary tuition in Canada. I think that is something we can all be proud of.

Reference is made in the amendment to the fact that our government and our budget does not recognize the concerns of small business. We know that the NDP, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), went around the province and had hearings on small business. One thing that's almost laughable is the letterhead they used. I'll just describe it to you. It's on Legislative Assembly of British Columbia letterhead. It's called "The Standing Committee on Small Business, " and I'm prepared to table this if it is wished. "The Standing Committee on Small Business will be holding hearings in Dewdney." This came to me from that hon. member, but I have one from Prince George as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say that they misted the House, because that's unparliamentary, and I certainly won't say that. But I must tell you it was certainly misunderstood by the constituents in my riding, as I'm sure it was misunderstood by the constituents in Dewdney, when they saw "The Standing Committee on Small Business," with the names of the members appearing here. The member for Prince Rupert and the member for Nanaimo are listed on Legislative Assembly letterhead, and it appears, in fact, to be an official document, when it's just something from the NDP caucus. It is not a standing committee of this House, and if it weren't so laughable I think some of us on this side might try and raise a point of privilege. Considering the source, I guess there's not much more we can say.

The last point I want to make is a comment again with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's amendment and how he would in fact support small business. That's contrasted when one reads of a statement made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) to some students and printed in a college newspaper. When asked, "Should business participate in vocational training?" the first member for Vancouver Centre used a very steamy word, which I won't repeat in this House. In fact, he was saying that we should tax them greatly. I guess that's the best way I can paraphrase that. I find that quite hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, when we see a motion from the Leader of the Opposition saying that we're not supporting business. Yet a member from that party is advocating heavier and heavier taxes for business and for vocational training. I find those views quite inconsistent, and they certainly don't do anything to add to the credibility of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I thank all hon. members for their attention. I'm fully behind the budget. It's a fair budget. It reflects the economy of today. I wish to close by saying I'm totally opposed to the amendment. It really doesn't stand for anything, and it doesn't really say anything that isn't covered in our budget. I would ask all members to defeat it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour seeks the floor.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I attempted to get your attention earlier. I was in error for not jumping up quick enough.

I would like leave to file two reports.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the Annual Report of the Labour Relations Board, 1981, and the sixty-fifth annual report, for the year ended December 31, 1981, of the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Just so the House understands, leave is not required for the filing of reports, but leave is required to interrupt the proceedings. The member followed the correct procedure.

MR. LEA: I've been listening very, very closely to the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) and I found his theories fascinating. When certain economic indicators are in place, the birth rate is higher than it is when the economic indicators are at other points; I believe it was that when times are good, more babies are born. I've personally never found that my passions rose or fell with economic indicators, but I now know. I thought it was a rather learned speech.

As is the practice during this discussion on the amendment, I noticed that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) took the opportunity to read last year's speeches that they made in the House, so I thought it would only be fitting if I were to delve into the past and not read my own speeches, like they did, but maybe look at some speeches from others in days gone by.

AN HON. MEMBER: Major Douglas' speech.

MR. LEA: Not Major Douglas, no. It's far too complicated for the present Socreds.

Mr. Speaker, you'll recall, as you were in the House in 1975, the last time that this province faced any economic turndown of any significance — not as bad as the one we're in now, but it wasn't very pleasant for the people of British Columbia in 1974 and 1975 when we had an international economic turndown.

I'd like to go back to 1975 and review some of the comments made by the then Leader of the Opposition during the budget speech. At that time, of course, the Leader of the Opposition was the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett), and is now the Premier. I won't dwell on it, but there are a few passages that I would like to read from Hansard of that year. You might find it somewhat familiar.

On page 286, March 3, 1975, Mr. Bennett is criticizing the NDP administration of the day, when we brought in the budget. A little later I may even get to some quotes about jobs from the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You had some beautiful things to say about housing in those days. I'm not sure you'd like to hear them today, though.

[ Page 7029 ]

The Premier at the time was chastising us for not accepting full responsibility for the economic recession. As a matter of fact, the Premier felt that we were blaming Ottawa and that it was really unfair. The Premier said: "It must be noted that this government," which was ours at the time, Mr. Speaker, "which took all the credit a year ago" — that's all the credit for a buoyant economy — "must now search 3,000 miles across this country, or around the globe, to attach the blame for the continued deterioration in our resource economy, because never have British Columbians seen a budget with so many scapegoats, none of whom live in British Columbia. They took all the credit when things were going right, and now the Minister of Finance would have us believe — in advance he's prepared his scapegoats (a little aside he threw in) — that it's Ottawa's fault, the Americans' fault, the Japanese' fault, when nothing goes right, but not the fault of the government of British Columbia, not this government of British Columbia — no, no, no."

That was one of the Premier's little remarks in 1975. You might think I'm delving into the past to make a point, but at this time in 1975 the Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, had some things to say about the Tolmie government, so he went back a little way too.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It's extraordinary, isn't it?

The Leader of the Opposition at that time, the now Premier, said:

Now let us apply the realism tag to the estimate side. Never in the history of the province, since the days of the Tolmie government, have so many "ifs" been ascribed to estimates of revenue, Mr. Speaker. Estimates of revenue from natural gas will come true if the federal government raises the export price. Much-needed assistance for local government will be available if Ottawa comes through. Estimates from personal taxation will be met if the economy improves in May. In almost every case this so-called budget of realism will become fact only "if", Mr. Speaker.

It has a bit of a ring to it, doesn't it? We listened just the other day to the budget of this government, and they say they will be doing certain things, like raising $250 million for housing "if" the federal government comes through. The reason we're having problems today in British Columbia is because those dirty people in Ottawa are doing this present government in. We say that in 1975 there was an international recession, and as a government we had to try to deal with the problems of international recession and poor markets.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was a B.C. recession.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says it was a B.C. recession, and we want to take full blame, Mr. Minister. It was our government in 1975 that put down the housing starts in the United States.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I know we did. You see, Mr. Speaker, they don't like this very much.

Let's see if there are some more quotes we can go back to in 1975. The Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, said:

Now it is particularly interesting to note that the estimates of welfare contained in this budget and estimates of revenue from the forest sector do not support the optimistic character of the revenue predictions. The federal government's share...

Oh, here we go again.

... of programmes — mostly welfare payments to this province — will increase by over $200 million. Is that optimistic? Estimates of revenue from the forest sector are off approximately one-third from last year, and neither of these critical elements of this budget support the Minister of Finance's contention that the economic climate will improve sufficiently to give this budget any measure of credibility.

Does this sound familiar? In that statement the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition in 1975, admitted that the reason we were suffering was that housing starts were off in the United States. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), with his economic knowledge, says it was our fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't here, though.

MR. LEA: No, he wasn't here.

I like this one particularly. Did you notice the Premier not too long ago on television talking about the new lottery that's going to supply the cash for Expo 86? The Premier loves lotteries today. I'd like to have you hear what he said in 1975 about lotteries and about the plight of the ordinary working people in this province, This is the then Leader of the Opposition talking about the now Leader of the Opposition when we were in government.

This man (he was referring, of course, to Barrett) believes that there is something wrong with the system which exists in a vast province like British Columbia where he, unless he wins a lottery, will have to wait until his children approach school age before he can think of affording to take them to a home of their own.

The Premier was absolutely disgusted. He thought that things were so bad in 1975 that the only possible way anybody might even have a chance of owning their own home or carrying out a project was to force one of those dirty lotteries on the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who was the Premier in 1975?

MR. LEA: The Premier in 1975 was the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). The Leader of the Opposition at that time was the present Premier, who was just absolutely disgusted that we were sort of running the province like a lottery. In those days the present Premier thought that lotteries were bad because they taxed the poor. Today he loves them. Talk about hypocritical attitudes.

The member who just finished speaking was talking about education and the finance for education. Let's go back to Mr. Bennett.

The expenditures for universities on capital are now well below the increasing capital provided in the late sixties and up until 1972, When the inflation factor is applied to the 1975 figures, the case that the universities are falling into a period of neglect becomes quite apparent.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We changed that in 1976.

MR. LEA: You changed it! "The $12 million provided this year, because of that inflation, is the equivalent of having a cutback on university capital expenditures...." It is history revisited.

Oh, here's another one on page 293.

[ Page 7030 ]

This minister has found it necessary to go international with his grandstand act in order to try to balance this budget. You can bet that if he doesn't balance a year from now or six months from now, he'll blame it on Ottawa. It will be Ottawa's fault, not his fault, not accountable in British Columbia. They are already preparing where to present the blame. It's the first time the excuse has been developed well in advance of the fact, and in this budget they've developed their excuse early.

Can you imagine all the Ottawa-bashing that's gone on in the last couple of years?

AN HON. MEMBER: We ought to do away with Hansard.

MR. LEA: It should be illegal to read Hansard, eh? Oh, I've got some more for you. You'll really like it. That's why in 1972, when we came to office and discovered that we were the only province in Canada without a Hansard, we thought it might be worthwhile to put one in. The government now feels that that was a mistake. I think you probably voted against it at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: We should have.

MR. LEA: Yes, you should have.

Oh, I love this one, Mr. Speaker. You can recall last year, when all the municipalities were trying to put together their budgets and couldn't get any word from Victoria as to exactly what sort of a budget they were going to receive, they were quite upset. The Premier was quite upset when he was the Leader of the Opposition in 1975. He said:

The farce in all this, of course, is that municipalities are in the process of settling budgets. Now, Mr. Minister of Finance, the municipalities are settling their budgets now — not next month, not midsummer, but now. They need to know now, not some airy-fairy, iffy promise developed in the research and publicity department....

Isn't it good stuff? You know, for those of you, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond), the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland).... You weren't here; you don't know the real irony of listening to what your own government is saying today, because you weren't here to have heard what they were saying in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. Mr. Speaker, I can actually understand why those people on that side of the House who weren't here feel some sort of indignation, why they really believe that we're the bad guys and they're the good guys. They actually believe that the budget they brought in is a good one. They don't understand the history of what's been happening in this province for the last decade, so it's understandable that they could be mistaken.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, you were here when the Liberals were in the House. As a matter of fact, the present Minister of Finance was a Conservative in this House, and what he had to say about Social Credit and the kind of budgets that Social Credit brought in.... You know, I'm going to save those for his estimates, because the present Minister of Finance really didn't like very much the kind of budget he brought in the other day — not back in 1973 and 1974. Now the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications from Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) hated them. He absolutely hated Social Credit and the kind of funny-money juggling of books — cooking of books, as he used to call it — that Social Credit used to do. As a matter of fact, do you know what the minister used to accuse Social Credit of? He used to accuse them of overestimating their revenues and underestimating their expenditures.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. LEA: Oh, he did. Now he votes for it.

Let's just take a look at the forest revenues and the projections for this year. We have it on very reliable information that in the United States today they have a ten-month backlog of already built housing available for sale. If the interest rates were to come down to a reasonable rate in the United States tomorrow, there is ten months of housing on the market that would have to be swallowed up before new housing would come on stream. I asked the people from the forest industry: "What does that mean to us in British Columbia? If there is ten months of housing available, already existing, in the United States, how long would it be before our economy, in terms of forestry, would pick up to make some significant difference?" The answer was: "Eighteen months to two years." I can say I wasn't happy to hear that. I would like it if our forest industry would pick up yesterday; no one in this province is happy to hear those kind of statistics.

But, Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance and the Social Credit government estimate an increase of the magnitude that they have in forest revenues for the coming year, when industry itself and statistics from the United States, where the housing starts have to take place, say it's not true? Industry disputes strongly the projected estimated revenues from forestry in this province that are in this current budget that we're discussing. Statistics and information from the United States say that we were absolutely right on this side of the House, that there is no way that the housing market in the United States can grow in any significance to give the kind of revenues that are projected in this budget. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the old Social Credit kind of budgeting: overestimating the revenues and underestimating the expenditures, only this time they had to clean out the cookie jar to even get through the first six months. They've had to go in and rob all the special purpose funds that were set aside over the years in order to get by even the first six months in this current budget.

For those reasons — and those reasons alone — I believe it would be possible that we could be in an election before we ever see the fourth or final quarterly report on this current budget, because there isn't any way that the expectations in terms of revenue, as put forward by the Minister of Finance and his government, can be met. I don't think there is anybody in this room that believes that they can be met. I don't think there is anybody in this room who doesn't believe that the expenditures are underestimated, and that there isn't any way the expenditures can be kept down to the way they're represented in the budget book. It's laughable, Mr. Speaker, that the government backbenchers, who know as well as we that this budget is not an accurate estimation of revenues and expenditures, will actually get up and support it when they know it's not true.

I'd like to deal with what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) had to say yesterday about democratic representation. The member for Omineca was chastising this side of the House for not coming down here and doing what our constituents wanted us to do. He said that we were down here acting

[ Page 7031 ]

like individuals, and that we had no right to put our individual thoughts forward in debate — that we were required by democracy to come down here and give the views of our constituents.

He shakes his head. Yes, he did say that, and he believes that. I would like to point out to you how stupid a remark like that really is, because it's not the basis of our democratic system of representation. I will give some examples. Let's take some controversial issues: say gun control. Can the member for Omineca assure this House that everyone in his riding feels exactly the same way about gun control?

MR. KEMPF: The majority.

MR. LEA: He cannot even accurately say the majority.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I can. How do you know?

MR. LEA: I don't, and neither do you; that's the point.

Mr. Speaker, in our form of government we are elected in our individual constituencies to come here and be individuals. We are elected to come here and to assess legislation and then to give our individual views as we see that legislation. If the majority of the people in our constituency don't agree with the views that we have given, then there is a democratic option, and that's to vote us out and to replace us with someone else.

When the day comes that we come into this Legislature and give our views as reflected in polls, that's the day representative democracy will end. That's the day we will no longer have the kind of democracy our forefathers put together. As a matter of fact, I see one of the dangers to democracy as government governing by poll, instead of leading, instead of individually getting together, discussing and coming to a policy conclusion.

That's what this government is, Mr. Speaker: they are into the electronic gadgetry age of taking polls. Whatever the polls say, they'll do. They don't think for themselves. It would be nice to come into this House and to actually be able to disagree with some policy that they thought of and put forward, or agree with it. That isn't how they work. They're the kind of government that does polls. It's almost like having government by referendum when you do polling to the extent that this government does.

It's a dangerous precedent for democracy — very dangerous, because we were not elected to come down here to this House to take popularity polls and then design our programs and policies around those polls and bring them into the Legislature. We were elected not to follow polls, but to lead. That government, if they are reflecting the member for Omineca's feelings — and I believe they are — are absolutely in error as to the theory of democracy and how representative democracy works. I see electronic poll gadgetry as a damaging, dangerous thing for the future of democracy, and I see this government governing in that way — not sitting down as a group examining the facts as they are available. That's what they've done in this budget.

MR. KEMPF: There's never been an electronic poll in my constituency.

MR. LEA: Oh, Mr. Speaker, he's such a devil, isn't he. He can't say that. For him to say that is absolutely stupid.

MR. KEMPF: Tell me when there was.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca will come to order.

MR. LEA: How do you think they do Gallup polls?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Omineca will come to order.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca will come to order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what we're seeing here is an amendment talking about putting people to work, about doing something to try to help small business get through what are very difficult times. The member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was appalled and laughed in ridicule that my party would take the time to go around the province and hold public hearings to talk to the small business community and listen to their problems and their solutions to those problems. I can understand why they're nervous about it, because they have never done it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) says we were deceiving. In other words, as a member of the Legislature I sent out a letter to the small business community on Legislative Assembly paper. It was perfectly legal and perfectly moral. What they think was deceiving was the fact that the NDP were actually going out and talking to somebody whom they've always considered their constituency whether they did anything for them or not.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about a few things that the small business community did say to us and tell you about some of the problems they're having. It makes them nervous, Mr. Speaker; they don't like the NDP talking to the small business community. It makes them a little nervous. I will say one thing about the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond). He carried a fair report of our meetings on his radio station in Kamloops. I didn't hear it coming from him; I heard it coming from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the member for Prince George North. They're afraid that we were actually going to go out and talk to the small business community and find out what the problems are and what some of the solutions are.

Mr. Speaker, the small business community in this province is suffering as it has not suffered since the 1930s. That's what they told us: bankruptcies, high interest rates and a cavalier, insensitive policy by the Canadian chartered banks. We were told that consistently across the province by the small business community. Yes, high interest rates are hurting them, but the policy of the banks is hurting them just as much as the high interest rates themselves.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 7032 ]

They talked about their cash flow. They talked about the fact that their customers, the trade unionists and other workers in this province, don't have money to go into the small retail shop to buy clothing and other necessities of life. They talked about not having cash flow and how it was the worst that it has been in their memory. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't only businesses that had been in business for one, two, three, four and five years. Businesses who have been around this province for 50 years are suffering. They said: "Who is going to help us?" They're not getting anything from the provincial government. Nothing. Now you can smirk, you can laugh, you can do what you want. All I am doing is telling you what the small business community told us when we were travelling around this province about the kind of dire straits they're in — the worst they've ever been in. Banks are phoning at 11 o'clock in the morning and saying: "Your line of credit is called in and we want it by 3 o'clock this afternoon or you're out of business." Businesses are asset-rich and cash-poor because of the bad economic times. And this government is doing nothing to help small business and they know it.

The minister responsible for small business got up earlier today and he talked about some of the things they've done in the past. You know, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that he talked about are good. The counselling services that the minister instituted are good. There are good things that this government has done for the small business community. But in their time of trouble, the government has completely forgotten them, and they're in trouble today.

From one end of the government to the other, they're asking for their Legislature to help them in some way to get them through the bad times. Mr. Speaker, because there is no help forthcoming from this government, I'm going to tell you what I think is going to happen. We're going to see people who have been in business in this province for ten, twenty, thirty and fifty years go out of business. It's not because they're bad managers, and it's not because they lack the entrepreneurial skills to advance, to build and to have their businesses succeed; it's because of the bad economic times that we have. If we allow those people to go out of business, we are going to lose some of the best management and entrepreneurial skills that have taken years and years and years to build up in this province. They're going to be gone, and they're not going to be coming back into business — a lot of them.

What we have to ask ourselves is whether it isn't worthwhile for us to try in some way to help those people stay in business, as opposed to letting them go down the tube and then helping somebody with no experience get started later on. That's what we're going to be doing. You know, there's hardly any help at all to keep some smart, good-management, enterprising family in business, but there's all sorts of help to get people into business why've never been in business before, and that's wrong because we're going to lose some of the best skilled people that we have. And who's going to replace them? It's going to be replaced by Suzy Creamcheese and all of those national chain stores that we see popping up in all the shopping centres throughout the province. The small, community-oriented business person — your next-door neighbour who runs the grocery store down the street — is no longer going to be in the community serving us; it's going to be managers representing chain stores out of Toronto and New York and everywhere else, and the indigenous small business community in this province is going to be disappearing unless this government does something to get them through the hard times that they're facing.

Mr. Speaker, in almost every instance the chamber of commerce was there making representations to our committee, along with other organizations representing small business, along with individuals who were concerned enough to come out and talk with us. They also had some solutions. Almost unanimously across this province, they deplored the fact that we have been drawers of water and hewers of wood and that we've paid scant attention to adding wealth to our resources before we ship them out to the international marketplace, and they realize that as long as we continue with this insane policy put forward by the Social Credit, we are going to be forever doomed to being the first hit when there's a recession in the United States and the last to feel the upturn when it does upturn in the United States. That's been our history. They understand that we're going to have to put new products into the international marketplace if we're going to survive.

The small business community said: "That's a concern of ours. In that case, we feel one of the priorities is research and development and that our future is research and development, " When I told them that last year out of government money — out of almost $7 billion — we spent a lousy $8.1 million for research and development in this province, they were aghast.

MR. RITCHIE: You're wrong.

MR. LEA: They were aghast, and I'm not wrong. You'd like it if I were wrong, but I'm not.

That's what this province, through that government, spent on research and development last year. Our future depends on it. It's the same as cancelling the money for reforestation. When our future depends on spending money now, then that money should be spent. Whether it's reforestation or research and development, we can not afford not to spend that kind of money.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a farmer walking out to 100 acres of land and saying: "Well, I think I'll only plant 50 acres this year, because I don't want to spend the money for the seed for the rest of my field to bring on a product for the future." That's what the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and this government are doing; they're not willing to spend money for seeds that will ensure that we will have a crop so we'll have wealth. They somehow think that the resources themselves are the wealth. The resources are the richness, but until we apply technology, mind and strength to that richness and turn those resources into something else, it is not wealth, it is only a rich resource. In order to balance a budget, they're not willing to spend any money on tomorrow in reforestation or research and development.

The small business community also said — I must be being effective, because I see the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) has turned his back, which he usually does....

MR. RITCHIE: So much nonsense.

MR. LEA: So much nonsense, eh?

The other thing that was pointed out was that in other jurisdictions like Japan, West Germany and other nations, through help from their government, the business community is much more effective and much more aggressive in

[ Page 7033 ]

chasing international markets for their products. And Sweden. They are all much more aggressive in helping their business community go out into the world and sell commodities on the world market. As a matter of fact, two of those small business people in Burnaby not only were thoughtful but also brought us documentation on the setting up....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask all hon. members to please remain quiet and not interrupt the hon. member who is now taking his place in the debate. I understand that the previous Mr. Speaker has already warned that we cannot interrupt, and so I will ask all members to remain silent and allow the member who has the floor to continue speaking.

MR. LEA: Not only did they make suggestions that we should follow the example of other countries in more aggressively chasing down new marketplaces for the products we already create and in research and development to bring new products on. They suggested to us.... It wasn't Len Friesen, although I'm sure he would agree. One of the people was Vick Stusiak in Burnaby, and others. They suggested that this province should set up a B.C. trading corporation and that as a government we should put some seed money into a B.C. trading corporation so that it more aggressively seek out markets for our goods in the world. We think it is a good idea, and it is now part of our policy. Should we become government we would move on that suggestion — not only that suggestion but research and development, a B.C. trading corporation.

We also have suggested in our policy paper that in order to create some economic activity in the province.... Unlike them, in 1975, we don't blame them for the international downturn in the economy. Unlike them we are going to put a positive suggestion forward, and we did it in our policy paper: we should give tax incentives to the manufacturing industry at this moment to replace old equipment or equipment that could conserve energy, especially if that equipment were to be purchased in British Columbia or Canada. That wouldn't be a panacea, but it would create some economic activity, especially in the forest industry.

Now is the time to be investing money in our future: new equipment, creating some economic activity; research and development to try to bring new products on, especially products that could be brought out of more research and development in forestry, mining and fishing — the industries that we already have. In this budget they didn't put one worthwhile proposal of spending money now to make sure that when the economy picks up we in British Columbia are better equipped to cope with that buoyant new economy equipped with new efficient machinery, machinery that is more conservation-oriented, a trading corporation to better sell our products throughout the world and some incentives so that industry at this moment could be putting in machinery that would be more efficient and therefore more productive for the future.

There was not one positive suggestion in that budget. All they did and have been doing for the past three years is to tax and overtax an already existing economy with no thought for the future and fresh out of ideas as to which way they can go. They may ridicule the fact that our party went out and talked to the small business community and other business people who weren't so small. Maybe they can ridicule that we listened to them. Maybe they can ridicule that we actually took some of those suggestions and put them forward as policy because we think they are good ideas of how we can prepare ourselves with some limited economic activity now and in a more efficient and productive way for the future. There is not one word in this budget, and that's why I'm voting for this amendment,

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I rise to take my place in this debate and voice my strenuous opposition to the ridiculous amendment that is before the House at this time.

The member for Prince Rupert is always a very entertaining gentleman. He likes to read from history. Some others of us do as well. Does the member for Prince Rupert remember in 1975 when he made one of his most infamous statements? I will quote from the Vancouver Sun of July 31, 1975: "Highways Minister Graham Lea thinks tourists from the United States and campers and trailers should be banned from British Columbia." That minister believed that the tourist industry in British Columbia, I guess, didn't provide any economic activity in this province. Mr. Speaker, I have a great long list of quotes from the minister of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Potholes.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Minister of potholes, yes, indeed. I have a great long list of quotes, but I wouldn't like to embarrass the member for Prince Rupert, so I'll just tuck them aside and use them for my bedtime reading because I like to giggle and laugh as I go to sleep.

The member for Prince Rupert is suggesting that the forest industry right now, and I guess the mining industry, go out and buy a whole bunch of replacement equipment. He feels that by providing some kind of a tax incentive, that industry will go out and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to replace the plant equipment that they have in place now. I wonder if that member really realizes that that industry is fighting tooth and nail to survive in this current recession, and no matter what that member offered in terms of incentive, there is no way that industry now has the financial capability of going out and replacing manufacturing plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a defeatist.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have sat here, Mr. Speaker, very patiently and I have listened to more doom and gloom in the past few days. It's no wonder that some of the people in British Columbia, especially in the NDP ridings, are getting somewhat depressed, because I'm sure that is the type of thing they hear all the time.

Let's look at the amendment, Mr. Speaker. It says that "the budget has failed to take steps to preserve the jobs of workers in basic industries such as forestry, pulp and paper, mining and smelting." Well, it was referred to this morning by the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the government of British Columbia go out and buy sawmills that are shutting down and keep the people working, keep manufacturing lumber and plywood and, as you said, Mr. Speaker, when you were not Mr. Speaker this morning, produce a product that is in oversupply in the marketplace. Of course in order to do that, we would have to tax the people of British Columbia. Really what that member is saying is that we will

[ Page 7034 ]

tax the people of British Columbia in order to subsidize lumber for the people in the United States and Japan and in our other market areas, To me that sounds like a pretty ridiculous solution to a very serious problem.

The people in Sweden did that a few years ago. When they had a socialist government, they purchased pulp manufactured in Sweden and kept the manufacturing of kraft pulp going, They built up tremendous inventories of pulp and they prolonged a very serious recession in the pulp market far beyond the time when it should have existed. They depressed the entire world pulp market and almost put their country into bankruptcy. That is the type of policy being espoused by the NDP — those negative, doubting people on the opposite side.

I suppose that the opposition will also buy the mineral products from the mines in this province that are also suffering a very serious recession. They will use taxpayers' dollars to buy mineral products and thereby subsidize Japan, Great Britain and the European countries who buy our mineral products. That's great; I'm sure the people in British Columbia will love to see their tax dollars used to subsidize foreign countries to buy our products. This is the same party that is objecting to the government of British Columbia building the infrastructure to bring on a vast northeastern coal development, because they claim that we will be subsidizing the Japanese with the purchase of our coal. At the same time they're suggesting and urging us to subsidize these foreign buyers for all the products that we use in British Columbia. It really doesn't make very much sense to me.

Mr. Speaker, I recall in the 1970s — and I don't want to dwell on that very bad part of our history to any great extent — when we did have a recession late in the term of that previous government. I recall that a year or so before that we had the most buoyant metal prices — copper prices at least — that we have ever had in the history of this province. It was at that time when copper was selling for $1.50 a pound, and one of the most important parts of our mineral industry, the exploration industry, was not exploring for mineral products because of the negative policies and oppressive taxation policies of that government. At that time, in the 1974-75 period, when prices were depressed and the companies were losing money, they were still paying a three-cent- or four cent-a-pound royalty to a greedy government, and of course that killed any incentive to explore for or develop mines and hastened the closure of many mining operations in British Columbia at the time. That is the party that says: "We want to encourage the business industry in British Columbia," and yet did everything they could to discourage them.

The socialists created a depression in British Columbia during the best times that other parts of our mineral industry in this country have had. British Columbia is now weathering this very serious recession in much better condition than all other parts of North America. Sure, it is tough. It is tough on a lot of people and there are a lot of people unemployed. Most of our manufacturing companies in British Columbia — those that manufacture wood products, those that develop and produce mineral products — are losing money at a very rapid rate. The survival of some of those companies is in jeopardy. We are not heaping extra taxes on those companies at this time. We are trying to do everything we can as a government to help those that are continuing to operate to continue to operate.

That party opposite claims to be in favour of business, in favour of the private enterprise system, in favour of people with initiative and in favour of entrepreneurs. Yet when they had the opportunity to demonstrate what they would do as a government, they did everything they could to drive people right out of this province. Even today those same things are being said. They say they are for the small businessman. They want to encourage him. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was very recently asked — this is reported in the Vancouver Community College newspaper on March 12, 1982 — if there should be a balance whereby corporations paid for more vocational and technical programs. What did that member say? He said: "I prefer to tax the beep-beep out of them." The expletive is deleted. That is the kind of attitude that that party has. Tax the beep-beep-beep right out of the private sector. Coddle our radical friends and give away everything that some of them may wish to have.

Let's look at what's happening in British Columbia. Members refer to the cancellation of our reforestation program. Last year we planted 89 million seedlings in British Columbia; this year our nurseries will produce 97 million seedlings. To me that is some cancellation. This last year, while our province has been fighting recession, we have had tens of thousands of man-days of work created in our forests through forest management, work that would not have existed if we had had the forest non-management policies of that previous government. Tens of thousands of people who would not otherwise have been working this year have worked in forest management in British Columbia. That party and their policies have suddenly discovered forest management and are saying: "If we were the government we would do stand-tending work, spacing and thinning, and we would plant trees to create jobs." I don't know where they've been, because that is exactly what is happening today. People are working in forest management in the province, they are planting trees and they are enhancing the state of that resource. Under the programs which are outlined in our budget and in my ministry budget, we will continue to do that this year. I feel very fortunate in having the type of government we have, which acknowledges the importance of that industry and provides me with over $331 million in this budget to keep people working in the industry and to keep our forest management up to a level far superior to any other level in this country — or most of the world, for that matter.

They say there are no jobs, no opportunities for small business. That was a part of this motion we have before us. "The government has failed to establish policies helpful to the small business people in British Columbia." Fantastic. Has that party ever heard of the small business enterprise program that is being carried out today in my ministry, where we are committing a very substantial part of the total allowable cut in our forests to a small business enterprise program which will give opportunities for small business people in the forest industry to have direct access to Crown timber and to log it, to harvest it and to market it? In addition to the small business enterprise program in harvesting, we also have tremendous opportunities for the small businessman in the forest stand-tending work which I have already described to you. There are literally hundreds of small contractors going out every day, doing stand-tending work to improve the value of our forest resource in British Columbia.

The opposition says nothing has been done to maintain or create jobs in this last year. In this last year coal production in this province was up 15.1 percent over the previous year, which was also substantially up. That coal didn't mine itself.

[ Page 7035 ]

It was mined by coal-miners who had jobs working in that very positive and buoyant industry.

In 1980 our capital investment in British Columbia was up over 26 percent. In 1981, when we have been fighting a recession, capital investment in the private sector has been up almost 17 percent. All that investment certainly creates jobs. In 1981 our housing investment in British Columbia was up 44.6 percent. Our utilities investment was up 32 percent. This investment creates jobs, Those houses don't build themselves. Carpenters and tradesmen are required to build houses in British Columbia. That activity created a great deal of work and employment in this province.

Because of that type of investment in British Columbia, the recession which has taken place throughout North America in the last couple of years has been very late in coming to this province. Confidence in the future of this province, because of an investment climate we have created, has delayed the arrival of that recession. It wasn't until well into 1981 that we began to have layoffs and the real impact of this international and North American recession hit British Columbia. That is why our Minister of Finance has brought in a budget that will continue to create and provide employment opportunities to large numbers of British Columbians.

I am not denying that it is going to be a tough year, because indeed it is. We acknowledge that. I think that we on both sides of this House acknowledge that. In spite of the recessionary period we are in, business investment in British Columbia during 1982 will still be very positive and will be up 6 percent over the previous year. This didn't just happen. It happened because of some of the megaprojects which are so despised by members of the opposition.

Northeast coal. I really don't know where they stand on this. They don't like it and they like it. I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would like to have a coal port built in his riding, but he doesn't want to have coal-mines developed because that is somehow creating too many jobs, and the government might look good if they develop jobs by developing our natural resource. But he can't be against the coal port because he would be criticized in his riding. Anyway, they are attempting to ride two carts at one time. They are attempting to have a foot firmly on each side of the fence.

Quite frankly, I think the people of British Columbia are really confused as to what the NDP really stands for. Those negative, doubting people opposite are against the Anzac spur line as a part of the northeast coal development, which will expend $336 million in 1982. Rail lines and tunnels do not build themselves. They will employ a great number of people in British Columbia. Emil Anderson Construction Co. from my constituency in Hope is one of the prime contractors on one of those tunnels. A lot of my constituents from Hope and the southern part of British Columbia have employment opportunities because of the initiatives taken by this government to promote that northeast coal.

The Quintette and Bullmoose properties will spend in excess of $400 million this year as they start the construction of those mines. Those mine plants don't build themselves. They require workmen, tradesmen and labourers — a large number of British Columbians — to carry out that development work. Those are jobs. But the opposition, claiming to be for jobs and criticizing our government because we're not doing anything to create jobs, is against these projects. The federal government will be spending over $100 million in 1982 on the coal port in Prince Rupert. They are against northeast coal. They have to be against the coal port, and therefore have to be against the jobs that will be created in Prince Rupert by a $103 million investment.

The advanced light rapid transit system in Vancouver will be using a capital amount of approximately $80 million in 1982. What is it — 1,700 jobs this year that will be created there? The opposition is saying: "No. We should have some kind of rapid transit system in B.C. but we don't like that one so we're not in favour of that either." I haven't found anything Yet that they are in favour of, yet they are in favour of jobs.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The stadium — fantastic. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said we shouldn't be building that stadium in Vancouver when people are out of work. He's saying we should shut down the construction of that stadium. Well, let's indeed shut it down and put another thousand people out of British Columbia. They're against everything that's creating opportunities and jobs in British Columbia.

They're saying that we're drawers of water and hewers of wood. Sure we are. We are drawers of water, hewers of wood and miners of minerals, and we should be damn proud of it, because it's the mainstay of our provincial economy. But there's also a great deal of other manufacturing taking place in British Columbia. All they have to do is get out of their offices and go out and have a look around British Columbia and see some of the things that are happening. The Ocelot methanol plant in Kitimat is a further upgrading of our natural resources that will lead to a fertilizer plant, either by that company or by some other company, depending on which company can offer the best benefits to British Columbians. That is further upgrading our natural resources. The CP Air jet engine overhaul plant, which will service that corporation for their international aircraft use, is here in British Columbia. There are thousands and thousands of small businesses and large businesses in British Columbia expanding our manufacturing base.

The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development has a very aggressive program to ensure that when major projects go ahead, the procurement of the necessities of those projects is made available to small businesses in British Columbia. As a part of the approval process for major developments it is required that these companies make their shopping list available to the government, so that we can go out into the private sector, which is what we're doing, and make sure that if there are any opportunities for small business people in British Columbia to sell parts, machinery, equipment and services to those companies on those major projects, then they will have an opportunity to do it. Literally hundreds of small plants are springing up all over this province to do just that. But those people refuse to look at the successes that do exist in this province right now.

Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't sit back, wring its hands and cry doom and gloom. We do things to make things better. Things were better last year than they were in the rest of this continent. They are better this year, and this recession will end, as they all have in the past. Those stronger companies that survive will be here when it's over. Our future is secure.

The member for Atlin, I mentioned, suggested we shut down the stadium. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said you should find some way of using those pulp logs and encourage something to happen. Again, I guess they have been reading some of the papers that my ministry has

[ Page 7036 ]

distributed and have thought: "That's a good idea; we'll make that a part of our policy too." I think the member is aware of the fibre supply study for the southeastern part of the province, which is being accepted by the industry as the first step in determining ways of using that fibre. I know that as our market conditions and economic times improve we are going to see some very major capital investments in that part of the province to utilize a lot of the fibre, where until now it has not been economic to do so. In order to encourage this we are suggesting certain incentives to increase utilization of those lower-grade materials. The member for Nelson-Creston obviously heard what we are doing, read our papers and agreed with us, and he suggests that that would be a good policy for them.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) remarked about the aloofness of this government from the problems of the worker in industry. I have gone through a rather long list of the things this government has done in order to provide jobs during these recessionary periods. It certainly does not demonstrate an aloofness from the problem.

Mr. Speaker, in my job as the Minister of Forests I have made a great number of concessions which will provide cost savings to the forest industry to help them survive this recessionary time.

The member for Skeena said this Social Credit government is relishing the fact that people are losing their jobs. As far as I know, there is only one politician in British Columbia who has ever gone on record as being happy with the fact that things get difficult in British Columbia. We recall in 1976 when the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the negative doubting people, the chief negative doubter, spoke to the Maritime School of Social Work in Halifax. He said: "Things are getting worse in British Columbia, and I'm loving every minute of it." Shame, Mr. Speaker! That's the type of comment that these people make, yet they claim to be concerned about the working people in British Columbia.

They're delighted with the fact that we're having a recession here, because they think if there's a recession they may have a better chance of being elected the government. Well, don't hold your breath, my friends. You created a recession in British Columbia in good times; heaven help us if you are ever here during a real recessionary period, because we would have to shut the gates of British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition, in his comments, said the reforestation program is being cancelled. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) asked why we are cancelling our reforestation program. As I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, with 89 million seedlings planted last year and a production this year of 97 million, does it sound like we're cancelling our reforestation program?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Absolutely. At some point, perhaps 200 million a year will be needed, but we do not know enough about our forests to be able to make that type of statement definitively at this time. You can talk to any professional forester you wish in this province. They helped us develop our reforestation program; it's a good, aggressive program, and it will continue.

Just one comment, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, in his comments, accused our Premier of doing a flip-flop on the constitution because our Premier showed the leadership needed to insist that the rights of our province be protected, versus the Barrett proposal to give away our resources to Ottawa. By pulling the premiers together, our Premier, who is the chairman of the premiers' conference, demonstrated the leadership that was needed, and made sure an acceptable constitution was agreed to by the provinces. Our Premier in effect saved this country from further fracturing and splintering by showing that leadership as chairman of the premiers' conference.

There's only one politician in British Columbia who likes to get into bed with Trudeau. He likes to get into bed with Trudeau and offer him our oil, our resources, all of the things that we need in British Columbia to carry on our economy. Those types of bedmates deserve each other.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition can't stand the leadership that this government has shown in making sure that our industry, our workers in this province, weather this recession. I'm against the amendment proposed by those negative, doubting people. I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on a very positive budget. This is the budget that the people of British Columbia need, and because of this budget I'm sure the opposition realize they've had the biscuit. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm inclined to feel a little sorry for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who puts on a show of bravado and stands in this House trying to convince us that his forest and range management fund has not been destroyed and depleted, that it hasn't been confiscated to be used for other projects in the downtown section of the lower mainland, or used to attempt to balance the budget.

It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that today we all seem to be involved in quoting Hansard. I would like to quote from Hansard as well, May 14, 1980, when the Minister of Forests was introducing the act — Bill 6, I think it was — that set up the fund which was to provide for the management of our forest resource and our rangeland. At the time, he said some rather interesting things, Mr. Speaker:

As you will recall, and as you know by the budget before this House now, the Ministry of Forests will be substantially increasing the moneys allocated to it over the next five-year period by an amount equal to about 34 percent in 1980 dollars....

In order to assure a continuation of funding over the years, and especially during those parts of the years which, for reasons set down long before...we are making provision in this bill for [money] to be used over a five-year period to provide this continuity of funding for forest management work.... All the silvicultural techniques we use are not things that we can start and stop year by year; there must be assurance that funding will continue through the years and will actually, in our case, increase....

So this bill is a part of a more fully realized commitment of this government to the need to invest more and more money in this very important forest resource....

This government has made a commitment in accepting the five-year management program. This bill before us today is a part of that commitment, a part that will assure that this funding will not be intermittent but will be continuous and will give the Forests ministry, in cooperation with the private sector, the opportunity and the chance to do an excellent job in forest management.

That's what the minister said when he introduced the bill that set up the fund, and now that the fund has been demolished, destroyed, and that funding taken unto the heart of the Minister of Finance to use as he sees fit, along with members

[ Page 7037 ]

of the Treasury Board, we have no assurance that that continuing funding is available for forestry.

You can't spend the same buck twice; you can only spend it once. If you're spending it in a vain attempt to try to balance your budget, or if you're spending it to create megaprojects in Vancouver, then you're not going to be able to spend it on the forest resource. That fact is becoming more and more evident to more and more people around this province.

They talk about job creation. The jobs created by the funds set aside for forest and range resource management were certainly just as valuable and important as any jobs that are going to be created in construction in downtown Vancouver. In fact, we know that the jobs that were being created in forestry were jobs for British Columbians; I'm not so sure about the construction jobs in downtown Vancouver when I recognize that one of the major contractors there has a major shareholder headquartered in Edmonton. I wonder just how many of those construction jobs are going to go to British Columbians and how many are going to go to people outside this province.

So it's a sham, Mr. Speaker, to try to tell us that they're going to spend the same number of dollars or more dollars for forestry at the same time that they're withdrawing that fund and proceeding to use it for other things. You can't spend the same buck twice.

Forestry, of course, is of prime importance to me in Cowichan-Malahat, where it is 90 percent or more of the economic base. We have sensed for a long time the problems facing that industry. We sensed it in a very real way when Western Forest Products moved in and took over the Honeymoon Bay operation. We sensed in a very real way that jobs can certainly disappear at the hands of corporate mergers. We sensed it and we warned the minister. I have a letter that the minister wrote to the chairman of the committee there back in February 1981. This concerns a petition:

"I have just now returned to my office and by this letter will confirm statements made to you at our meeting in Lake Cowichan.

"I made it a condition of my approval of the ITT takeover that the new owners must make every effort to continue employment in the wood manufacturing plant at Honeymoon Bay. I have since our meeting discussed this matter with the directors of Western Forest Products and have reiterated the takeover conditions to them. As a result of my discussions I have the sincere feeling that they are making every effort to fulfill this commitment."

Well, that's a lot of fine words, Mr. Speaker. The letter goes on:

"In discussion with them a proposal was presented which, if carried through, will resolve the problem of wood supply to Honeymoon Bay. My ministry will be pursuing the proposal with Western Forest Products, and I feel confident that the details can be worked out in the near future. As a result of my discussions with the directors I'm even more confident now than during my meeting with you that the wood supply problem can be solved.

"Please convey the contents of this letter to your colleagues, and I may assure you once again that I'll make every effort to ensure that Honeymoon Bay remains in operation."

Well, we know the history; we know what happened. Those were fine words, but they meant absolutely nothing. On Wednesday those workers at Honeymoon Bay were advised that next Friday — a day and a half later — was their last day at work; 358 of them, some of them with 30 years' seniority — out! That minister, Mr. Speaker, has the power under the Forest Act to prevent that from happening. But instead of action we got a lot of fine words.

Unemployment came very early in the forest recession in the Cowichan Valley, and it has, of course, continued. It's of grave concern to constituencies all around this province, I'm sure, because forestry is our number one industry. We in Cowichan are no exception, because it is the major source of our economic revenue. Every time I go into Duncan I find that another small business has closed its doors because there are no longer customers. This is going to worsen; a lot of those people have been collecting unemployment insurance for some length of time, and it's going to run out. When that happens, the situation is going to become even worse, yet in this budget this government tell us they're creating jobs in the forest industry.

At the time of the Honeymoon Bay closure, I talked to the Minister of Forests and asked him for some kind of concentrated reforestation program in that area which would put some of these people to work. He said: "We're looking at it." Well, I guess he's still looking at it, because I haven't heard of one person laid off at Honeymoon Bay who has found a job in any reforestation program.

I also contacted the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and asked for his assistance. We have a lot of parks in that area and we need more. We need additions; those parks are very crowded. It's a great potential tourist centre. Was there any money forthcoming to build up those parks and improve them? "We're looking at it." And they're still looking at it, but there are no jobs, just promises. Promises — that's all that government is ever good at. They don't deliver on the production of jobs.

I'm very interested to hear the members for the north speak about the great employment source that northeast coal is providing. I happen to have here the latest statistics for the first quarters of 1981-82 and 1982 on unemployment insurance claims, and it's very interesting when you look at some of the areas. For example, in Dawson Creek, which is very close to the northeast coal development, the number of payments going out of the UIC office averaged 784 for the three-month period in 1981; in 1982 it had increased to 1,504, a 91.8 percent increase in the number of people collecting unemployment insurance in Dawson Creek. And you talk about the creation of jobs with northeast coal! Really, if that is the kind of result it is showing, a 91.8 percent increase in registered, recognized unemployment in that area, it's certainly not doing an adequate job in creating jobs. Fort St. John went from 608 in 1981 to 1,327 in the first three months of 1982, an increase of 118.3 percent in that part of the north. And northeast coal is supposed to be doing a job for unemployment in the north and in all of British Columbia. Obviously it isn't working.

The government isn't taking the steps that are required to provide jobs for the working people of British Columbia. They're not prepared to take those steps. They are far more interested in juggling figures, and that's what they're doing. They are juggling figures to try to prove that somehow there is going to be money available to balance the budget, there is going to be money available for megaprojects in downtown

[ Page 7038 ]

Vancouver, there is going to be money available for northeast coal.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: "Doom and gloom," the minister says. It's very unfortunate that that government has created this atmosphere that promotes doom and gloom in British Columbia. It is they who have had a major part in bringing us to the point we're at today.

There are measures that could be taken. I recall the night in December when we adjourned so abruptly. We tried to prolong that session to get some action from that government. During the course of that night's debate, this side of the House offered to that government 19 positive suggestions, things they could do, steps they could take, measures they could invoke that would get the economy going and get people back to work; but all they did was adjourn and go home. No action! No nothing! A throne speech was read, debated, passed and that was it. There were no bills, no legislation and no action that would actually create some jobs. Instead we go home from the first part of December until the 5th of April. Yet every day the unemployment situation worsens, the economy worsens and there is nothing done by that group over there to prevent that downward spiral that has been going on for months.

One of the things that really concerns me about the budget is the fact that in those funds that are being dissolved, nine of them relate to agriculture. The one I've mentioned, the forest management and range resource, of course, also relates to agriculture. That minister responsible for lands, parks and housing announced not too long ago about the wonderful things that were happening with the range resource renewal program: how many acres or hectares and how many animal units. Now the funding for that has been taken out of that fund and put into the Minister of Finance's control. No more is there going to be money available for that range renewal program. You can't spend it two or three times; you can only spend it once. If it's being spent on other projects, you can't spend it on range renewal.

The list is extensive. Agricultural Credit Fund. If ever there was a time that there was a need for funds available for agricultural credit purposes, it is now. Certainly the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has been most reluctant to provide any assistance in the way of interest rebate to the farming community. That is one of the real sore points with the farm community: he has not been prepared to keep the commitment that was made when that interest rebate program was brought in to reimburse the farmers to a reasonably sized interest payment that they are able to cope with. Instead of doing that we find that farms are refinancing, getting rid of some of their operation or reducing their size because they simply cannot cope with the interest payments. Certainly the Farm Credit Fund, while not related to that, is part and parcel of that whole business of financing of the agricultural industry. That is no longer there.

The Agricultural Land Development fund is another one that's gone that farmers need very badly. I am sure you are aware of that in your constituency where there is a large farming community that needs funds to develop some of that land for production. That fund is no longer available to that farming community.

The Crown Land Fund, of course, was a fund that related to a great many types of things, including agriculture. There was the agricultural land, the recreational land, and land for housing. The minister loved to talk about what a great program it was. Back in August of 1980 when he introduced the bill, he said: "Through the Crown Land Fund, the ministry...."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, in 1980 you introduced the bill, Mr. Minister, that set up the fund. You said: "Through the Crown Land Fund the ministry is assisting local governments in financing the development of residential subdivisions and sewer and water servicing. The fund in the ministry is going to develop rural lots and recreational lots plus agricultural parcels...." All those things. We on this side of the House had some disagreement with just how you were doing it and whether it was wise to take some of the land you did out of the forest reserve and use it for agriculture and housing and so on. We had some disagreement but at the same time the principle of a fund to provide for disposition of Crown land to citizens of British Columbia was a good proposition. You said so; you introduced it. Now the fund is gone. It is no longer there. There is no provision. That, of course, affects agriculture too because agricultural land was involved.

The Dairy Producers Protection Fund is gone. The dairy producers have been facing some very serious times because of their escalating costs. Their costs go up with the inflation rate. Their return goes up with a ten-year delay, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. You will recall the days when we sat on the committee that looked into the cost of food. We had several long, hard lessons on how that formula worked. The dairy industry certainly needs some kind of assurance that the government has funding available to ensure that that industry will be protected, because milk is something that we have to produce here in British Columbia for British Columbians. In these kinds of times, Mr. Speaker, that fund is needed to protect the agricultural community.

The Domestic Animal Protection Fund. You've taken that out of the hands of Agriculture and you're trying to farm it back out to local governments. You had a fund set up that was going to provide seed money for them to establish protection areas where dog control would be brought into being. Now the money is gone. No more seed money for those municipalities. So what happens? Are those municipalities and local governments still going to be held responsible for dog control in those areas, with no funding from the government? Apparently that's the direction the government is intending to go in. That certainly affects agriculture, because without some responsible measures of dog control, the farming community is in dire straits, particularly the sheep farmers.

The Farm Income Assurance Fund. It's very interesting to find that that has been withdrawn. There was a commitment made to the farming community, when the land reserve act came in, that the Farm Income Insurance Act was established in cooperation with the farming community to ensure a viable return to the farming community. That was done under the New Democratic Party, and ever since the change of government that program has been chopped away. There's been a dragging of the heels.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, you may go now, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 7039 ]

The Farm Income Assurance Fund has been chopped away with a dragging of the heels and a settling for old plans. I'm told that the amount of money in this year's budget is little more than enough to cover the deficit that will occur this year on the beef plan. The fund was set up to ensure that funds would be available to cover that kind of deficit. If the money in the budget is all gone on one plan, what happens to the other plans, Mr. Speaker? We've now dissolved this fund, put it into the hands of the Minister of Finance, told him to use it for Pier B-C or the convention centre or the stadium — or that's what we're proposing to do in the budget — and somehow that's going to create more jobs than we could create by leaving those funds available for the agricultural community.

I'd like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the agricultural industry has one of the highest multiplier effects of any industry. For every one job in agriculture you create four, and some economists say as many as five, jobs in other industries. It has a very high multiplier effect. It also costs much less to create a job in agriculture than it does to create a job in mining, for example.

It's poor economy and it's shortsighted philosophy to withdraw these funds from the agricultural community at a time when we're soon going to be very dependent upon our British Columbia production for a great many of the foods that we consume today. Imports are becoming less and less available.

That's going to mean that we really need to ensure that we have our agricultural community around to be able to fill that need — not just for British Columbia, but perhaps for all of Canada — because we have a very unique climate here where we're able to produce a great many more things than they are in other parts of Canada. That opportunity is going to be thrown away, because if the farming community through lack of funds from this government is forced to retrench and to fold and to disappear, we're not going to have that knowledge or that expertise to grow the food that we're going to need.

Even more, Mr. Speaker, it's going to put more pressure on our agricultural land. If the farmer's viability is threatened, then he is going to be forced to pressure government and the Land Commission for the opportunity to do something else with his land.

It's a double-edged sword. The withdrawal of funds like this is a real threat to our future food production, to the preservation of our agricultural land, and it is certainly not going to create any more jobs in any other industry than it would if those funds were left where they are and used for the intent decreed by this Legislature when it passed that legislation. If those funds were used for that purpose, we would find a great deal more job creation than we will in other purposes to which they might be put.

Mr. Speaker, we're often accused on this side of being negative and doubting. Well, if being opposed to the kind of sham and hypocrisy that this budget proposes to sell to the people of British Columbia is being negative, then I am certainly negative, because I am opposed to that kind of an approach. If being doubting is to doubt that this government is really levelling with the people of British Columbia in the budget proposals it's submitting, and if being doubting is to doubt that their proposals are going to resolve the unemployment situation or create any real jobs in British Columbia, then I'm doubting.

That's the job of the opposition — to point out the shortcomings in government proposals. It's been a very easy job with this government because their proposals are so full of shortcomings and so full of holes. We have made many positive proposals in the Legislature and out of the Legislature. That government has always chosen to ignore them, In the seven years I have sat in this Legislature, one amendment presented by the opposition — it was presented by the member then for Burrard, I think, and now for....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: One good idea in seven years — that's a pretty good record for you.

MRS. WALLACE: We've had a lot of good ideas, Mr. Minister of Forests, but only one that that government was prepared to accept. It was a very minor amendment that was accepted by the then Attorney-General, the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the then Minister of Labour, the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). It was accepted and incorporated into, I believe, the Companies Act or some such legislation. But that's the only recommendation that's ever been presented from this side of the House that that government has been prepared to listen to. They sit there with their ears closed, they ignore the positive suggestions, they get up and call us negative and doubting, and they absolutely ignore the things that we suggest can be done.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: We have done that, too. I remember when the labour legislation was introduced. How many amendments did our critic, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) propose for that labour legislation? Every one of them was turned down. You'll see that government, in subsequent years, will be introducing those same amendments no matter what stripe that government is, because the loopholes that she talked about at that time are now becoming very evident.

You don't listen on that side of the House. You're happy to talk about us being negative; you close your ears to any constructive criticism; you go on your merry way taking us down deeper and deeper into a greater depression and more and more unemployment; and you sit there trying to blame the opposition for your shortcomings — trying to blame us for your failures.

I think we should send every member a copy of our "let's get to work" program. There the ideas are outlined, the research is done and the statistics are there for job-creation programs — a $300 million program that would create something like 35,000 jobs. It's all there. Have you read it, any of you? Have you even considered initiating any of those suggestions? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. I doubt they've even read it. They wouldn't consider it, because it happens to come from this side of the House. It's high time that that kind of confrontation politics stopped in this province of British Columbia. Times are too serious to be able to afford the luxury. It takes the best brains from both sides of this House to put together a policy and a solution to the problems that are facing us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

[ Page 7040 ]

MRS. WALLACE: You see, that's the kind of comment.... The Minister of Forests.... The brains on this side of the House are down at that end pointing to the two government members that sit on this side. That's what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker. This is absolute ignoring of the democratic process, really, because the democratic process is supposed to be a discussion of a matter and a solution using the best possible ideas, regardless of which side of the House they come from. That government is not prepared to take that road. That government is not prepared to work for the best interests of British Columbia. Instead, they are only prepared to work for their own self-perpetuation, if you will. Certainly we've seen many times over the expensive increases that have gone on with their own particular administrative costs. Yet all the time that that is going on, we see cutbacks in the services they are offering to the citizens of British Columbia.

It becomes a rather futile task to stand in this House and speak in favour of the kind of programs that we on this side believe would be effective and beneficial, because we know that they're not going to be listened to. Yet, because we believe in democracy and we believe the process has to and must be made to work, we continue to do it. We continue to stress the kind of positive suggestions that are included in our program. We continue to point out to that government some of the shortcomings and the pitfalls that are evident in the measures they are proposing, and we continue to hope that they will move in a direction that will be beneficial for all of British Columbia in these very difficult times. We continue to hope, but I don't see it happening.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it thrills me to take my place in this debate. I do treat it as an honour to take an opportunity to say a word or two, particularly about the amendment to the budget speech. I have been looking very carefully at this amendment, and I propose to vote against it, because it places a great criticism on the government for its lack of attention to providing jobs in the budget. Imagine the audacity of such an amendment.

I am going to comment very briefly, before I do so, on the subject of lotteries. A lot has been said today about lotteries, and I think it is right to say just this: there is a myth regarding the purchase of lottery tickets that, in effect, lotteries are a tax on the poor, that they are a tax on those who can ill afford to buy such luxuries. Actual research done by people in the business disproves this categorically. In actual fact, based on thorough research, those who buy lottery tickets are a complete cross-section of the economic community. The highest concentration of those who buy lottery tickets are among those with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 per year. You have people of all income strata, more or less uniformly, who buy lottery tickets today.

Our provincial budget this year is $7.3 billion. Last year $7 billion was raised through taxes, transfer moneys from Ottawa and so on. Moneys from lotteries in British Columbia generate about $100 million in a given calendar year, and out of that provide about $20 million for most worthwhile projects. That is not something that anyone in this House would argue with. I just want to lay to rest this very common myth that it is a tax on the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, everybody across the income spectrum is buying lottery tickets. Look at an example of just a handful of projects which have been assisted through lotteries in the last two months. These are recent lotteries grants: a Little League ball diamond in White Rock, $2,450; a woodworking centre for the Campbell River Association for the Mentally Handicapped, $45,000; Esquimalt Anglers Association to help build a new park at Fleming Beach, $14,000; Vancouver City Stage Theatre, equipment including new furnishings and lighting, $6,400; Penticton Retirement Tune-agers, 54 musicians between the ages of 60 and 87 who perform for seniors in the Okanagan and who will be playing for seniors in Langley, Vancouver and White Rock next week — this grant is for portable theatrical lighting — $1, 570; and Burnaby's Bonsoir Seniors' Recreation Centre for ongoing recreation programs for the centre's 300 members, $3,000.

Mr. Speaker, those are just a few of many small grants which go out each month on the basis of lottery tickets purchased in British Columbia. I could mention larger ones, such as the new program which is going to provide $100,000 for home renovations for paraplegics — a brand-new program in British Columbia that has not really been sufficiently announced, organized through this ministry and the Association for the Handicapped. That's $100,000 for individual projects totalling $5,000 — home renovations for the handicapped. Lotteries can do this kind of thing where other programs are unable to do so. To say nothing of the fact that lotteries in British Columbia are providing $2.7 million on an annual basis for health-care research, over $4 million to assist fitness and amateur sport — travel grants and all the other assistance that goes to organizations — a similar amount of over $4 million to cultural projects and organizations, and, of course, $1.2 million to the Heritage Trust this past year. I'll just say at the outset that a word needs to be said about lotteries and the myth that they are a tax on the poor.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to allude to remarks in this debate associated with the so-called misuse of special warrants by this government. I heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) alluding to the use of warrants by this government. He categorized them as being an irresponsible expenditure of public funds without debate. He also referred making expenditures by special warrant as hiding in the secrecy of cabinet. Let's just lay the warrant story to rest, because in the warrant contest this government comes second — a long way back in second place. You only have to look at those terrible years of 1972 to 1975. In the 1973-74 fiscal year there were 122 special warrants; in 1974-75, 116 special warrants. In this past year this government put through 22 special warrants. You can bandy these figures back and forth. The allegation is always that we're cooking the books, that we're putting through moneys in an irresponsible manner behind that great big cabinet door. The important thing about warrants is that all governments need to use special warrants for expenditures that are considered very necessary at the time and in the public interest. The important thing is that through good management you have the cash flow to be able to afford to use a warrant at the time. That is what is significant as far as the taxpayer is concerned. So in the matter of the battle of the warrants — I'm referring to the comments made by some of the opposition members — we come second in that contest.

I would like to once again refer to the amendment to the budget speech and to the terms in there which criticize this government, which express lack of confidence on the basis that "this government has failed to take steps to preserve jobs." Mr. Speaker, didn't somebody over there read the budget speech? You could cite half a dozen different pages in there that place a strong focus on jobs. I'm sure the members over there don't want me to read for the record here in the

[ Page 7041 ]

House a litany of the jobs created by the budget. Do you want me to do that?

MR. MACDONALD: It won't take long.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, it would take quite a while. Since you're interested, you see this government is creating jobs — not jobs in the civil service paid for by the people of this province, but jobs in the private sector; jobs with a spinoff effect benefiting the entire economy; jobs throughout the province, not limited to one area or one sector of the economy; jobs that put skills to work, not make-work jobs that do nothing but cost the taxpayers vast sums of hard-earned money.

Let's take Expo 86: 6,300 on-site construction jobs; 4,200 jobs within the operation of the world's fair; 1,700 concessionaires; 2,400 exhibitor's jobs; 500 retail and restaurant jobs as a result of Expo 86 itself. And a great proportion of these jobs are the young, 18- to 24-year-old category, traditionally a high-unemployment group.

How about B.C. Place? There are 450 on-site jobs already. Are you against that, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre? I think perhaps he is against B.C. Place. He's on record, I believe, as being against it. There will be 2,000 jobs each year for the next 20 years as B.C. Place develops some 12,000 housing units and space for commercial, retail and office sites. The trade and convention centre, which is going to become a fact of life through the negotiations of our Premier, will provide 1,000 on-site construction jobs, 1,000 full-time jobs when it's in full operation, and a further 1,000 part-time jobs when operating. Mr. Speaker, that's a lot of employment created by the initiatives of this government. We also have ALRT — rapid transit — with 1,700 construction jobs, 1,000 manufacturing jobs, and additional jobs when it is operating: it comes to almost 150 operating jobs, because the system is automated. Northeast coal will provide 9,000 jobs for transportation and townsite and mine development.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 50,000 jobs accounted for in this budget of this Minister of Finance.

How does the opposition propose to find jobs? Well, they showed us what they'd do about that kind of thing. They proved it during the years when they had an opportunity to do so. I'd ask them to deny that during that period they hired an additional 9,000 employees in the public service complement of this province. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is a sizeable increase in the numbers in the civil service. The doors were really swinging open, and the people were walking in. In those three years the size of the civil service increased by 28 percent. That's how they create employment: by simply opening the doors and hiring a lot of public employees. That's not how this government approaches that problem.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member over there says that's nuts. I'll table the information. Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to table information which shows that they increased the numbers in the public service by close to 9,000, for a total increase of 28 percent, if you want me to table that information. They're nodding their heads up and down. That's right. They haven't really looked, so I'll be happy to do that.

Mr. Speaker, what impact did that have on the unemployment of the day? Let's stop and think about that because the unemployment percentage in those years increased from 7.2 percent to 8.5 percent in 1975.

Mr. Speaker, we know, as it has been explained here, that we had a serious recession in 1975, in part due to international factors. Certainly the answer to alleviating that situation did not lie in the massive hiring of public employees. The taxpayer of today will not tolerate that type of government action.

I want to refer to the major thrust of the criticism which I have heard to date regarding this Minister of Finance's budget speech. That lies in their finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who referred to this budget as a dishonest budget, a masterpiece of deception, a budget of dishonesty. He alluded to the fact that the indication that the budget is balanced is a dishonest assertion. Great words, Mr. Speaker. They should hang their heads in shame. He also stated that people want to let the light shine in.

Mr. Speaker, I want them to get this down, because they will well remember the budget of 1975. Members across the way who were in the cabinet in those days will well remember; it gives them a sick feeling in the pit of the stomach, I know, to think of the budget that was fabricated in those days. The difference is this. They wound up with a deficit of $400 million in one year — not bad work for a 12-month operation. Did anybody know about it? Nobody knew about it. There's the difference. Because today we've got quarterly reports, we've got an auditor-general, we've got a new financial administration act, we've got complete accountability. People in this province today know that if we've got a problem at any time, they're going to know it all the way through the year. They didn't know it in 1975. That government sat on financial chaos and hid it from the people of this province. They had a shortfall, a budget which was forced to balance, and they kept that situation under wraps until the election took place, an auditor was called, and senior civil servants went public to disclose the fact that there was a serious financial situation.

There is this basic difference in the modus of operation in the management of our financial affairs today, in that we have complete disclosure, quarterly reports, an auditor-general, and a completely new financial reporting system. Our Finance minister has made it very clear that we have financial problems today, that he's engaged in certain projections which may or may not be realizable, and if they are not, which could possibly be the case, he'll have to take more serious corrective action as the year goes along, but the people of this province are going to know through these accountability measures. That's the measure of this government.

In conclusion, I think that we should stand back and look at this budget, not as politicians but to return to the role of a taxpayer. The average British Columbian who works hard for a living, the average British Columbian who sees a degree of economic uncertainty in his future.... What do I as an ordinary taxpayer see when I look at this budget? I see responsible fiscal management. I see a budget that gets the most value for every one of my tax dollars that are spent by government on my behalf. From the spectators' gallery, what do I see in this House? I see the opposition regurgitating over and over again — a predictable reaction. It's certainly a sad commentary on legislative cooperation. As a taxpayer, I see the need for cooperation in this House, but in reality all I can hear are the standard time-worn clichés of an opposition that hasn't the ability to look around and listen to British Colum-

[ Page 7042 ]

bians. They don't want politicking; they want leadership from this House. The taxpayers want those triple-A spenders over there to get serious about the economic and social well-being of this province.

You know, when the road is smooth and times are good, the opposition's attitude can be sloughed off as cute, but not today. Today the people of this province demand leadership and responsible solutions to difficult economic problems. They want their government to take the lead, and they want politicians to work together for the common good of this province. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that those triple-A spenders cut the political nonsense and admit that this new budget is the responsible position that is needed for these difficult economic times.

As a cabinet minister and government MLA, I'm proud of this budget, but more importantly, as a British Columbian and a taxpayer, I am relieved that this budget takes into account the various economic situations facing us today. It's certainly entertaining to sit across from these triple-A spenders and listen to their nonsense. I sit here and look across and see only one alternative offered from the other side. That alternative is spend, spend, spend. And why not? That's all they figure taxpayers are good for: supplying more and more money so government can spend and spend and spend. And when the taxpayers say, "No more; enough is enough," — those triple-A spenders go elsewhere and borrow money, but they keep on spending and spending. Really, that is the only solution offered by the opposition. When the spending is done and when the triple-A spenders have departed this earth and gone wherever good little socialists go, who's left holding the tab? That's right — the taxpayers, the children of taxpayers and the grandchildren of taxpayers.

Getting into debt is easy. The opposition did it very easily when they were government. Getting out of debt is not easy. Taxpayers will recognize the validity of this argument. The triple-A spenders are not even listening. They can't abide the thought of a balanced budget. They can't abide a surplus being saved for a rainy day. These concepts are alien to them. As a result, they should never again be given a chance to come within ten feet of the public purse. They are bad news. After all is said and done, they are nothing more than triple-A spenders and, what is worse, they would spend other people's money. Meanwhile, in the real world, our Minister of Finance has brought to this House a budget that the taxpayers of this province can be proud of. This budget is a strong statement from this government that, yes, one province can do something, one province can make a difference. In the end, what we do with and for our province is ultimately up to us, the people of British Columbia.

So we've got a budget that deals in realities. It takes a strong stand on creating opportunities, in saving British Columbians from cuts in the public service, in maintaining a balanced budget and in ensuring future generations the opportunity to spend tax dollars on services rather than on interest to money-lenders.

Mr. Speaker, this budget doesn't have to justify itself to those across the floor. It has the practical support of British Columbians; after all it is they who are paying the bills. This budget doesn't have to accommodate the negative, predictable attitudes of the triple-A spenders. It has an entire province to care for.

This is not the time to play politics. All I can say is that when times get tough, the tough get going, and I warn those in the opposition to join us or to stand aside, because British Columbia is coming through, and nothing — not the opposition, not poor economics, not the doom- and gloom-sayers, not the negative, doubting people.... None of them is going to stop this province from going forward. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote against this amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker I am amused when I come into this House and listen to a minister of the Crown, a member of the Social Credit Party, a politician representing some of the things that have been going on in this province for the last six or seven years: the kinds of things that we don't even like to talk about, because they remind us of sleaze and corruption — S.C., Social Credit.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would just say this to that member: I would stay right with you if I were in the gutter, my friend, because you would be right down there with me. I've never seen such a guttersnipe.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member who has the floor will address the Chair, and other members will not interrupt.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will from here on.

I would like to suggest a couple of reasons why the member who was just on his feet has absolutely no credibility with me. He asserted that when we were government the civil service — incidentally it was the public service — increased by 9,000 people, or 28 percent. Hey, what do you know? He's going to table documents showing where that happened. Let me tell you something, those of you who weren't around in those days. We found thousands and thousands of public servants, many of them who had been public servants for as long as 20 years, who were employed by the government but did not have permanent status. We gave them permanent status, and that's why there was an increase in public servants.

There has been far more of an increase in the last six years since that group has been government, and let me illustrate a point to prove it. In 1975 the B.C. Government Employees Union constituted 6.8 percent of the total organized labour force in the province. In 1981 they made up 10 percent. Table your documents, Mr. Minister, and I'll table this. Table your documents; table them now.

Mr. Speaker, we hear all these remarks that we're supposed to take as gospel. Gospel my foot! Gospel from that minister, who was up preaching to us a moment ago about lotteries, telling us that there is not a tax on the backs of the poor! I watched him on television the other day. This is the minister in charge of lotteries, the minister who is going to raise $100 million, so he says, for Expo. What did that minister say when asked if he bought lottery tickets? "No, I never have, nor will I," or words to that effect.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You can. You'll be out of that job so soon it will make your head swim. You were a private member before, and you'll be a private member again.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a great resentment toward that minister, who was cackling away about triple-A spenders and so on — talking about a fabricated budget in 1975. That minister, who manufactured it and had four months to do

[ Page 7043 ]

it.... I'll tell you, there was triple-A spending to end all triple-A spending. That government took power at the end of 1975 and they had three months to spend it. Did they ever! I ran into hospital administrators, school districts and others who said: "We don't know where this money came from, nor did we ask for it." Oh, how they spent. And when they couldn't spend it all they got a perfectly good consulting firm giving them instructions that meant that they had to produce whatever that minister decided they were to produce. Oh, it was a marvellous production.

They spent a lot of money proving that the NDP, who had come through tough times, just like they're going through now.... We carried on and we went through those tough times. We didn't cut back on a lot of the human needs, to our own peril. But I say that even though they have cut back on practically every human need in this province and they have increased every government fee they could possibly find — they increased, for instance, medicare twice in a seven month period.... Even that taxation isn't going to save them. I know and they know that they cannot continue with the deception; they'll go to the polls before they're found out. I predict you'll be going to the polls within the next month or two because that budget will not carry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You predicted that last year.

MR. COCKE: I did not predict it last year.

It is an empty budget with no real substance, and it does not even take care of the needs of the people of this province.

The minister talked about the creation of jobs in the public service. I would like to remind the minister that in the tough times of 1974 and 1975, when money was hard to come by, what we did not cut back is what this government has butchered to death, has cut right out of their budget: student employment programs. In 1975 we raised it to $30 million. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) administered it that year. Did our Treasury Board say: "No, cut back"? No, it was important that those young people be given an opportunity to participate and also to pay for their education, their training. All over the province there are important programs — programs serving seniors, programs helping at hospitals — cut out by a senseless piece of government policy. If for no other reason than student employment, they should be condemned.

There comes a time when one has to put it on the line. The minister put it on the line: he said he is going to vote for this budget and vote against the amendment. In saying that, what is he saying? He is saying that he is going to cut off the student employment program. He is saying he is going to support a government whose policy reduces our reforestation, our silviculture program, when now is the time we should be using many of those unemployed people in the woods to replenish and repopulate our woods for the future. No, Mr. Speaker, not that. Oh, we have money for some fancy, sexy, possible vote-getters, but we don't have money for the people across this province. It's just a matter of priority; just a question of priority.

I want to suggest to you that if this government had real management ability, they could run many of the programs before us in a far more economical way and produce better results. I suggest that in health care, by virtue of the fact that we have cut down homemaker service, home-care service, which is a very inexpensive service, we have transferred a very heavy load to the acute-care service. Again this year we find that we can identify about 1,300 chronically ill patients in acute-care beds. Many of them could be out on home care; many of them shouldn't have been there in the first place but were driven there by a lack of service.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What does acute-care cost, for this great financier from the north? Acute care will run you anywhere close to $300 per patient per day. What does home care cost, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the great economic genius? It is $30 a day, Mr. Speaker, through you to that member with all the smarts. That's where they're wrong. They couldn't run a popcorn stand.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That member is not in his seat, and he's criticizing the government in a very obscene way. I'm really, really ashamed. I know he's a member of a union. I knew that someday he was going to make that transformation, but I didn't expect he would do it during the time I was making my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you an example of what some of these cutbacks do to health care. I'm not suggesting that they spend; I'm just suggesting they get with it and learn how to manage. All they manage is PR, producing millions and millions of words per week of their own in both the electronic and print media, but in doing that, what do they neglect?

Let me give you the example of Sunny Hill Hospital for handicapped children. This is a note to the Premier, but I'm sure that, despite the fact that he's winging his way to see the Queen, he wouldn't mind my reading excerpts from it. This is from the parents of the in- and out-patients of Sunny Hill. They gathered the other day to discuss the needs of the hospital and they concluded that very necessary, not superfluous, services are being undermined. For children six years and up there will be no more evening program or Saturdays or Sundays; no more morning program, and a reduced evening program; and the swim program is cancelled. During the holiday periods, hours of operation have been reduced from 11.5 to 7.5 hours. For the children of pre-school and nursery ages there will be no program for in-patients in the evenings seven days a week. We're talking about disabled children.

The note goes on to say that the Saturday and Sunday programs have been discontinued. Why have these been discontinued? Well, they've laid off two staff members and they've reduced the hours of three others from full-time to part-time. What does it mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that these children, these human beings, are going to be spending hour after hour after hour either in a wheelchair or in bed watching television — no swimming, no supervision, no playing, no rehabilitation. Then this very economically-wise group, which has visited upon society greater expense as time goes by, because there is no rehabilitation available....

They make it tough as blazes for a good progressive government that comes along and tries to bail out the people, which we will do. Yes, we will; we'll be there. You can depend on that. People are getting tired, tired, sick to death.

MR. RITCHIE: Dreamer!

MR. COCKE: We can have a little bet about that, Mr. Member.

[ Page 7044 ]

I would like to say a word or two about another area. One of the reasons that I suggest there is no way that one can support this budget and every way that one must vote for the amendment is the whole question of the way they are handling colleges. We do have a situation right now where there are a lot of underemployed or unemployed youth. They need education. They need to be provided with skills so that when jobs are available they can get into them. Let me tell you about jobs that are available right now: dental hygienists. Right now there are 200 vacancies in this province. What has this government managed to do? I won't blame them entirely for UBC — UBC is scrubbing funds for their dental hygienist program — but I do blame them for this. Douglas College was ordered to get out of it. There are 200 vacancies and virtually nobody is being trained. These would be people who would be employed immediately, but no — that shortsighted, stupid administration would put us through this situation.

They cry about a shortage of nurses at hospitals. Right now there is a minimum of 472 vacancies in this province, with 315 in the greater Vancouver area alone. Of the colleges we surveyed, there are 599 nursing seats and a waiting list of 1,296, and many of the colleges don't keep track. B.C. is not training nearly enough nurses to meet our needs. In 1980 we had 2, 268 nurses registered; 511 of them were educated in B.C. Therefore, 1,757 came from out of province. What have we done? We have cut back on nurses' training. BCIT announced recently that they had cut their nursing training in half, down to 34 from 68. Those are entries each six months, and therefore what we have really done is cut it down by 68 a year. It could be cut right out.

I think we've got to get something going in this province in terms of management. We haven't got any now. There is a need for jobs and there is an opportunity for this province to provide jobs if they will only think, and put a lot more time into planning and less time into PR.

Mr. Speaker, we know they're under the gun. We know that they're trying to find a good handle to get an election so that they can have another three, four or five years to kick at the cat. In doing what they're doing now, they're obviously taking their eye off the ball. That ball, as far as I'm concerned, is job creation — people first — and we're seeing none of it. We're seeing a living disaster and a budget that is going to fall apart.

Why do you think, my dear colleagues — through you, Mr. Speaker — it took them so long to call us back to this Legislature? They couldn't get it together.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were scared.

MR. COCKE: Yes, they were scared, my dear colleague. But they couldn't put it together. Every time they wrote up a new budget, it flew apart before they even got a chance to put printer's ink to it. This one is going to fly apart too. That's the reason we came back at almost a record time, so late that they I had to have an interim supply bill right off the bat.

This is a very lacklustre government. Worse than that, they're dangerous to all the people in the province. Probably one of the most dangerous members over there is the one who is in charge of the Forest Service in this province, who doesn't even see the need to look after that preserve. You should be back in the mines, but next time you should be down there with a helmet, Mr. Minister, mucking it out, because I'm sure that if your engineering ability is anything like your ability to manage your ministry, then our mines would be in trouble too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clerk 4.

MR. COCKE: Clerk 4, I'm sorry, I thought he was an engineer.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we've neglected far too many of the very important ends of management in this province. The sooner we get rid of that gang, the better off the province is going to be. I'm voting for this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a document I referred to in remarks I made earlier.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled a document relating to the size of the public service in B.C. from 1872 through to 1981.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for the budget and against the amendment. I suppose that doesn't come as any great surprise to the official opposition. I agree with the budget for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it is a balanced budget in extraordinary circumstances. There are few parts of this world — certainly few parts of North America — where balanced budgets have been achieved in recent times, and again this year we have a balanced budget presented to this Legislature by the Minister of Finance.

It reflects, perhaps more than anything else, the underlying strength of our provincial economy, but it also reflects the fact that there has been some careful husbanding of financial resources in this province over the last few years. Those moneys — the surplus which was developed in the late 1970s and the very early 1980s — are now coming to our rescue and making it possible to have a balanced budget in the current fiscal year. I suggest that that's sound management.

I know that the Minister of Finance might be offended if I called him a neo-Keynesian or if I even referred to him as in any way related to the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's pre-Cambrian.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, an occasional interjection can sometimes be permitted, but interruptions must be resisted. Please proceed.

MR. DAVIS: It's somewhat along the lines of a famous statement by the then Conservative leader of the United Kingdom, Benjamin Disraeli, when universal suffrage was introduced: "We are all socialists now." So occasionally you have people of the right-wing inclination saying things which are rather remarkable. But still, I myself do believe in the fundamental idea that Keynes tried to put across. I believe in it in theory. The theory is that we in western society experience a business cycle, and that wise governments should generate surpluses during periods of growth, expansion and high employment, and should spend more than they take in — in other words, incur deficits — during periods of recession, and certainly during periods of depression.

[ Page 7045 ]

This government has certainly generated surpluses — in the order of a billion dollars over the last few years — while this province was growing faster than any other province except Alberta, and certainly faster than most, if not all, of the states in the United States. It created a surplus in the order of a billion dollars, which has helped us during a period when our export industries have had to cut prices and have had reduced sales abroad. We're able yet again to balance a budget in a difficult time. If that is following Keynes' philosophy, then we're following it. The trouble with the Keynesian approach is that governments rarely generate a surplus, even during periods of prosperity, so when it comes to periods of recession, there is no kitty there which they can tap, no surplus they can use, in order to come anywhere near a balanced budget.

I've heard the present government in Ottawa accused of being Keynesian in their approach. They're not Keynesian at all. First of all, Keynes was concerned more with capital investment than anything else. The government in Ottawa hasn't been seriously concerned with encouraging capital investment for a long time, and it has consistently for more than a decade now been running a deficit. Some of those years were good years for Canada. Clearly they've not been following the classical Keynesian approach to budgeting, or certainly to the management of our economic affairs.

The Leader of the Opposition has used some brave words in his amendment. He's accused the government of spending too much on the one hand and of not spending enough on the other. He has also implied, at least, that a government that he would head up would be more successful in promoting production, hence jobs, than the present government. The record certainly doesn't support that. I doubt very much whether if he were in power he would in fact follow the policies which he is suggesting — I think with tongue in cheek — in his amendment.

Looking back over the last few years, we see an interesting story evolving. Government, including the provincial government, is looming larger in our provincial economy. The provincial government of the day ten years ago was taking approximately one dollar in eight, or roughly 12 percent, of the provincial income from the people in taxes and spending it again largely within the province. In the several years — three and a half years, to be more precise — when the NDP were in power, that figure of 12 percent — one dollar in eight — became closer to one dollar in five; it exceeded 18 percent of the provincial income. In the year 1975-76 they took away from the people of the province over 18 percent of their income and spent it in the province. The NDP did not increase taxation commensurately, and therefore they not only spent the surplus that had been accumulating in the years prior to their ascendancy to power but were verging on a deficit when they lost the election. In other words, they took us from 12 percent of provincial income to 18 percent of provincial income in terms of expenditures and, obviously, over the long term, in terms of taxation. The provincial government became a bigger factor in our provincial economy, certainly a bigger factor in the lives of provincial taxpayers.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) made some reference to employment in the public service increasing by about one-third during the period when the NDP were in power. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said there was some confusion between permanent and temporary employees. I've looked at the numbers which the hon. Provincial Secretary has just tabled, and they indicate that the totals, permanent and temporary, did increase from some 29,000 to roughly 39,000 and have remained in that order of magnitude since. In other words, the number of public servants, permanent and temporary, has remained roughly unchanged since 1975.

Back to the proportion of provincial income taken by the provincial government. The number did drop from 18 percent to around 16 percent in the late 1970s. It is now currently between 17 and 18 percent. In terms of impact on the income of the average British Columbian, the government on this side of the House hasn't improved substantially on the NDP, but it has given them much greater value for their money. We are no longer subsidizing the use of the private automobile, that great symbol of North American capitalism. We stopped doing that. This government has switched expenditures more and more into the people programs.

I know this isn't commonly believed through the province, and I know it isn't the kind of thing that the opposition would admit under any circumstances, regardless of the proof. Some 75 percent of the current budget goes for the people programs: health, welfare, education. That 75 percent is the highest number which has been achieved in this province. In other words, the government on this side of the House spends a higher proportion of its budget on people programs than the NDP did at the end of their term in power in this province. Furthermore, it spends a greater proportion of its budget on people programs than any province in this country. For example, it spends more money, proportionately, on health and medical care than the NDP in Saskatchewan. We get greater value, but as a proportion of the budget, an indication of the government's sensitivity towards people and their good — certainly their health, their education, their welfare — this budget is more people-oriented than any budget in the history of this province and certainly more people-sensitive than any budget produced in any other province across this great country of ours. That, I think, signifies something of considerable import. It is, I think, a reflection of the people- sensitivity of the Social Credit Party and certainly of the cabinet of today.

We are not running a deficit. Our problem, looking ahead, is to avoid running a substantial deficit in a period when exports, particularly our bread-and-butter export industries, are facing difficulties internationally. Prices are down. In some instances volume is down. The combination means less income and, worse still, less activity in resource industries in B.C. During a period of that nature, a period of recession, a period — in western world economy terms — of depression, we are bound to have difficulties. The NDP certainly claimed that in the early 1970s, and they should recognize — and certainly their words indicated at the time that they recognized — that world markets can have a serious effect not only on the income of the government but on employment in the province. Being export-oriented as we are, it's bound to have a more serious effect here than in most other parts of the world. We're fortunate that we've had considerable momentum. There is still considerable momentum in the province and, therefore, what is a depression elsewhere is a recession here and hopefully will not be a very serious one.

The opposition, in this Legislature and outside, has been extremely critical of some of the make-work projects the government is undertaking. They talk about megaprojects as being monuments to the government and so on. I'd like to

[ Page 7046 ]

briefly discuss several of them in the context of the overall budget.

The B.C. Place budget for this current year — that's 1982-83 — has expenditures of the order of $60 million or $70 million. That, Mr. Speaker, is less than 1 percent of the budget of the government. In other words, B.C. Place is a 1 percent item in a 100 percent budget. It's significant, it's important locally in the lower mainland area, but it is not a major budget item. Secondly, in the longer term I think everyone recognizes now that the acquisition of the lands which are B.C. Place will generate considerable income not only in the area but to the government as a whole. And seen in the context of all of the 1980s and 1990s, B.C. Place will be a profit centre for the government. It won't be a loser. My main point is that in the limited context of this year's budget it's only a 1 percent item. It's not a massive item.

Expo 86. The expenditure in this current year is of the order of, say, $10 million and that's about one-tenth of 1 percent of the budget. So obviously Expo 86 isn't a massive project in budgetary terms. It's important. It will encourage a lot of activity certainly in the lower mainland area over the next few years. But it is not a big budgetary item. Hopefully it will pay for itself in the narrow government budgetary terms.

The Pier B-C Project hasn't got an expenditure impact in this current year. The federal government is taking it over and will be compensating the province to the tune of some millions of dollars. It's a plus item in terms of income. It's not an outgo. So Pier B.C. Is not a downer in any sense, as far as this budget is concerned.

Light rapid transit expenditure in this current fiscal year will be less than the federal government contribution. Again, that's an income item, not an outgo item.

In other words, the four major so-called megaprojects for the greater Vancouver area which this government is sponsoring, has started and has now underway on balance will have an impact of less than 1 percent on the expenditure side of the government. They're not impacting in a major way on the budget, and they're obviously not impacting in a major way on the people programs of the government or of this province. So viewed realistically, in budgetary terms, they are not a drain of any scale whatsoever on the taxpayers of this province, and their employment consequences — especially as the years go by — are bound to be very positive. I'm therefore convinced that they're the best thing for the time and their longer-term dividends are going to be considerable for B.C.

I'm looking at the major Crown corporations with large budgets. B.C. Ferries is better run financially, certainly, than it was a few years ago. With its increased passenger loadings it is in better shape to pay its own way. The subsidy to B.C. Ferries can now logically be cut back, and B.C. Ferries can go into the private market itself and readily finance any expansion that is likely to be needed in the next few years. So B.C. Ferries is a good news item, not a downer, as far as this budget is concerned — certainly as far as 1982-83 is concerned.

B.C. Hydro is by far the biggest in terms of capital outlays. It is continuing to build projects. It won't be building in the next few years at the physical rate that it was building new dams, power lines and distribution systems in the late seventies, but nevertheless will continue to provide a major source of employment in the province. Because B.C. Hydro pays its own way out of rates, it doesn't have a negative impact on this budget.

B.C. Rail's expansion is, as far as I'm concerned, the biggest question mark, because we don't have all the numbers in. Seen in the context of the total budget and assuming that the expenditure this year for all purposes — I'm not talking just about the rail line, but about roads, transmission lines, town sites and so on — was of the order of $300 million to $400 million, that's less than 5 percent of the budget.

So there is a project which has an impact on the income and outgo of this government in this current 12-month period, but its leverage in terms of opening up the north is undoubtedly great. It does provide significant employment, and if we're going to build projects of this nature — opening up the northern part of the province — now's the time to do it. We would have been in some difficulty, I think, had Syncrude been going ahead in Alberta, had Cold Lake being going ahead in Alberta, had a major pipeline construction been underway down across Canada, had other parts of the country been steaming ahead, had developments been taking place in northern Manitoba, such as were envisaged by the Conservative government there, or had expansion been taking place in Ontario and Quebec.

Things have slowed down in those other parts of Canada so we're in better shape. The bids are more competitive and the skilled labour supply is more readily available to go ahead and open up the northeast coal area, to build a very important port at Prince Rupert and of course to supply all the necessary infrastructure, including the rail line connection from the resource areas down to Prince Rupert. We're doing it at the right time from a labour supply and skill supply point of view. We're doing it at the right time in the business cycle in terms of providing jobs. So I think that's important. Those are considerations which are very important in terms of the short-term and longer-term economic health of the province.

So much for the expenditure side. Expenditures are up. They're not going up any faster than the growth of the economy, so essentially we're remaining on an even keel as far as they are concerned.

The income side is the greater worry. It has to be. No one can tell with any certainty when the U.S. economy is really going to turn around, when the economy of western Europe is going to come out of the doldrums or when, indeed, even the economy of Japan is going to regain its momentum of recent years. Until that happens we will be spinning our wheels in all of our resource industries. I think there is little doubt the forest industry will come back more quickly than the others. Perhaps metal mining will come back quickly with a change in metal prices, but the pickup in employment will be slower. Forestry alone, as the budget says, provided over 10 percent of the income of the provincial government as recently as two years ago. Last year it dropped to 2 percent. In other words there was an 8 percent drop in income to the province purely as a result of the vagaries of the forest products markets around the world and particularly the housing market in the United States. Hopefully that 2 percent figure, which very recently was 10 or 11 percent, will be 3 or 4 percent 12 months from now. Hopefully it will be even higher, but it's not a dramatic increase. It's not likely to be back to the 10 percent contribution of as recently as 1980. That is an important consideration.

Natural gas supplied a very substantial windfall to the government, certainly a very considerable source of revenue to government in the late seventies, with the amounts escalating through 1980. Natural gas income to the province was of the same order of magnitude as forest products income as

[ Page 7047 ]

recently as 18 months ago. It has dropped in half for several reasons: a drop in the volume of exports; a very significant increase in federal taxation; and a drop in drilling activity, which is a disease that has hit all of western Canada. It has certainly hit Alberta very hard and we are affected by it. There are much smaller bids for new oil and gas acreages. All of those bad news items have resulted in a drop from about 10 percent of provincial income coming from natural gas to 5 percent. We're not likely to see a dramatic increase in that 5 percent figure, at least not in the next year or two, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I'd be concerned about a marked income revival from that sector.

Mr. Davis moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I would like to propose a motion, seconded by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

Leave granted.

REAFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENT TO COUNTRY

HON. MR. GARDOM: The motion reads, Mr. Speaker: Resolved, as we approach April 17, this most significant and historic day, when the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, proclaims the Canada Act, 1982, a made-in-Canada constitution which establishes our country constitutionally, as it has been in fact, a completely sovereign and independent nation, we, the members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, reaffirm our commitment to our country, united from sea to sea, and our allegiance to the Crown. We urge our fellow Canadians everywhere to associate themselves with these commitments and to oppose any forces that may seek to weaken or divide our federation or our provinces.

I would like to make a few remarks in support of the resolution, Mr. Speaker. It was 115 years ago in 1867, on March 29, when Queen Victoria gave royal assent to the British North America Act. On the very same day, March 29, in 1982 Queen Elizabeth II in London gave her royal assent to the Canada bill; and this Saturday, as Queen of Canada, Her Majesty will proclaim in Ottawa the Canada Act, 1982 as the constitutional law of our country. Mr. Speaker, at last we shall have a made-in-Canada constitution, with final severance of our remaining constitutional tie with the United Kingdom. Canada will formally become on Saturday an autonomous and sovereign nation in every sense of the word.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that we should let this event pass without reflecting upon our gratitude for the lasting and truly great values that have been bequeathed to us by the United Kingdom: our parliamentary system, our rule of law and our system of justice. We will continue to have some of the best and now constitutionally entrenched protections and rights of any country in the world; remembering, though, that in the final analysis it will always be the vigilance of our citizens, the accountability of our government, the independence of our judiciary, the freedom of the press and the rule of law wherein the guarantees of true liberty rest.

While any constitution can provide a framework, Mr. Speaker, it will never be a panacea and by itself never can make a country function or live up to its potential — and I'd say living up to the potential is certainly the commanding issue that has to be addressed by all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian way for effective action and effective governance has always been through Canada's somewhat unique system of federalism: cooperation, consultation and compromise, best known as cooperative federalism. Throughout our history that has proven to be the only workable and historically successful manner of governing our country, with its second-largest land area in the world. Mr. Speaker, as cooperative federalism has prospered, so has and so should Canada.

I very much refer to the importance of that process, because it was through such a process that the patriation of our constitution was eventually achieved. Unilateralism is not — and has never been — the route to make our country respond or function.

When you think of it, Mr. Speaker, all of us are so fortunate, with the abundance of our resources, the freedoms and the opportunities that we have that are virtually unequalled anywhere else in the world, and most of all that we live in peace.

Hence this resolution requests that this House reaffirm its commitment to Canada and our allegiance to the Crown, and that Canada remains united in order to best ensure that all Canadians can continue to pursue those reforms which are necessary to provide the opportunity for all of the people of all of our regions to reach their full potential.

One must also reflect, Mr. Speaker, upon the many who struggled and sweated and fought the wilderness and, in so many cases, laid down their lives to entrust to us what I'd say without qualification is the best nation in the world. Their energies and their sacrifices endowed us with an enormous land mass, great people from every background and from every culture, plus our freedoms and a quality of life that is the admiration of people throughout the whole world. But now it is our generation that is entrusted with not only this priceless inheritance but also remembering that we are on the threshhold of almost unlimited greatness in our country, with all the excitement and prosperity and quality of life that can flow from that. So I say to everyone in our country: turn not your back to Canada; come to it; grasp it with every affection. I would ask that we hearken to some of the words found in that great book, The Unknown Country:

"The sounds of Canada are there to be heard, and the texture and living stuff of Canada is there to be felt, as is the full pulse of its heart and the full flex of its muscles and the full pattern of its mind. It is there to be seen; it is there to be heard; it is there to be felt. It is there providing us with the richest fulfilment of any place on the globe.

"It has not been argumentation, dialectic or constitutional axiom, but the freedom and the spirit and the emotion and the love of our country, the desire of wanting to walk hand in hand with the destiny of our land and to be a part of it, which has brought us together into one great nation."

In conclusion, I'd say that we're very proud of our country, and we want to make it work. I'm sure that is the commitment of our province and certainly of the government of which I am one representative. We are completely opposed to separatism, be it east, west, central or centrifugal separation. We are today, as we were yesterday and will be tomorrow, for one strong and united Canada.

[ Page 7048 ]

Our country is at its rendezvous with destiny. I'd say that it has to be our commitment to preserve and nurture it, and to convey to the generations who follow us all of that which all of us now enjoy.

MR. HOWARD: We do have a great inheritance in this land. We have an inheritance of a parliamentary system that we enjoy but about which we did very little to attain; that was accomplished in England by the struggle of hundreds and thousands of people long gone from this world. It's an inheritance that we treasure and cherish, and along with it the concepts of rule of law and freedom of speech and the other attendant liberties that today are ours to enjoy, and often we don't pay enough respect to them. Nationhood, in its full meaning — in its cultural sense and emotional sense, historic, geographic, political and certainly human sense — is what we are talking about at this moment. Nationhood, I fully believe, like marriage, has to be worked at all the time, every day, in order to make it a success. Where we are proceeding from this coming weekend onward into the future will require that kind of dedication, that kind of work, to ensure that we make a success of what we have inherited and we continue to advance.

We have symbols like the flag and a national anthem that were a long time in coming to us. They mean more with every passing day. They mean more to our younger generation than they do to those of the older generations who grew up and lived under a different concept of a flag. The action this weekend, though, is not exclusively symbolic, although there is symbolism in it. It is the end of one process, in our view, but more important than that it is the beginning of another. It is the beginning of a period of time in which we, working together, should be able to develop a reverence for the constitution, not with the hope that future generations will remember us for it, but with the hope that future generations will also be able to cherish their history. As conscience is born of love, so in our view will love of Canada build our nation and build our conscience of it.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.