[ Page 7049 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

ICBC opinion survey. Mr. Hall –– 7049

Funding of extended-care hospitals. Mr. Hanson –– 7050

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Barrett –– 7051

Budget Debate

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7052

Mr. Brummet –– 7054

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7058

Mr. Lockstead –– 7061

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7065

Mr. Levi –– 7066

Mr. Skelly –– 7069

Mr. Richmond –– 7073

Tabling Documents

B.C. Steamship Company annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7073

British Columbia Cellulose Company annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 7073

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: One of the honours which this House can from time to time bestow upon public servants is to invite them to the commencement of the sitting and to say a few words. It's a pleasure today, I think for both sides of the House, to introduce to all hon. members and to you, sir, Mr. Daniel Robert Alexander — Bob Alexander. On Friday last Mr. Alexander commenced his retirement from the public service of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: He's younger than i.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I know. It hardly seems possible that he could be retiring. He's younger than most everyone in the room, I think.

His career has been entirely in the Ministry of Finance; it spans some 35 years. He started with the social security and municipal aid office as a senior clerk, with a monthly salary of $180. I understand, in fact, that he started prior to the commencement of the SS and MA tax, under considerable pressure, as that tax was introduced many years ago. In 1949 he became a tax inspector, and in 1950 he commenced in the audit function within the ministry, progressing to chief auditor. In 1965 he was appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, under the then deputy Gerald Bryson. In January 1981 Bob was appointed comptroller-general, the position he left in retirement on Friday.

I think that he exemplifies all that we say so often to each other and to others about the public service of British Columbia. Perhaps the House would wish him well on his retirement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, our caucus — and in particular myself and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — is shocked to learn that Mr. Alexander is retiring; 35 years in public service and he doesn't look a day older than 39. Mr. Alexander has suffered through many Ministers of Finance and weathered them all well. I'm surprised, and a little bit disappointed, that he has decided to leave public service, but I wish him well in his future endeavours.

With the retiring of Bob Alexander, and a number of other people who went through the very lean years in this province when civil servants were spare and the salary was sparse.... They pioneered the development of a non-partisan civil service in this province that in the main has stayed non-partisan. It has been an outstanding source of assistance, guidance and leadership to politicians of all stripes who have asked for their help and received it unreservedly. I want to thank Bob Alexander for that and wish him well in the future.

MR. RITCHIE: It certainly gives me a great honour today, Mr. Speaker, to introduce some bright students from our province who are in your gallery. As you know, our government sponsors the "Reach for the Top" program, and today we have with us the winning team from Nanaimo Senior Secondary School: Dave Long, Larry Reeves, Francis Chan, Peter Roosem, and their coach, John Bradley.

We also have the runner-up team from Southgate Secondary School in Campbell River, consisting of: Chris Luck, Diane Hobenshield, Carla Grebner, and their coach, Gregg Mitchell.

With them is the "Reach for the Top" coordinator from Ronalds-Reynolds Co. Ltd. Would the House please extend a very warm welcome to these very bright students.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I too want to add a word or two regarding the retirement of our friend Bob Alexander. Having worked with him as a minister and also having known him before I was with the government through his capacity as director of social services tax, I can say to all members that he's well respected out there in the retail and commercial community as a highly capable public servant. So I too want to wish him well for his retirement.

MR. LEA: One Finance minister, one ex, and two over here — I think it would be a lot safer with other portfolios. There seem to be more ex-Ministers of Finance around here than anything else.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming a group of students and other people who are working within government offices, along with their professors from Lewis and Clark College in Oregon, who are in the legislative gallery today watching us to see whether we do it better, or to see whether we do it worse, or to see whether we do it indifferently. So I ask you all to be on very good behaviour today — and I'll try.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. In the gallery today visiting us from the lower mainland is a group of representatives of parents' consultative committees in Vancouver, Surrey, West Vancouver and Burnaby school districts. I want the House to acknowledge them, and also the president of the B.C. Horne and School Federation, Mrs. Helene Minishka, and the chairman of the consultative committees for Vancouver, Dorothy Van der Ree. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker. we are all here and we remain here because of the efforts and assistance of good volunteers in our various organizations in our constituencies. I'd like the House to welcome today, two such good volunteers from Surrey–White Rock: Rita and Gordon Adamson.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to welcome to the capital city members of the provincial tourist association, who I had the pleasure of addressing this morning. I hope that they enjoy their visit to Victoria and that they'll meet the minister later on this afternoon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask all members to join in a very cordial welcome to Mr. Roland Bird from London, who is the former deputy editor of the Economist. He is visiting our province on a special assignment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. we have other guests in our gallery: Jennifer and Cathy Hagen from that far-flung comer of the universe called Buraby, and accompanying them, Vincent Varga from Calgary. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

ICBC OPINION SURVEY

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture with regard to his responsibilities as the minister for ICBC. My question is: when did the minister first become aware of an opinion survey, designed by Delphi Consultative Surveys & Research Ltd. of Winnipeg, Manitoba and conducted by Jacqueline Burns Marketing of Vancouver, which contains partisan political questions?

[ Page 7050 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: When I read the newspaper article.

MR. HALL: Now that the minister knows of the survey, can he explain what the Insurance Corporation of B.C. is doing asking political questions in an opinion survey apparently paid for by corporation revenues?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia carries out opinion polls pretty well on an annual basis in order to be somewhat aware of what is going on. This report is confidential; the newspaper article even comments on that. The results of the report have not yet been put to the board of directors of ICBC.

ICBC is an over $600-million-a-year revenue corporation, a large corporation that needs to know what the public is thinking, both in general terms and in terms of the needs of the public for the services provided by that insurance corporation.

With regard to the political overtones that the second member for Surrey may refer to, I am not aware that they were in the report. I am not aware that the insurance corporation needs to know the issues regarding gambling, marijuana and the use thereof, or giving lottery tickets as compensation to the people who return the forms. I will, however, say I am dismayed by what happens to Crown corporation reports that are conducted by management people, or by corporate companies hired by management people, in an attempt to get the feel of what the public wishes and what their thoughts are in general terms and in specific terms dealing with the insurance field. I find it very unfortunate that coverage of that happened to be as it was in the paper on the weekend. But I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) that surveys are done from time to time to give a general feeling of what the public wants, and specifically dealing with insurance matters. As I have mentioned, I am concerned about the type of question included in that survey, and I am also concerned about the availability of a confidential document.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that Crown corporations are entitled to spend corporation revenues on public opinion surveys asking questions about political parties?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the member's question was whether I agree that a Crown corporation should ask questions regarding political parties. That is the interpretation I put on the question. The answer is no, I do not agree with it.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that results of opinion surveys are routinely made public in other jurisdictions, to prevent partisan misuse of such survey information, is the minister now, especially in light of his latter day conversion, prepared to table the results of the survey?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker. It is a management opinion poll to give information to the management of ICBC. I will not use it as a "political foil," as the second member for Surrey would.

MR. HALL: The minister refuses to table the copy of the information. Will the minister at least tell the House at some date what the survey cost the corporation?

MR. BARRETT: That's confidential too.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have just one point of clarification. It is not "public funds" that are spent on that survey. It is insurance premiums that are spent on the survey, as the second member for Surrey well knows.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think I've touched a soft spot.

I'd like to ask a question of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Does he have a copy of that report?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we cannot proceed until we have order.

MR. HALL: In view of the fact that the minister will not not table the information regarding the political material this Crown corporation has sought from the public of British Columbia and will not table the cost of that political survey, will the minister now seek cabinet approval to use public funds to survey the public as to whether the Social Credit Party has any credibility left at all in the matter of public auto insurance?

FUNDING OF EXTENDED-CARE HOSPITALS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is well known to the minister that there is a critical need in greater Victoria, as elsewhere in British Columbia, for freeing up acute-care beds in hospitals that are occupied by long-term care people. Just recently, as the ultimate absurdity in this government's funding of extended care hospitals.... For example, the Juan de Fuca hospital here in Victoria, operating seven units, is going to close beds as a result of inadequate funding — leave them to empty by attrition. Over the next six months they're serving notice to 128 on-call people and leaving 105 extended-care beds shut down.

How can the minister possibly not decide to adequately fund these extended-care hospitals when there are long waiting lists to get into the acute-care hospitals? Those beds are occupied by long-term care patients. They need to go to an extended-care unit, and those beds are going to be left empty because of your funding. Have you decided to adequately fund extended-care hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the second member for Victoria has been in the House enough to know that the purpose of question period is not to bring information to the House, but rather to seek information from the administration.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to my region to get an answer to this question. How can the minister justify the closure of 105 extended-care beds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the second member for Victoria is using information culled from a newspaper, a broadcast report, or where that information may be coming from. He has reached a number of conclusions — based on what information, I just don't know. I'll be pleased to advise the member and the House as

[ Page 7051 ]

to the funding for Juan de Fuca for this fiscal year and any projected effect it may have on the number of beds and patient-days for 1982-83. In very general terms, the hospital has a net increase in its budget of approximately 10 percent. I don't know what effect they may have decided it will have on their patient-days, or the number of beds, but I'll be pleased to have officials look into Juan de Fuca specifically to see what effect this year's budget may have on the service they offer.

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business. I would like to ask the minister whether the government has decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Rail will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the question is out of order because it's not urgent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition may have a different question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the minister a question about B.C. Rail and the Tumbler Ridge branch line. I'll repeat the question: has the government decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Rail will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the question is out of order on two counts: it is not urgent and it involves policy.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we are all aware of the rules of question period. The question can he proffered, and an answer may not necessarily be expected.

MR. BARRETT: You're ruling, then, that the question is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the minister himself is free to do with the question as he wishes.

MR. BARRETT: As I understand it the question is in order, and I will repeat it to the minister so he understands clearly what he's been asked in terms of the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars that the people of British Columbia are paying for right now. Has the government decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line?

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the government decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are a number of matters with respect to funding of British Columbia Rail activities which are still in the developmental stage insofar as the government is concerned, and I am afraid I cannot assist the member further on that particular point. It is a matter of developing policy.

MR. BARRETT: Would it be incorrect, based on your answer, for any member of this House to state flatly that the government has decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line?

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Minister of Finance answers I must caution members that Beauchesne provides that repeating questions is not in order, not even by varying their structure slightly. That is at page 171, sections (c) and (d).

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I can give the member no guidance on that particular question at this point.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He attributed to me, saying "Shame!" or some similar words, that somehow I had a copy of his poll. Mr. Speaker, that political answer will only go to the Socreds. I have not got a copy of it. And I think it's a shocking, shameful thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like your opinion or ruling. When members of the opposition are asking members of cabinet questions during question period, is it not up to you, sir, to decide whether those questions are in order or out of order? In that it is true that it is up to you and your office, then I wonder if you can instruct members of the cabinet to keep their opinions to themselves and wait for the Chair; because it takes time out of question period, which is precious time that we don't want to waste.

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order, hon. members, there is one kind of question which is very difficult for the Chair to rule on, and that is on the question of urgency. The Chair could not possibly be apprised of every urgent matter in the province, Therefore the question of urgency may be extreme in the view of the questioner, and it may not exist at all in the eyes of the administration. If the Chair is to rule on a matter of urgency, the Chair has to leave that between the members.

However, I think that it deserves reviewing that any question — even if it is in order — does not necessarily bring an answer, and an answer cannot be expected. I think the Chair has cautioned on that on several occasions.

[ Page 7052 ]

MR. BARRETT: I regret to raise with Your Honour a point of privilege which I will state briefly and then add to it a motion.

Mr. Speaker, as soon as I could get your attention — we're just a few moments from question period.... I asked in this House the following question: Has the government decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for the British Columbia Railway Co. will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line? The response of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was that the government has further ongoing proposals and has not yet made a decision in this regard.

I bring to your attention the statement made by the Minister of Finance to this House on budget delivery day, and I quote from page 40: "Long-term borrowing forecast for the British Columbia Railway Company will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line." The minister informed this House on budget day that indeed the long-term borrowing forecast for the B.C. Railway would be so used, and specifically named $100 million to do that; but when asked in the House today he made a statement contrary to the statement made in the budget.

This is a matter of privilege. The minister has misled the House, either on budget day or in his answer today. I'm making by motion a request to you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, that this matter be sent to a committee of the House to investigate why the minister has given two conflicting statements to the House, one in his speech on the budget and another in answer to the question today. This province is being driven into massive debt on the B.C. Railway for Tumbler Ridge, and we have been given two different answers.

I so move, and would appreciate some time on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: For clarification of the House, the motion is not moved at this time. If we find a prima facie case of privilege, it will be moved at that time. The Chair will reserve decision.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it's clear by the clock that the world is approaching a point of crisis. The sun has now set in the South Atlantic. The Royal Navy is now steaming towards either the Falkland Islands or the Islas Malvinas, depending on your point of view, and it's all very relevant to this budget. The reason it's relevant is that the Argentine junta, the generals, have decided to escape from the wrath of their own ineptitude, from the inefficiencies of their bureaucracy, their unemployment and their massive inflation of well over 100 percent. Instead of facing the reality of the problems that face their nation, they have decided to pick on 200 small, relatively defenceless islands. History will decide whom they belong to, but certainly the 1,600 people who live on the islands, and their families and homes, did not deserve the wrath of the Argentineans. The cost for the Argentineans to divert attention from their plight — a self inflicted wound, I might add — is going to be massive.

Since the days of Evita Peron, Argentina, which is an enormously wealthy nation in not only people but in land mass and resources, has spent more money than they've taken in. As a result of that spending, they have had economic chaos, they have had disaster, and now they have incurred the wrath of Mrs. Thatcher, the Iron Lady. While they may have temporarily solved an unemployment problem by drafting into the Argentine military everyone who could possibly be unemployed, they are going to wreak disaster upon them. It's unfortunate, and I think we all pray for the efforts of General Haig in his Kissinger-style diplomacy. It's very unfortunate, but I'm sure if the people of the Falkland Islands had asked the Home Office in London for some money for a neighbourhood improvement or an airport expansion or a sewage treatment plant or a radio station or a school or a college they would have been turned down. One hour of this military chaos would probably exceed all of the wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands for at least 15 years, maybe longer. I'm sure that already the military have expended more money in this particular disastrous foray than the Falkland Islands have ever produced in their entire time that people have been able to produce a gross national product from these islands. I guess this problem faces other countries as well; they have less drastic measures. We see bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies in a number of countries around the world. Every one of them face the same problem: the governments fail to address the fact that their revenues were not up to their expectations and their expenditures were well in excess of what they could afford. They did the usual trick that governments do and borrowed a little extra money.

It's interesting to note that in this year none of the other provinces in Canada, except one, has introduced its provincial budget, because they all face the same problems. I think our Minister of Finance is to be congratulated for having brought in his budget. Yes, it's traditionally later than it normally is. Every other province is facing the same problem of trying to come to grips with Ottawa as to all of the cost-sharing programs. I think that by the time the other provinces file their budgets we will see that we are relatively well off in British Columbia — in fact, very well off, I think, would be the best way to put it.

There is a new political force growing in western Canada which, quite frankly, scares me. It is a political force known as the Western Canada Concept, and it is based on what I think are some incorrect theories. It's based on the fact that western Canada has, perhaps rightfully, been shortchanged by eastern Canada; it's based on the fact that people in the west are not happy with the protectionism that has been offered industry in eastern Canada; it's based on a distrust of metrification and all that metrification brings into the world; mostly it's based on a dislike for the Prime Minister and a dislike for the national energy program. I maintain, and I would think that every member of this House would maintain, that it's possible to dislike all those things — central Canada's protectionism of industry, metrification, and even dislike for the Prime Minister and the national energy program — and still be a very good Canadian.

This nation is very wealthy — culturally because of Quebec, but not culturally because of Rene Levesque. We are all very well off because of our association with eastern Canada. Our poor neighbours in the east — and they are poorer that we are; they are less fortunate in the Maritime

[ Page 7053 ]

provinces.... We've got a lot from them over the years: a lot of our immigrants have come from there; a lot of us have come from there. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. It is vitally important that we understand what this nation is and why we want to stay together and why there is every reason to think that in the passing of time the Prime Minister, who is not totally invincible, will be gone. There will be a new order in Ottawa. It is our Canadian heritage that we negotiate with our neighbours internally in this country rather than split apart. If we do, and if the Western Canada Concept grows, and if its people win support and if that wonderful day comes when in their mind western Canada separates, indeed western Canada will be a wealthier area; indeed western Canada will be culture-free. It will probably be rid of metrification and be rid of anything in the second official language in Canada; they will probably be rid of the CBC. All of those things to which they aspire will make us nothing more than a balkanized country. And, just as sure as I'm standing here, we will be swallowed up by our friendly neighbour to the south — or not so friendly neighbour, depending on how you look at it. There is absolutely no way that western Canada can stand on its own and have any credibility in the world. As the rest of the country would split up around us.... Quebec has had its temper tantrums; that is in their nature. Quebec often threatens to leave. They are like a child at a baseball game who says, "It's my ball and I'm going to go home. " We really know they can't afford to leave. In their heart of hearts, even when they were fired up with all the zeal they could muster, when they were asked the question, of course they decided not to stay. They're not happy, but the way to work these things out is to work them out together and not to separate. The people in the province of Quebec have a lot more reason to feel alienated than the people in western Canada do, because our alienation is strictly based on economics, not on a feeling of cultural inferiority or cultural suppression. That is what the people of Quebec have had, have suffered through and have brought to the light of Canadians, and I think it is now well received in the rest of Canada.

This political party, which is in its very embryonic stages but is getting a substantial degree of support and enthusiasm whipped up for it, is full of platitudes and cheap political statements. But in their heart of hearts I don't believe the people who support them would be supporting them if they felt they could exercise their frustrations in some other way and have a little more representation in Ottawa. I guess they feel that the representation that we have in Ottawa is not going to be on their side, and they feel uncomfortable about it.

I hope for the sake of this province and of all Canadians that they're unsuccessful in their quest for election in the province of Saskatchewan at the present time. I hope they have a national convention and that someone stands up and speaks his mind so that concerned Canadians can judge them for what they say they are, rather than for what they're touted as saying by a number of people who don't officially represent them but claim to have membership.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that's all I wish to say about the Western Canada Concept party. I'm sure over the next year or so we're going to hear more about them until we hear less about them or until we hear far too much about them — whichever way it goes. I think that in the quiet and privacy of the polling booth the people of British Columbia won't support the position that the people of Olds-Didsbury did. I think when they woke up in Olds-Didsbury on the following morning it was the greatest surprise they ever had.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to be involved with the development of British Columbia Place, which is proceeding at the speed at which it was proposed. It is a tribute to all British Columbians, and it's a tribute to the workers of British Columbia who are building this project, the engineers, the contractors and the suppliers, because the project is proceeding on time and on budget. You'd never know it from reading Maclean's magazine, but there are a number of people in the rest of Canada who are standing up and paying attention.

We were recently interviewed and had great exposure in some of the American cities which have come to notice what we're doing at B.C. Place. On the Easter weekend we had an open house so that the taxpayers of the province who were able to be in the city could have a look. It was more than we expected. Despite the weather — the rain and the mud and the rest of it — there were 10,000-plus sidewalk superintendents who took time off to come down and wander through the project. That's a number which not many people would have expected. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the fascinating parts about it is that some television people went down there and wasted a whole can of film trying to get what's called the balanced approach, because they couldn't get too many people who didn't like the project. It must have been a disappointment for them, because no matter who they tried, they were very impressed with the project — and well they should be, because it's a tribute to everybody in B.C.

We do continue, Mr. Speaker; and for a government project of any type. I don't think there has ever been as much public involvement and as many public meetings. I'm going to take pleasure in tabling these two documents. I don't know how often a Crown corporation has been able to table a document in Chinese, but since a lot of the neighbours of B.C. Place speak Chinese as their first and in some cases their only language I m going to table this copy as well as one in English which we've circulated. We have had excellent response to public meetings which have taken place in a number of locations in the communities around B.C. Place. We've had some rather strange responses from some people. But in time, I think, the public have had their opportunity to come and speak.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Premier and other members of cabinet involved in Expo had successful negotiations with the federal government in which the Prime Minister — on the federal side, at least, assisted my colleague, the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman)....

This morning the Prime Minister cut the ribbon to start the federal government's pier at Expo. The commitment for the federal government to become involved and to complete the trade and convention centre and also to give us the commitment to assist in Expo has been warmly received.

Some people were under the misapprehension that B.C. Place was wishing Expo would go away. It's actually to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, because we needed and wanted a tenant, and that was the premise under which we first went into the venture. We're delighted that they have finally not only decided to come but secured the method of financing that they're going to use. I look forward to a very long and interesting relationship with my colleague and the members of his board as we proceed along to Expo.

The city of Knoxville — in the next two weeks, I believe is going to open Expo 82, which is the world's fair on energy. I had the privilege of being in Knoxville some time ago, and it was a deja vu; they managed to visit unto us all of those nay-sayers and doom-and-gloomers that we're cur-

[ Page 7054 ]

rently having visited under this very project. So I'm sure it's going to be a success. I think with a diligent watch on the pennies, and on the dollars as well, it's going to be a big help for B.C. Place.

Our main goal at B.C. Place is to develop this largest urban renewal project in the city of Vancouver — and probably, I'm told, in North America. We've had a group of international design experts come and look at our plans and our proposals. And, as I say, we're discussing it with the public. The international experts — including some Canadians — think our housing density is not dense enough. That's a matter which we are still negotiating with the city of Vancouver. But, in the main, our goal is to make affordable housing for working Canadians. I tend to insist that we continue to work towards that goal, with a percentage of housing for people who require assistance, and also a small percentage of housing for those people in what I'd refer to as the upper income brackets. But the great majority of our housing will be affordable housing for working Canadians, and I hope that we can have an agreement with the city of Vancouver so that we can proceed with that.

Of course, my colleague, the minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and his pet project as well as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who is chairing the ALRT project, are also working with us. They are currently realigning the Dunsmuir Tunnel to accommodate the first branch of the ALRT line, which will not only have a station at the stadium site, but will also have another station at the far eastern side of the B.C. Place site.

Those two programs together will, I think, make Vancouver the.... Vancouver has all the physical attributes to make it a great city and it needs some of the concrete and structural attributes. By the time these projects are finished, Vancouver will sit on the map along with many of the great cities of the world. It's a project that I know everybody supports, although, of course, there's some occasional ventilation on the other side about whether or not we should be proceeding with these projects.

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I had the privilege of addressing the British Columbia Wildlife Federation's annual convention for the third time, and that sets a record for Ministers of Environment. In doing that I'm the first minister since Ken Kiernan to go to three in a row and come out with my scalp.

It was a very interesting convention. As members will know, the fees for angling and hunting in British Columbia were increased by cabinet some months ago. The B.C. Wildlife Federation represents all the member clubs for hunting and fishing throughout the province. Not only do they support the increase, but they also support the fact that a portion of their increase has been given over to the budget of the fish and wildlife branch, so there isn't going to be an increase in our production. We have had a tendency to grow faster than the rate of growth of the population.

Faster than any other growth is the number of people who choose to use the outdoor recreational opportunities in this province, especially angling. Last year we sold over 500,000 inland fishing licences in British Columbia. Our several hatcheries located around the province produced eight million fish, and our angler success has gone down from about four fish a day per fisherman to about 1.4 fish a day. It's our desire and intention to increase that production to a point where the success rate grows some more.

Another group of fees included in the recent fee increases were the fees for trappers. Included in the wildlife section of this year's budget is an amount of $50,000, which will be used to directly offset the cost incurred by trappers who are going to retire their inhumane traps in accordance with the government's policy of switching from the leghold to the more humane killer traps.

I've announced that a committee will assist me in this work. It is made up of a member of the United Native Nations, a member of the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the president of the trappers' association and a fur biologist from my ministry. That committee of four will not only make recommendations for further restrictions in our trapping regulations, but will also advise how this particular money should be spent and who should be assisted in the first year.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this year 97 percent of the animals taken by the trappers in this province were taken on humane traps. It's my hope and desire that, with the assistance of these gentlemen, at such time in the future as we are able to totally eliminate the trap we will do so. In the meantime we are following the recommendations of the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping.

Mr. Speaker, every government can borrow money for worthwhile expenditures to spend themselves out of a recession. It is a temptation that clearly has been yielded to by thousands of governments, whether it is the government of Canada or the government of the United States or others. Fortunately the government of British Columbia has not had to do that in recent times. The difficulty is that when you are in a recession and decide to borrow money for what is a poor time and spend it again in what is a better time, nobody ever wants to say: "The good times have now come and there will be no increase in service, no increase in budgets and no program enrichments. Instead, we'll maintain the status quo. We won't reduce any taxes, but what we're going to do is pay off old debts." I've never heard that said in a budget speech anywhere. I doubt that it ever has been said. What in fact happens is that the borrowing just continues to grow. And that is a quagmire which this Minister of Finance has worked very hard to try to avoid, and has avoided in this year's budget. We have gone to the so-called "rainy day accounts" and we're borrowing — we're dipping into the rainy day accounts. If President Reagan decides that he wants to get re-elected, if the Republican caucus in the United States decide that they want to try to turn around their housing industry and if one or two other things happen, things are going to be better in British Columbia again pretty soon. But that's an iffy question, because we're not sure of the success.

As I conclude my remarks this afternoon — because I had house guests this weekend and the husband was from Britain and the wife was from Argentina — I would give my prayers to General Haig and to those people that some common sense can prevail before people get macho and decide to start blowing holes through each other, because it may sound good at the beginning, but it's awfully painful for everybody else involved.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the budget and opposing this amendment.

MR. BRUMMET: I think I can see why the members of the opposition are somewhat reluctant to support the amendment that their leader moved, because it really says very little and offers nothing in a positive way. While I'm speaking of

[ Page 7055 ]

the Leader of the Opposition, I think when he spoke in this House the other day he made certain allegations and certain challenges in referring to the WCC. In referring to myself as the member of the North Peace River constituency, he suggested that I had in no way responded to the WCC concept and that by not responding I had in effect given tacit approval to the principle of separation which they are espousing. Mind you, I believe that member does live in the small world of his own mind and so takes no trouble to learn about what other people do in this province. He uses the records of this House to make statements to the effect that I had done nothing about the WCC. Well, I would like to correct that. In my weekly MLA report of March 27, which I circulated to the media in my area, I made the following statement:

"I suppose I should comment on the WCC movement which has recently surfaced. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric and a number of unattainable promises, the only concept really different that they are offering is independence for western Canada. I am old fashioned enough to believe that divorce is not the best solution for settling family differences. Other people may not see it that way, but that is their democratic right. As for myself, though I am very dissatisfied with the present federal system, I am not prepared to support the cause of separatism, and I'm prepared to live with that decision."

As further evidence of what I said, when the Leader of the Opposition's comments were reported last week — and his attack that I had given approval — the editor of my local newspaper came up with the following comment:

"And the good NDP leader was in error on one thing at least when he lambasted the Socreds on Wednesday for being soft on separatism. He accused Tony Brummet of never publicly renouncing it and hinted that he might even be sympathetic. I have talked with Brummet and I can categorically state that he is not sympathetic to the WCC. Further, he has stated this publicly both on the radio and in his MLA report published a few weeks ago in this paper."

I would hope that clears that up. I took my position and yet that Leader of the Opposition uses this House to try to make statements attributable to me or to my thinking, and I think he's acting in the usual irresponsible way of trying to get out a message that is incorrect. I guess I shouldn't be too hard on that Leader of the Opposition. After all, he is a man of principles — many principles, one set for every occasion. I'm speaking against this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because the budget that we have before us is a good budget. It's realistic and it is responsible. It acknowledges the economic conditions that we're facing at this time and it recognizes the need for responsible financial management under those circumstances. That budget seeks to resolve problems, not to compound them by increased taxation or by going into operating debt. As I said, it is a responsible budget; it is responsible action to deal with present circumstances and conditions. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to use a little analogy from physics. We've heard a lot about balancing the budget, as though that was something wrong. Yet the analogy of a balancing scale could help to illustrate the point that if we have revenues taken in on this side and expenditures on that side; it seems to make sense to try to keep them in balance. That is what responsible financial management is — it should be in government. In private industry — or anywhere else it has to happen that way — revenues have to balance expenditures or the business goes under. In business they have to earn the revenue; they cannot simply pass legislation to extract more revenue from the revenue-producers. If that is kept in balance we have good management. If, on the other hand, expenditures exceed revenues it goes out of balance. If we assume that the fulcrum tilts in the direction where expenditures outweigh the revenues generated, we have created a situation that can only compound the problem. As illustrated, you then have a downhill situation, and it can only go downhill in the future.

If I could just carry on with the analogy, once we have this situation, then we have an operating debt where the debt outweighs the revenue. Of course, the only way to correct that situation is to take some of that weight off the expenditures, and the only way you can do it is to take revenue from the other side. What those opposition members can't seem to understand — call it physics, — call it simple common sense — is that when you have debt overbalancing the revenue, the only way you can correct this is to take far more from this side in order to take the load off this side. Every time you take far more from the revenue, you just increase the tilt and the problem compounds itself. I think anyone knows that to lessen that debt load takes a lot more from revenue, when you consider interest, in order to create any sort of balance once again.

They talk about this balancing. They try to create — irresponsibly, in my opinion — the impression that they would do this better by increasing government expenditure. I think it is irresponsible of them not to tell the people that when they increase government expenditures it comes from the taxpayers in one form or another. We certainly had an example of that when their philosophy was put to the test, when it was put into policy and into action. They started out with a balance — as a matter of fact, better than a balance — and in less than three years they just took from that revenue side and kept adding to the expenditure side, so that it became completely unbalanced and created real problems in this province. The people realize that it might be an interesting philosophy, but when it was put into action they created an imbalance that they would have to pay for in the future. The people of British Columbia realized that and, to my knowledge, there is only one case in recent history where a government has taken that imbalance — that this opposition created — and managed to turn it around in a short time. Fortunately they had been in only a short time; otherwise it would have been much worse. The Social Credit government was able to go back in and, yes, take more revenue — get more things to pay for themselves so that the revenue side would balance the expenditure side more on its own. They had to increase the sales tax and they had to make a few hard moves in order to restore that balance. I think it is interesting that British Columbia was on a path of prosperity before the NDP came in in 1972, and within a short time, after 1976 when the Social Credit government got back in, we were again on the road to prosperity.

Now we hear a lot of talk about how difficult it is, blaming this government for what is happening. In the short term, certainly we could alleviate some of the problems we are facing now by adopting the misguided socialist policy that you prop the thing up by taking more money from those revenue-producers, putting it back into the economy to keep more people working. But they don't realize that doing so destroys the revenue-producers, eliminates them, and sooner or later you run out of money and can't keep the thing going in any way, shape or form.

[ Page 7056 ]

We have to act responsibly and have to use the prosperity of the past years in order to make do at this time. While we're making do, this government is also injecting into the economy more than it's taking out, and that has to be a fantastic achievement in a difficult time: to put more back into the economy, to stimulate that economy, to stimulate job creation. It is able to do that, to keep things going, and at the same time is able to look at the major projects that are going to restore our profitability.

I know we're criticized a great deal for the northeast coal project. I know it is often attacked. I would again say this is an irresponsible action by the opposition. There are a lot of ups and downs in any program, in any project, and they capitalize on every negative, minuscule item in order to try to turn public opinion against the project, which is going to develop the resources that can be marketed. They create false hopes by pretending they could keep sawmills operating when nobody's buying the lumber. That happens to be so typical of the socialist philosophy: Keep it open somehow; don't worry about whether it sells, don't worry about where the money comes from. Just keep it operating in order to keep people happy right now. They don't seem to recognize that when you do that, the day of reckoning is not far away.

So we have these irresponsible statements by our opposition, who say: "If we were government, we would have the woodworkers working." Doing what? Stockpiling lumber? We have to create markets. Yet they protest against the northeast coal. There is a market for coal. We've heard statements that the markets are going to collapse. If the markets are going to collapse, I find it strange that the buyers are upping the price for southeast coal in negotiation, that they are increasing contracts in northeast coal. In yesterday's paper there was indication of another contract signed by another country, yet they're trying to tell the people of this province that there is no market for coal down the road. Certainly the Japanese are astute businessmen, and they are hardly going to sign long-term contracts if they do not see that they're going to be using the coal.

The other thing we hear so much about is that the NDP would stop the northeast coal development if they were government. Then they add a little rider so that they can sit on both sides of the fence: " — unless the Japanese agree to our terms." Here again, we see a completely unrealistic perspective on the world situation. Just last week there was an announcement that the United States is gearing up to try to develop their coal resources for export. Other countries such as Australia and South Africa are building port facilities so as to export something like 90 million tonnes a year. Yet this irresponsible Leader of the Opposition says, "Well, we would negotiate a better price." Do we really think we're the only place in the world that has coal, and everybody has to come to our terms? No, we have to be realistic, and this government is realistic. I think they got a very good price for that coal. I think that coal will continue to go.

The northeast coal we're talking about is only the beginning, because when the railroads and port facilities are in place, it will be that much easier to negotiate the next contract. As has been proven by the southeast coal deal, as has been proven wherever the facilities are in place, it is then easy to negotiate the sale of other products that we can market. We have to be realistic in this world. We have to consider more than how much we want for our product. You don't sell anything until someone is willing to buy it and pay a certain price for it. That's what we have to consider in this world.

We've heard a great deal about the skilled tradesman shortage we're going to have in this province. That is one problem that did not develop during the NDP years in government. We did not have a shortage of skilled tradesmen. As a matter of fact, we were needing fewer and fewer of them all the time. I think it's a compliment from that opposition to say to this government: Hey, you're creating a shortage of skilled tradespeople. To me, isn't it wonderful that we're going to have a shortage, that we can look at a shortage in the near future?

I'd like to say at this time that I don't think we need to import skilled tradespeople into this province. I think we have the opportunity to develop our own. I think we have the people here who are willing to learn. I think we do have to break out of some of the straitjackets that we've got ourselves into in trying to say that before somebody can do a skilled job he has to jump through so many hoops.

There is a need for people to learn. There is a willingness by those people to learn. Unfortunately, every once in a while they sit down and they systematize it. They create a sort of program; they've got to program the thing. So it does not happen any more. We have to have four-year delays in getting skilled tradesmen. I don't think we need that. I think we've got the people there right in our area who can do the job and do it well.

I use history as an example: when the oil and gas industry came to British Columbia, we did not have any skilled tradesmen in that industry. Because the need and desire were there, within a few years we developed a skilled workforce in the oil and gas industry that is the envy of the world and is now being imported to other parts of the world in order to help with their oil and gas industry. That is a fact. That happened. Fortunately it wasn't systematized to the point where it couldn't be allowed to happen.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We hear a lot about how if the NDP, the socialists, were in government they would train all kinds of people; they would give training in skills, they would provide this wonderful education. I come from the field of education, and I'm very concerned about our young people being able to get that education and the skills. But I'm also a pragmatist. I think there is a need for them to have some place to use those skills if they're going to acquire them; they need some place to use that training. That is what our government is doing. They are doing the training to the extent possible, and at the same time they are taking steps for economic development so that those people will have some place to go when they are trained and educated. There's not much point in trying to train people when there will be no jobs in the future.

We've heard a lot of criticism about these megaprojects. Mr. Speaker, if you really analyze every one of these megaprojects, they are not the monuments that the opposition tries to say they are. Every one of those projects is thought out not only in terms of how we are going to benefit while they are being built; they are also going to have continuing benefits into the future. They are going to have many jobs. They are going to attract other investment. They are going to attract many other workers, and they are going to attract tourists and so on from many places. So we are building projects and putting our people to work, and we're also ensuring that in the future those projects will generate more jobs and more revenue to keep the services in place that the people in this province have come to expect.

[ Page 7057 ]

When I talk about the services that the people in this province have come to expect, I'd like to go back. I was in this province in the forties. I also know that we were a have not province. For all of the picayune attacks and criticism that we get now, I have to look at the broader picture. It was when Social Credit came to power in this province that they started developing, against the criticism of the opposition, the energy projects in this province. They looked around the world and they realized that energy is the key to industrial development, and that industrial development is the key to prosperity. We have to use up our resources, and we have to develop those resources. If you put that together, as the Social Credit government did in the years before 1972.... They developed a supply of energy; they developed the resources; they put in the transportation and communication links to make them possible. Within a very short time, in historical terms, this province came from a have-not position in Canada to be one of the most prosperous provinces in this country. It had a setback, but for all of the attacks, for all of the nitpicking from the negative opposition, from 1976 on this province has prospered.

Yes, we have a depression now — recession, if you like — but I'll tell you one thing: even this opposition says we're going to have a shortage of workmen in this province within a very short time. How then do they have the audacity to say that we're ruining the province, when they say we're not going to have enough people to do all the jobs that are coming up? It's certainly not their doing, Mr. Speaker. It's Social Credit policy, not socialist philosophy, that has made this province great and will do so again.

You can look around: they're against any electrical development; they're against any coal development for Hydro, and yet all over this world, anybody who has the resources to develop electrical energy is doing so. Why? To make it better for their people and to attract industries. I know that in the last election they were in favour of Hat Creek coal, because they had to be in favour of something, but now I see they've changed that position again; now they're against Hat Creek coal. They're committed to never having any more hydro projects in this province, yet Ontario, Quebec, and all of these provinces are doing everything they can to gear up their hydro. Even Manitoba wants to build hydro projects — even under an NDP government. At least they've got more sense than the people here because they've been negative for so long that all they can see is being against whatever is going.

When you talk about B.C. Place or any of these projects, we're attacked for megaprojects. Even Vancouver council — their mayor, I guess.... He's so committed to the NDP here that he had to come out and vote against Transpo '86. You can just check the records of February; the mayor of Vancouver voted against Transpo '86. Fortunately more councilmen there had some sense, and they voted in favour of asking the federal and provincial governments to come to terms and please build Transpo '86 because it's going to do great things for Vancouver. Yet the Vancouver members on that socialist side were against it. I don't understand it. I'll tell you one thing, that if the mayor of Vancouver and the socialist members are against it, all you have to do is give us that money and put it out in the rural or northern areas where people appreciate the kind of thing that creates development, jobs and work. Yet, when the projects are announced, oh, yes, they're there, saying: "Well, I think they're a great thing, but we would have done it better."

About all one can really say about northeast coal and some of these other projects is that what you read out of the rhetoric is that our opposition seems to be saying: "Well, look, we've got to find a loophole here. We've got to find a catch, because this is too good to be true; there has to be some sort of a catch." So they spend all their time looking for that catch.

As I've said on a few occasions, Mr. Speaker.... I use this analogy. We've done a lot of riverboating, and we go up a lot of rivers, and some of them are very shallow when we get anywhere near the top. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: those of us who look for the channels, for the paths by which you can get further up, always get much further up the river than those people who look for the obstacles and say: "You can't get by that." I think the same thing applies in government. This government has made British Columbia prosperous. The Social Credit government has made this a prosperous province, because they have looked for the way to get there, and our opposition constantly looks for what blockades there are. What are the obstacles? As long as they are looking at obstacles, I hope they keep looking for them, because whenever you're looking for obstacles, you're going to find them and you're not going to get anywhere. So I'm certainly much more in favour of looking for the channels and the paths that we can go up.

As I've said, Mr. Speaker. they seem to like to capitalize for political expediency on every negative little thing that happens — they cash in on them. In life there are always good things happening and there are always some setbacks, always some negative things that are happening in anybody's life, in any company, organization or government — all you have to do is look around. If you just look, you can always find something to criticize. I guess their hope is that if they can find ten people here against something and if they speak up on their behalf, they get those ten votes; and if they find ten more against some other picayune thing, they hope that in the long run that will add up. But I think the people of British Columbia are much more broad-minded than that. They can see the total picture, and they see these setbacks as details.

Talking about irresponsibility, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has gone to every paper in this province, as nearly as I can gather, saying that the new lease policies are going to prevent access to recreational lands. The fact is that in every case — in all the checking that I have done — provision is made for any existing trails and roads that are necessary to provide access. These are being provided for, much more than they were in the past. Yet we have people upset because they say: "You're not going to allow us to go across this land." The provision is made for them to go across this land. Provision is made for them to go across there. Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, that's irresponsible; it upsets a lot of people, and it is not correct. But I suppose that member relies on the fact that if you throw enough mud some of it is bound to stick. I find that very irresponsible of that opposition. I keep using that term "irresponsible," but I can't think of a better term. I could go on for some time, Mr. Speaker, on this irresponsible amendment to the budget, which says nothing positive once again, but then we're used to that. It adds nothing. It offers no solutions. If you sum it up in a nutshell, it says: "Hey, they're bad guys, and that's all that we've got to say." Indicative of how weak that amendment is is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) talked about me, WCC, and a whole bunch of things and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and spent very little time

[ Page 7058 ]

dealing with the budget itself, which presumably his amendment was dealing with.

Then we have the situation where we've had very little support from that opposition for that amendment and even a reluctance to get up and speak in favour of it. So I think that's a pretty good sign of what that amendment really has been saying.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot about the restraint program and the irresponsible attitude of that opposition trying to tell people that if the socialists were elected in this province we wouldn't have to have restraint, and that there are certain people who don't have to be part of that restraint. In private industry in this province, we have a very real restraint program going on. It's basically because we do not have the markets for the goods that we have. We have the goods, and we're trying to diversify those markets, so we're going to be back on the road to prosperity very shortly. But they are saying: "Oh, no, it doesn't take markets, all it takes is government spending." They do not say that when you go into that kind of debt you pay the price down the road.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I'm getting very negative. I like to think somewhat positive, and then you get some of these irresponsible statements of that opposition where they are saying one thing to the people and not telling them the whole truth. They say: "We can spend a lot more on you and give you everything you want, and we're the good guys." They don't tell them what happened when they tried it once; in three years the good guys certainly didn't last as good guys, because they found out that when you spend money, sooner or later you have to pay the bills. The only place you get those bills from is those people that you've been giving all those wonderful goodies to. So I'm in favour of that restraint program. I think all of society has to participate in it. You can't say: "Well, yes, we know that there is a recession on, but count me out, because we have a party in British Columbia that says: 'We'll support you. You can be counted out of this recession.' " You can't. So I think they have to take their obligation. Many of these people are willing to contribute their share in this restraint program in order to bring the balance back, because they've seen it happen before and they've seen the beneficial results from that.

One thing I would like to conclude with, Mr. Speaker, on a more positive vein: we've talked a lot about restraint and all of this money spending, but as I understand it, this week in British Columbia and throughout North America we have a week designated as Volunteer Recognition Week. Mr. Speaker, I think we should recognize the contribution that the volunteers in this province make to keep the whole system going: the volunteer workers; the volunteer members of boards that work in many communities in order to make possible the jobs that some people get as a result of the volunteer and free efforts of those board members; the volunteer members in the political parties who work very hard in order to keep the grass roots involved in the process; and the volunteers who, in so many ways in this province, Mr. Speaker, keep this system going. I would hate to think what would happen if we ever get to the point where we lose those volunteers.

I would like to conclude my comments this afternoon by recognizing the contributions of the many sincere volunteers in this province who make it go.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have 40,000 good reasons for speaking for the.budget and against this amendment that has been placed before us. We have 40,000 good reasons to speak against and to vote against this amendment, and I'm going to give you some of them.

I'm going to start today with a couple of happy and positive announcements. A lot of good, positive things have been happening in our province, and I refer to a very special event that occurred just in the last few days. Probably Canada's best children's hospital was officially opened on Friday last, and I'd like to pay tribute to our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and to a former Minister of Health, now our Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who spearheaded that complex. Everyone who was there is proud of that needed and very attractive facility. I know members on all sides of the House will be proud of that facility, which will serve British Columbians from the South Peace, North Peace and north Vancouver Island. Children will come from all over the province, not just from the lower mainland and the city of Vancouver. It's exciting to have at last a sophisticated, exciting program that will address research for children, because it's a highly sophisticated research and teaching hospital as well. I think great things will flow from it. Parents all over the province who have or will have children in need of care will rejoice that this hospital is now finished, and it will be receiving its first patients in May.

I want to give you another positive announcement, a $42 million announcement that I had the honour, on behalf of our ministry, to give today to the media and, through the media, to the people of British Columbia. The announcement is of increases in our GAIN rates. I'm proud of that announcement, just as I have been proud of other announcements concerning help to the needy which I have made on behalf of the Ministry of Human Resources during the years I have had the privilege of representing this portfolio. A $42 million announcement, in light of all the doom and gloom we have heard, is, I think, an exceptionally good announcement at this time. It addresses those people who are at the lowest end of the economic scale in this province, those who are on income assistance, and I'm really pleased that we've been able to announce that kind of money today. It also addresses changes in policy in terms of bringing a little extra help to single parents, which I think will be well accepted by the single parents of our province.

I believe this keeps our rates among the highest in Canada, and I would again think members on all sides of the House would agree with that kind of initiative. May I say that we're very fortunate in this province. Not many jurisdictions could give that increase in any given province across this nation today, and it's only because of the good fiscal management of our province. The announcement reflects, of course, the wishes of the people of our province, and I'm very pleased to have been able to make it.

Mr. Speaker, last August we made a change in policy on income assistance, and I want to reflect on that change in light of today's announcement and in light of the budget amendment before us. The amendment that we are debating right now does seem to refer to people who are, according to the mover of the motion, in need and unemployed. We have had a burden placed on us in our province since the downturn in the economy, which, is, as everyone knows, a world situation. We've been lucky in the past two to three years, frankly, to have escaped. Many jurisdictions in this country have not escaped the downturn. We are feeling the brunt of it now. We have felt it in the lumber industry. We see the effects

[ Page 7059 ]

in unemployment. We know that only 90 people of every 100 in this province are actively employed at the present time; others are on unemployment insurance, others are on income assistance.

I just want to make this point regarding our change in policy last year: We put into play a policy which said that, instead of going by age and so on, our criteria for giving income assistance in this province would be different starting in October. The announcement was made in August, but eligibility was not based on any circumstance other than whether a person was employable or unemployable. That was the change made.

I'd like to tell you today that there have been so many success stories since that policy has been announced that I really want to give credit to all the staff in the Ministry of Human Resources. There were great claims, when it was announced last August and since that time, that there would be chaos in all our Ministry of Human Resources offices. That's not so. What we have found is a staff that is committed to a program to help people. That's what they've been doing. The success stories we've had are exciting indeed. I really want to relate some of those to you. What I really want to tell you about, because it's working so well for us, is that very area which was given the highest amount of criticism; that is, in the single-parent category.

Let me give you some figures. Although we have a change in the economics of our province in terms of unemployment, we had new cases coming on in November 1980 that were something in the area of 8,362, but in November 1981 those cases that didn't need assistance any longer amounted to 8,027. In November 1981 the cases that came on amounted to 9,811, but in November 1981 the cases going off amounted to 9,461. Even when unemployment started to increase dramatically at the end of last year, the numbers who left our ministry — in other words, getting independent and going away from welfare — were larger in the latter months of the year. I suggest that is because they were helped by our ministry, that the new policy assisted greatly, and that we were able to give them the individual opportunity planning which we had been planning for the past two years.

Let me refer to that, because I think it's important. If only everybody in the province could share the enthusiasm and excitement that our ministry staff feels when they help somebody. I'm going to give you a couple of case examples. These are actual cases of people from different areas of the province. They come from Prince Rupert, Vancouver Island, Trail, Mission, Vancouver and Victoria. They're from all parts of the province in individual kinds of cases.

I want to tell you about an 18-year-old boy. He'd been a child in care for most of his life. Because he was a slow learner, this lad had many problems at school and dropped out at grade 9 level. He had always experienced difficulty in dealing with people in authority, so things like working for a boss or for a teacher did not appeal to him. This boy was referred, was put on a rehabilitation counsellor, was asked to attend the youth job action program, and was successful in obtaining a job in a furniture factory where he and is now enjoying his work and fully employed.

I would like to share with you the case history of a mother who is 28 years of age, has three children, is a single parent, and had been receiving income assistance from the ministry for nine years. As her children approached 13, she became increasingly frustrated about her inability to afford the cost of some of the extracurricular activities that teenagers need money for. Her confidence had deteriorated owing to two failed marriages and her picture of herself as an inadequate parent. She suffered from bouts of depression and alcoholism. Her worker talked to her about the Individual Opportunity Plan, and together they agreed on a plan of action which began with placement in a job-readiness program, the employment opportunities for women. Here she was involved in a group situation with other women facing similar challenges. She had her ego bolstered and decided to do some volunteer work at a senior citizens' home. This work led to an offer of full-time paid employment, and she is now receiving a very adequate income. She enjoys the relationships that have developed with her coworkers and residents, and looks forward to a long association with the company she works for.

I'd like to tell you about a client who is single, aged 44 — a difficult age to place, people would say. It's difficult to go into the job market at 44 years of age, especially since he had been on income assistance for 14 years. He suffered from various medical problems — back pain, anxiety and depression. He felt demoralized by his continuing need for income assistance benefits but had been unsuccessful in holding down employment for any length of time. Our ministry worker discussed the Individual Opportunity Plan with him, and they looked at what steps were required for him to reach financial independence. The health care division of our Ministry of Human Resources was approached for specialized care for this man. They got a successful diet therapy underway, they improved his wellbeing and his sense of good will about himself and eliminated the depression. Through the community health involvement program he was now ready to be placed at one of the long-term care hospitals to be a friendly visitor to the residents, just to get him sort of out of himself. The hospital found him to be so uplifting and such a valuable asset to their team that with encouragement he completed a long-term care aid course and now earns $1,200 a month in that rehabilitation health-care centre. He delights in his work with the elderly. Remember, Mr. Speaker, I told you that he had been on income assistance for 14 years, and the lady whom I spoke of earlier had been on income assistance for nine years.

I can give you another example of a 33-year-old divorced male on income assistance since 1979, who is now working part-time videotaping weddings on weekends and full-time in projects in the videotaping industry. His immediate income per month is between $1,500 and $2,000. He had been on income assistance. He had a grade 12 education but was filled with depression since 1979. His life turned around. I could tell you about the 25-year-old divorced female, five months on income assistance, who quickly obtained employer interviews after she had taken the job action program through our ministry. She is now earning something close to $5 an hour at a department store with a 30-day salary review in the offing. There is a 50-year-old married man, unemployed since 1977 and on income assistance for three years. He's extremely proud. He was totally humiliated, demoralized and depressed about receiving welfare. The client had virtually given up any hope of ever finding new employment, although his past work history as a furniture salesman was excellent. He had been rejected many times. He was reluctant to attend the program; he felt embarrassed and ashamed that others would see that he was on welfare. But he attended and he tried. Initially he believed that he would not succeed. He wanted to be a furniture salesman again. He attended the job action

[ Page 7060 ]

program — that's our three-week program — and he commenced full-time employment on May 11, 1981, with an income in the range of $30,000 to $40,000 a year. I can give you example after example of people who have obtained good-paying jobs, those who have obtained low-paying jobs and those who have obtained medium-paying jobs.

The point is this: each and every person in this House has the capability of channelling those who need help from us to us, and they will be given help. If one can turn around the life of one person who needs that kind of help and only lead them into the first step, whether it's into a low-paying job or a high paying job, they will give that person the kind of confidence and sense of wellbeing that they need, the kind of thing they should have been given in the educational system and by the family. It's the kind of thing that isn't always received by people or the lot of people to have. May I just implore all members of this House: the help is there; the help is real.

I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Individual Opportunity Plan works like no social service has worked in this country before. I am so proud of that program and the way our ministry has addressed it. It is the kind of social service, the true help to the individual that we have wanted in this province for years and years. I shared the success of the programs with my ministry colleagues across this nation, and I'm going to tell you that they don't have anything like it. They have been watching it and seeking information on it because they would like to repeat it in their own provinces. I tell you, British Columbia's example, once again, is going to help other provinces to reach that goal. I just ask each member in the House to please come to us and get that kind of help for the individuals in your constituency, because I really feel that you can help people as they have never been helped before.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of talk in this House about northeast coal. I address this, as Minister of Human Resources, for a very real reason. I said that I had 40,000 good reasons to speak in this debate and against the motion before us.

I am proud of what we have done to diversify this province in terms of our economic thrust. I am proud of the fact that when one part of the economic sector grows weak because of international markets we have some other sector of our economic blueprint that is going to pick us up. Northeast coal is certainly one of those challenges. It's a whole northern seaport with upgraded rail routes to serve it. It's a major new access for Canadian traders to the whole Pacific Rim market where half of the world's population lives: our tremendous Pacific Rim with its tremendous potential. It will give us a boost for our international balance of payments, which Canada so greatly needs. It provides a whole new town.

If you were to have a meeting today in this House of those who are present, and ask what we could possibly do to give some impetus to the northern section of our province, to create jobs, we would say: build a town. That will build houses. That will build roads. That will bring highways and rail lines. That will bring a whole new group of people to service it; truckers will get jobs and service agencies will get jobs.

We're doing it, Mr. Speaker. We don't need a meeting. New highways, a new town, a new powerline to fulfill a whole 75-year-old dream with a whole new project called northeast coal, the most exciting thing going on in this province and in this nation. We take 20 percent of the land-base of this province, where only 2 percent of the population lives, and here we have this exciting economic initiative on our doorstep. A whole northern transportation system. Long-term contracts for coal, which means long-term contracts for jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know that 5,000 jobs represents 10 percent of our total construction workforce? The official opposition in this province wants to kill the northeast coal development, and 10 percent of the construction jobs of this province are represented by 5,000 jobs in B.C. in this year alone. What an exciting development! We should all be so thrilled to have the job impetus that we have — 5,800 jobs this year alone. Mr. Speaker, think of the 2,100 direct mining jobs and the 2,900 indirect jobs.

Let me just come down to the lower mainland. Our colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who spoke earlier today in this debate, spoke proudly of the British Columbia Place development — downtown British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, do you know that without any input in the years ahead, without any money out of the budget that has been presented by our colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and without any dollars from the taxpayer, we have seen the whole imaginative redevelopment — the biggest redevelopment in North America — taking place right now in the city of Vancouver.

I really had to feel disappointed with members opposite, who in this very debate were casting aspersions on that British Columbia Place development. Mr. Speaker, what better way, without any investment of tax dollars, but to take that marvellous piece of property, underutilized all these years, nothing but a slum area.... From two beautiful bridges that cross over that area, one looks out at the wonderful sea and the mountains and that exquisite area that is Vancouver, and then looks down on a slum. And that's how they want it to remain? Yet, without any investment from the taxpayers of this province we are converting that whole north side of False Creek into an attractive, beautiful, productive, job-producing area. I tell you that's the most inspiring, imaginative, exciting program that we could possibly have put in at this time in our history.

What other time to build apartments, housing and places for our people to live? To put places where people can do business; where hotels will flourish and bring in the tourists; where we have parks and we have the Avenue of the Provinces, marking each of the great provinces of this country as we marked the independence and the return of the constitution this past weekend. Now each of them is to be remembered in that exciting part of B.C. Place.

Why the criticism, Mr. Speaker? Why the carping negativism that we continue to get? Because the negativism will cloud the issue. It will not get through to the people what is really happening there: a stadium which will be paid off by the sale of the property — where private-sector people will be able to bring in the building, put in bid proposals — and will be self-sustaining. It is incredible. It is a marvellous financial undertaking to present that to the people — not just to Vancouver, not just the lower mainland; it will be a proud downtown British Columbia for the total area of British Columbia.

We're talking about B.C. Place with 2,000 construction jobs annually for the next 20 years — about 5 percent, if you can believe it, of our total construction workforce at the present time. And think about the 500 to 600 part-time and 50 to 60 full-time jobs that some of our young people are going to be able to take on in the stadium alone.

[ Page 7061 ]

When I think of that marvellous place, B.C. Place, and that marvellous stadium, almost up and almost ready to have the first game, aligned with that marvellous redevelopment and then linked to that tunnel which will carry the ALRT — a tunnel that is already there, underutilized and not used by the public for these many years, and now to be connected with the ALRT.... That has been promised for years and years in the lower mainland. Promises, promises, promises! In the city of Vancouver we could have built, for heaven's sake, enough rail lines, bus services, ALRT — you name it — with the studies that have made on ALRT these many years....

Today we see it already underway and building through the efforts of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). I have to give him credit for saying: "Look, we're not going to waste any more time. We're going to go ahead and do it." And he's done that.

That's exciting, and to think that we're going to have that. What does ALRT do? It provides 7,000 construction jobs, 1,000 manufacturing jobs and approximately 150 ongoing jobs for maintenance after it is built. It will take people through that tunnel, through the downtown area that is going to have ALRT and then out to the other areas of Burnaby and so on. It will bring housing and jobs to people. You know, I haven't even counted those in. But just think of the new housing that's going to come from that, and the landscaping jobs and the wiring and plumbing jobs, and all of the equipment and all of the furniture that's going to be needed. We've got the greatest future going for us — not just in the lower mainland, but everywhere in this province. That ALRT is going to take people to Expo 86 and it's going to be our demonstration project for Expo 86.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who worked so hard to bring Expo to fruition, is now going to be able, with his imaginative lottery scheme, to fund that all through a lottery — again, not through the taxpayer's pocket. That's imaginative, that's exciting. What's more exciting than anything else — and it's seldom said; it certainly isn't said by those members opposite — are the 15,000 man-years of work. Jobs, jobs, jobs. It means something for our international reputation, but it means more in jobs.

It means a great deal in terms of our ongoing technology and the kinds of exciting things.... Do you know there hasn't been a world's fair in history that has not brought to the fore the excitement and the newness of a new technology. And this will be right on our doorstep. How many people over the years know of a city, a province, a state, a country because of a world's fair? Look at all the people who will be here. Those 16 million visitors will go back to their place of business, their home, and they'll say: "Go to British Columbia. It's the greatest place ever." It will be more money and it will be more excitement and it will be more jobs. That's what this government has a responsibility as any government has to do, and we're doing it well.

I want to say a word about the trade and convention centre in the city of Vancouver — first, because I don't think you can stop me from saying it, Mr. Speaker. I'm very enthusiastic about the trade and convention centre. You know why I was always enthusiastic about it? Because of the jobs: 1,000 jobs in construction, 1,000 full-time jobs created, and 1,000 on going and part-time jobs. That's around 3,000 jobs for a trade and convention centre, a cruise ship facility and a hotel that will be built there.

It's a magnificent site — the most marketable site in the whole of the world for a trade and convention centre. Do you know what that in itself will do? People will come to a convention. There was one announced just since the announcement of the go-ahead of the trade and convention centre. In five days it will leave $5.5 million in the city of Vancouver. It will then leave other dollars as those people visit the city and go to other areas of the province to spend their money. Those who are market-conscious will bring them to other parts of the province through their efforts and good free enterprise kind of planning. They'll start tours going to Penticton, Kelowna, Victoria, and Nanaimo and will put in the kinds of things which will attract people and will give them the message so they will go back home and say: "You've got to visit British Columbia. It's so exciting. We attended a convention there. I'm going to go back and take my family the next time." All those things are going to happen.

The most exciting part of it all is that through the efforts of our Premier, my colleague the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), myself and our colleagues who are involved in Expo 86, ALRT and B.C. Place, we have put together a package so that now, very tidily, the federal government... Today, I understand, the Prime Minister of Canada is unveiling their plaque, which says there is going to be built the pavilion for Canada, for this nation of ours, right on Pier B-C.

When that is over and unneeded by Expo 86, it will become the most famous, exciting and thrilling trade and convention centre ever built. I'm going to tell you where all the negative people will be then. They'll all be there at the opening. They'll all be there saying: "Me too." They'll all be there saying: "Yes, we were for it all the time." I was sitting in this House when the members opposite got up one by one — I could name them; I've got quotes from Hansard — and said that we shouldn't be doing it at this time. They said we shouldn't be doing it at all. They said it wasn't going to be as lucrative as I said. They charged us with all kinds of negative things. But I'm going to tell you, it's going ahead today, as are ALRT, B.C. Place, the stadium and northeast coal. Totalled all together, those projects represent a total capital spending program of $3.6 billion; $1.2 billion actually will be spent during the 1982-83 fiscal year, providing close to 40,000 jobs. Northeast coal, B.C. Place, ALRT, hundreds of small-scale projects such as schools, hospitals, courthouses and other capital projects are all underway and are all going now, injecting, at a time when we need it most, the kind of government funds and government initiative of private-sector funding that is going to result in providing jobs today while building our economic and social capital facilities for tomorrow.

I started in this address to say that we have 40,000 good reasons for voting against the amendment and for the budget. They are the 40,000 jobs that this government, this year and in years to follow, is responsible for: 40,000 new dreams, hopes and initiatives. I'll vote against the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I always enjoy the presentation by that Minister of Human Resources. She makes her presentation well, and I hope that after a few more years of experience I can do as well — in the presentation.

I find it difficult to swallow some of the figures the minister used — I'll go into this very shortly — in terms of the unemployed, in view of the fact that I have the official Canadian statistics before me, some of which I'll read into the record at some point during my presentation.

[ Page 7062 ]

I want to discuss one of the things the minister is very good at: presenting individual cases where the ministry has been successful. That's what the ministry is there for, and we appreciate those successes. What the minister fails to talk about.... I intended to discuss this item under estimates, but I'll just throw it in here. For example, in one major community in my riding — it's not a big community, but it's major to my riding — for months and months and months I had made representation to the Ministry of Human Resources and the minister to have a full-time Human Resources officer placed in the community of Powell River. Because of high unemployment the Human Resources people are overworked. We need an officer to deal specifically with the handicapped at the request of a number of organizations in that community. I understand budgetary restraints and all of these things, but in the Year of the Disabled, in a community that is a bit out of the way and at a time when people so badly need this kind of advice, counselling and assistance, I was refused. This is just one item that I'm discussing. After some three and a half months of pleading and discussing with them, the ultimate answer was no. So those 81 people identified as handicapped in that region are now getting the services if they're lucky and if the weather or other duties don't prevent a part-time worker from working sometimes one day a month with the handicapped in Powell River from Courtenay. In that brief period of time, she couldn't even get to know their names.

I have another problem along the same lines. It's a most recent case — if we're allowed to discuss these individual cases under this particular vote, and apparently we are — of a young girl who is suicide-prone and under observation at the Vancouver General Hospital. The point was that they couldn't hold this 14-year-old girl. They phoned from the Vancouver General Hospital and told the parents that they were going to have to release her in the custody of her parents, and the parents were beside themselves. I spoke to two of her psychiatrists and a social worker personally and other people involved as well, but the net result was that they said: "Look, we cannot keep her here. It's not that type of an emergency situation. This is not a treatment centre. We diagnose." So after a lot of fooling around, the fact is that the hospital.... As a matter of fact, the director of Maples was very helpful in this particular instance. They found an interim facility for her until a place becomes available at Maples when it goes into operation, which I'm kind of pleased about. But what I'm saying is that because of funding cutbacks, these facilities for people like this — and I can go on and on, and I won't under this particular vote — don't exist, and there is no hope that they will exist, with the exception of Maples, which is coming on stream and hopefully will be successful in dealing with people like this.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Back to the vote, Mr. Speaker. The basic premise of this vote of non-confidence, which I'm going to support, deals basically with the budget. The budget has been described in this Legislature on numerous occasions by many members as a budget of deception for a number of reasons: it is not a complete budget and we've had two unannounced budgets prior to the main budget coming down, dealing with overexpenditures approaching, it says here, a quarter of a billion dollars. I thought it was more than that. Both of these budgetary actions were taken outside of the announced budget by arbitrary cabinet orders. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we're dealing with the real budget here. What can I say? It's been described in this House so often, I'm not sure that I want to go into a lot of details on the thing. The fact is that the budget is not the correct budget that should have been placed before the people at this time. If the government had been — and it should have been — honest with the people of this province, they would have come out and said: "Look, we've budgeted for a deficit of some $360 million — at least, minimum — and it will likely be a lot more than that." One of the reasons I feel that the government will have to go to an election some time this year is that their budget is a budget they cannot keep.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My favourite member, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, interjects. Mr. Minister, don't leave the House, because I've got some words for you. I've got a message for you, so just hang tight, be cool and we'll get to both of our favourite topics in about four minutes.

In any event, I thought, for the record, that the minister and this House should know that the actual unemployment figure for March 1982 was officially 143,000, or 10.6 percent. This is the highest rate of unemployment in B.C. since 1961, when the rate reached 13.8 percent. By the way, the unemployment rate only a year ago was 6.8 percent, so you can see what has happened in the meantime. Both the actual and seasonally adjusted rate — 9.3 percent — are higher than the national average. The "hidden unemployed" figure for B.C. is 64,000, bringing the real total to 207,000, or 14.7 percent. I honestly believe that the unemployment figure is higher than that, because they are neglecting to mention the people who are not eligible for UIC benefits — young people who may be living at home. There is a horrendous rate of unemployment among young people in the province.

What can I say? I can say this: in my own community of Powell River, where I live, UIC claims have increased by 167.8 percent over the same period of January, February and March of last year. In the Sunshine Coast area of my riding — it does not have a large industrial base; it's the fourth-fastest growing area in British Columbia, because a lot of people are moving there to retire; it's a nice place to live, and that kind of thing — UIC claims have increased by 75.7 percent, according to Employment and Immigration Canada, over January, February and March last year. That's a horrendous increase.

I can tell you from personal experience.... I spend a lot of time in my riding, and I get around the community quite a bit; but I did a good more than that prior to coming down to this session. In selected areas of the riding I went and canvassed a number of polls. No leaflets — I just went to the door to speak with people. The message I got, among a lot of other messages, aside from, "Leave me alone; I'm doing the laundry," and things like that.... There was hardly a home that I visited where people did not have somebody in the family unemployed — a husband or wife, or both in some cases; a son or a daughter, a friend, or somebody. They knew somebody out of work, or they were scrambling desperately to hold onto their jobs and facing a lot of problems as well.

When people are unemployed for any length of time and there is no hope, the effects on family life are horrendous. I think every MLA in this province operates a constituency office. I hope that some of the MLAs spend some time in those offices; I know that many of us do. The caseload of family problems that basically relate to lack of income and

[ Page 7063 ]

the lack of ability to pay the bills and meet commitments — mortgages, car payments, sending the kid to school, whatever.... These are some of the problems we face. As a result of government action — partly at least, to be a little more honest — these conditions are not likely to get better.

When I see in the budget that the government anticipates a 23 percent increase in revenues from the forest industry alone this year over last year, I have to wonder. I suspect that's why some of my colleagues have described this budget as a deception and a sham. For example, last week I had the opportunity of meeting, along with some of my colleagues, some of the major people in the forest and pulp industry in this province. There was a very serious discussion. When the question "Do you really believe that the increase in revenues to the province will be 23 percent more from your industry this year over last year?" was posed, after they stopped laughing, they said: "No way." The downturn in the economy is such that even if there is an upturn in the economy, and basically the United States and Reagan go into a housing policy and all these things that everybody talks and knows about.... Even if all those things happen there is no way we can have a turnaround so that the revenues and production will increase that significantly this year.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to discuss my own riding. They elected me, so I think I'll discuss them. They'd like to know what I'm saying about them down here. All this goes in Hansard.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says he'll tell them. I would be pleased to see him in my riding, and to take him out fishing and arrange a meeting for him, because I know that every time he comes up to my riding I get another 500 votes. No offence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Only 500?

MR. SKELLY: That's all that's left!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, bring me back to order, because I forgot where I was at here. I was going to discuss the economy and....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you in favour of marketing boards?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Why, of course.

I'll get back to the local economy in my own area. I think I should discuss that briefly.

The largest single operation in my riding is the MacMillan Bloedel plant, and they've just come off an almost three-week shutdown. They just went back to work last Thursday. That is great. The problem is — the House wouldn't know this — that the senior management of the company have announced that there will almost certainly be two further shutdowns of that mill this year. The effects of this first shutdown were bad enough, but some of the employees were able to take part of their holiday pay and time and that kind of thing. Two further shutdowns this year have been announced, and there may be more, because senior people within that pulp and paper industry have said that when the 13 percent wage increase comes into effect, which was honestly negotiated last year, it will put some of the operations in an operating loss position. Therefore we can possibly anticipate further shutdowns in the pulp and paper industry. This is an area of deep concern, particularly in single-industry communities.

I would be remiss if I didn't tell this House as well that Port Mellon shut down its operation this morning. They employ some 500 people in that operation. This will be a three-week shutdown, as I understand it, and they have announced as well that there will be further shutdowns because of market conditions, etc., later this year. That will have a very severe effect, not only on employees but on the community as a whole.

I wouldn't remember the Great Depression. I was pretty young at the time, but some of the members like the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) would remember it. He was a young man at the time. We have never, since the Great Depression, had so many closures of small businesses, particularly small family businesses. Thirty-one businesses that I know of in Powell River alone have shut down since January 1 of this year because of the economic climate of this province. Those people hire maybe two or three employees, some of them, from time to time. They are under; they are gone now. There are more closing down.

I don't want to be a messenger of doom and gloom, but I guess what I am saying is that this government has not come up with an economic policy that is going to do anything to alleviate the economic conditions of this province. I know that provincial governments cannot solve the economic problems of the whole western world. We can't do that. We understand that. When we had a relatively mild depression in 1975, Mr. Speaker.... You weren't in the House at the time, but I should remind you that the then-opposition accused the New Democratic Party government of the day of all the problems of the whole western world. Everything that happened in the province was the fault of the New Democratic Party government at that time. We haven't taken that tack. We've been relatively fair and honest with this government sitting across the way from us, but what we're saying over here is that they haven't done anything, they're not doing anything, they haven't shown any imagination, and they haven't formulated any policies to help solve these problems.

I'll tell you this, for our party and our caucus and our leader: we have formulated policies. We have come up with a number of policies to help alleviate the.... They are not miracle solutions. They won't solve all the problems. There will be further announcements. We're working. The Minister of Transportation and Highways will be pleased to know that I'm preparing a transportation policy that he can use to help solve some of the problems on the coast of British Columbia at this time. But that's another story.

Our party has come up with policies dealing with forestry and economic recovery in many areas — training for our students, educational programs, home- building programs and on and on.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm not an expert on these topics, as the member across the way said. I like to think that I know something about some of the subjects I discuss. What I'm saying is: I didn't do this and our caucus didn't do this alone. On this program that I'm discussing now, we met with

[ Page 7064 ]

knowledgeable people from all over the province and outside the province. I think it's a program that we as a party can implement, and it's a program that will give people some hope.

But before I get too far along on that.... Approximately two months ago the Premier got on television and urged us all to practise restraint. I'm not going to discuss the bill before the House. What I'm discussing is the Premier's address to the nation in February of this year. He urged us to practise restraint. Yet what do we find? We find that the government itself has not practised restraint, either through its government actions or through its various agencies and Crown corporations. I won't go through the list here. There are something like eight pages of increases in taxation — well over the 8 percent, 10 percent or 12 percent that the Premier and the Social Credit government urge us to follow.

There was a 300 percent water-rate increase to industry, a general B.C. Hydro rate increase of 31.5 percent, and a medicare increase of 76.5 percent for singles, 64.7 percent for couples and 50.6 percent for families. I could go on and on. There are two other sections I wanted to mention. My God, there was a 900 percent increase for marriage licences. I'll skip the increases for mineral taxes and so on. Motor vehicle licence plates were increased 38.9 percent. Is that following the wage restraints the Premier is urging us to follow? There was a 100 percent increase on driver's licences. These are items that affect almost every citizen of British Columbia. Motor vehicle inspection — and the list goes on.... Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle was increased by 200 percent. It's relatively minor, but B.C. Ferries shows a 13.6 percent increase over last year, in spite of the government telling us and asking us to show restraint.

The government itself has shown no restraint, particularly the cabinet. I have a list of the cabinet members' travel, right out of the 1980-81 public accounts. They're the government's own figures. Look at the Premier. He spent $35,950 for ministerial travel. Where has he got to go to that's so important? Rather than staying here in British Columbia and looking after the economy, where is he travelling — Palm Springs, Acapulco or Japan? Is that the way he's travelling? I think he is. At least that's what the newspapers tell us, and I usually believe the papers.

The list goes on and on. I won't go through every minister. I'm sure we'll get to every minister in estimates, if we don't have an election before we get to estimates. The total bill for ministerial travel alone was $410,443. Do you know what the government could have done with that much money to help alleviate some of the plight of some of the poor people who are genuinely suffering out there, who don't have enough food, who can barely survive, and who can't pay their rent or hydro increases and all these other increases? Do you know what the government could have done with that? But no, they went jaunting around the world. Look at the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — $39,819 for his personal travel. Where was he travelling to? Tumbler Ridge. Does it cost that much to go to Tumbler Ridge? He could have driven. The government jet would have been cheaper.

So there you have it. Here we have on one hand a government telling us ordinary people out there to practise restraint, and on the other hand we've got the ministers themselves just spending money left, right and centre, well in excess of the restraint program that they want everybody else — primarily the working people of this province — to observe.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in the House. I have no intention of discussing with him at this time items that normally should be dealt with under estimates, but I'd just like to let the minister know a couple of things. The minister is very good; he's usually in the House, and I know he's listening.

I know that the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation has been reduced by some 25 percent this year, which means that there will not only be layoffs, but that the 500 auxiliary workers who can normally expect to be working over the busy summer period will be unemployed, and that there will be some 80 to 100 permanent employees unemployed as well by late next summer and next fall. Some of those people are being hit now, by the way, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure you know that. But that corporation, with the approval of cabinet — it had to be, because we all know where that money comes from — through Treasury Board, subsidies and these things — $160,000 was spent to put logos on the vessels, the "B.C. Spirit" which was a straight Social Credit political ploy, paid for at the expense of the taxpayers....

Mr. Speaker, if I could have the minister's attention for one moment, through you.... Mr. Minister, there's one item which I really, seriously want you to consider. At the present time the CPR has the Princess Patricia available for purchase, I understand. I don't think this fine, old vessel should be let out of the province of British Columbia. What's going to happen is that the CPR is going to dump that vessel somewhere; they're not going to keep it. It may go to — who knows? — Hong Kong or the Falkland Islands. It's going to go somewhere. I think that vessel is a heritage vessel and should stay in this province.

I see that one of my favourite ministers just walked in the House and I've got something for him eventually.

In any event, what I'm suggesting to the minister at this time is that there are a number of useful things that could be done with that vessel. Perhaps because the Princess Marguerite has proved so successful, we could have two vessels on that route. I'm not sure. I'm quite serious about this. I don't know if that's a good idea or not; some people say yes, and some people say no. But there are other things that could be done — even as a tourist vessel over a five, six- or seven month period. I'm sure it would be very popular to have some type of, for another example, Gulf Islands run between Victoria, the Gulf Islands and Vancouver — daily sailings. Why not? It's a nice vessel; it's suited for that purpose. People from all over the continent, in my view, would make reservations to sail on that vessel. I really believe that that vessel, if we can manage it.... And I don't think the CPR would be too difficult to deal with. I think that they would be prepared to, with a letter of intent, for example — perhaps some cash or some guarantee.... This government has a good credit rating — as ours did — at the present time, and we don't generally break our word in these matters. We keep our contracts. I would suggest hopefully that the minister will start negotiations through his ministry to see if we can preserve this vessel for the people of British Columbia. I think it would be a profitable venture in the long run.

I'm pleased that the minister is listening intently to this particular item. While he is in the House, I just want to tell him that in terms of highways, there are two other matters — they're not earth-shaking matters, and they won't make the newspapers; nothing will happen directly on these matters.... I would like to ask the minister quite sincerely about these two relatively small matters relating to highways.

[ Page 7065 ]

One of the situations is this. Where we have people, in rural areas particularly, applying for subdivisions, going through all of the agencies — the regional district, the ALR, local committees, and on and on — and finally they get approval, and it goes to Highways.... I'm not saying that Highways shouldn't have this right of approval, but we must set up a method of approving and giving an answer to these people when they are applying for these subdivisions.

I've got a case on my desk right now, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.... Three years have gone by on a piece of property which is right on the highway, and there's still no answer, and I can't understand it. Now I've discussed it with the local people, the regional people, the deputy minister and finally I wrote the minister and I got a response. The minister's good that way; I always get a response. Their reason is that they're short of people, but you can't keep people hanging on the hook like that. I can't see why we can't have a system somewhat similar to the.... I'm trying to be fair because I know the minister can't answer. This is not estimates. Some states and some jurisdictions have a method where at least the people can get an answer yes or no on a subdivision application within a reasonable length of time. I know the minister will take that under advisement. I know he'll have a response for me in his estimates.

There's one other item which is particularly bothersome in my riding. We have no end of people, from Powell River right down to Gibsons, living on the lower side of Highway 101. Ever since I was elected, sometimes 50 or 60 or 100 people or sometimes four or five, depending on the year, are flooded out every year. The policy of the Ministry of Highways is that they will not take any responsibility at all after the water leaves the highway and goes through the culvert; it's totally the responsibility of the people on whose private property it is. We started to do this throughout the whole province, and I know very well that it would probably take up half the budget of the Ministry of Highways to settle those claims if we started doing that. Other things can happen. There are certain instances where the Ministry of Highways, with a little bit of manpower — they have the equipment — could do things to alleviate the problems in these flood-prone areas. It's no big deal. In fact, you have another agency set up for emergency flood relief and all those things. But in these instances, you can go to the local Highways person and say: "Look, if you extended that ditch another 150 feet, those three, four or six properties would not be flooded out next year." It would save everybody a lot of money, heartache and grief, and do the Ministry of Highways a good turn at the same time. I think there should be some flexibility there, but at the present time there isn't. We don't win the majority of those cases. I say "we" because I'm not the only MLA to have this type of problem. In fact, some of the MLAs on your side of the House face the same problem. I just wanted to mention that before we get to the estimates.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I was going to discuss the cutbacks in funding to educational programs, particularly community colleges. The many programs that I'm personally aware of...represented by three community colleges in my riding. I've met with these people. I won't go through their financing arrangements and all these things, but the fact is that some very major programs, in my view, have been cut back. I know that they will be discussed more fully. How could you cut back the drug and alcohol program — just stop the program completely? Students in that program who were halfway through their semester — or whatever — are out, finished, and that's the end of it. It's a serious problem to our province, and we're doing nothing about it; in fact, we're making the situation worse. I don't know where to go. All I can say is: this government is more interested in politics, secret polls — which are not so secret any more — polls by ICBC, the results of which will never be made available to us but, I'm sure, will be made available to the government — political polling on taxpayers' money. The sad thing about this poll is not the fact that it's happening; it's the fact that over the last six or seven years the people of this province have become so used to dirty tricks they just take it for granted that this poll.... "Well, it's another dirty trick, so what can we do about it?" That's what's happening. It's a state of mind which I don't appreciate. So there'll be no vast public outcry. We'll raise heck in here. We know it's immoral. We know it's unethical. They shouldn't be doing it. The minister in question period today agreed they shouldn't be doing it. But it's happening. It will happen again. So all I can say to this government is: look, do your duty. Face the music. Call the election. Call it now. Give the people of this province a chance to get rid of you, and put in a good government. Let's go. Call the election.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this motion the opposition has produced says the budget fails to take steps to preserve jobs, neglects to mobilize our human and natural resources, and fails to establish policies that are helpful. They have produced no options, no alternatives and no suggestions, and not even any confidence in their own motion of non-confidence. I would say this has been about one of the dullest debates we've had in this House since I've been a member. The opposition has all the force and the interest and the content of a marshmallow that has been too long in the sun. That's what their debates have been like.

Mr. Speaker, it's most peculiar, I would say, to find a non-confidence motion truly unsupported by its proponents — particularly when that motion was moved by a former Premier of this province and by the leader of the official opposition. I'd say that the best evidence of the weakness of this motion has been the ridiculous sort of support it has received from the opposition benches.

It was moved by the hon. first member for Vancouver East and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), and he was jolly enough — indeed, he is jolly when he's at his best. But even the best of humour can not validate this motion, and I would again say that it's perhaps the most preposterous I've ever heard come from the opposition side. You know what it is, Mr. Speaker? It's the politics of style — and some may well question even the style. But everyone is sure of one thing: it's certainly not the politics of substance.

That was the call of the former member for Vancouver East, Mr. Robert Williams. That was his call to his party and that was his call to his former constituency and that was his call to the members of the caucus of the official opposition. He said to them very clearly: "We're not going to go anywhere if we have to rely only upon the politics of style. What we need for the NDP is the politics of substance." All frosting and no cake was his point. And the public won't buy that any longer — that was his point, too. I say how right he was and how prophetic he was — late, perhaps, but correct.

[ Page 7066 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How well he knows, Mr. Member, the very grave problems that the NDP are suffering in B.C. Little wonder the scurrying and the doubting that is evident, and the changing tides of support that are becoming more evident every day. And little wonder that the official opposition is secretly trembling about facing a B.C. provincial election with the hon. first member for Vancouver East at the helm. With him at the helm it's obvious, and it's pretty trite, that he'll be at the helm of the Titanic. What comfort that must be to the New Democratic Party! Can they run that risk? Will they run that risk? That is the biggest question they are facing today. Who are the hopefuls? There are a number over there. We can sometimes see four at least. I'm not going to name them, because they will be naming themselves very shortly. What about Mr. Williams? Will he be seeking the leadership of this party, or will he just be choosing to run as an independent NDP member in Vancouver East in the next election?

This motion which we are facing is that, as I've said, of the leader of the official opposition. No speakers, no support. I'd say he's been deserted by the front benches, deserted by his back benches and deserted by his own kind. The poor gentleman is going to be beset by loneliness — nothing left, I suppose, but the lonely hearts club at the end of the line. There has been a finding out, Mr. Speaker, that the politics of substance is the politics that survives. The politics of style is the politics that does not survive. It's been found out not only by the government side, not only by the people of this great province, but also, saddest of all, by his own kind. And the biggest single question in B.C. is: how can the Leader of the Opposition from Vancouver East survive, politically, until there is a general election in B.C.?

As he indicated at one time in an interview he had with Mr. Richard Gwyn, he said that he developed a knack for developing a logical argument out of an illogical premise — or words to that effect. And here we have a premise that is illogical, and so, even, is the argument. Once again, Mr. Speaker, an attempt to have style triumph over substance. But I think Mr. Williams was correct, and Mr. Williams will be proven to be correct. In all conscience, there is no way that I can support this blatantly incorrect and stylized motion of the official opposition, and I certainly shall be voting against it.

MR. LEVI: We have just heard from the Edmund Burke of the Social Credit Party — that's B-e-r-k, and if you want the etymology you will have to go to the dictionary. We've got Edmund Burke, we've got the escapee from the Ice Capades over there, and we've got some canoeist — that's the substance they've put into the debate this afternoon.

We did hear from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I didn't think, in all the years that I've been in this House, that I would have to go through a speech like she made this afternoon. In the midst of a climate of 150,000 people unemployed, and 140,000 people on welfare, she has to trot out to us six successful cases from Human Resources. Well, isn't that remarkable! Six cases out of a caseload of 140,000, and what does she have to offer? Oh, yes! This little lady here, she couldn't find her husband, so we took her out to the opportunities program and we trained her. Well, isn't that nice! I thought this kind of nonsense had gone out years ago, and that Socred Ministers of Human Resources would stop using welfare as props and would get down to the substance of the debate.

She tells us about nonsense. We went through the opportunities program years before I was the minister; we went through the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. Now the minister has her Individual Opportunities Plan, and yet it's supposed to be the Social Credit solution to 150,000 people unemployed and 140,000 people on welfare. Nearly 300,000 people in this province, and that's the only example she can give us, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of programs that they're initiating. Our ever-diminishing Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) over there came out with a program last week in which he cancelled 10,000 jobs. Over there they say we've got no substance: where's your substance?

We've got the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) up some creek somewhere without a paddle, telling us how difficult it is going in shallow water, but there's not one suggestion of substance about jobs. We've got the Minister of Human Resources telling us about jobs that are going to be created in this province in the year 2002. That's how far down the road her planning is going on.

What we're talking about is how you address the problem of 150,000 people, and more, who are not working in this province today. Never mind about 1986 and 1990; let's talk about today. We don't need to be treated to that kind of fatuous, Mamie Maloney–Van Buren kind of stuff from the Minister of Human Resources. My God! That we don't need. What we need is something with substance. They haven't addressed one issue in respect to the creation of employment. We have the minister telling us about the beautiful things going on in Vancouver. I can recall sitting here three years ago when we talked about a convention centre, and we asked the then Provincial Secretary how much it was going to cost. Of course the mathematical genius, the now Minister of Human Resources, said: "It's going to cost $25 million. No, it's not — it's going to be $43 million. No, it's not — it's $60 million. No, it's not — it's $80 million." By the time they finished it was $125 million, and the Premier couldn't find $8 million to make it go, and he cancelled it. Then we went through a whole series of Ottawa-bashing — that terrible Prime Minister, those terrible Ministers of Finance. Who bailed them out? Not the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot); he didn't bail them out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speak to your motion.

MR. LEVI: If you get up next, I'll sit down now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now?

MR. LEVI: Not now, Jimmy.

Mr. Speaker, we had all kinds of programs coming out of the mouth of the Minister of Human Resources, which in the final analysis have been bailed out by the federal government and federal tax dollars, not by the provincial government. Our own Premier pulled the pin on the thing and said: "We haven't got $8 million to make it go. Let it go." Now she comes in because they've got an agreement and they want to reap all the glory about Transpo, all the glory about what goes on down there and all the jobs that are being created. But we want you to address the problems of 150,000 people. We want you to address the problem of the number of small businesses that are going out of business every day in this province. Unfortunately we have a record increase in the amount of bankruptcies in this province — 900 businesses are going bankrupt. But the important thing about that is that

[ Page 7067 ]

people in the bankruptcy business will tell you that when you talk about 900 or 1,000 businesses going bankrupt, you are really only talking about the tip of the iceberg — 20 percent. As a matter of fact, a recent study in the United States shows that it's as little as 5 percent that even bother to go bankrupt. But if we use the 20 percent figure on the basis of the nearly 1,000 bankruptcies that we've had in British Columbia in 1981...and both sides say that the people who create jobs in this province are the small businesses, not the large businesses. MacMillan Bloedel; and the companies that work for BCRIC don't create any more jobs than they had in the last couple of years; it's the small businesses. It's estimated that when small businesses go into bankruptcy, they're losing anywhere from five to 25 jobs. If you have a thousand bankruptcies, you are looking at 2,500 and at the top end about 25,000 people not having jobs. That's the issue that cannot be addressed by Ottawa. We're not talking now about what they can do down there; we're talking about what the government is prepared to do.

Two years ago they took the first tentative step to address that. They took a look at the housing market. The Minister of Housing at the time wasn't in the country; nevertheless, the program was announced, and it was a good program. You decided to take $200 million and put it into the mortgage market; then you were going to subsidize the interest rate from 9 3/4 up to 14 percent — a good program. What did it cost you to do the subsidy? Just short of $10 million, and you were able to build about 5,300 homes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Per year.

MR. LEVI: It was per year. You did one entry into the housing market; you put $200 million through the credit unions and created 5,300 living units — 2,300 homes and the rest were multiple dwellings. It cost the government just short of $10 million in terms of the subsidy. The other money was coming back.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thirty-three million,

MR. LEVI: Oh, $33 million. He never told us that figure before. If you can leave $200 million for $33 million, fine.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: We'll ask you those questions afterwards. Sit down. The point is that the basic idea of the program, in which you created housing, employment and revenue, was first-class. We said at the time that if you can do it for $200 million — and you were looking for job-creation, which is a part of what you're looking for, and part of what you were looking for was the replacement of housing — why isn't it being done now? You take a billion dollars, you put it up in northeast coal where you have no signed contracts whatsoever, no agreement on price in terms of what we know in this House — we've never heard it from that minister. That's where you've siphoned off the money, but the more realistic ting would have been to siphon it into the housing market, where what you could do is set out to build 5,000 homes in 1980, and look at building 10,000 or 15,000, for an investment of $600 million to $800 million, which would cost you, with your figures, less than $100 million to lever all that into the market. That's job creation; that's revenue-generating; that was the kind of thing we talked about in 1975. That's why we developed the Savings and Trust; you used the credit unions to be the vehicle — that's fair enough.

The Speaker just loves it when I look at him.

The important thing is that you're talking about ideas, Mr. Speaker. The main thing is that their first tentative step.... Of course, it would hurt if you said to them: "That's a piece of practical socialism." Why don't you do it and improve on it? That's the important thing, because you are able to do three things. One of them, the issue of revenue, which they have serious problems with, was dealt with in terms of that program: the mortgage money is repaid, revenue from the personal income tax and the corporate tax, the sales tax all comes back. It becomes a completely self sustaining program. That's the program, and we hope that sometime in this debate, if not in his estimates, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing will tell us why that kind of a program is not encouraged by the government. Why isn't it, Mr. Speaker? After all, it has worked very well.

This was the government that, as an opposition in 1975, went to the people and said: "We will take the sales tax off building construction material." If you add that to the program that I've just outlined, that would be a positive step, because small businesses right now.... The unfortunate reality of the facts of bankruptcies in this province is that in 1981 we had 501 bankruptcies, but we had 107 companies in the construction industry that went bankrupt — bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that's the tip of the iceberg, and represents no more than 20 percent of the companies that actually went bankrupt — and they left liabilities of some $20 million. There is an incredible domino system that goes on with bankruptcy: once one firm goes bankrupt, the creditors usually wind up going bankrupt. They are the people who have been the big losers in the whole economic program that that government has had. So the important thing is that we've heard from the people over there; they keep telling us about the future, and the future is way down the road. We had the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) talking 20 years down the road. We want to talk about now, over the next two or three years.

Two years ago you did a program that was practical. Do it again; there is nothing wrong with that way of generating employment. You can generate it in the north, you can generate it anywhere where people have a need for housing, where construction workers have a need. But no, you're not doing that. That's not a plan you will agree to. They don't agree to that at all, Mr. Speaker. Part of their problem is that in the seven years they've been government they have never revealed to this province an economic plan which lays out where they're going. They talk about northeast coal. It took them five and a half years to put that program together, yet to this day we have a minister with the gall to come into the House and still say, "We haven't quite finished the feasibility study but as soon as the girl gets through typing it we'll bring it in." He looks like Charlie McCarthy there. Look at his lips moving. What do you stop for. He shouldn't stop like that, Mr. Chairman. That is basically what you do. He moves his lips but nothing comes out of his mouth. For five and a half years he's been coming in here telling us about jobs and that is the only economic program they've talked about. Sure, they've talked about B.C. Place, which they now admit wasn't their idea. Now they're talking about the convention centre that just rose out of the ashes.

When you are a government, surely what you are expected to do, certainly in the space of five years, is to have

[ Page 7068 ]

some blueprints for the future, blueprints in terms of people's expectations and when they can be met, or even if they can be met, but not a series of ad hoc events. In the midst of the terrible unemployment program....

I must say, we had a vintage speech from the member for west Point Grey. The first time he made it was in 1966, and he made it again in 1967, 1968, 1969, right through to 1975. Then he found his notes today. He had some very important papers on the constitution but he found the speech that he made in 1969 and decided to get up and enter the debate. It was a very skilful intervention on the part of the minister. That is the kind of debate we can expect from the minister.

I want to ask the Minister of Human Resources, in a rhetorical way, whatever happened to PREP. We went through the program that the minister has, which is the Individual Opportunities Plan. Prior to that, her predecessor had a program called PREP. You know, it is like going to a preparatory school. What happened to PREP? It was such a great program, we were told by the then minister. It was going to produce jobs. We haven't heard anything about it; it died a quiet death. Then the minister comes in and tells us all about the Individual Opportunities Plan. That is the extent of the job development program that the government has over there in terms of where it's prepared to put its money to do some job creation, which is a great tragedy. Two years ago we were told that one of the ways we were going to ensure employment in the forest industry was to create a silviculture fund, so that money would be available. If the forest companies did silviculture and gave employment to young people, then the money would be forthcoming. That money is gone now; it is taken out of the budget. We can't do it anymore. The minister is so exercised.

The substance of our motion, which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs didn't deal with, is:

This House regrets that, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Finance, as a result of extravagant budgetary increases of more than 40 percent in the past two fiscal years, and by encouraging uncontrolled budgetary overruns of more than $1 billion dollars...

A billion dollars in overruns. They spend money trying to count the money before they give it out, and in the end they give out more than a billion dollars in overruns.

...has not only contributed to the economic difficulties in this province but has failed to take steps to preserve the jobs of workers in basic industries such as forestry, pulp, paper, mining and smelting....

You have all heard of the great tragedy in this province, the tragedy of the closing in Trail of an operation that has operated uninterrupted for over 70 years. We know the state of other industries, and yet we have not had from that government, at any time, suggestions and plans which would outline how to offset the kind of crisis we have in these industries.

If we are bound to become a province that is married to the forest and mining industries, surely the obligation on the part of this government, in conjunction with the federal government if necessary, is to take an aggressive move towards the business of obtaining other markets than the ones we are traditionally committed to. This has not been the case at all. Here we are in the midst of the most serious depression we've ever had, and we are committed to the same kinds of industries without the development of a secondary industry which would drain off some of the need to do the exportation, which in fact is the exportation of jobs. We have no such strategy from that government.

They are traditionalists in terms of what goes on in this province economically. That has been the great shortcoming of the government in terms of their economic policy. What they've looked for has always been the big ticket item. When they've found one.... We do not know to this day that that big ticket item in the northeast is signed, whether the deal can be consummated and whether we can get the kind of employment they say is there.

What happens when it's finished? If it's finished, do we go back to the same traditional dependence on the exportation of our resources without consideration given to the creation of a secondary industry base in this province, even in the forest industry? We don't do any of that kind of thing. We have had no discussion at all from that government over there. All we have are some large ballpark figures with expectations of what may happen 5, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road.

We have a serious problem. On the other hand, we've had the discussion about the kind of technical skills we will need to develop the programs that the government wants to do. It would be a great tragedy if we had to import 400 miners into this province or import any of the people who can be trained. As one of the members said, the big thing is that it is to their credit that there is a shortage. It's not to the credit of the government at all that there is a shortage. Unfortunately, many of the people who could have done the jobs left long ago to go somewhere else. That's the great tragedy of the kind of hit-or-miss economic policy that the government has.

Particularly this summer the university students or anyone in the post-secondary education system are going to have great difficulties if they're not able to find employment. Coupled with that has been the exorbitant increase in fees which means that we will have a continuing change in the people in our educational system who can avail themselves to a post-secondary education. Then we have a class-ridden education system where the people who come from families who can afford to assist them will be the people who go through. Those who cannot work and save the money for their fees and livelihood while going to school are going to come onto the job market and more than likely will eventually find themselves outside the province. I hope they don't have to find themselves in a situation where they will have to be on welfare. Remember, these people do not usually accumulate the required number of unemployment stamps so that they can even get that kind of assistance.

We have a very serious problem with that. I'm sure it was a great shock the other day to a lot of people — parents, students and the universities. If the rate declines, they can look forward to a shrinkage of the dollar and a reduction of the generation of successful post-secondary institutions. That's a very negative spinoff. It's something that's not addressed by anybody over there. That's a very real negative spinoff of the failure to have a job-generation program. It's a great tragedy for university students. No on has addressed it over there. No one at all.

Later on under another bill we'll be discussing this program, because we have to deal with the whole government program. But the important thing is that there is a failure on their part to look at the domino effect of some of the actions they take. You can't expect that at a time in a system in the way we budget you can develop some program today that you're going to be able to put into operation tomorrow. We've got to have that kind of long-range planning with respect to the major interstice of our economy, and we don't get it.

[ Page 7069 ]

There has been an overconcentration on the northeast coal effort. In that way they've spent and committed most of the resources that were available in terms of job generation to that area of the province. The export of jobs in the generation of that program is a tragedy. We're not talking about the merits of the program. We're talking about how it's managed. It's not managed well at all. But the consequence is, as we I ve said in this amendment, that they have failed to produce the jobs people need.

We're not talking about what things were like ten years ago, when we looked at the options of 4 percent of 5 percent unemployment. Realistically, we're looking at over 10, 11 and 12 percent unemployed in this province. That is the greatest tragedy. It is the greatest shortcoming of this government. They have failed to do any planning at all about this. On top of that, the number of people on the welfare rolls is the highest in the history of the province. We spend almost half a billion dollars giving people income maintenance in this province. With proper kinds of planning, we would not have to be doing that. We could be doing job-generation. It would be a great future expectation for people if they they knew they really could get into some work that was meaningful, and not, as the minister has trotted out for us, these little opportunity programs which pay you $50 a month more on an income that you can't even live on.

They talk about the business of negativism. The role of the opposition is to criticize and to make some constructive suggestions. You people have never been in opposition. You don't understand. First of all, you have to lay the groundwork for the criticism; then you create the options. We had all sorts of people on the other side going all over the shop, but not defending the programs that they have, saying: "Yes, we're proud to have this." They've got a new ploy over there. "Negativism," they say. How many over there have spoken for the young university students? All we've got is a minister who stands up and tells us about the three or four poor people on welfare they know. That's the great tragedy.

Let's deal with the reality of what it's like in this province today. Those are the kinds of things that we could have a debate about in this province and in this Legislature, if you're prepared to contribute to the debate. But nobody over there really has any ideas. There are no ideas in terms of the budget speech. There are no ideas at all. What can you do with a budget speech that tells you they're going to have a balanced budget, and yet the revenue is far less than the amount of money that's going to be expended. That's the reality of the budget. Then the Minister of Finance, like some Wizard of Oz, says: "Yes, but we've got some money in a secret fund that we're going to pull out." That's the reality of what you've done in terms of your budget. You're not prepared to face the most serious economic crisis that we've had in this province. You've had some suggestions in this House. You're not prepared to listen. Your leader is going to take you headlong somewhere, and you're just going to blindly follow him. We're not afraid to have an election. Just call it! We don't call elections; you do. The budget didn't take off to make the kind of election issue you wanted. You stand up and tell us what you are going to do. What are you going to do for those people out there? You think you can hawk big-ticket items around. That's not going to be an answer.

I'm going to support this motion, Mr. Speaker, because we have talked about practical solutions to the unemployment problem. Not one of you has addressed that issue, because you are absolutely barren of ideas.

MR. SKELLY: It's a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the amendment to the budget speech. In case anybody suspects the contrary, I intend to support the amendment and, therefore, to oppose the type of budget that the Social Credit government would present in this Legislature.

A number of ministers who have spoken relative to anything at all have talked about style versus substance, or form versus content, accusing the opposition of working on style and form, rather than having any content. But when you look at this budget speech, that type of speech from the opposition would be perfectly to the point. This budget has absolutely no legitimate content, and it's based on form. It is totally style without substance.

I have been in this Legislature for only ten years. I'm relatively junior compared to some of those oldsters over there. When I first came into this Legislature, when you picked up a budget speech you knew precisely what the business of government was going to be that year. You knew precisely what taxes were going to be levied in that year. You knew precisely what type of revenues the government was anticipating in that year, because the budget told you those details: the budget had substance, Mr. Speaker, as well as form. We've seen an insidious change since this government took office in 1976, an insidious change which absolutely undermines the tradition of this Legislature and the tradition of the British parliamentary system.

Mr. Speaker. It was a long time ago in this country, back in 1805, that the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada won what at that time was called the power of the purse, the right of the elected legislature to make decisions relative to the raising of taxes and the expenditure of moneys. You may question me on the date, but it happened over a period of years, around the first part of the nineteenth century. At that time, Mr. Speaker, lives were imperiled by people who fought to obtain the power of the purse for legislative assemblies such as this. The budget we're debating today — this budget that is devoid of substance, devoid of content, nothing but form and style — has undermined the legitimate authority of this Legislature and the members of this Legislature. The government ought to be ashamed of the way it treats the freely elected representatives of the people of this province and they way it has destroyed and undermined those rights and traditions of the Legislative Assembly under the British parliamentary system.

The government said there were no new taxes levied in this budget. There are two: corporation and capital tax levied against the banks that will yield something like $15 million in additional revenue. That's against those huge banks that are making such huge profits in a time of economic depression where everybody is suffering but the banks. We're taking $15 million from the banks while they're making such huge profits. From rural taxpayers, from those small landholders whom the Socreds have claimed to traditionally represent, we're taking $4 million more. All together, those people don't have the assets of the top five chartered banks in the country, Put them all together and they don't have the assets of those chartered banks, yet we're taking $4 million more from them than we are from the richest corporations operating in Canada under the protection of this and the federal government.

That's the way the Social Credit government levies taxes in the province, Mr. Speaker: a little bit against the rich, and rip off the poor. That's the real substance, if there is any, in this budget and that's what we're concerned about. That's

[ Page 7070 ]

why we've presented this amendment, and that's why we're challenging this budget which other than that is totally devoid of substance and content. So the members opposite, who talk of form and substance, don't know what they're talking about. They presented a document that's virtually meaningless, that totally undermines the rights and privileges of parliament, and they say that it has substance and content.

Mr. Speaker, in the past it was the tradition and the right and the privilege of parliament to decide which taxes should be levied against the people. It's a key component of the free British parliamentary system that the representatives of the people levy those taxes. "No taxation without representation" was one of the slogans of a previous revolution. "Not a dime without debate" was one that was picked up by the Social Credit Party back in 1975 when they selectively took that issue.

But it has been a tradition and a right and a privilege of a legislative assembly that the representatives of those to be taxed will have the right to make decisions on what taxes are to be levied. Under this government that's been in office since 1976, that has changed completely. Now taxes are levied behind the closed doors of cabinet. Medicare premiums are increased. Ferry rates are increased. Automobile licences and permits and drivers' licences are increased. Hospital co-insurance charges are increased. Gasoline tax is indexed to prices. Cigarette and alcohol taxes are increased behind the closed doors of cabinet without the approval of the representatives of the people of this province who traditionally in this Legislature have the right and the privilege to decide on what taxes should be levied against the people they represent.

Under this government one of the fundamental freedoms of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia has been undermined, and in fact with this new budget has been totally destroyed and taken away. Now in this province essentially we have taxation without representation. The power of the purse has been taken away from this Legislative Assembly and placed in the hands of the Crown behind the closed door of cabinet, where it was before 1805, when blood was shed by legislators who sought to win for their constituents the power of the purse and responsible government in this country.

The government is right. The substance has gone out of debate in this Legislature. The content has gone out of debate in this Legislature, because this Legislature has been deprived of one of its fundamental rights and privileges exercised on the part of the constituents of the members who are represented here.

One of the newspaper people took a look through the budget and said: "I can't find anything in this budget. There is nothing for the NDP to attack in this budget. Nice trick." But that newspaper person missed the point: that in one of the primary documents presented in the Legislative Assembly, this government has taken the freedoms of the people to rule on expenditures and taxes which will be imposed against them. This government is in the process of destroying responsible government in British Columbia step by step, almost invisibly. They are very subtle in the way they go about it, but step by step, erosion by erosion, they are removing from the representatives of the people of this province the right to rule on what taxes should be levied and the right to decide on how expenditures should be made. This is a government that is absolutely opposed and has demonstrated its opposition to responsible government, which has been the tradition of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia.

When I first began to look through the budget papers I wondered what kind of person or what kind of group would draft a budget like that; what kind of person or what kind of political party would have as their strategy the gradual undermining of the authority of the members of the Legislature of British Columbia and of the freedoms that have been enjoyed by this Legislature — freedoms hard won, freedoms won with blood, as I pointed out, Mr. Speaker. What kind of a group, what kind of a leader, what kind of a party would bring down a document like that?

I looked at the Minister of Finance, who read the budget in the first place. And no, I don't think it's his attitudes that go into the budget. I think he was just the flapping jaw that was working for somebody else; his was just the flapping jaw that was reading somebody else's words — somebody else who had written this budget, somebody else whose attitudes are included in that budget. It wasn't the Minister of Finance; he's simply the messenger, the puppet, the guy who reads the budget speech.

It really came from the Premier, because he made statements before at the Schooner Cove meeting, when he set up interviews with selected members of the press. He made statements here and there around the province; he talked to mini-conventions out at Harrison; and it's the Premier's statements that are represented in this budget speech. It's the Premier's attitudes, it's the Premier's personality that are really represented in this budget speech — and that's why there is no content, and that's why there is no substance. But form is important, as Marshall McLuhan once said — the medium is the message. What is the Premier, what is the leader? Who is the Premier, who is the leader? I had to analyze this, Mr. Speaker, and so should we all before looking into the budget. Really, unless we know what goes into the budget, what the attitude of that Premier is, those things that he was born with, why he wrote this budget in the first place, it's very difficult for an opposition member to understand him — and I don't think the government members have even tried.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and I were born on the same day, so that helps me to understand him a little bit. It isn't his stars that cause him to look at the budget procedure in a different way, because those are the same. He's 11 years older than I am — and showing it. But it isn't that either, because he's got some younger people on his benches who seem to operate in precisely the same way. Do you know what sets me and members on this side of the House apart from the Premier? The same thing that sets us apart from Pierre Elliot Trudeau. This is the way the Premier looks at the budget: he looks at it from the point of view of somebody who had the intellect, the initiative, the drive and the get up and go to be born rich. That's the way the Premier looks at it. That's the thing that has dominated his whole life. Can you imagine it yourself, Mr. Speaker — being born rich? There was always somebody there to feed you with a silver spoon; there was always somebody there to comfort you in a silken crib; and there was always somebody there to look after you, even if it was only the upstairs maid.

The Premier was born rich. It's different. He comes from different socio-economic origins than the rest of us, and it is that more than anything else that has dictated the way this budget is structured and the way the fiscal policy of this province is structured. The Premier has never had to suffer. He doesn't know what unemployment is like. If ever he went out into the world as a teenager or 20-year-old man to seek

[ Page 7071 ]

work or to invest in a motel or something like the rest of us, if he failed, he was always welcomed back into that womb of wealth. There was no problem of insecurity; he could always return. There was no such thing as failure in the Premier's life, because even failure was rewarded by a return to that wealthy womb. The Premier doesn't understand the vast majority of the people of this province and the problems that they face on a day-to-day basis, and that is the problem.

As I said, I was born on the same day as the Premier. I was the second son of seven children of a bus driver. He didn't even have....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The member doesn't understand either.

Whenever I look across the floor at the Premier, I'm always reminded of an ad on television where the son is watching television with his father. It is a fancy RCA 28-inch color TV with remote controls. The father says, "Someday all this will be yours, son" — the television and the mansion. What does the son say? This is the great frustration in the Premier's life. He says: "When will it all be mine, Daddy?" That was his great frustration. That was the hardship he suffered through all the years of his life. "When will it all be mine, Daddy?" He didn't have to work for it like the rest of us. He didn't have to experience pain for it like the rest of us. He didn't have to suffer for it like the rest of us. He didn't have to experience insecurity for it like the rest of us. The Premier always had the wealthy womb available for him to return to.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) please come to order.

MR. SKELLY: But there are some people who do understand that. When this budget was being read on the floor of this House, my constituents were out on the lawn of the parliament buildings at a soup kitchen. Some of those people hadn't worked for 18 months. Some of those people were employees of the same company, MacMillan Bloedel, for 45 years, and now find themselves laid off, out of work and uncertain about ever being hired back by that company. The Premier has never had that problem, and he doesn't understand it. That's why when we were listening to this budget speech on April 5 and that soup kitchen was going on out on the lawn of the parliament buildings, the Premier couldn't even summon the understanding as to what those people were experiencing. They had been out of work for 18 months and had no prospect of ever returning to work.

Some of my constituents have been out of work for so long that their medical plan was cut off. The company no longer pays for their medical plan.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You've been out of work for a year, but you're still on the government payroll.

MR. SKELLY: We're going to get to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) shortly.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Some of these people say that this is a personal attack. It's not a personal attack. It is just an attempt to understand why this kind of budget came down when alternatives are available which could spread the work around this province and which could tax the people more lightly so they would have more disposable income to help generate an increase in the economy that is desperately needed in communities such as the one I represent. Why does the Premier lack that understanding? Why does the budget lack that understanding? The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the Premier has never had the experience. It makes him less of a legislator, less of a governor, less of a Premier. That is why we get inadequate budgets in this Legislature.

As I pointed out during the time that the budget was being read here, there was a soup kitchen on the lawn of the parliament buildings, and the Premier didn't even understand what was going on out on the lawn. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has been happening in this province while the Social Credit Party has been in government. Let me tell you, using the statistics that are available to us from various national and provincial agencies. Let's look at the wealthy and the poor. The government, when it brought down the budget papers, brought down some information about a comparative tax study, a tax study that compared the impact of provincial taxes and user fees on people of various income levels here in British Columbia as opposed to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, etc. The most obvious fact that is available to anybody is that this province taxes the poor relatively more heavily than they are taxed in other provinces, and it taxes the rich relatively more lightly than they are taxed in other provinces.

"When will it all be mine, Daddy?" Why does this province favour the rich? Because we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because we have the Premier, because we have a whole crew of millionaires who are making the policy of this province. The only thing they've ever understood is: "When will it all be mine?" The people they help are the rich; the people they help are themselves. That is the defect in this budget. That is why there is no content in this budget, and that is why it is difficult to even put content in the debate in opposition to the budget. This government has consistently ripped off those at the lower end of the economic scale, whether it is in taxing them more heavily than in other provinces or whether it is in providing them with fewer incentives to improve themselves.

Let's look at the minimum wage and its comparison to the average wages of this province over the years. In 1974, when the NDP government was in office, the minimum wage which we had increased substantially was 47.8 percent of the average wages in the province, almost half of what the average wages were. In 1976 it went down 3 points; in 1977 it went down 2.5 points; in 1978 it was down to 39.8 percent; in 1979 it was down to 36.7 percent; in 1980 it was down to 35.4 percent. So the working poor in this province are making only one-third of the average wage in this province, because you people have kept the minimum wage depressed to the point where the working poor, who work hard — they work just as hard as, and even harder than, the rest of us — get less and less and are deprived of more and more by a government that has the understanding of the rich and the comfortable but simply doesn't have the understanding of those who are suffering, those who are poor and those who do without — the people of whom that Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said: "All we should do for them is give

[ Page 7072 ]

them a shovel." That was his attitude. "Are there no poorhouses?" That was his attitude. Look what they've done. It's been a consistent policy every year that you've been in office to deprive those people of even half of parity.

I'd like to talk about my own riding and how the policies of this government have affected that riding. This government, because they're rich and because they like to build monuments to themselves, which is the traditional activity of the rich in government.... It seems to be the drive and the motivation of the rich in government to build monuments and to name them after themselves: Williston Lake, W.A.C. Bennett Dam. You've heard them all; you've seen them on the maps around the province. They're monument-builders. They have no conception of the needs of the people in various parts of the province. This government has fallen into the same trap as that old corrupt coalition that was in power before 1952. They were centred on the rich areas of the province: the Oak Bays, the Vancouver–Point Greys. Those areas of the province were represented by the Liberals, by the wealthy. They built all their monuments in those areas. When W.A.C. Bennett came into office, he talked about the dirt tracks and cow trails in the rural areas of B.C., in the resource-rich areas, where people work to produce the wealth of this province — places like Port Alberni, Revelstoke and Prince George, which is unrepresented at the moment. Those rural areas of the province that produce the wealth of this province are now being bled of taxes and bled of resources to feed the megaprojects, the monuments that this government is building to itself in downtown Vancouver.

Let me show you some examples from Port Alberni. In Port Alberni, a town of about 20,000 people, we have an arts centre called the Rollin Art Centre. The building was donated by the city. They've done a great job of promoting the arts in Port Alberni.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against Pier B-C?.

MR. SKELLY: Are you against the arts centres in various rural communities in this province which you've deprived of financing in order to build that monument to yourself in Vancouver?

Mr. Speaker, last year the Rollin Art Centre in my riding applied for $3,300 in funding. I mean, that's a tenth of what most of those ministers spent on travel expenses. No big deal — the government can afford it. This year they applied for $5,000 — almost enough to cover their operating expenses — and the government cut them back to nothing. They didn't even get what they got last year. On the same day they sent a letter to that arts centre saying they were cutting their funding to zero, the Premier printed up invitations to a meeting in downtown Vancouver where he was going to reannounce Transpo 86. The cost of engraving those invitations was more than the amount of money that arts centre had asked for for operating grants for a full year. Is that the kind of priorities this government has — to put on a circus in Vancouver to reannounce a project that we were already aware is going ahead, to announce a lottery? Yet they would deprive a city like Port Alberni, which has already suffered through unemployment and a cutback in the forest markets. This government would spend more to engrave invitations than it would to provide some small amount to improve the quality of life in a city that's already suffering under the policies of this government.

Let's look at the school system in Port Alberni. We got a message from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) that the school district had to cut back $517,000 from its preliminary budget. The school district looked at the budget, which had already been cut down in virtually every possible way without sacrificing the quality of education, and they were forced to close down five schools and to lay off 18 staff people and 18 teachers — more people out of work in Port Alberni, an area that's already suffered. That's 28 more people out on the bricks. Does that help the economy of Port Alberni? There were five community schools that the parents were very proud of, that they interacted with very well and were very supportive of, and the government ordered those schools closed. They wanted to take an additional $517,000 from an area that had already suffered, had already contributed, had already given their share to B.C. Place, and given their share to Transpo 86. We have already given our share to tourist development facilities in Vancouver, and now's the time, when we're suffering, that a little of that share should come back to us. But what do they do? They take even more. They simply do not understand the problems being faced by people who are unemployed in the rural areas of this province. They simply do not understand. They're incapable of understanding.

Read through the budget a few times, then look at the municipal grants this year. It sounds like a good deal on first reading, but as you look through it and get the facts, you find out that they are even ripping off the municipalities. One reporter calls them the farm team for the Social Credit government, which is ripping off the municipalities.

Port Alberni is suffering. There are 6,000 IWA members in the Port Alberni area and 2,000 of those members are laid off. So many people have had to go on welfare that they've had to hire extra staff in the welfare department in Port Alberni. These are people who have never been on welfare before, people considered by this government to be deadbeats who need to be provided with shovels. People who had worked 15 and 20 years of their contributing lives now find themselves on welfare, and what happens? They take away even more from them. They bleed those rural areas. They bleed the resource-producing areas of this province in order to build monuments to themselves in downtown Vancouver. Then they announce that the ferry rates are going to go up. So even if you live in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island and service is going to be cut back, you can't afford to get to B.C. Place to watch those highly paid American football players run against each others' heads on the turf, putting on the shows that the Social Credit government seems to enjoy —  the monuments you want to build to yourselves.

If I talked to the member for Vancouver Centre about B.C. Place, he would say, yes, B.C. Place should go ahead, but not at the expense of every other community in this province, not at the expense of health services, not at the expense of hospital services, not at the expense of raising electricity rates and gas rates and taxes and fees and charges for every single person in British Columbia, many of whom will not even be able to afford the opportunity of getting to B.C. Place to see the spectacles that the Socreds plan to put on there.

Mr. Speaker, how can you be positive about this budget speech? How can you be positive about a budget speech like this that robs from 90 percent of the people of the province to pay and build big monuments for the few? How can you be proud? How can you be positive about something like that? Is

[ Page 7073 ]

it the "B.C. spirit" to close down an art centre in Port Alberni that's asking for $5,000 and then spend $12,000 to paint a new slogan on ferries that belong to a trust company back east? Whatever happened to pride of ownership in this province? There was a time when we owned Canadian Cellulose. There was a time when we owned that ferry fleet, and we paid for it in cash. There was a time when we owned Kootenay Forest Products and Panco Poultry. We owned a lot of things in this province, and they've sold them. We owned a bus system that they've broken up and destroyed; they sold this profit-making operation to the Americans, and allowed Greyhound to take the business away from it on the mainland. The reason I'm concerned about that is because that was my father's investment in this province. He worked for that company for 20 years, to the day he died. That investment was taken away and given to the Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to be positive about a budget like this. It's difficult to be positive about a government like this, and I think if the government ever got out of this ivory tower and travelled around the province and talked to those people who are forced into soup kitchens, who have been out of work for months and months, and who stand to lose their houses, cars, boats and the things that the good life has provided for them in British Columbia, and for which they now have no protection at all under this government, they would find it difficult to be anything but negative about this budget.

MR. RICHMOND: It's a pleasure for me to once again stand in my place and speak against this amendment. In fact, after the last speaker just finished, it is even more of a pleasure than I thought it would be. I find it very difficult to stand here and listen to him talk about flapping jaws and make personal attacks on members on this side and then in the next breath say there's nothing personal in his attack on this budget. I find that a little bit ludicrous.

He went on at great length about being unemployed and never having opportunities and failing, and I would like that member to know that there are many of us on this side of the House that have been unemployed at one time or another in our lives. Many of us have been unemployed. I can only surmise that that last remark pertains to some of the members on that side who have been devoid of employment for a long, long time.

Yes, some of us have failed on this side of the House — you bet! — long before we ever listened to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). Some of us have failed, and we have that right in our private lives to fail, but we got up again and started over and succeeded. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing that upsets that member for Alberni is the fact that some of us have succeeded on the second or maybe the third try. He went on at length about the banks and the policies that this budget adopted towards the banks and suggested that we didn't go nearly far enough. In fact, he came very close to saying that we should nationalize the banks, and I'm sure that was in the back of his mind when he spoke.

Interjections.

MR. RICHMOND: They are in favour of it, Mr. Speaker, as I thought. They would love to nationalize them. I suggest they ask Mr. Mitterrand what happened in France when he did exactly that, and why he's travelling around the world right now in an absolute panic. His country is in real deep trouble because of those types of policies.

MR. LAUK: I'll convey your best wishes to him.

MR. RICHMOND: I wish you would. He's in tremendous trouble, and he's going to stay in trouble for a long time because of those types of policies.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any trouble supporting this budget, nor do many, many thousands of people around this province. This budget is supported by many, especially those who understand what's going on in the world. They don't live in isolation, as some of us think they do.

Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Steamship Company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the annual report and the financial statements for the British Columbia Cellulose Company for the year ending December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.