[ Page 9403 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Cost of government advertising. Mr. Stupich –– 9404

Effect of water-licence fee increase on metal mines. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9404

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

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

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

Impaired-driving courses. Mr. Macdonald –– 9405

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

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Kempf –– 9405

Mr. Lauk –– 9407

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9410

Mr. Lorimer –– 9412

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 9413

Mr. Cocke –– 9414

Mr. Mussallem –– 9417

Mr. Howard –– 9420

Mr. Nicolson –– 9424

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All members of the House, and indeed all British Columbians, I am sure, will join me in paying tribute to the memory of Ma Murray, who died on Saturday at the age of 95. For 70 years her witty and often acid pen kept many public figures in this province on their toes. She was blunt, forthright and opinionated, but never malicious. Some of her most notable targets, my father among them, admired her honesty and integrity and referred to her as a friend. Although Ma Murray — I say I "Ma," because nobody ever called her Margaret — was born in Kansas and did not come to British Columbia until she was 24, to my mind she portrayed the true British Columbia pioneer spirit, a spirit that built this province.

On behalf of the members of the Legislature and all the people of British Columbia, I would like to extend our sympathy to her daughter Georgina and her family. We shall not see the like of Ma Murray again in this province, I do believe. She provided one of the most colourful chapters in the history of our province — a province which she adopted and loved so well.

MR. HOWARD: It's indeed a sad honour to associate ourselves with the words of the Premier of this province with respect to Ma Murray. British Columbia has indeed lost a remarkable person. Personally, on more than one occasion in Lillooet I had the pleasure to speak with the late Ma Murray and to receive some of her wisdom, honour and integrity. She was one of the most delightful, honest and forthright persons this province has ever known. People not only in the newspaper world, but in politics and all walks of life, have been left a legacy of candour and integrity that we should take as our guideline into the future, and we should always pay respect to Ma Murray and the legacy she's left to us.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, Ma Murray was a constituent of mine and I must echo the remarks made by the Premier and the member for Skeena. It's interesting to note that as late as May of this year, Ma Murray rode in the May Day parade in Lillooet at the age of 95. She'll be sorely missed by all her friends in Lillooet, and throughout the province, I'm sure. I know she will be missed by me.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Murray was long known to me and even longer to members of my family, and I would very much like to add my personal expression of sorrow on her passing. She was a great lady and she'll be sorely missed. As she would say: "That's for damshur."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I've sat in this House I have the pleasure of having my daughter, Deanna, in the gallery today. I ask this House to welcome her and the young gentleman with her, Mr. Michael Marti, to the House and to Victoria.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, under standing orders it would be appropriate somewhere soon to have a question period; and under those standing orders it is appropriate to have cabinet ministers in their seats to answer questions about important issues of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point we are in introductions, and until orders have been called I will entertain any point of order that the member feels he might have.

Oral Questions

MR. LAUK: On a point of order before question period starts, Mr. Speaker, several cabinet ministers are absent from their seats, perhaps because of the problem we've been having with division bells ringing in cabinet ministers' offices. There have been complaints by several cabinet ministers both to you privately and as questions of privilege. I would ask — in good spirit — that we ring the division bells to remind cabinet ministers, who may not have heard the bells, that the House is now in session.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has no authority to force members to be in the chamber. The standing orders are well known. It is each member's responsibility to be in the chamber.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker does have the authority to ring the division bells in accordance with standing orders, and I ask the Speaker to do so now.

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

MR. LAUK: It's established that when someone raises a point of order before question period commences, it does not come off the time of question period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 9404 ]

COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In recent weeks British Columbians have been subjected to a major onslaught of printed advertising, electronic advertising and direct mailing of glossy pamphlets, as the Social Credit Party attempts to improve its standing in the public opinion polls. Can the Finance minister advise the House as to the total cost of this public education program?

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

MR. COCKE: I guess you would.

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

I think that the member for Nanaimo would know that there are individual votes assigned to individual ministries. I can undertake to take the question as notice or, on the other hand, the member or other members may wish to ask individual ministers with respect to expenditures of this kind. I might say, however, that, generally speaking, restraint across government has included a variety of publications — and very successfully so.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that no limit has been placed on spending in these areas, and that ministers have "open sesame" on the public purse when it comes to spending for propaganda purposes?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can take issue with some of the comments or some of the adjectives used; but it is incorrect to make that assumption.

EFFECT OF WATER-LICENCE
FEE INCREASE ON METAL MINES

MR. D'ARCY: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in his capacity as Minister of Mines. Since the Socred mining royalty in 1982 in the form of water-rental licence increases is going to extract approximately $25 million from the mining industry this year alone, and, as the minister knows, since every metal mine in the province is either shut down or operating in the red, has the minister decided to approach his colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and ask him to defer the water-licence fee increase scheduled for January 1?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, the short answer to the long, convoluted question is no. The long answer to it is that the member is well aware that the problem the mining industry faces in this province — indeed, across the world — is not that problem, but is a problem with the fall in the market for metals and the price of metals. The recovery of the mining industry is a complex one. I have had meetings with members of that industry who have made submissions to me concerning water rentals and a number of other subjects. Those are undergoing review, and we are having more meetings with that industry.

I find, Mr. Speaker, that one thing that does bother that industry is the faint prospect that the gentlemen opposite might at some time have an opportunity to bring in their old mining policies.

MR. D'ARCY: The reason that the mining industry objects to this royalty is that it is a tax on production, Mr. Speaker — exactly the same reason that they objected to the royalty that was in effect in 1974 and 1975, to which the minister has referred. The reason they are so annoyed now is that the industry is in far more trouble that it was then, and yet the government, through this royalty, is taking twice as much money out of the industry as the former royalty took in 1974-75.

Has the minister decided to change the policy of royalties charged to the mining industry? Because clearly those royalties are costing the industry twice as much as the former royalty, which that government removed in 1976.

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

GOVERNMENT APPOINTEES
RUNNING FOR POLITICAL OFFICE

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

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

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

Has the Premier decided to conduct an investigation into whether the Social Credit Party is putting pressure on educational institutions to provide job security for Social Credit candidates running in the impending election?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It must have been a hot sun in Spain this summer, Mr. Speaker. If I could understand the relevance or even the nature of your question I'd love to respond. But I'll leave the question to answer itself before the people of B.C. as to what the member for Vancouver Centre considers important in these difficult times in British Columbia.

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

I'll ask the question in a different way that will perhaps make it clearer for the Premier. The Pacific Vocational Institute board has curiously granted Social Credit provincial candidate Elwood Veitch an indefinite leave of absence to run for office, and guarantees him a job on his inevitable defeat at the polls. Can the Premier guarantee that the Pacific Vocational Institute government-appointed board acted out of the interests of that vocational institution without political interference?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's no political interference. This is a question that should be answered, because one of the rights that has been given under all governments is leave for people who work in the public to freely take part in the political process. The present Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), much to their regret — but maybe they hoped he would represent that area — was given leave by the former New Democratic Party government to contest the 1975 election when he worked for the government. I think the New

[ Page 9405 ]

Democratic Party candidate in Surrey — not the sitting member, but his running mate — may have a similar opportunity. I think that boards and governments should not interfere politically and prevent people from running. Are we interfering? No. Is the member suggesting that we should interfere?

MR. LAUK: The examples raised by the Premier are civil servants, not government appointees to boards. Now that he has raised the issue, let me ask another question. We're talking about a government that appointed Veitch bursar as soon as he lost the election. Let's talk about another example, and ask the Premier whether he can answer this. The government-appointed board at this specific vocational institution gave indefinite leave to Mr. Veitch, together with a guarantee of a job on his return. No other board or institution has granted that to anyone, except someone else in this Legislature. Can the Premier confirm that Elwood Veitch sought advice from the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) on how to obtain job security?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm sure if he sought advice from me on how to obtain job security, I would say: run as a Social Credit candidate in the next election.

EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY

MR. D'ARCY: The Socreds' recently published, taxpayer-funded policy statement declares on page 10 that the Socreds will launch a marketing program to establish electricity export markets. Has the minister done any cost-benefit analysis studies to show that the export of jobs by means of electricity is a benefit to the province of British Columbia?

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

UNEMPLOYMENT IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. In the spring of this year the minister was appointed to chair a cabinet committee on job creation. There are now 200,000 British Columbians on UIC benefits, and a further 70,000 on welfare — and that figure is climbing — giving a total of something in the neighbourhood of 300,000 people who are living on public support as a result of the Socred-generated depression. Can the minister confirm that the bridging job-creation program, which the minister promised would provide 10,000 jobs, has provided work for only 1,300 of the 300,000 British Columbians looking for work?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm that figure. I am aware that it is more than that. I'd be pleased to bring the figure to the House, but I'm also pleased that the members opposite have supported all the legislation for the recovery program that has been before this House.

IMPAIRED-DRIVING COURSES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there has been an impaired-driving course in Victoria for the rehabilitation and education of people convicted of impaired driving. Has the Attorney-General, on two weeks' notice, completely cut off the funding for that successful program in Victoria?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter of impaired-driving courses has been under examination by the interministerial committee on traffic safety. An assessment has been made of the advisability of continuing that program, comparing it, with other initiatives that are underway, sponsored by that committee and by ICBC. Yes, the program has been discontinued.

MR. MACDONALD: Some 3,000 people have been put through that program since 1974. No doubt it has saved life and limb on the highways in this province at a cost of $11,000 in Victoria. Is it not a mixup in priorities to spend all the money that is being spent for political propaganda by this government and cut off that essential service? Was the minister involved in that kind of priority-setting?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I should repeat what I said, and perhaps the member would listen. An analysis has been made of the effects of the program throughout the province, and it has been determined that there are other initiatives underway by the committee, as I mentioned, and by ICBC that will supplant it to much greater effect. Let me simply say that we don't believe it appropriate to give courses in impaired driving. We're trying to stop people from being impaired at all.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce the amendments to the Vancouver Charter, which is motion 29, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

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

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1982
(continued)

MR. KEMPF: Just prior to adjournment last Friday, I was talking about the serious worldwide recession in which the province of British Columbia is caught up, explaining that this government — unlike the socialists in 1975 — will not run from our responsibilities. We will not run and hide behind an election writ in order not to face the problems of the day in regard to the economy of British Columbia. We will not shirk our responsibilities for the provision of essential services, which the people of British Columbia have grown used to and are reliant upon, even during tough economic times. Resource revenues to the province of British Columbia have decreased by some 60 percent in the past few months, but the costs of essential services — of which I spoke — continue on. We've entered into a restraint program, and yes, despite the socialist-inspired demonstrations and attempts to discredit our every move, it is working.

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

MR. COCKE: First time!

MR. KEMPF: It's not the first time, Mr. Member for New Westminster. I want to tell you something: if you get out into your constituency as often as I do mine, your people will be very fortunate indeed.

[ Page 9406 ]

Mr. Speaker, the restraint program is working. It is being accepted, and I would like a chance to prove that. I'd like a chance to go to the polls and prove that. You bet I would, and I look forward to that event.

The general public has accepted the need for a restraint program in this province. It's too bad that it isn't Canada-wide, that it isn't throughout this nation, because there is a need, and the public is aware of that. The public have accepted the fact that restraint is needed, because we do not know and they do not know exactly where the situation — the worldwide economic situation in which we find ourselves — may end.

It is necessary through Bill 86 to ensure the continuation of essential services in British Columbia. The socialists would run and hide, as they did in 1975. They'd run and hide and call an election. That's all they've been talking about in the last two weeks, now going into the third, on that side of the floor, yet where is their leader? He's not here again today. Where was he the week before last, where was he last week and where is he today? He's not in the chamber debating the economic situation in British Columbia. Where is he? I would suggest that he should really be....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. While there is some latitude under the present bill, I think that the member will recognize that the bounds of that have been passed.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I was just pointing out the necessity for Bill 86 in this chamber — pointing out why it is that the government is bringing in Bill 86 at this time. Mr. Speaker, it's bringing in Bill 86 so as not to run from its responsibilities, as the socialists opposite did in 1975. They called a winter election in 1975 because they were broke, a slap in the face for the people who live in the northern two thirds of the province of British Columbia. A December 11 election, an election just before Christmas — some Christmas present, Mr. Member for Revelstoke- Shuswap. They were broke and totally disorganized as a government, just as they are totally disorganized as an opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they were worse.

MR. KEMPF: Well, I don't think they could have been any worse than they are in opposition. I wasn't here in those days, but there's that possibility, I suppose. They were bankrupt of dollars and bankrupt of the ability to govern the province of British Columbia when they hid behind the writ in 1975, not wanting to bring in such a bill as Bill 86, not wanting to live up to their responsibilities as the government of the province of British Columbia.

I heard members opposite speak, in debate last week on this bill, of the millions of dollars that they left when they ran and hid in 1975. What utter hypocrisy! I remember those early days of 1976. If in fact millions of dollars were left by that administration when they were fired out of office, where did they leave it? The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was here in those days and he should have known where it was left. We couldn't find it; it wasn't there. All we found were unpaid bills, unsigned cheques, when we came into office in early 1976. They left millions of dollars in the coffers — what hypocrisy! If they left anything it was an absolutely bare cupboard. There wasn't even a crumb. Not only was the cupboard bare, but the socialists opposite left, as a legacy to the people of British Columbia, a $250 million debt. I remember that, and the people of the province of British Columbia will never forget it. That was their heritage fund. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talks about a heritage fund; that was the heritage fund you people left to the people of British Columbia — a legacy of debt.

That social welfare party, with their social welfare leader who never shows up in this House.... He shows up once in a while and stands up out of order, wanting to debate the economy. We're on a bill — and we've been on several others — where there is opportunity to debate the economy of the province, and where is the opposition leader, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke? You're part of that caucus; where is he? In this debate.... Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's applicable to the debate on this bill. It must be. You allowed it in debate from that side of the floor, so it must be applicable. I heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody expound in this chamber on Friday on the merits of socialism. He does it...

AN HON. MEMBER: Very well.

MR. KEMPF:...very often. Yes, he does it very well too. As socialists know, socialists should be able to say, and he does it very well, I agree. I heard him expound on the merits of socialism just last Friday when debating this bill. We all know the merits of socialism, Mr. Speaker; even the Russians.... The members opposite laugh, but it's no laughing matter. Even the communists in Russia have to come to the capitalist countries of Canada and the United States to buy enough wheat to feed themselves, and that is after over 60 years of a state-controlled economy — and the member for Coquitlam-Moody comes into this House and expounds on the merits of socialism.

Mr. Speaker, I said on Friday in this same debate that I don't believe in government borrowing. But we are not in an ordinary situation in British Columbia in regard to the worldwide recession that we face. It is not an ordinary situation; we are caught up in world recessionary problems. I know that the members opposite would like the people of British Columbia not to understand that. But I'll tell you — and I've said it before — that I was in my constituency for two long days on the weekend and they understand more than even we on this side of the House would like to admit. You bet they understand.

In debate on Friday — and the member is in his seat — I heard the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), when someone from this side of the floor was talking about our dollar now being worth more than 80 cents in comparison to the American dollar.... Mr. Speaker, the remark I heard from that member for Alberni, in response to that particular question, I couldn't believe even from a socialist. The member said — and it is in Hansard, but I'll quote, again putting it into the record of this House: "No wonder our lumber isn't selling." Is that what the member believes to be a good economy, when our dollar is only worth 75 cents compared to other currencies in the world? Is that what you believe to be the answer to the economic woes of this country and this world today — that our dollar be further devalued — Mr. Member for Alberni? Is that really what the member believes? Is that where the member believes our dollar should be?

Mr. Speaker, we have priced ourselves out of world markets in the province of British Columbia because of our greed. Because of our never-ending thirst for more and more, we have priced ourselves out of world markets to the point

[ Page 9407 ]

that we've had to devalue the dollar in order to sell to those world markets. But even now, with the devalued dollar, with a dollar worth only 80 cents compared to the dollar across our border to the south, we can't compete. We've priced ourselves out of the markets of the world, and we can no longer compete in our natural resource industries.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: We can no longer provide more for some who greedily look for it, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. Those resource industries can no longer provide for the more that those people on the other side of the floor still want to give away. We heard of a gross giveaway program that the members of the opposition suggested.... His government, if he were to be so successful as to form the next government of the province of British Columbia, would give away another $300 million. Mr. Speaker, where was that Leader of the Opposition suggesting they get that $300 million? He doesn't come into this House, so he cannot answer some of these questions. But where — I leave that question with the members opposite — did he expect to get those $300 million? The only solution that the member for Alberni has is to further devalue the Canadian dollar on world markets, below the 80-cent figure, so that some greedy people in British Columbia and in this country can have more. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is: God forgive him, for he knows not what he says. He really doesn't know what he says.

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

MR. KEMPF: A way with words or not, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre.... Maybe I don't have the great education that you have, but from what you recently did to the Bank of Commerce in this country, I don't want your education. I can do without it, thank you, words or not.

Unlike that group over there, who showed their ability to govern when they were the government of the province of British Columbia.... The people of this province know who can best look after their interests, their tax dollars. I say again that I look forward to the opportunity — I wish it would come next week — to go to the people and let them decide who has their best interests at heart.

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

MR. KEMPF: As I said previously, I don't believe in government borrowing. But we're not in a normal situation. Even you should know that — even you with your great education, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre.

Last week we heard some talk from the members opposite about when W.A.C. Bennett was Premier and burned a barge load of paid-up debts. Yes, he did, and so will we. We have proven our ability to pay our bills, unlike the socialists opposite. We have already proven that. We don't have to prove it again to the people of the province of British Columbia. We know who left the heritage fund to the province of British Columbia — a heritage of debt. It wasn't W.A.C. Bennett, and it won't be this Social Credit government either. The people of British Columbia aren't stupid. They aren't as stupid as the members opposite would like to think they are — not by a long shot. The people of British Columbia will compare the records. The people of British Columbia will agree with restraint — and they do agree with it. They know that we're taking the responsible route. We're taking our responsibility seriously, because we're not in a good situation worldwide. People understand that. That's why the members opposite are so jittery. Whenever the socialists chalk up a deficit, incur bills, they're never able to repay it. They judge everyone else as they themselves would be judged. Let the dogs bark, but the caravan must move on.

On Friday we heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) present the challenge to this House to go to the polls. I accept that challenge. I'll go to the polls any day and expound the merits of the government on this side of the floor. I support Bill 86.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: We've heard the member for Omineca, with a lot more heat than light, explain why he's going to take a position on Bill 86 that is opposite to his fundamental beliefs. I'm reminded of the member's speech — and I read his speeches very carefully — on April 1, 1976, in this chamber, which is available on page 499 of Hansard.

Where did he go?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: On that day the member said: "Pay as you go, Mr. Speaker, is the only method which I believe to be good and fair and good enough for the people of the province of British Columbia. To borrow for the payment of back debts, Mr. Speaker, is like having to pay for a horse that has already passed away."

I'll try to get other portions of the hon. member's speech — those portions that have a subject and predicate within striking distance of one another. He said that it was no small thing for the people of Omineca to borrow to pay debts. "It's a disgrace to the people of British Columbia." He certainly has changed his tune today. He's going to borrow. He argues that this is a world recession, a world problem, and the poor little government in British Columbia can't do anything about it. This poor little government is caught up in a world recession. Can the hon. members opposite explain why it is then that in the last six, seven or eight years Canada has slipped from being the second wealthiest industrial nation of the world, from being second in standard of living...?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Socialist policies!

MR. LAUK: I'm glad you pointed that out. The Right Hon. Barney Rubble has pointed out that it was socialist policies that lowered the standard of living.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 9408 ]

to number eleven? Germany, Sweden, Japan and Denmark moved ahead of Canada. How did they move ahead? They all have social democratic planned economies — all of them. Most of the countries I've mentioned have well under 5 percent unemployment in the middle of this so-called world recession. It's a recession out there, Mr. Speaker. It's even a recession in the other Canadian provinces, but it's a depression in British Columbia.

You've got to start asking yourselves why this government is hiding behind world conditions when they've brought British Columbia practically to her knees through their inept policies. Need I remind this chamber that once before, under the auspices of the Premier of this province.... In 1978 the Premier and his Finance minister trooped to Ottawa and demanded that the federal government take a policy of high interest rates to solve what they perceived to be the inflationary problem with the country. They were warned. They were told that high interest rates would bring this country to its knees. No one can deny that in 1978 the Premier of this province demanded that the federal government raise high interest rates, and Trudeau, always willing to cooperate with his old buddy, did precisely that.

There are other speeches in this House that I want to bring to the chamber's attention when they're voting upon Bill 86. What is Bill 86? It is a Trudeau credit card. It's giving to this government, without any accountability from this Legislature or the public of British Columbia, the power to borrow unlimited funds, for unlimited purposes, at any time. It can borrow to buy the groceries, it can borrow to fund election promises, government advertising, ministerial travel and restaurant expenses. It can borrow for any purpose, in secret, without debate before this chamber.

The traditions of the British parliamentary system were primarily that the House of Commons in Westminster, and subsequently the House of Commons and legislatures across Canada, were established to keep a watchdog on the public purse. We're here to debate budgets, not to pass the authority and responsibility given to us by the people of this province to a small group of cabinet ministers to print money in the basement in secret. That's what it is for, Mr. Speaker: the Premier and the Minister of Finance in their basement cranking out treasury bills — paper, paper, paper. If we allow them this legislation, they'll print treasury bills in the same way they print glossy pamphlets. I suppose it's a new Socred definition of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press, to the Social Credit administration, means freedom to print treasury bills, piling debt upon debt upon debt — with no accountability.

What happened to that great slogan, "Not a dime without debate"? It's gone. The Legislature was established to provide that kind of scrutiny of the expenditure of public funds. Look how difficult it was for the NDP opposition to determine just the expense accounts of cabinet ministers. With this further secret production of credit — Social Credit — we're going to be hard-pressed in future legislatures to find out where the money is going, and for what purposes. Borrowing to buy the groceries — what a devastating thing to do in the middle of a depression.

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

"To borrow is the easy way out, but against that is the burden it creates for future generations. We will leave our children and their children a large enough legacy of problems without this additional one of paying for government deficits, when with determination and sacrifice we can overcome our problem now."

Can anyone tell me who said that? Who said that, Mr. Speaker? It was the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Wolfe), who has now left the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I wonder why he has left the cabinet. Is it any wonder that he would leave the cabinet of the province of British Columbia? He gave that speech. They're going against principles.

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

"Government, like people, can not go on spending more than it makes. What comes in must balance what goes out. If balance is not achieved, then governments must borrow to pay the bills, but Bank of Canada governor Gerald Bouey warned us only the other day that too much borrowing by governments will stifle growth of the economy. The competition by the public and private sectors for available funds will, in a period of monetary restraint, force interest rates to a higher level."

Mr. Speaker, that's the nub of this problem. For political expediency the government wants to print treasury bills and borrow money — charged against the public treasury. Their own Finance minister of a few years ago said: "You know what that'll do if you borrow money? It will take available money out of the marketplace and force interest rates higher." Can you see the insanity of this? This comes right from Alice in Wonderland; Lewis Carroll wrote the new Minister of Finance's script. On the one hand, they bring in a mortgage aid program to help people pay for high interest rates on their mortgages. On the other hand, they're going to be borrowing to pay for that mortgage program, which will force interest rates higher.

Can you see the basic economic nonsense that that is? This vicious cycle of debt, which we thought at least philosophically the party opposite was committed against, now is going to be further inflamed. If you think that pre-war Germany had an inflation rate, just wait until these birds get into their basement with that printing press, Mr. Speaker. The inflaming of inflation in this economy will be something to be seen. I mean, we will not have seen anything like it before. You cannot hand a credit card to those folks. You cannot give them credit cards to supply money to their big megaprojects and have them cut social services back to the bone, which is the proper area in which government should be involved. You've heard some criticism, Mr. Speaker, of the New Democratic Party proposal of projects at the municipal level. I've heard some criticism, and I think it should be answered. I will not answer the blind, partisan attacks on such a project, but some people are asking: what about operational expenditures? If the project proceeds, where money is provided to municipalities to build sewers, roads, perhaps some public buildings, fire halls, and what have you, what about the operational expenditures? If a municipal council cannot see its way clear to building public institutions or buildings, they can see their way clear to building roads and sewers that are badly needed in some of these areas. That does not involve subsequent operational costs to the municipality. That involves a legitimate purpose and creates real jobs, not pie in the sky, "Billy bond," BCRIC II jobs; not the roulette wheel, the throwing-of-the-dice approach to economic recovery proposed by the government opposite, but real jobs.

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

[ Page 9409 ]

Petroleum hundreds of millions of the federal taxpayers' dollars to bail them out. In the same breath they said they're going to cut back unemployment insurance, family allowance, and the social programs available to ordinary people. If you analyze Bennett and Trudeau economics, it's very simple. They say that the rich are not working because they're not getting enough money, and they say that the poor are not working because they're getting too much. The solution to the problem is to give the rich — Massey-Ferguson, Dome Petroleum and the northeast coal project — more money and to cut back on the money you're giving to the ordinary people. That made a lot of sense to Simon Fraser Tolmie, Herbert Hoover and R.B. Bennett at the beginning of the Great Depression.

MS. SANFORD: And to Reagan.

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

But I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker: what it leads to is a greater depression; what it leads to is demoralization and devastation at all levels of society. It creates a demoralization and a soul-destroying poverty among the ordinary people in our province from which it takes years to recover. It was not until Roosevelt's New Deal program that people began to realize that you don't put money into big corporations like Massey-Ferguson and Dome; you put money at the consumer level to be spent and to create economic activity. This is what the small businessmen of this community want, this is what the medium-sized British Columbia companies want, and this is what the ordinary people of British Columbia need — money at their level, not the trickle-down theory of giving money to Massey-Ferguson and Dome and the chartered banks and the people who don't need it but are going to keep it and not spend it. The ordinary folks in the street need it to buy their groceries, to provide their shelter, and perhaps even to build new homes.

That's why the NDP has proposed a municipal works project that people can see and feel and touch. Real jobs would be provided by those programs — not the phony promise of pie in the sky, with the issuance of "Billy bonds" that are going to work not nearly as well as the first BCRIC shares. You know what happened to them, Mr. Speaker: dissipation of our own heritage fund in B.C. That's what happened as a result of the BCRIC share program. We're tired of this government considering the public purse a giant casino where they can play their so-called boardroom casino games, roll the dice, roll the roulette wheel and say: "Gee, we've taught you a great lesson of the free market system: the stock market." We've had enough of those lessons; we want jobs on the ground — jobs on Main Street, not jobs on Howe Street. There's a difference.

What is the result of this printing-press legislation that the Socreds want us to support? The result will be no benefit to the ordinary people; it'll be borrowing to the extent where it will inflame inflation and continuing unemployment in this province. It is a devastating step.

The Premier came in here on Friday with one of his better political speeches. He said: "I won't be the one to close hospitals and schools. If you're against this act to borrow money for hospitals and schools, let you be blamed for it, not me — it's not my fault." I have not heard such a cynical, specious speech in a long time. No one believes that what the Premier has suggested is true; no one believes that the New Democratic Party is against keeping the health-care system going. It has been this administration that has attempted to dismantle both the health-care system and the public education system in order to pour money down the hole, to export jobs in northeast coal, to export jobs with cheap power abroad. They have not heeded the warning from this side of the House; we suggested using some of that resource to create jobs at home.

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

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

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

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

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

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

MR. LAUK: What's more, the people of this province know it, so when the Premier comes here and argues that this borrowing bill is going to fund hospitals and education, the Minister of Finance knows that's a terribly cynical and political speech by the Premier. It's a speech that did not honestly and straightforwardly set before the people of this province the issues that are at stake. As soon as this House was recalled on September 10, we said: "Bring in a budget. We know you're in trouble; tell us what the problem is. This is where it's to be debated; here is where we can discuss hospital care and education." But no, they fired the soft Minister of Education and hired someone who could be the hatchet man on the education system. That's what they did, in the hope that the Premier could swoop in on his white horse and save the day, as he did with the civil service. He's the fellow that goes around lighting fires and then rushes around putting them out so he can be the hero. He's the fellow that ran in and saved the day with the civil service. After union-bashing for six weeks, in comes the Premier to save the day. He hires a new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who bludgeons not only the teachers but the students and parents and trustees — bludgeons them for six weeks and makes the attempt on Friday to save the day.

This is the kind of atmosphere in which the Premier came in on this bill on Friday and delivered his remarks to us. He said: "Oh. I'm not the one who's going to close hospitals and schools; if you vote against this bill you're going to be responsible." But everybody knows that if he wants money to pay for hospitals and schools he can bring in a budget and have it debated where the people of this province expect it to be debated, with every dime and every dollar debated so that we can determine that it is, in truth, going to go for hospitals and schools and not down that big black hole in the northeast coal project — not for his big megaprojects, not to waste money on debt and borrowing and interest rates, but every available dollar being used to provide the services that are going to be so necessary for the people of this province.

[ Page 9410 ]

This bill is a bill that is on the basic issue of accountability and responsible government. The amendment that the Minister of Finance is seeking is a direct attack on responsible government. It is an attack on the democratic process and the British parliamentary system. It is to borrow in secret unlimited funds for any purpose. It is a Trudeau credit card, and the Trudeau credit card has led the federal government into a $20 billion deficit. And they ask for the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recite another speech for you. This is the speech of the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), as he now is, but then, in 1976, he was another minister and he was giving this speech. He said — page 462 of Hansard:

The philosophy of this government is most basic to sound management of the economy: the recognition, and the simple recognition, that you must pay for that which you receive. Suggestions that deficit financing is the answer, as has been proposed...leaves much to be desired. The concept that we can put off until tomorrow that which is required to be accounted for today is misleading and dangerous. The idea that others are doing it, therefore we should do it, or therefore it's all right for us to do it, is folly. This very fantasy has contributed greatly to the decline in our standards of living and habits right across this country. The follow-the-leader concept of the lemmings is well established. Let us be at least one voice that says: "Enough is enough. Let's get on with the job that must be done."

Now that was the Minister of Health, as he now is, and I agree with every word he said in that speech in 1976. It will be interesting to see how he votes on this bill that will give carte blanche to the government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance to print debt for the future generations of this province.

The answer to the argument, "Well, what are you fighting the Social Credit government for? Other provinces issue treasury bills," is first of all, not like this one, not without accountability to the chamber. More importantly, what about the Minister of Health's speech in 1976? Why should we follow the leader and fan inflation at the first sign of economic adversity?

Mr. Speaker, that is the issue before us today in this bill. Are we going to give a Trudeau credit card to a government, particularly this government? Are we going to give a credit card to people who have said one thing and done another? Are we going to give a credit card to a Premier who has said one thing in February, another totally opposite thing in July, and now another totally opposite thing in September? Is that the kind of person, is that the kind of government, we are going to give carte blanche to, to get future generations of British Columbia into a debt that will be so exponential — that will increase debt upon debt with interest charges in the future — that we will never get out of it? Is that the kind of government we are going to give a credit card to? We shouldn't give anybody, any government, that credit card, but least of all the Social Credit administration. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting against this bill.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just want to say a few words in this debate on Bill 86, maybe to explain and outline just a little bit about where we are and why we are doing this, and some of the reasons for it, because we certainly didn't hear any of the reasons from the first member for Vancouver Centre, who expounded on debt, and the adding of debt upon debt, but who failed to expound on his leader's desperation offer last week to the UBCM of a $300 million bail-out. I'll touch on that in a few minutes.

First, I think people should understand the reasons behind some of the problems that British Columbia and others throughout the world are experiencing regarding revenues. During our forest industry's peak periods, it returns in the neighbourhood of $70 million per month to this province. That is not an average; $70 million is a peak. In May of this year the forest industry returned $5 million to the coffers of this province. I think that speaks for itself. I don't think I have to expound on why the provincial treasury is in trouble. The forest industry is in that kind of trouble through no fault of its own. It's in that kind of trouble because the markets aren't there. There are signs that the markets are turning around and coming back. Hopefully that will happen in the not-too-distant future.

I don't have to add that the mining industry has much the same problem in this province. Most thinking people are aware that we are a resource-based economy, and that when there is no market for those resources, or when the market is down, our economy is in a lot of trouble. Right now mines such as Highmont in the Highland Valley are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per month because of world copper prices. The management is trying desperately to keep those mines open and the people working. In some cases they are successful, and in some they're not. Unfortunately, in the case of Afton mine near Kamloops they were not. The workers in that mine realize what has happened to world metal prices. They know that if world metal prices, particularly that for copper, go up by about 20 cents per pound, they will all be back to work; if it doesn't, they won't.

I don't think I have to explain to the average British Columbian the domino effect that takes place when these industries are in trouble. Not only do we not realize the revenues from the stumpage and royalties that they pay, but the payrolls are also missing from the retail market; therefore retail business is down and the businessman is suffering. I don't have to explain that to the people in my constituency or yours, I'm sure, although some members across the floor don't seem to understand it. They don't understand that gas revenues, which are part of mining, are down. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) doesn't seem to understand it. He goes over to the UBCM convention and offers them $300 million as a gift out of future gas revenues — revenues, I might add, that aren't there, that have not yet been realized. If those revenues were there, I venture to suggest that we wouldn't be in our present economic difficulty. He is giving away future sales of British Columbia Petroleum Corporation to municipalities as a gift, a gift which, I hasten to add, they were reluctant to receive with open arms. They already have most of the facilities that were promised. I think they would prefer that he pick up the operating costs of some of those facilities, rather than offer to build more.

Bill 86 is designed to ensure, when and if we have to borrow money for this province to ensure that vital services are not affected, that we will be able to plan our borrowing and it will not be a last-minute, panic situation. Through our Minister of Finance the mechanisms will be in place for this government to borrow the necessary funds, to ensure that things like health care and education continue at the level we've become accustomed to. Yes, we've trimmed a lot of fat out of education and health services. Through the cooperation of hospital boards and school boards, etc., we've trimmed about as much as we can; they are becoming very lean and efficient, as they should be. But we must have the flexibility to move very quickly if we have to, if revenues

[ Page 9411 ]

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

Like my colleague for Omineca, I am not particularly fond of having to borrow money to operate this province. It doesn't go down easily. I don't think it does with anyone. I don't think it does when people have to borrow on a personal basis, and it certainly doesn't when we as the government have to borrow. But I guess we have to face reality. We have to face the fact that our forestry and mining revenues are way down, and that sooner or later we'll have to go to the banks of the world and borrow some money. If we have to, we will.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives us the power to be able to do that. It will be done properly and in a very planned manner, as is our custom on this side of the House. It won't be done in the form of $300 million giveaways, offered as a desperation move, I suggest, to the mayors and aldermen of this province to garner their support last week. If we have to borrow this money, it will be done as an investment. It will be done to make sure that schemes like our mortgage assistance plan can work. That's a plan which, I might add, is an excellent one, and which, I might also add, has received very favourable comment in my constituency — hundreds of phone calls asking about the plan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The opposition spoke against it, but they voted for it, if you'll recall — as they've done with much of our legislation, Mr. Speaker. They speak against it, but they vote for it as they did with our mortgage plan. The phones are ringing in my office asking about the mortgage plan, because a lot of people want to take advantage of it. They realize that it's not a handout, that it's not a gift. It's a helping hand, not a handout. It's a helping hand to help them through a very difficult period — perhaps the next couple of years — to ease their mortgage commitments. They don't want us taking from one segment of taxpayers and giving it to another segment of taxpayers. The last thing they want is government's hand in their pocket to hand to someone else.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member for New Westminster says: "Let's go for an election." We will go for an election, I'm sure, and it doesn't really matter to me when that happens. When we go to an election, the people of British Columbia will decide who is best able to manage their financial affairs. All they have to do is look at the record of the members opposite — both of them; I hasten to point out that there are two of them sitting opposite with big smiles on their faces. All two of them are not waving their financial record in the air very highly at the moment. They're not talking about the Leader of the Opposition's $300 million offer to the UBCM last week. Nobody's talking about it, as a matter of fact.

The people of this province are fully aware that this government does not borrow recklessly. If we do, and when we do, we'll do it properly in a well-planned manner. When we do, we won't be giving it away to one segment of society after having taken it from another. I also hasten to point out that if we examine the financial records of both parties in this House, we'll realize that the NDP have difficulty managing in good times, let alone in bad times. I'm sure we all remember the burnper stickers that were prominent around this province, with good cause, in 1974-75: "Will the last one out please turn out the lights." I remember what happened to the mining industry when metal prices were up and the mines were closing down, or having to high-grade to stay in operation. The mining industry remembers what the NDP policy was toward mining.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned a credit card. Perhaps he's right. Perhaps this bill could be compared to applying for a credit card, so that when we require the uses of that card we will have it. Some of us know how to use credit cards, Mr. Speaker, and some of us don't. As I said, if we do have to borrow and use our credit card, it will be used wisely. It will be used to invest in the future of this province, such as our northeast coal project, which they all speak against, but nobody gets up and votes against it. I ask the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) if he's against it and the Ridley Island coal port. It's an investment in the future of this province; it's not a liability, as the member for Vancouver Centre would have us believe. Northeast coal is what will be paying for social services in this province for generations to come — for your children, Mr. Speaker, and mine, and theirs too.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I suggest that the member for New Westminster look up the prices that we're getting for northeast coal and compare them with coal prices in the rest of the world, and then come back and tell us we're giving it away. We aren't as prone to giving away money, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition is, who is going to hand out $300 million that he doesn't have and never will have. He talks about buying up all the sawmills that are going to close down. They tend to forget that from a few months ago: "We will buy up all the sawmills if they close down, and we'll put people to work." People aren't quite that gullible, Mr. Speaker.

The first member for Vancouver Centre talks about real jobs. I don't think he knows what real jobs are. You don't buy real jobs, Mr. Speaker; you invest in this province and the private sector provides real jobs. You don't buy them with $300 million promises.

He talks about a horrendous deficit run up by the Trudeau government in Ottawa, a government that is totally out of control where spending is concerned. I say that without fear of contradiction. They budgeted for a $10 billion deficit, and it will now run to $20 billion, and if that isn't out of control I'd like to know what is. But I shudder to think how far in debt this province would be if we ever returned that socialist government to British Columbia. We would be in debt to the tune of billions of dollars so fast, we'd be in the same boat as the province of Quebec at this time.

They talk about their 26-point program. You try to put a figure on it, Mr. Speaker, and see what that 26-point program would cost. The $300 million that the Leader of the Opposition talked about last week wasn't even included in that program. That's just a start. They warm up on $300 million giveaways. That's just the opener; then they get into the 26 points. I tell you, we would be $5 billion in debt in this province so fast that we would be in the same boat as many other administrations, not only in this country but around the globe.

[ Page 9412 ]

Mr. Speaker, Bill 86 is a bill that I suppose none of us like to have to bring into this House, but we recognize the necessity for it. It is being done in the proper manner, in a planned fashion, so that if we have to go to the banks of the world to keep the vital services of this province operating, we will. If we don't have to, we won't. But at least the hands of this government and our Minister of Finance will not be tied; that's something. Secondly, if we do have to borrow money, we will not give it away or shovel it out of the back of a truck or make $300 million promises just for starters, as a desperation move leading up to what I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition deems as an election just around the corner. That was just his opening shot, that $300 million giveaway.

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

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things about our last speaker from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond). I don't want to spend too much time with him. He's basically new here and hasn't been around to hear all the claptrap that has come across from his side of the House over the years. He has memorized a few slogans that he's heard someone tell him. He throws them out. Another thing, of course, is that like some of the others, he's a one-timer — he won't be back so I would like him to enjoy his stay while he's here.

In any event, he criticized the proposal made to the Union of B.C. Municipalities with reference to job-creating opportunities for municipalities to do work with permanent benefits to the people of the province. It's an investment in the future. It is not a giveaway by any manner of terms.

What we are dealing with here is a bill to borrow money, mainly to be used to pay off interest payments on the deadweight debt that has been accumulated by this administration through the Crown corporations and the government.

I know the Minister of Finance is just carrying the ball for the government. He's the one who is sponsoring this bill, and when he brought it into the House, he ran down the corridor to avoid the media. I don't blame him for that. He's been here long enough to hear all the statements that were made from his side of the House, and it was a very embarrassing day for him. I don't fault him one little bit for running down the hallway. I'm sure I would have done the same thing if I had been in his position. I would have done the same thing. But then he said that he is not going to use this bill; he just wants it in his hip pocket; he may want to use it some time in a great emergency. Then the Premier says that that is not correct. He says: "No, no, we're going to use it for a housing program" — a housing program that isn't flying and won't fly, due to the fact that it's not helping those who need the help. It may help a few people — I'll concede that point — but by and large....

The member for Kamloops mentioned that he had received hundreds of phone calls from people wanting to take advantage of the new proposal. I received some phone calls as well, but the people who phoned me weren't in need of mortgage moneys; they were people who took out their pocket calculators and figured that by putting on a mortgage for $60,000 they could accumulate $2,500 to $3,000, interest-free, by investing the money in term deposits or whatever. So they were quite interested in the program. But surely that is not a mortgage program. A mortgage program should be one that helps those in need, not those who want to build up their own private preserves.

The minister is proposing deficit financing; he is proposing deadweight debt to pay off, in general, interest on moneys borrowed in the past and to be borrowed in the future. This is nothing new to this government; this government has been going in the hole for the last five years. Their receipts don't match their expenses. As an example, debts of Crown corporations have increased from somewhere around $4 billion to $8 billion in the last seven years, and that was during good times. This administration, through inadequate planning and faulty administration, has brought the province to its knees. The special funds that have been built up over the years have been drained dry. The cupboard is bare.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: There's the chatter from that person over there from Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). He won't be back — he's another one-timer. I hope he enjoys his stay here as well. The people in Kootenay are not going to support the policies of this government.

This spendthrift minister, spendthrift government and spendthrift Premier have blown the provincial revenues over the good years. They're now in a crunch, and they have to come out with some solutions. Instead of trusting the people to assist by giving them an opportunity to go to work, to increase the revenues of the province, they go back to the old idea, which has come from Trudeau and his Liberals, of borrowing money. MacEachen would have been proud of this bill. There's no difference between the fiscal policies of this government and those of the Trudeau Liberals. They borrow their way out of problems. It's obvious to me that the Liberal rump group in this coalition has taken control, and we're seeing a repetition of the financial policies of the Trudeau Liberals.

From the other side we hear a lot of statements about how fiscally irresponsible the federal people are and how much debt they have, but when you work out the per capita debt in this province, B.C. isn't very far behind the federal government. So their policies aren't much different.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has a hard time supporting this kind of legislation. I have some quotes from a speech he made in 1976, I believe it was.

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

MR. LORIMER: I got a great amount of amusement.... I didn't know my colleague was going to read this, but there's one part that can bear repeating. He said: "To borrow for the payment of back debts is like having to pay for a horse that has already passed away."

MR. KEMPF: Right!

MR. LORIMER: That's exactly right, and that's what we're doing in this bill. We're going to be borrowing to pay for a horse that's already passed away.

That member spoke for some time on Friday on Monday and had a different tune. It's Two Story Jack again. He doesn't speak the same way in 1982 as he did in 1976.

The trouble with this is the fiscal irresponsibility of this government over the past seven years. Here we have extensive long-term borrowings being given to the cabinet; then we have this old slogan we used to hear time after time: "Not

[ Page 9413 ]

a dime without debate." But what are they proposing here? They're proposing that borrowings take place in the secrecy of the cabinet room, with no accountability, no suggestion of any program or plan as to how and when that money is to be repaid. It's just a shot in the dark. "Trust us," they say. We find that very difficult.

What will they do with this money? True enough, they may use some of the money to reopen the hospital wards that were closed because of their mismanagement. They may bail out education, and dump the minister. They may borrow their way back to power; that's the main project of this whole operation. If successful, after the election, what will we see? We'll see the hospital wards closed again. We'll see them dump on education, and we'll see the province closed down once more. It's a plan to borrow their way back into power, if possible. They're asking for a blank cheque. They're saying: "Trust us. We want to borrow money. We're not going to tell you how much. We're not going to tell you how we're going to spend it. We're not going to tell you how we're going to repay this money."

There's no accountability here. How is the Legislature ever going to find out what the money has been used for, how much has been borrowed, or what the situation is? True enough, there will be some report a year and a half after the event, which might be reviewed at that time, but where the money has gone will be very hard to trace. Again, I say that a province that lived through six years of plenty should have put aside some funds for a rainy day. They had warnings of the world economic slump — there were lots of warnings — but no action was taken to cushion the blow to the people of this province.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said that this depression was only a hiccup and that it would go away. The Premier said that this bill was just a safety valve. So here we have a safety valve for a hiccup in this legislation. But we're not prepared to give a blank cheque to this government, to the minister in charge, to the Premier, or to the cabinet. As a result of this type of legislation, as the result of the mismanagement over the years, the people of this province are going to react at the ballot box and the Social Credit Party will lose power. In a few short years it will disappear from the provincial scene and probably from the whole of Canada. Social Credit was born in a depression and it's going to die in a depression. I think it's about time that the government acknowledged the fact that they're incapable of managing the affairs of this province during this period. They should step aside and let some other government take over, a government that has some faith in the people of this province, a government that given half a chance.... The people of this province will lift the economy by its bootstraps and get the province moving again.

The Premier has been suggesting that there's going to be an election in the next few days, but again the government is unable to make up its mind. The government cannot make a decision; that is one of the big faults of this government. So we're hedging around.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's chicken.

MR. LORIMER: Well, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said that the cabinet and the Premier were gutless. You know, he doesn't know what to do about this election call. He would like to call the election, but he's afraid to call the election; he can't make up his mind. I think the terms used by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) are becoming more apt every day. I would welcome the opportunity to go to the people of this province to tell them the way it is — not that they need much telling; they know the way it is. After the next election we'll see a lot of new faces in this Legislature.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if it would be too much to ask that this debate continue without interjections being offered.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Burnaby Willingdon never ceases to amaze me. He creeps into the House every once in a while and gives an address that someone has written for him, which is not really related to what is taking place, then sits down and carries on out of the Legislature. On Bill 86, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1982, I was quite amused at some of the comments made by the member who just spoke. He said, for example, that the people of British Columbia will never know for what purposes these moneys were expended, if indeed they have to be borrowed. If the member were to look at the legislation before us, I think he would realize that any authorized borrowing that may be provided for by this amendment can only be used to pay for expenditures already authorized by the Legislature of British Columbia. He seems to think that this government would go on some wild spending spree, such as happened in British Columbia between 1972 and 1975. The bill clearly provides only for moneys needed to support those programs and expenditures which have already been authorized by the Legislative Assembly, and for nothing else.

The members opposite voted against the restraint program. On February 18, when the restraint program was first announced by the Premier, they, came out against it. They don't want to have restraint in government spending. However, we have to have restraint in government spending. In spite of all the restraint we've imposed, the careful monitoring of expenditures by this government and the paring back of programs where appropriate, it may be that there are not sufficient funds available to support the essential programs that must be carried out. This bill will authorize money for that purpose only, for purposes that have been — I'll say it again — previously authorized by this Legislative Assembly and the government of British Columbia.

The members opposite have said that they are for our housing mortgage-relief program. Yet they are voting against one of the measures that will probably be necessary to fund this program until bond issues can be placed by the government. So they are for the housing mortgage-relief program, but at the same time they are against the means whereby that program can be put into effect at a very early date.

I well remember the period when that member was on the government benches. I well remember having long conversations with his brother. Mr. Mal Lorimer, who is a very prominent mining geologist in British Columbia. I well remember a statement by his brother, and a letter, which was carried by newspapers in British Columbia. He pleaded with the people of British Columbia: "Please, send my brother back to the practice of law so that I can again get back to the practice of mining engineering and geology in this province." His brother is indeed an astute person.

[ Page 9414 ]

MR. LORIMER: Well. they didn't listen to him, eh?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You came back — by some means.

I was even more amazed by the lesson in economics given to us by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who only a short time ago predicted the demise of the the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and caused a run on the deposits of that bank and a selloff of its shares through irresponsible statements made here in these chambers. That member stands in this House and attempts to give the people of British Columbia a lesson in economics!

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm speaking of the bill. Why don't you heckle from your own seat? Now you go back over to your own seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to the principle of Bill 86 and avoid — and I commend this to all members — personal allusions to other members.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't have any objection to that member heckling me, but if he would only do it from his own seat it would be in order.

It seems strange that during the debate that has taken place up until now on this bill, some of which I'm responding to, the members opposite are trying somehow to tie this government to the ineptitude that is in existence today in Ottawa. All the things they say are in some way trying to tie us to the falling star of the Liberal Party — the liberal socialists in Ottawa. Every time the members of this government objected to policies brought about by the Liberal government in Ottawa during the last several years, what did we hear? We heard Ottawa-bashing and Canada-bashing. At that time they were saying we should not object to the policies of the federal Liberals, because that was Canada-bashing and Ottawa-bashing. Now, at the same time, they're trying somehow, with their distorted logic, to tie us to the fiscal policies of that government. They're bringing up the economic pack, age which was presented by this government to Ottawa in 1978, a very comprehensive and broad series of proposals for the government of Canada which attempted to recognize the realities of what is happening in this country, brought about largely by excessive government spending. That paper dealt mainly with that subject. It tried to encourage the government of Canada, together with the provinces, to bring about realistic and meaningful fiscal and monetary policies in this country. That series of books was five or six volumes in length, and somewhere in that book it mentioned interest rates, and all of a sudden the only thing they can draw from that whole package — out of context — is the fact that something was said about interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary. It's necessary after all of the constraint and paring back of government programs which we have had to do, at times at great political expense.... In a fiscally responsible manner we have pared the expenditures of this government to the bone. We have had to cut back on many services, which perhaps at better times are affordable but which now have to be very closely scrutinized, and expenditures have to be monitored in very great detail indeed. In spite of these constraint measures, which the opposition were against, it may be necessary on a short-term basis to borrow money to put into place those programs which will help the province of British Columbia recover from this very serious recession we have been in for the better part of a year.

The members opposite say that in some way we must shut down all those projects which are underway in British Columbia and are creating thousands and thousands of jobs today in British Columbia. We must shut those down so the measure proposed in this bill won't be necessary. They say, for example: "Turn off the northeast coal." I would challenge those members to go up to that part of British Columbia, where today there are thousands of British Columbians employed directly in the development of that tremendous resource, and even more thousands working in service and supply industries as a result of that resource development. I challenge these members to go out of this Legislature — to an election, if that's the way it would be — and to tell the people of British Columbia that those people don't deserve to have work because the NDP don't think they deserve jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help get some of the programs for economic recovery off the ground at a much earlier stage than might otherwise be possible. The assistance is needed now. The people who are having difficulty with their mortgage interest rates and who may want to take part in the mortgage assistance program need the money now. For a short term some of these funds may be necessary. There will be no wild spending sprees, as suggested by the members opposite. Because they operate by shovelling money out of the back of a truck, they seem to think that is the way every government should operate. For example, they suggest that we borrow $300 million from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and give it away for the purpose of creating some short-term jobs on unnecessary projects throughout the communities in British Columbia. That $300 million, if it should be available at some future time from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, is already committed to the ongoing programs of this government. That is part of the general revenue base that this government has to meet ongoing and future commitments. By borrowing that money now and spending it now or sometime in the future, they would be faced with the problem of what services to cut or where to borrow money from elsewhere to make up the money they removed from general revenue.

The Minister of Finance needs this safety valve. He needs this means of putting into force those programs needed now in British Columbia. He can borrow these moneys only for the purpose of supporting expenditures already authorized by the Legislature of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatsoever in fully supporting this bill. I wish the Minister of Finance well in the use of it should it be necessary.

MR. COCKE: I'm very interested in this bill. This is a revolutionary bill in our province, an entirely new approach for the Socreds. I'm surprised at their earth-shaking method of doing what they've done. They've said to the Legislature: "Give us carte blanche. Give us an unlimited credit card. Give us everything we want. Let us make all the decisions behind closed doors." The Minister of Energy and Mines talks about the mortgage plan that he hints already has authority from this House. It hasn't.

Interjection.

[ Page 9415 ]

MR. COCKE: Oh, I keep forgetting the Minister of Forests. You make so little impression that it's very difficult to remember what you do.

What we are asking for from this side of the House is accountability. That group over there went from one end of this province to the other crying, "Not a dime without debate." Now they want the opposition to lie down and play dead while we give the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province a cheque book with unlimited authority to spend.

They talk about NDP spending. We have sat in this Legislature over the last six and a half years, and what have we seen? We've seen Crown corporations borrowing money like you wouldn't believe, with no precedent as far as I can recall. My colleague says they're up to $8 billion in borrowings. I think it's closer to $10 billion, and it's probably between $10 and $11 billion. When the NDP left power it was $4 billion. You talk about shovelling money out the back of a truck. They've used a drag line; they've used a bulldozer to push money around. Now they're trying to bulldoze the opposition into giving them the kind of unlimited authority that no government deserves. Every government that's had it has proven unable to cope with it. Look at Pierre. It's getting to the point where there's quite a truism; if you like Trudeau, you're going to love Bennett. That's about the situation here. It is incredible. Here they are, trying somehow to pull themselves away from their federal brothers and sisters. They know perfectly well.... When they attracted all those Liberals into that cabinet and into that side of the House, we knew perfectly well exactly what was going to happen. They would be the messenger in the west for that great white knight in the east.

I suggest that you have to think about this very seriously. They talk about northeast coal and the thousands and thousands of jobs that are up there. They don't count the thousands and thousands of health care workers who have been laid off in this province since the Minister of Finance, the Premier and the Health minister decided to move in on the hospitals and the health industry. This "restraint" program isn't something new. They started a year ago April. Who are the first people they moved in on? Home care. Home care is an area where they should have been really spending money because that reduces the overall expenditures in the Health department. But no, that's where they had to go.

Mr. Speaker, I say that a government in our own budgetary system.... Forget about the Crown corporations: we have gone through, we have spent, $950 million from our reserves over the past six years. They've gouged every special fund that this province had — funds which incidentally were increased while the NDP were in power — and they're spending it. They've been on a wild spending spree, but in the wrong areas. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) talks about northeast coal. We don't disagree with the orderly development of northeast coal. What we do disagree with is the totally thoughtless way they went in there. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in this province obviously has a very close kinship with the Premier. He said, "Look, I want to get in there and I want to develop that regardless, and it's got to be done this parliament. Don't bother to look at whether or not the Japanese are going to need it; don't worry about whether or not the people of our province have to pick up the tab" — which is what they're doing.

The Minister of Finance smiles. I'll bet he's frowning behind that smile. How would you like to be a minister of finance in a province where the railway is in such deep debt, and you're going to use some of this money that we'll be giving you authority for to bail out that poor old British Columbia Railway. Tell us the annual interest that you've already developed just on the subsidy of northeast coal, and why we are subsidizing it. If we were subsidizing it for jobs for people in B.C., good on you. But how much of the contracting has gone outside this province? It's got to be the most regrettable thing that I've heard: boats being built away from Canada, great portions of the engineering going outside of Canada, the actual work going to contractors outside of Canada. It's a bit of a disaster. And what are we doing in the long run? We are subsidizing Japan, one of the richest nations in the western world. We're subsidizing their steel industry.

The Minister of Finance comes in here confidently, hands in his pockets, and says: "I expect you guys to vote me unlimited borrowing authority." I'm afraid we can't do that. When the member for Vancouver Centre talked about a credit card, be wasn't talking about the kind of credit card that you and I might have. He was talking about an unlimited credit card. Borrowing authority is one thing, but when you seek to borrow an unlimited amount for an unlimited time, it strikes me that there's a bit of trouble abroad. I suggest that when the voters in this province........ Don't forget that part of this is supposed to be job creating and so on and so forth. Heaven only knows that people just keep getting laid off. We've got 250,000, 300,000 people out of work, and this is the answer? Job creating. Remember when the Minister of Forests was first elected? He, like many others, had a bumper strip on his truck that read: "Work with Bill." I ask the question: How do you like it so far?

MR. RITCHIE: Let's get to work.

MR. COCKE: Yes, let's get to work. The reason we should be helping is that there are so many people out of work. "Let's get to work," that member says. I say yes, lets get to work. Why don't we come in here and do something constructive? The first week we discussed another employment program, a program aimed at electing another seven members to this assembly. That's an employment program, hopefully, the government says, to employ a few more Socreds. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is something finite — a Minister of Finance and a First Minister who will come in here and present actual programs to provide confidence in this province. Those members over there pooh-poohing the Leader of the Opposition....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No interjections, please. Perhaps we could avoid interjections if all members participating in the debate spoke to the principle of the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member's indicating that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about borrowing from future revenues of the Petroleum Corporation and providing $300 million for job creation. It was this party that set up that Petroleum Corporation. I ask you....

Interjection.

[ Page 9416 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right. We were getting no revenue, not a nickel, from the natural gas sales from this province. You were giving it away to the United States for 30 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Come on!

MR. COCKE: Don't say: "Come on!" We drove the price up to 90 cents and then to $1.15. What has been the result of that one move the NDP made when we were in government? We have produced $1.2 billion of revenue for this province in the past seven years. Not bad!

Mr. Speaker, they continually carp and harp about 1972-75. The fact is they are embarrassed about that time. Yes, the gross national product was up during that period — over and above what it had been during previous years and over and above what it has been since.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, no mess at all. You see, Mr. Speaker, that member says it again.

You know, Goering used to use this old system: if you tell it often enough it's believed. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that telling something often enough doesn't necessarily make it the truth. That's exactly what those members know: it's not the truth; it's not in the records. It's a phony record. However, the record stands now, showing that this government is indictable, for heaven's sake. They have thrown it away over the last few years.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members, please. First of all, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) will not interject, and I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster to stick to the bill and to please use parliamentary terms when referring to other members of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. COCKE: What was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was reference, as I understood it...maybe a personal reflection on another hon. member. I may have been mistaken.

MR. COCKE: With respect, I believe you were.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member could return to the bill, it would be appreciated.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to draw to the attention of the members that the GPP in our province in 1974-75 was 17.4 percent. Under the former administration it grew, on an average, 10.9 percent; then the new administration took over and it grew at 13.2 percent — until now. Lord knows where it is going now.

Mr. Speaker, just because that group has gone out and indicated that something mystical or mysterious happened during the 1972-75 period doesn't make it true. What happened was the best administration this province has seen. If you don't believe that, go check with the health-care people, with the educators, with the people who have been highly involved in people industries and people businesses. That's where our priority was — not building monuments, not subsidization for subsidization's sake, not giving our Crown corporations a carte blanche to go anywhere there want and do anything they want. I believe that the authorization that we've been asked to vote for here is unnecessary. I believe that the government should be asking for limited borrowing authority. I believe that they should be asking for authority that will provide that there's a time limit and a spending limit. I believe that they should bring in concurrently programs telling us exactly what they're going to do with the money.

The Premier says it will put a little into the mortgage interest program, the one that's bound to help the rich. It's not going to provide any jobs, but that's okay. The Minister of Finance, on the other hand, says it's going to be used for daily expenditures — possibly. He doesn't really know for sure, but it's nice to have it in your pocket.

MR. MACDONALD: He wants something on his hip.

MR. COCKE: He wants it in his hip pocket. Holy doodle, isn't that really something! If anybody should know, it's the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), that fantastic businessman. There's no way that he would give his son and heir, and the guy who's running his business, unlimited borrowing authority. Yet he's asking us in this chamber to give the Minister of Finance and the Premier, both of whom have proven to be wastrels, unlimited borrowing authority. I can't believe it. I continue to be mystified. I have heard for so many years that the Socreds will not borrow.

We know how they've done it up to now. They've moved public works out of the mandate of the Legislature and made it a Crown Corporation. Now we call it B.C. Buildings Corporation, so they can borrow. We moved computers out of the normal legislative purview and we built a B.C. Systems Corporation, so they can borrow. Hydro borrows; B.C. Rail borrows; they all borrow. And they have been borrowing us into the ground. If the track record of that government were really, truly known, they'd look worse per capita than the Libs in Ottawa. They talk about this $20 billion deficit. What about our $10 billion debt, right here in our province?

You know something, old W.A.C. had a magical way of dealing with things. When is a debt not a debt? It's not a debt when you sign, co-sign or whatever, as long as it isn't directly a debt to the Legislature. Contingent liability, my friend: that's when a debt isn't a debt. I listened to him talk about that situation — when a debt is not a debt and so on. It always confused me somehow, because I know the people in British Columbia are going to have to pay for it. Maybe not in this generation, but some generation is going to have to pay for it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now I'll tell you when a debt is a debt. They're going to have to admit that a debt is a debt now, because it's no longer a contingent liability. The Minister of Finance and the Premier have asked us to give them a nice sharp pen and a chequebook; all they have to do is keep writing cheques. The kind of cheques they write are a little different. They're called treasury bills. They go down to the basement, crank up the old machine and it's just like printing money — isn't it, Mr. Minister of Finance? After a while you kind of get used to printing money. Why didn't he come in here and say: "Look, I need borrowing authority for a specific period, for a specific amount"? Then, if down the road times are still tough, come

[ Page 9417 ]

back. But don't just come in here, change the entire history of our province, change the entire course of financing in our province and expect us to be ecstatic about it.

We believe there should be fiscal responsibility. That's all we're saying in this debate — nothing more, nothing less; just a little fiscal responsibility. That is not what we're seeing.

The new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) got up supporting this bill. And he got out of here as quickly as he could after doing so. He got up supporting the bill and told us it was just for a short term. Well, you know, if I went to my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and said, "I'd like to borrow 50 bucks," he would probably say: "Sure." But he'd like to know when he was going to get it back.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He wouldn't loan it to me. He says my credit is no good. In any event, Mr. Speaker, should he? I would suggest that there would very likely be some kind of an agreement about time. What we the opposition would like to know is: when are you going to pay it back, or are we going to be forever in debt as a result of this unlimited borrowing authority? That's the way it looks to me.

I've heard all the speakers from the government side What have they said? "We need it. We're not quite sure why." Some are sort of in league with the Minister of Finance and some are sort of in league with the first minister, who can't decide between themselves why they need it. One needs it to finance a program, although he was going to sell "Billy bonds" for that program. I guess the market might be a little bit shaky at the present time, because he is the same person, we'll all remember, who went out there and gave away assets — $450 million worth of assets that the NDP had accumulated for this province — and made them into BCRIC. We sure got BCRICed. This is the same Premier who told us he would teach us how the free enterprise, capitalist system works in terms of the stock market. Well, we found out. Now he's saying, on the one hand, that he's going to finance some borrowing directly from the people, in terms of bonds, and the Minister of Finance comes in here, on the other hand, and asks us to give him borrowing authority direct. That's a little different. Those are treasury bills.

I don't think that I need go on too much longer. I don't believe there's anybody in this House who's comfortable with this bill...

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I am.

MR.COCKE: ...except the member for Central Fraser Valley, who says he is comfortable with the bill. Do you know where he would like to be right now? He'd like to be under that rock whence he came. No, sir, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is bad news for everybody in our province. I presume that that member is Just as embarrassed as everybody else.

Take this bill back, redraft it, bring it in here with some constraints — time, amounts — and we'll look at it. But we'd also love to know what you're going to do with the dollars. Oh, the Minister of Finance is going to tell you. It will all come back to the Legislature. Sure, after it is a fait accompli. That has got to be a tradition with this government: "Bring it back after we've done it," and ask for parliamentary approval. What are their expectations of an opposition? What do they expect from us?

MR. RITCHIE: Not very much.

MR. COCKE: The member for Central Fraser Valley is extremely nervous. Listen to him. He's sitting there, cackling, chortling and nothing, of course, in defence of this.

I remember when the then member from the Conservative Party and I were on a particular radio program in 1975, that his prediction was right. I'm going to make the same prediction to him now, and mine will be right. When Mr. Premier decides to call an election, when he comes out of that maze that he's created — all that money he spent on pre-election...government money that we're asked to authorize right now.... Don't forget that every one of those ads and every one of those glossy brochures going out to the people of this province is going to be paid for out of the debt we're creating in this bill.

That minister made a prediction in 1975, and it came true. I make the same prediction now, only the reverse. You're out of luck. The government has lost its credibility. It's no longer a government; it's a group of people running from crisis to crisis, trying to put out fires they've been lighting all through their term of office. Mr. Speaker, it's time for an election. I hope we have it soon. I hope the Premier comes out of his office, whips up to the Lieutenant-Governor's, grabs the writ and gives the people of B.C. a break.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, we have here a bill that is magnificent in its simplicity. Very seldom in the House do we see a bill that means so much put in such few words. It merely places the government's position before the public of British Columbia.

Borrowing money for operation expenses, as this House knows, is more than repugnant to this party; we like it not in the least. But we are travelling in dangerous times through uncharted seas. The science of economics has fallen apart on almost every front; great pundits speak one day and change what they say the following week; the confidence of the public has been shattered by statements almost daily from people in high places, It is more the lack of confidence than the facts that plagues our society. Ninety percent of the people in British Columbia are employed, at the highest wages in history. Five percent unemployment is practically 100 percent employment. In fact, we have merely 5 to 6 percent unemployment above the regular level, yet we have a shattering lack of confidence.

I was very pleased to receive a letter from John Cleghorn, senior vice-president and general manager of the Royal Bank of Canada. He says: "With all the doom and gloom around these days, I thought you might appreciate the message of' confidence in our country's future contained in the attached Royal Bank Letter."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good newsletter,

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, a good newsletter. It tells a story of confidence.

One little point interested me very much: "The Chinese write the word 'crisis' with two characters. One means 'danger,' the other means 'opportunity.'" I thought that was magnificent: a time of crisis is a time of opportunity. That's

[ Page 9418 ]

where we find ourselves today. Our problem is that we do not know where we are turning. The seas are uncharted, the way is dark, and none of us knows the path.

Right now, as I speak to you, there come to me the words of King George VI, of honoured memory. In sending a New Year's message to the people, he said: "I said to the man that stood at the gates of the year, 'Give me a light, that I may see into the unknown.'" It was a time of war, and we had just such a crisis. We did not know which way the war would go. He asked for a light, and the reply was: "Put your hand in the hand of God. That will be better to you than light, and safer than the known way." I think those are magnificent words, and they tell the story today.

Borrowing money, as established in this bill, is repugnant to our party, but we must be ready for any eventuality. The Minister of Finance has shared with the public our financial condition by issuing a quarterly report for everybody to read. B.C. is doing remarkably well in the face of the problems of the rest of the world, the rest of North America and the rest of Canada; yet the situation is unknown. So this bill allows the Minister of Finance to borrow if necessary. That's what the bill clearly states: to borrow if necessary. But he must not be hampered or tied; he must move when it's necessary to move. That's what this bill asks for. All the words we've heard from the opposition, but they seem to have lost the main point.

The bill is very little different from the act it amends. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said the Minister of Finance can borrow anything he wants without telling anybody. That's not true. The bill clearly says that he must report to this House within 15 days if it's sitting, or within 15 days after the House first sits, exactly what he borrowed, and what he borrowed it for. But he must not be tied and hampered in the management of this province, because it's too important that he move quickly, without delay and without any restraints. Our party does not like borrowing for operating costs. It is repugnant to us in the full.

The minister and the government have tried to put in programs of restraint. We find difficulty there, however, because we insist that education and health shall be the highest priority. In doing so, we have asked these two great facets of our economy to work with restraint, which they are doing. We are meeting some conditions, some obstacles and problems, ones not of their making, but the problem of maintaining a high level of service. A high level of service is being maintained in health and in schools. Some have been misinterpreted, but we are still asking for restraint. We want to hold back on any spending that is not absolutely essential. If restraint works, no borrowing will be necessary. But we cannot allow health or education to deteriorate; we must keep their standards high. We must have as much restraint as possible, but it may not be possible to have sufficient restraint to meet the budget. It may require additional spending.

Forestry: There are cracks in the system. You find a light in the tunnel, a small light. In forestry there was 37 percent unemployed. That's a lot of people unemployed in forestry. I noticed in a recent report — in fact, the Minister of Forests said so in this House — that it's gone to 29 percent in the course of the last six weeks. There's an opening in forestry. There's a return to business in British Columbia a little bit.

I recommend to this House that it read this recent Royal Bank newsletter — Volume 63, No. 5, September-October 82, "A question of Confidence":

"Confidence, it is said, is a plant of slow growth that withers easily in a climate of slow growth in the economy. It comes in several different varieties, the hardiest of which is a cross between faith and hope. Here we examine it and consider the question that has been on everybody's mind lately: just what have we got to be confident about?"

This letter goes on to say what we have to be confident about. It tells about our forefathers who came to this country and hewed their homes out of the forest, with nothing but confidence. They built their homes and their families. They risked all they had to wrestle the reserves out of the ground, out of the mountains and the trees, the resources of this country. We speak of the great natural resources of Canada. We speak of our forests, our seas, our fresh water. None of these has any value unless the people have confidence, unless they go out and get them to work for mankind.

That's the story of confidence, and that's what we are lacking in our society today. The letter goes on to say that confidence is lower now than it's been since 1866. In the words of Bruce Hutchison, "Let us confess the truth. In self-confidence alone we have gone downhill since 1867." That's what he said and I think it's true. This nation was founded on boldness. That is something we do not have. We do not have the boldness necessary to wrestle with this recession. The banks of our nation are bursting with money that is in savings accounts. People have money they will not spend to keep the wheels of industry in motion. We lack boldness. The nation was founded on boldness, but we lack the boldness that is necessary.

The future is there for us to grasp, but we prefer today not to realize that. I commend to this House this excellent Royal Bank letter. If the people of British Columbia would pick up this letter and act on what it says, and take it to heart, the session would be over in a day. It takes confidence. The mills will work; they have the confidence to work. The mines would open up and sell their product. Secondary industry would start moving again. Stores would be busier; people would buy new clothes. All these things would happen with confidence alone. We have the money and the resources; we have the people — customers offshore and in the United States. Yet we have failed to grasp the opportunity, because we are afraid of the future. Your forefathers were not afraid of the future; they grasped the future and built on it. They built this nation to what it is today. In the midst of plenty, with an economy that is rich in every way.... Customers want our goods, yet will not buy them because we're not out there to sell. It is the duty of every British Columbian to be confident of the future.

We have some great programs. The government has some tremendously effective programs. The Small Business Development Act will encourage people to develop and construct, to have new ideas.

My friends, I want to tell you a short story about a new idea. World War II came and the Allies were in trouble. The German blitzkrieg had practically walked over Europe. In due course the Japanese were moving through Asia, and we thought we were next. One great cry went up. "What happened?" There was no rubber. The plantations of Borneo and South America, where the rubber normally came from, had dried up. We needed rubber and we had none. So one little guy developed an idea for a substitute for rubber. It was impossible to develop synthetic rubber in sufficient quantities for the armies of the Allies. Neoprene was developed and mass-produced. It wasn't a new idea, but it was a new

[ Page 9419 ]

idea for production. The development of neoprene actually won the war. Without rubber the machine would not run.

Let us not talk about the war. What happened to neoprene after the war? Today all of our automobiles and computers, the great tractors, the airplanes.... It's the neoprene seal, developed during the war, that made all these things possible. The jet engine: without neoprene seals it wouldn't operate. Your automobile: without neoprene seals it would have to be lubricated once every 30 days. Now you can run a car for 5,000 miles without lubrication. Imagination is what happened. Imagination is what we need.

The jet engine was developed. Everybody knew about the jet engine, but what good was it? It used too much fuel because there was too much air resistance. Some bright person decided to take that airplane higher into the stratosphere. So they developed an airtight airplane. They had atmospheric pressure in the airplane, so they could fly at 30,000 to 50,000 feet. That was engineering. It was confidence. That's what we need today. We need the confidence of the people. We need planning. We need initiative. We need people to go out and sell. I tell the lumber barons....

Maybe they're doing it. Why don't they go out and sell the stuff? What about our mines? I have to give this government credit for northeast coal. What a tremendous production that is. We were assailed by the opposition; we're still being assailed.

Today I heard the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) say: "You know, we're not fighting you too hard over northeast coal; we only fight the way you are doing it." It was only a year ago that they said it was a disaster, that it wouldn't fly, and that it wouldn't work. It is going to be money for the people of British Columbia. It will take a year, maybe two, but northeast coal is going to be one of our greatest assets: coal for Asia; coal for Japan; coal to keep the furnaces of industry working.

There is a country that is different. When you heard of a thing being Japanese, it was considered to be useless to begin with; if it was made in Japan, it was useless. But what happened? Was it the Japanese who suddenly got smart? They were just as smart fifty or a hundred years ago as they are today; they're no smarter. Where did they learn? They learned from the American Marshall Plan, which showed the Japanese how to mass produce. The Japanese are smart. They are producing automobiles and industrial equipment. They're beating the dickens out of the North American auto and heavy-industry manufacturers. Are we beaten? No. It was said that the American government was asking for restraints on automobile production. They wanted to cut down on Japanese imports. Mr. lacocco of Chrysler Corp. said: "No, we do not want to cut down on the importing of Japanese automobiles. We want to beat them at their own game. We want to build a better product." That's what they're doing, and that's what General Motors and Ford are doing. They are building a much better product. We have a better product today, but it took us a number of years.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Where did they learn? They learned from the Americans who went over on the Marshall Plan and showed them how to produce. There's a country without resources that has to import practically everything to their own shores. All they have is individuals with the will to work, and that's another thing that we don't have — the will to work. We want to know how little we can do for as much as we can get, and that's what's killing us. The Americans are learning. They see their flag flying, and they are proud of their country and their flag, yet we're prepared to sit down and say: "Oh, well, somebody somewhere will save us." The automobile manufacturers in Windsor — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — refused to take a cut in wages to get production, whereas their American brothers did.

I'm on the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I'm speaking on confidence. Mr. Speaker, you must understand that the principle of this bill is a very wide-ranging one. The principle is confidence and the ability to meet the challenge of what this government is doing. Do I make myself clear? I give these examples of what can be done, what industry is doing, but what we're not doing in Canada. If we do these things in Canada we can sell our products; we can make it so we do not need to borrow any more. As I said, borrowing is repugnant to us, but we will have to borrow unless we can change the current of events.

Only a few days ago, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said: "If we we're elected" — may it never happen — "we would get $300 million, and we would give it away to the public." Mayor Tonn, president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, replied: "That's a gift we don't need. That gift is something we can build a stadium or municipal buildings with, but after we build them who is going to look after them?" He said: "It would be a load on the public." That's the difference between our system and what the opposition is talking about. They're talking about deadweight giveaways. We're talking about business principles that prime the pump: the Small Business Development Act and the Rate Increases Restraint Act, holding the Crown corporations to a level of increase. Those things are the way the minister is saying.... It's money we may never have to borrow, but if we must borrow. the bill must be there for that purpose.

I just want to say that we look forward.... That sad opposition, Mr. Speaker — and I say it in the kindest way I know how.... The whole attitude of this debate has been to hunt down and destroy, with not one constructive idea of what can be done to save our economy, not one idea to tell us which way we should go. In a thing like this we should be together. They should be supporting the government on this bill. This is a bill where they should say: "Yes, this is necessary. We do not approve of borrowing either."

HON. MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not a dime without debate.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We are debating it now.

The world conditions are such that we do not know the future — no one does. If we could get people, the public and the pundits, talking, as is laid out in this Royal Bank letter of October 1982.... If we could get a few of the pundits in British Columbia alone talking like that, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the depression — if you call it that — or recession, whatever you choose, would be over. Interest rates would come down and the confidence of the people would be back to where it should be.

I think that a time of crisis is the time to grasp the future, and we can do it. We can do it with the programs that we have in place now, but it takes time for these programs to take hold. It's a time for cooperation. We must all cooperate together to develop our economy and move our province ahead by positive action. The bill is there as a measure for the Minister of Finance to borrow money if he wishes, if he needs to and

[ Page 9420 ]

must, but with the hope that we do not ever need it. It need not be so if we get together and, as a parliament, move forward as a single person to develop British Columbia as the province is entitled to be developed — as it may be and as it can be. This is not a time for division. There should be no need of division here. We should be together in this one great purpose, to meet the challenge which we find ourselves in.

We have the answers in our government. The Homeowner Interest Assistance Act is another one to help the people who own homes with heavy mortgages — people who have been living in fear of for the past year — to meet their problems and be able to pay the mortgages. Those building new houses will be able to buy homes at a lower interest rate. But it is not a giveaway. You see the beauty of our system: it is not a giveaway. I'm amazed at that thinking. It will be paid back, but it helps out for the time of crisis. When the people are in crisis, the government is there to help them, There are no giveaways. All our programs are for assistance to the people, to assist them to build and make a better British Columbia. All our programs are like that. There are no giveaways, just a helping hand when a helping hand is necessary.

I'm proud of the opportunity of joining in this debate and saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that the future looks bright indeed. We have everything we need for a great future and a great British Columbia. But what we need above all is confidence — not an empty confidence, but confidence to see what we've got, what we have out there in the hinterland of British Columbia. The people we have are willing to work, but we must turn our labour force around. We must forget the idea of, "How little can you do, how much can you get." We must come back to thinking that we must work and work hard for what we get. Everyone must be able to get a dollar's value for a dollar spent. Everyone must do that, not "How many days off can I get, how many holidays?"

Mr. Speaker, I'm telling you that these statutory holidays we have today in our system are killing this province. How many are there? Twelve statutory holidays? I don't know how many — ten or twelve. They are killing our province because they are a deadweight on our public. Those holidays should be reduced to not more than five. The Americans have five statutory holidays. We have more than ten. That's another deadweight, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is time we got together and kicked these holidays out. Get to work!

MR. NICOLSON: Scrooge! Are you against Christmas?

MR. MUSSALLEM: No. I said we should have five holidays. Christmas is one, New Year's another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Easter?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Perhaps Easter. I'm not too fussy about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanksgiving?

MR. MUSSALLEM: You can have Thanksgiving if you want. You can have five. But when you get to ten or twelve, what are they for? What good do they do? Do we need those holidays? What is a holiday for? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are the holidays for? Do we work that hard that we need them? No, we just raise the cost of our production. That's what we do. That's what puts us in a position where we have to borrow.

If we could produce more.... Mr. Speaker, don't point that book.

I'm saying to you here, Mr. Speaker, that borrowing is only done when borrowing is necessary. If we can produce, we do not have to borrow. Does that get across to you, Mr. Speaker? If we produce we don't have to borrow. I say that the deadweight of ten holidays is too much to carry and I think that something lips to be changed. We must work more, not for more money but to give value for the money we earn, not for how much we do or how little we pay but.... That's got to be reversed. There is too much at stake in this province. It's regrettable that we have got to the stage where we do not realize that it is necessary to work more. We've had too many....

The last contract in the woods system. You know, the mills wouldn't have lost a day if it wasn't for the last contract. It was too expensive for the mills to operate. That's what put 37 percent of the workers out of work. I tell you, there was no reason.... There should have been a better understanding between the workers and the mills, because today people are suffering for the mistake that was made on the last contract. That's why the hon. minister will find himself in a borrowing position. I like the workers to get money; but when they get more money than industry can afford to pay, then we are in trouble. That's why the minister has got to borrow. That's why he may have to borrow in time.

These are the things that we must see. We must give more value for our dollar in British Columbia. There mustn't be any more of these settlements. The settlement with the teachers is more than 17 percent. That's why our school system is in trouble, and that's why the Minister of Finance might have to borrow. That's why we are in trouble today. There is too much carelessness in settling agreements, too much carelessness in arbitration, too much giveaway. That's what we must stop. It's the giveaways that are causing this bill. It's too easy to give away. That's why we have got to be ready to borrow.

We have to borrow for education; we have to borrow for health. Why? The settlements were too heavy. The doctors saw the problem and gave back $30 million. What did the teachers do? What did the schools do? I'm just saying it was too rich for the blood of British Columbia at this time. We must maintain education, we must maintain health, but we must be very careful that we do not spend more than we've got. We might be forced to. Well, we're being forced to because of careless settlements that were made in the past. I blame management as much as I blame employees and the unions — I blame them both. This province was not able to sustain the level of those settlements.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker — I hope I haven't tried you too much.... We must work together to build up confidence in our country. It can be done, but it must be done together.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, after listening to those delightful words from George Cromwell, otherwise known as the member for Dewdney, I really am somewhat at a loss as to just what the purpose of this bill is. The member for Dewdney talked about the necessity for confidence, quoting one of the bank newsletters. I couldn't agree with him more. We in this party have confidence. We have confidence in the ability and the vitality of the people in this province. We don't have any confidence in this government. It's this government, by its actions.... This Minister of Finance particularly, almost exclusively, by his actions as Minister of

[ Page 9421 ]

Finance, has destroyed the confidence of the people in the government as well. Certainly we have confidence in the people themselves. They have confidence in themselves. They have no confidence whatever, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in a government — this Social Credit government — that has brought about this depression that we're in right now in this province. Make no mistake about it. If one can single out one person in this province who has brought this depression about, it has to be that Minister of Finance — consciously, deliberately, rubbing his hands in glee about the things that were happening in the past couple of years.

MR. KING: Indexing inflation.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Finance was so overjoyed at the inflationary movement in this province a few years ago that he predicated his budgets upon it. He gloried in the idea that inflation was going to continue, because it meant greater taxes to him as the Minister of Finance. It meant more money for him and his government to squander. That's the factor contributing to inflation.

I listened to George Cromwell from Dewdney with great interest here — and pay attention to what that member for Dewdney said — using his position in this Legislature to blame this depression on the people of B.C. "It's the people of B.C. who are at fault," said the member for Dewdney. All the people of B.C. have to do — and they could cure this depression in one day — is spend the money that they've got hoarded up in their bank accounts. That would accomplish, de facto, a complete removal of any essence of depression that we have. What an insulting thing to say to the people of this province! What an insulting thing to say to the 300,000 people who now have to rely on public support to put bread on the table, to clothe their children in school! They don't have any money in their bank accounts to spend. That's the kind of philosophy that the Premier advocated a few years ago when he urged people to buy BCRIC shares. "Spend your money on BCRIC. That'll help give you a lesson in the capitalist system. Take your money out of the bank account and buy BCRIC shares." Now the member for Dewdney is following that same erroneous line, telling people who don't have bank accounts to take the money out of their bank accounts, and we'd cure this depression in one day. What errant nonsense! No wonder he isn't running for office again.

This particular bill — and let's not make any bones about it — is a Trudeau-Liberal bill, an Allan MacEachen piece of legislation, a Gerald Bouey law; it's Liberal doctrine to drive people into debt.

MR. KEMPF: They don't believe it in Smithers.

MR. HOWARD: Listen to Rudolf here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the member for Omineca not to interject. To the bill, please.

MR. KEMPF: The question is....

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

MR. KING: They'll put you back in Spandau, Jack.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.... The member for Skeena continues on the bill.

MR. HOWARD: Never let it be forgotten by anyone, including those who interrupt in this House, that it was the current Premier of this province — the current Premier — who went to Ottawa, held hands with Prime Minister Trudeau and said: "Mr. Trudeau, your course of action with respect to high interest rates is the correct one. We endorse it. Carry on. High interest rates are what we need." The only person who has forgotten is the Premier himself, the same as he's forgotten BCRIC. It's an embarrassment. The Premier doesn't like to be reminded of the fact that he, the Premier of this province, advocated a high-interest rate policy for this country, saying: "That's what we need to curb the fires of inflation. That's what we need for economic recovery — high interest rates." The Liberal government in Ottawa said: "Hey, that's a good idea." They carried it out, and look where we are today. This bill before us reflects that. It reflects the fact that the Premier and the Minister of Finance encouraged inflation in this country, hoped for inflation to continue so that the budgetary and fiscal questions in the province could be dealt with. This is "made in Ottawa" legislation that's before us.

As a result of that the Minister of Finance.... And I do feel sorry for the Minister of Finance. I mean, who would possibly believe that a Conservative — which he is, or was, and maybe still is — turned Social Crediter for political convenience would bring Trudeau-Liberal legislation into this province and say: "This is the way to go"? I do feel sorry for the Minister of Finance in that sense. It really means that he is dictated to by the Premier of this province and does not have a conscience of his own in fiscal matters, that his declarations in his previous budget were just so much froth, that he really didn't believe those statements. If he did believe those, he would not have brought in this piece of legislation. The Minister of Finance also says he wants this bill in his back pocket. Do you know what he's saying, Mr. Speaker? He's saying he wants the people of this province in his back pocket, in hock to this government, to be driven into debt to the extent that he and the Premier decide that they're going to be driven into debt.

He wants wide-open, carte blanche ability to print as much money as he feels like printing. This is printing-press legislation. This is the type of legislation that, historically speaking, with respect to other countries in this world, has driven them either to the edge or over the edge of bankruptcy. It's this type of legislation — looking back in history — that had people in China and Germany wandering around with wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. It's printing press type of legislation — no limit, no control, no accountability, just secret decisions to create as much cash as they think they need to have.

The Minister of Finance's first budget that he brought into this House talked about something I think the House needs to be reminded of now. On page 7 of the printed and distributed copy of the budget of March 1980, he says in part: "Continued fiscal responsibility, improved communications and accountability are integral parts of the fiscal policy of this government.' That's what we're talking about with this bill — not only accountability: we're talking about lack of accountability. Oh, yes, as others have said, the Financial Administration Act provides now that 15 days after parliament next meets then there shall be laid before the Legislature

[ Page 9422 ]

a report on how much money has been borrowed, or what the terms of it are, etc. That's after the fact. That's not accountability; that's not serving the "dime without debate" philosophy and concept. That's only an aftermath of the creation of extra money.

Since this Minister of Finance, who comes in now with this demand to borrow unlimited amounts of money for unlimited periods and for unspecified and unknown purposes, has been the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, he has participated in taking from the pockets of British Columbians somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 billion in taxes and squandered it — blown it. Where's it gone — on high living? The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) talks about there being no giveaways. There may not have been giveaways in money, but there have been some pretty hefty contributions to various restaurants and limousine services throughout the world. He has taken some $20 billion from the purses and pocketbooks of the people in this province and squandered it, with nothing to show for it now, or relatively nothing. He says: "Now that I've dissipated all your wealth and created this depression that you're in, I want you in my hip pocket so I can drive you further into debt." Let me emphasize that: not "into debt," but "further into debt."

It was this government that brought in the legislation to establish the B.C. Buildings Corporation, Mr. Speaker. That was simply a device to deceive the general public of this province. That was simply a device to hide debt on the backs of the people of this province. That was simply a mechanism to set up a separate set of books. B.C. Buildings Corporation has borrowed — I don't know the exact amount offhand; it's in the hundreds of millions of dollars — perhaps $200 million that the people of B.C. are paying interest on.

B.C. Systems Corporation — another device to set up a separate set of books so the people of B.C. won't know that they are debt. What we have before us is just that hip-pocket requirement of a discredited Minister of Finance to hold people in hock further than they are right now.

One of the things this Minister of Finance will probably be doing, Mr. Speaker, is the most offensive thing that one can do in borrowing money. He says it's okay to borrow money for capital purposes, but it's not okay to borrow money for operating purposes. That's a bad scene. There's a third scenario, the worst possible thing that a Minister of Finance or anybody else can do, and that is to borrow money in order to pay the interest on money that's already been borrowed. That's one of the intentions of this Minister of Finance. He tried it before and got caught. He tried to go to the money markets of the world in Europe to borrow $100 million to load on B.C. Rail so that B.C. Rail would have $70 million to pay the interest on its then existing debt. That was the purpose of that attempt to borrow $100 million (U.S.) on the Eurodollar market.

He was taken to task for that on more than one occasion by the Crown corporations committee, led by his friend from Omineca, who perceived what that nefarious scheme was all about, and we're now going to do the same thing. Here we have a piece of legislation that's going to permit this Minister of Finance and this Premier, in the secret recesses of this building — in their cabinet room, wherever that is — to start up the printing-press machine in order to borrow $70 million a year-to give to B.C. Rail so B.C. Rail can pay the interest on its outstanding debt. Now that's borrowing money to pay interest on money that's already borrowed, creating an additional burden on the people of this province.

This Minister of Finance wrote a cheque for $45 million on March 31 of this year and sent it over to B.C. Rail. There was no accompanying letter; he didn't tell B.C. Rail what it was all about. B.C. Rail got $45 million and didn't know what to do with it. They thought of sending it back again. I wish they would have, because if B.C. Rail had sent that $45 million back again, at least they would now have it for educational purposes and wouldn't have to deny kids who need special education in this province an opportunity to get it. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) would have had an additional $45 million. He could have said: "Our cutback is only going to be $15 million." That came about because this Minister of Finance was fiscally irresponsible, fiscally careless and fiscally uncaring about the misery that he was going to visit upon school kids in this province who need educational opportunities. He'd far sooner write out the cheque for $45 million and send it to B.C. Rail, who didn't need it, so they could hide the costs of building northeast coal and the Anzac spurline.

That's what part of this money is going to be borrowed for: megaprojects. They've got themselves in over their heads. This government has got itself in such a state financially that it has no idea of the way out, except to load additional burdens on the people of this province. Do you see any cutbacks in their propaganda section? Do you see any cutbacks in Doug Heal's operation? Do you see any cutbacks in the printing of glossy, slick, seducing literature that they are running out of this place? Do you see any curtailment of pro-Socred literature? There's no cutback there, but cutbacks in the schools, yes. It's an injury visited upon the kids of this province in order that they can pay for slick advertising. Hopefully, from their point of view, that slick advertising will be seductive enough to the voters of this province that they'll send them back again for more.

Mr. Speaker, this government and this minister have caused a state of depression in this province. The members shake their heads in disbelief. That's because they are blind and dumb to the facts, because they don't realize what has occurred here.

There were two major contributing factors. One was when the Premier went to Ottawa and said: "We like your high interest-rate policy; keep it up." It's in writing. It's in the documents. It's in the library; pick it out. That's what he said to Mr. Trudeau: "We like your high interest-rate policy; keep it up." That contributed to it.

The second thing that contributed to it, Mr. Speaker, was that this Minister of Finance from Saanich and the Islands, in the first budget that he brought into this House, imposed a spending spree on the people of this province 20 percent above what his predecessor had in his budget. There was a 20 percent increase in spending, and in fact he lauded that point in the budget. He said: "Isn't it wonderful that we're going to spend so much money! We don't care, really, because we predict that the economy is going to be so beautiful in the future that we can afford to do this. We predict that inflation is going to continue. People will have more money. Their dollar will be less, but because they will have more money they'll pay more taxes, and that will help us maintain this 20 percent level."

But we got caught with it the next year. In his second budget, this Minister of Finance further contributed to the depressed state of the economy in this province by again imposing a 20 percent increase in spending. However, he was going to have a shortfall of funds, so what did he do? Because

[ Page 9423 ]

of the mistakes he had made in his first budget, he imposed increases of taxes of $625 million on the people of this province — not for any valuable purpose, but simply to cover up his own ineptness and inaccurate prognostications, his own incorrect presumptions, this government's own erroneous declarations about the economy in the future. Everybody else in North America could see that we were headed for trouble, except this blind crowd over here that passes as the government of this province.

Because they did that, because they advocated high interest rates and because they cozied up to Trudeau and MacEachen — or whoever was the Minister of Finance at that time — and said, "We like your high-interest policy; it's the most beautiful thing that's happened since sliced bread, so keep it up, " and because they then brought in budget after budget with 20 percent interest compounded over that two year period of his first two budgets, they contributed to and created the depressed state of affairs in this economy. That's how this depression in B.C. came about.

They say it's everybody else's fault. Let me put on the record some alterations to the percentage figure of unemployed in this province, in other provinces and in Canada as a whole for August 1982 over August 1981, and see how B.C. fares. I wish we had the percentage increases in unemployment that they have in other provinces — we'd be a little better off. This is the creature that the Finance minister and Premier of this province have visited upon us; this is the misery that has been brought to more than 300,000 people in this province.

For Canada as a whole, the percentage increase from August 1981 to August 1982 was 4.9 percent. In Newfoundland, often considered to be the most depressed province in the nation, the increase was 3.7 percent. It was 3.4 percent in Prince Edward Island, 2.7 percent in Nova Scotia, 3 percent in New Brunswick.... That's bad enough, but I do we wish we could refer to those kinds of figures in this province, but we can't. Quebec had a 5.4 percent increase, Ontario 4.7 percent, Manitoba 3.4. percent, Saskatchewan 2.4 percent, Alberta 4.7 percent, and Social Credit's own depressed British Columbia 7.3 percent. That's at least double the best case in any other province, more than any other province and more than Canada as a whole.

A 7.3 percent increase in unemployment is an easy statistical figure; it does not reflect the misery visited upon 300,000 people on some kind of public-income support in this province. It doesn't tell the story of people wondering how they're going to get through the month with their grocery bills. It doesn't tell the story of how people are going to clothe their children adequately for the coming winter. It doesn't cover the question of medical bills and all the other necessary expenditures that families in this province must meet simply to stay together as a family. Those figures, horrendous and disturbing as they are, are not in themselves able to tell of the family upheaval that takes place, the family discord, the depressed state of mind of families that have to live on the dole, who have nothing but the dole to look forward to for the coming winter. It doesn't tell the story of people who are single parents and have families to raise, of people who have to look, as they did during the 1930s Depression, some 50 years ago now, to religious orders and organizations and groups in communities who set up what are called "soup kitchens" — places where one can get a square meal. These statistics don't reflect those facts of life. They don't tell of the difficulty in the hearts of parents about what they are able to tell their children about the miserable times in which they are living.

Those conditions were brought about by this government. Those conditions were brought about, if not by design — and perhaps the minister will complain about that — then by blindness, by ignorance, by a lack of understanding of what this economy is all about. They rested their hopes on a continued balloon, on a continued expansion of inflation. They rested their hopes on the boom continuing forever. They refused absolutely to examine history — the history of this nation; if nothing else, the history of this province. They refused to accept the fact that it could not go on forever. People in this party accepted that more than a year ago. That's why we moved a succession of amendments in this House to cut back the squandering of public funds for things like first-class air travel office furnishings, couches; teapots, silver teaspoons for gifts; cigarette boxes bought with the taxpayers' money; whisky, gin and I don't know what else bought with the taxpayers' money to give to other people. We tried to curtail that type of abuse by moving amendments in this Legislature. Every one of those amendments....

Indeed, the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) voted against every one of those amendments to cut back on public squandering. Not this government. They said: "Let's go; it's going to last forever. And if it fails, so what? We can always bring in a bill to borrow some money. We can always do it directly. We can always drive the province into debt in order to justify the difficulties that we, the Socred government, have got people into. We hope, in the process of doing it, that they will not remember that it was us," says Social Credit, "that brought this about in this first place." But it was Liberal doctrine, a Liberal piece of legislation.

It is this approach by way of treasury bills, more than anything else, that has got the federal government into the financial state it's in right now. This approach by treasury bills alone.... If this government goes along the course on which it's headed, it will not only drive this province further into a depression, it will drive it into bankruptcy. There is only one way to stop that abuse of power and authority. There is only way to keep us from putting our foot on that slippery slope into fiscal bankruptcy. That is for the Minister of Finance to have the courage of his convictions as a conservative, the courage of his convictions of his history with respect to fiscal matters, the courage of the convictions he holds in his heart. One thing he can do is to stand up in the House and say to the Premier of this province: "No, Mr. Premier, I'm not going your route to drive this province into bankruptcy."

The other thing that is possible — and this isn't in the hands of the Minister of Finance — would be for the Premier of this province to, somehow or other, exhibit an element of decisiveness to the people of this province and to embark on an election right now — somehow or other for the Premier of this province to come to a decision to stop relying on the likes of the Kinsellas, the Spectors, the Heals and all that other crowd of eastern-oriented, decadent-thinking, manipulative political hacks who were brought from Toronto and other places in eastern Canada. Stop relying on them, I say to the Premier. Use your own judgment and decisiveness. Forget about the Warren report. Forget about that attempt to gerrymander and stack the deck in favour of Social Credit. Let's have a kind of honest election on the basis of ideals for a change. One of two choices is open to us.

[ Page 9424 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

If the Minister of Finance — who normally is a person with integrity, is honourable in his dealings, and usually proud of that element of his own integrity and honesty, and bridles when someone questions it — can exhibit that element of his own honourable dealings and honourable intentions by pulling back a particular piece of legislation that he really does not need, to start with, if he is intent on borrowing money by way of treasury bills....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Because the Financial Administration Amendment Act gives him that authority now. It gives the government authority to issue treasury bills right now, save what he wants to do in this — not only to issue treasury bills, but to issue them for unlimited periods of time. There is a prescription in the act now of one year. He can't issue bills of more than 365 days, duration. So he wants to go into the money markets for unlimited amounts of money, for unlimited periods of time, with the opportunity to roll over whenever it comes due, just like the federal government does now, every Thursday. The Minister of Finance is heading us in that direction, so that whatever the day of the week it is that he wants to set, we can foresee the time when we can see this government, every Thursday for argument's sake, borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars in order to pay off the hundreds of millions of dollars that they borrowed 90 days ago, or 180 days ago, or 365 or 700 days ago, whatever period of time it is that they set. It's a most offensive piece of legislation. It not only offends the sensitivity of members on this side; I'm sure it offends the sensitivity of the minister himself. But once having taken that step of abandoning principles of conservatism and joining Social Credit, I guess he realized at that time that whatever integrity he had he had pushed to one side for political convenience.

He can still withdraw the bill. He can still say, "Look, this was a mistake; I didn't understand what we were getting into. I really don't need the legislation; I can issue treasury bills now." He can say that, and can save the people of this province a great deal of grief in the future. If he's intent, as he said he was, on having the people of this province in his hip pocket for political convenience's sake, then I guess he won't withdraw the bill. And I guess we can look forward for so long as we have Social Credit as the government in office — heaven forbid, let that not be much longer — to misery and discontent and social upheaval for the unfortunate people in this province who are now realizing what it is like to be in a Social Credit-created depression.

MR. NICOLSON: It's amazing that the government can't find speakers to put up on this bill. While I was reading one of the former budgets of the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Wolfe), I overheard the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), go up to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and ask him to speak. He said: "If I speak on the bill, I'll speak against it." So that's the kind of bill we have here. I hope that that member for once, before we go to the voters again, not only says what he thinks about a bill but votes the way he thinks about a bill. I hope that member will have....

Hope is eternal. In the words of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), we need some optimism in these times, and I am forever optimistic that someday that member will get up and not only speak the way he thinks about a bill but vote the way he thinks about a bill, which is the most extreme turn in direction that any government has ever taken. Indeed, this is such an extreme turn in direction and such an abandonment of its mandate that this government should seek a new mandate from the people before embarking upon such a piece of legislation. A government that has talked about deadweight debt and about borrowing as if it were one of the seven....

Maybe it is one of the seven deadly sins — it probably is. This government has taken a dogmatic approach toward borrowing but also a very hypocritical approach toward borrowing.

I look at the corporations that this government has created within its mandate of the last two terms of office. I look in particular at the B.C. Buildings Corporation. When you go into my riding and people start asking questions about why government can't do things and why government is now considering borrowing, they suggest their own answers. They point at B.C., Place, to the stadium, to northeast coal and to the convention centre. Those people are pointing in some of the right directions, but they are only scratching the surface. Just look out here on Blanshard, the new home of the B.C. Systems Corporation. It's over budget, like everything else with this government. A huge building houses facilities formerly contained within very small and yet workable facilities.

It really boggles the mind when one looks around. I don't just have to look around in Victoria, I can look around in my own riding. I can look at what has happened in the provincial government estimates. In two years the price of housing for the Ministry of Forests has risen from $3.5 million to $19.5 million. Is it any wonder that with the runaway budgets this government has we have to get into borrowing for operating budgets?

The government is already hiding a great deal of the regular operations by having these two new Crown corporations, B.C. Systems Corporation and B.C. Buildings Corporation. Instead of paying for buildings as you go and as you need them, the government is building and borrowing to buy these things. They're putting a debt on future generations. It is not the way things were done prior to 1975. When we bought ferries, we paid for them up front. When we built buildings, we were making payments as we went. This government has been borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. The books of today are not kept in the same way as they were under the previous NDP government or the Social Credit government previous to that. The books today are not the same kind of accounting. The books today hide all kinds of borrowings which, in other years, would have been paid for up front. If there is ever a Clarkson Gordon type of reckoning of this government, if there is ever a full accounting of this government — a comparison of the trends which have taken place in the last decade — we will see that borrowing has been the order of the day for this government since they took office in 1976.

This government has reached the limit of that type of deception, and now they are having to become a little bit more direct, a little bit more up front. But how direct are they being? They bring in a bill that has no dollar figures attached to it — unlimited borrowing authority. I suppose it's unlimited ability to bribe people; but it lays the cost of that bribe to future generations, leaving the province of British Columbia saddled forever, so that it will have no more hope of getting out of the inflationary spiral than does a country like

[ Page 9425 ]

Argentina. If this government is allowed to bring in this kind of legislation without taking it to the people, we could see here the type of thing which we have just witnessed in Mexico: the peso being devalued a couple of times in one year, going from about 20 or 25 pesos to the dollar to 70 pesos to the dollar in just a few short months.

What this government is doing is borrowing short-term treasury bills which will then come up for renewal. There will be no real control over what that renewal date might be. As governments in this country rely more and more on this short-term type of planning, and put themselves more and more at the mercy of the financial world, we can see that these treasury-bill interest rates and all interest rates in the country could once again rise. We certainly do have different interest rates in this country than you see in other jurisdictions. Interest rates are in large part an expression of lender confidence in the country in which they are operating. When the province of British Columbia embraces this Liberal-government type of fix, it is going to accelerate the rate at which inflation is going to rise, and interest rates will rise again.

It's not too surprising that this government chose, when they took the route of creating BCRIC, Mr. Jack Poole, for its board of directors. I knew a lot of the developers when I was Minister of Housing. There were some who were very careful and there were others who took a lot of risks. Mr. Poole is one who took a lot of risks. One only needs to look at Daon Development Corp. today to see that it mirrors the very same kind of problem Dome Petroleum has — over-extended, too much risk-taking, putting itself too much at the mercy of the whims of short-term investment and short-term borrowing rates, which are so volatile, explosive and subject to change. We see that Daon Development is in quite a bit of difficulty, to say the least. That is not even beginning to treat the matter in the manner it is being treated by financial critics. Yet this is one of the people this government chose to lead B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. We also noticed another bit of carelessness there: Mr. Poole was so careless as to be a major shareholder of Kaiser Resources when Kaiser Resources was purchased by BCRIC. Of course, he did not vote on the decision and therefore claimed there was no conflict of interest, which is the accepted ethics of the financial community. I think he was reported to have made about $2.3 million; it may have been more or less.

This is the kind of leadership the government felt was needed to teach the people of B.C. a lesson in free enterprise. This government is now embarked on a series of gambles that has forced them to place themselves at the mercy of short-term borrowings, which the Minister of Finance says he thinks he won't need but wants to have in his hip pocket.

Last year this minister brought in a budget that required the wilful suspension of disbelief in order to think it could ever have been meant seriously. It was like going to one of those plays held in the barest of surroundings, where the actors have no makeup. It takes a great deal of imagination. There are no props, no costumes — just the barest of materials, the bare talent. You concentrate on the actor. That's what we were asked to do last year with the budget. The actor got up in the House, and we were required to suspend disbelief — to ignore the increase in unemployment, to ignore what people were saying in the United States about housing starts, to ignore what we were being told by people who sit in the boardrooms of MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach and other major forest companies about what they saw in the future for U.S. housing starts. It forced us to ignore what I was being told by housing developers who operate in both the United States and Canada. It required us to ignore all of what we knew to be true, to listen to this actor and try to convince ourselves that what he said was in fact the reality. This actor said we were expecting an upturn in the later part of the year, that things weren't going to be all that bad; we were in a little bit of a hiccup and a bump, a little bit of a trough, but we'd reached the bottom.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What were you saying?

MR. NICOLSON: I can tell you what I said during that budget and during the December mini-session. I said that those who were predicting an upturn in the later part of 1983 were misleading the people. Any politician who tried to tell that to the people back then was lying to them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You were predicting a downturn.

MR. NICOLSON: I said that the type of government that refused to recognize it and take action, that instead preached inaction and reaction, was not the government for the times we're in today. Today we need a government that will do things. Today we want a government that believes that British Columbians can build railcar plants. Today we want a government that believes people....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: We can build railcars in B.C. We can have a manufacturing industry in agricultural products in B.C. These are the things we need. We do not need borrowings to cover things, to cover up for another two or three years the mess this government has made.

I remember when Helmut Schmidt came to this province. To paraphrase Mark Twain, Helmut Schmidt's political death has been greatly exaggerated. I understand that he won a few by-elections and that his fortunes have changed a bit. When Helmut Schmidt was here in British Columbia, the Premier invited us to a state dinner in his honour. The Premier said: "Mr. Chancellor, I've been looking today at some of the economic indicators of your country, and I see that your unemployment is below 3 percent and inflation is below 6 percent." This was down, that was down — all the best indicators. And the Premier said: "I sure wish I knew the secret of how you did that." We laughed. I don't think there was a person in the audience that didn't laugh. The Premier was either being very witty that day or very ignorant, because of course the economy of West Germany has been strong. They have had some of the best economic indicators. They have had that because they have had a Social Democrat Party in power there for years and years and years.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: What happened to them yesterday? They won a bunch of by-elections. They got a vote of confidence from the people, that's what happened to them. What's been happening in other parts of the world? Olaf Palme back in Sweden after they turfed out your friends. Mitterrand in France. and these people....

Interjections.

[ Page 9426 ]

MR. NICOLSON: These people can laugh. Mr. Speaker, we need governments that think in longer terms than the next 30 days. This government has been doing absolutely nothing, because it has only been occupied with polling results. They keep looking at polling results, then they keep changing the results by bringing in some ridiculous legislation like this.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: That member makes a remark about a hammer and sickle. Now how can a person who puts a swastika on his letterhead make a comment like that in this House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. KEMPF: Say that out in the hall!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. This might be....

MR. NICOLSON: Might be appropriate? Mr. Speaker, as you were giving me a bit of a sign there, I would move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.