[ Page 3497 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Howard –– 3497

Mr. Reynolds –– 3498

Mrs. Dailly –– 3501

Hon. A. Fraser –– 3504

Mr. Barrett –– 3507

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1984

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: One of the problems we have in British Columbia, insofar as job creation is concerned, is that we have tended to put all our eggs in one basket — certainly insofar as the lumber industry is concerned. Over about the last 30 years we have tended to have governments with a view of relative aloofness from economic activity, the result being that the path of least resistance is followed by industrialists, corporations and those entrepreneurial forces in the economy.

The path of least resistance in the economy has led us to rely unduly upon the extraction industries employing the fewest number of people and upon the export of our natural resources in either their raw or their next-to-raw form. By doing that, while the industries and corporations involved in the extraction and exploitation of the natural or raw material resources of the province may themselves benefit as far as their balance sheet is concerned, the fact is that we create jobs in other countries by exporting the raw materials. It is employees and workers in other countries who transform those raw materials into manufactured, semi-manufactured, finished or semi-finished products, and in many instances sell them back to us. So while we may — and we simply use arbitrary figures for analysis purposes; they're not the actual figures because they would vary from industry to industry — get $1 for something we sell in its raw resource form, it costs us $5 to buy it back in its finished form. The extra $4 in that equation, that situation, goes to pay workers in other countries to transform those materials into finished products. That doesn't work to our best interests.

We have had — and are still facing — some difficult economic times in our province. Part of the problem, and a contributing factor in a major sense insofar as government is concerned, is that with one brief exception we have had, over the past 30 years, governments with the exact same economic philosophy — namely, one of being relatively aloof from activities in the economy. As a result, we have economic progress or change that is undirected and willy-nilly. The forest industry may want to go in one direction because that suits the forest industry at that time. The mining industry has another narrow perception of its own value and its own worth as to what it wants to do. The aluminium industry wants to do something else, and does. We have had — in the absence, I suppose, rather than on the positive side of things — a kind of negative industrial strategy of reacting to what is taking place in the economy. Industry moves; government reacts. Industry decides that a certain place is going to occur; government responds to those activities out there. The result is that we don't have any coordination for the whole of the province of British Columbia; it's simply a government, aloof from the realities, responding to the realities rather than taking part in some direction and planning.

Let me read a passage from page 2 of the budget: "We shall require a higher degree of responsibility and cooperation from all segments of society: individuals, government, business and labour." I subscribe to that concept. We on this. side of the House have argued for a long period of time that that is a concept which needs to be put into effect, not just stated. That is a concept which needs to have some flesh, bones and blood to it, not just words written by an advertising agency thinking that those words sound nice.

[10:15]

The reality is that while the Minister of Finance says we need a higher degree of responsibility and cooperation, we have a government that believes in confrontation. We have a government that believes that it can boot workers in the pants, whether they work for government or private industry, and then turn around the next day and say: "Hey, we want to get some cooperation from you." It doesn't work in that fashion. There's a denial by government action of the concept that it enunciates in the budget about requiring responsibility and cooperation. Where's the example? What is happening with respect to putting into effect that very worthwhile concept of cooperation from all segments of society?

Yes, we do need a coordinated industrial strategy, and I'm talking just about the economy now and not about social questions, morality or ethical matters — about government itself. We do need a coordinated industrial policy involving government, industry and labour, to mention the three major groups that the government itself mentions in the budget speech. We need to get those groups together in an open way to examine what we can do to chart the course for the future. What can we do to revive faith and hope in humanity about its future? What can we do to revive the concept of productivity? What can we do to revive the human spirit and let it have a contributing part to play in what happens in this province? We can't do that by empty words in a budget that says that's what we should be doing. when in the real activity of government just the opposite is occurring.

I'll give you a case in point. We've advanced before the concept of cooperation — of the same level we think necessary at the provincial level — at the industrial plant level. A couple of years ago I had occasion to spend a fair amount of time discussing the question of productivity in two sawmills owned by B.C. Timber in my home town of Terrace with the unions involved, with the company, with the Truck Loggers' Association — and the northwest truck loggers were interested as well — with a view to establishing productivity committees similar to the accident prevention committees in those plants. Everybody thought it was a fine idea. The company in particular agreed that it was its responsibility, because it was the common factor throughout both the logging operation and the sawmills — in its relationship with independent contractors — and that the company should take the initiative in starting the ball rolling in that direction. But not a thing occurred.

There was nothing wrong with the concept. We need to revive the concept of an involvement in productivity, by legislation if necessary — not by force, or by intimidating legislation, or by demanding or imposing legislation, but by legislation that may set the tone and perception of what is necessary insofar as increased productivity is concerned.

We need to have the cooperation of government, industry and the worker to deal with the subject matter of new products, of changes in the workplace, of new technology. I've heard a number of people in the forest industry, for example,

[ Page 3498 ]

say that unless the sawmilling capacity in the province of British Columbia is modernized, unless it moves in the direction of using computers and high technology — which is the buzzword of the day, I suppose — to a greater extent, it will not be able to compete on world markets, period, regardless of what the wage level is. Yet there is very little recognition of that requirement on the part of government because government has a position of relative aloofness from the forces and the factors that exist within the economy. It pays lip-service to the concept of the marketplace and says that's what should prevail, without recognizing that the concept of the marketplace is really inimical in many instances to the broad requirement of the economy as a whole.

There are a number of other thoughts I have about economic matters that relate to productivity gains, computers, high technology and the question of the need for leadership from government and the need to revive hope in mankind and womankind in this province, to get things rolling along. I will leave those until another occasion; we'll have an opportunity during estimates of various ministries to explore those ideas further. But I did want to set out those initial thoughts about what needs to be done, and hopefully it will lay the groundwork for being able to deal with these subjects in more detail and more substance when we get to the point of being able to deal with estimates or legislation.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena sat down a little quicker than I expected.

The amendment to the motion by the New Democratic Party is that "this House regrets that, in the opinion of the House, the hon. Minister of Finance, by his failure to even mention, much less address, the most obvious problem of record unemployment, has denied many of our citizens the right to participate in our society and has thereby condemned them to a life of subsistence." All I can say about that is, "poppycock." If the members from the NDP were to listen to the Minister of Finance and to his budget and the programs that are happening around this province and also delve into what is happening around this province.... I would be embarrassed if I was a member of that party and had to vote for this motion that they've put forward. I can quite happily say my constituents are going to be very proud of me for voting against this amendment that the NDP are putting forth.

The member for Vancouver East, as I listened to him on Friday, said it's time we stood up for ordinary people — a common statement we've heard from the NDP. They forget to mention that we have one of the best standards of living in the world and one of the best provinces to live in in Canada. The ordinary people in this province, compared to other parts of the world, are doing very, very well. I would suggest that they forget to talk about and to highlight the programs for the unemployed we have in this country.

When the budget came out, I noticed a story in the Vancouver Province about a 42- or 43-year-old lady who was saying that she was getting $850 in unemployment insurance, and how tough it was going to be because of this government's budget. I think it speaks very well for not only this province but for this country that someone who is single, 42 and unemployed can collect $850 a month from the taxpayers while out seeking employment. Look at the handicapped. Where else in the world do the handicapped and unfortunate people have the benefits that we have in this country and this province?

That is why I cannot understand the members from the NDP when they want to talk about the ordinary people, and what they would do for the ordinary people. It is the ordinary people of this province who voted this government back in on May 5 and saw fit to make sure that the NDP never formed a government again in this province. It is ordinary people who are important, and that's what our policies.... Our policies are not there for the labour unions or for the rich; they are there for every citizen of British Columbia. That is what this government is all about, and that is why it has been in power, with the exception of a very short period of time, in my lifetime. This government has done such a great job that the ordinary people keep on returning it to power.

I can understand the NDP's frustration of sitting there, because they never propose anything concrete. If they could sit down and tell this government how they would manage the economy with the world economy the way it is, and if they could tell us how they would create jobs, wouldn't it be a lot nicer? I made a few notes when the members were speaking the other day. They talked about job-creation. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has put out a little card for all the students in this province to go around looking for work and looking to enterprise to get jobs. The members were knocking it, saying: "We don't need cards, we need jobs." That is the idea. I couldn't wait to get back to my office here and say: "Let's get a whole bunch of those applications and cards and get them into the constituency office and get them down to the local newspaper. Let's let every young student know in my constituency that the card is available to them in any numbers they want so they can go knocking on doors, and let's get our share of that budget." Let's teach those young people that there are jobs out there, Mr. Speaker.

It is no wonder that this NDP have been in opposition for so long. I can't imagine, if I were a student.... I have taken the clippings of what they said about job-creation programs for students, and I'll make sure my constituency.... Because they don't like it. They'd probably say: "We'd put $20 million or $30 million in. Let's outspend them on these programs." That's their reaction to good programs of the Social Credit government — to outspend the good ones we do and knock the heck out of the ones they don't like. I'm proud that this government brought in this job creation program, and I'm proud of the loan program for students going to university in this province. I think they're very positive aspects of a good government, and they're things that the people of this province appreciate. That's why they re-elected us in the last election.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) may want to talk about jobs. She said that there's an increase in violence among families in this province. Well, I don't believe that. I don't think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the facts to back up those statements. She loves to talk about violence in families, violence with children, violence with women. But the facts she quotes are just not there and they're not accurate. I would suggest that the NDP, who want to create violence by suggesting that people like Henry Kissinger not come to this province and who want to bring out the rent-a-crowd.... They stand in front of the hotel where people have paid good money.... They're employing people in this province for the dinner — over 1,000 people wanted to pay $150 to listen to a great world statesman. What did the NDP in this province do? They encourage the rent-a-crowd to go out. They encouraged it to jump on somebody's car — jump on the Cadillac. There must

[ Page 3499 ]

be something wrong with the guy who has the Cadillac, because they'd like to jump on his car. They encouraged spitting at the Lieutenant-Governor. The NDP likes to put down all the establishment things. They don't want to talk about creating jobs. Henry Kissinger created jobs in this province when he was here. He created some good jobs for working people in the hotel industry in this province, which is one of the highest paid industries in the world.

MR. REID: That guy would make a good Socred.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, Henry Kissinger may not know the term Social Credit, but he certainly would have a philosophy that I would be proud to hold, because I think he's a great world statesman. I'm proud that he came to this province and had a chance to speak.

[10:30]

Bill Vander Zalm is going to be in charge of looking after some of the Pope's visit here. That's a good job for him. He'll create other jobs, because he's obviously going to have to bring people in to help him. What happens? The NDP members in this province chastise that: he should announce whether he's going to run for mayor or take the Pope around. Why should he be any different than anybody else? He's a citizen in a free country. If he decides to run for mayor somewhere down the line, so be it. I would hope that if we're going to talk about jobs.... If Mr. Vander Zalm were to run for mayor of Vancouver, we'd certainly have one more unemployed person in the province. But he's a lawyer, anyways, so I guess he can always go and find a job. There's always somebody to work for if you're a lawyer. But Harcourt would be gone. Maybe that's why he wants a quick decision from Mr. Vander Zalm.

The NDP talk about creating jobs. Why don't they go and talk to some of the IWA members who would like to be working today but can't cross secondary picket lines? The pulp workers can't settle their contract, so what do they do? "Let's put everybody else out of work so we can get our contract settled." Isn't it time this government started thinking about stopping secondary picketing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! Put the province back to work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REYNOLDS: At a time when North America, the world, Canada and British Columbia are in one of their most difficult periods, what have we got? Union members fighting each other on picket lines over the right to go to work. We have wives and children saying: "Get out of town. Let my daddy go to work. Let my mommy go to work. We need the money." We've got to keep this province going, and I suggest that the NDP are being totally irresponsible when they put forth this motion.

We have the bus workers. Sure, they're going to go to work. They're going to wear their T-shirts to work. One guy was wearing a Paul Revere hat or something today, saying he was going back to the old times. They say: "We're not going to let the manager tell us what routes we have to work. We're not going to let the manager tell us what schedules we have to be on. You the people get up and fight the bus company because they want to tell us how we should be doing our work." Well, that's what the management of the bus company is for. They're there to decide which routes are profitable, which routes we have to work. I can remember when all these transit drivers yelled and screamed because there were some cutbacks. Instead of a bus coming every 15 minutes, they made it every 20 minutes; and instead of coming every half an hour, they made it every hour. These were at times when there were three or four people riding the buses.

MR. REID: Sometimes none.

MR. REYNOLDS: Sometimes none; that's true. The bus drivers yelled and screamed about that. They said: "No, you can't do that. It's going to affect the people." Well, the three people who were taking the bus learned to go five minutes later, or learned that there was only one every hour. When only three people an hour take it, why should all the taxpayers be subsidizing the system? But that's the type of mentality that this New Democratic Party supports, and that's why they can never form the government of this province again.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds said: "We're looking for jobs, not cards." I don't know when she was last in Burnaby, but I see her on the ferry quite often. I assume that when she goes home she must look around her constituency. The ALRT –– 1,500 jobs currently, right in Burnaby. This government can't be accused, like a Liberal government can, of passing out all the bucks to Liberal constituencies. The heart of one of the greatest programs in this province is right in Burnaby, in that member's constituency. Fifteen hundred jobs currently in Burnaby. The ALRT maintenance centre — this government could have chosen to put that maintenance centre in a Social Credit riding. If we were a Liberal government we would have done that. We certainly wouldn't give it to a New Democrat. But no, this government is building the maintenance yard right in Burnaby — right where, it should be, and where it's going to create....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: We know there's one member there, but there are some other members too. If you were a Liberal and could get only one out of three, you certainly wouldn't have any benefits in your area. They'd all be in the hometown ridings, because that's the way the Liberals in this country operate. If you don't vote Liberal, you don't get any goodies. We certainly know that in western Canada. But this government doesn't operate that way. We give the member for Burnaby-Edmonds lots of goodies in her constituency. There's no discrimination in this government. We don't discriminate because you're an NDPer; we look at all the people of British Columbia fairly, the rich, the poor, the middle; we treat everybody fairly, with a good, well-managed government.

She also said: "a cruel, vindictive government." I can't think of a government, of a group I've worked with in politics, that's had more compassion for people who have problems.

This NDP group wants to talk about unemployment. I was listening earlier in the debate to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and I want to talk about accuracies.

MR. BLENCOE: Sad days for British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: The saddest day in British Columbia was the day we elected a New Democratic government. He

[ Page 3500 ]

talks about the Solidarity movement, that great associate of the NDP, getting their two rallies together. I can remember the rallies back in those years, in forums and buildings all across this province, against this New Democratic government. They weren't all in one place, because we couldn't have gotten them all in one place; there wasn't anywhere big enough. But every room that held 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 people was filled across this province, yelling and screaming about the undemocratic government we had with the New Democratic Party when they were in power. It didn't take very long for the voters to realize that they'd made the greatest mistake they'd ever made in the history of the province when they elected the New Democratic Party. I wish the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were getting up, because he could give us the rhyme as only he can do.

It is so interesting to sit here and listen to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) come in with his snide remarks about how this province is being run. It must be very frustrating for him to sit here and see how well the Social Credit government operates, and how messed up his caucus is when he has to go in that caucus room. We have leaders from the New Democratic Party saying that no-fault is good and another one saying that it is not very good. Some of them are for and some are against. They're a totally divided party, and they can't even put together a unified debate in this Legislature. We see that all the time.

HON. MR. McGEER: They can't stand listening to each other when they make a speech.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's very true.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give you some quotes from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and talk about other things that I've been looking at in this area of job-creation, because that's what the amendment is all about. It was very interesting last night when we talked about jobs in this province. We want to talk about education, which is one of the largest budget items and creates a lot of jobs. In an editorial in the Vancouver Sun last night Vaughn Palmer talked about this new group of University of B.C. economics professors who call themselves the B.C. Economic Policy Institute.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria says they got to me. I love reading what they put out, because I love fact as well as fiction. The second member for Victoria probably didn't read this column last night, or he wouldn't be saying they got to me. He talks about the facts and figures this group puts out. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote Vaughn Palmer's editorial because I think it shows that there are some people who do some research and check out.... I'm not saying that the Fraser Institute is always right or always wrong, because, as I said in my previous speech, we can agree or disagree with them. But their philosophy is one that I support.

This group of University of B.C. economics professors call themselves the B.C. Economic Policy Institute. It sounds like the Fraser Institute. It's a good name. Nobody would know what they really were. Vaughn Palmer says:

"...doubts arise from the comparisons Professor Allen makes to support his contention that 'B.C. already has one of the smallest educational systems in Canada.' He finds that B.C. spends less on education than do other provinces that already have one of the highest ratios of students to teachers in the country, and that it has one of the smallest percentages of any provincial population enrolled in post-secondary education. That sounds like damning evidence. But he has chosen to express education spending as a percentage of the total personal income of everyone in the province....

"For example, four of the highest spenders on Professor Allen's table are the maritime provinces, where incomes are lowest. That doesn't mean that they have the best education system any more than the fact that wealthy provinces like B.C., Alberta and Ontario are at the bottom of the table....

"One can also draw differing conclusions from Professor Allen's survey of pupil-teacher ratios. B.C.'s ratio, 18.69 pupils per teacher in 1982-82, is one of the poorest from the point of view of the teacher, but Ontario is an even greater offender. Yet Ontario's system is not necessarily inferior to that of B.C."

So says Mr. Palmer. An interesting comparison is then given, Mr. Speaker:

" New Brunswick jams more students into the room with a teacher than does B.C., and still spends more of its tax base on schools than this province does. That certainly suggests that pupil-teacher ratios and spending, as Professor Allen defines it, don't correlate."

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I think that is a very important point. The NDP go across this province telling people that we spend less on education than all maritime provinces do in each of their areas, but they don't tell them that the reason they're higher in those areas is that the gross national product in those areas is so low that when they take a percentage, it certainly comes out higher than the percentage in British Columbia. They don't want to talk about the dollars per student we spend, because then this province does very well and comes out on the top. That's the problem the New Democrats have. They go across this province giving those figures, yet the average British Columbian knows that we have one of the best education systems in the country.

What they don't understand is the fact that a lot of people from other parts of Canada have moved into British Columbia in the last few years. When I moved to British Columbia 20 years ago, I think the population was 1.5 million. Now we have three million people. Those people are moving to British Columbia because it's the greatest province in Canada to live in. Those are people who had their children in other schools across Canada, like the system in Quebec, which has got to be one of the poorest in this country, and they realized how good the education was when they finally got their families to British Columbia.

MR. REID: They're abandoning Manitoba.

MR. REYNOLDS: They sure are abandoning Manitoba. You only have to read what's happening there. That's one of the problems that the New Democrats have. They don't want to admit to the people of this province that it's well-run, that

[ Page 3501 ]

we provide the handicapped, the poor and the underprivileged with a better place to live in than anywhere else in this country.

In looking at the B.C. School Trustees' report — talking about education as between Ontario and British Columbia — I see that 16 delegates are going to visit Toronto from May 23 to May 31. Of course, we're paying their return air fare; onsite transportation to educational institutions and meals are provided. I just wonder why we have to send 16 school trustees to Toronto. I don't know whether we are sending them first-class, business class or economy, but in these times of restraint I really wonder what those 16 school trustees are going to learn in the province of Ontario. I would suggest that they would do just as well if they got in their cars and drove to the state of Washington, or if they read some material. Isn't it time that all these people started looking at the public money — money that is raised by taxation — and saying: "Is it necessary to spend this money doing these types of things?" I don't see the New Democrats getting up, yelling and screaming when some of these groups start to travel, because a lot of them tend to be socialist organizations that like to travel, to get together and talk about how bad the government is.

MS. SANFORD: Cabinet ministers should read some articles, too.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, the member for Comox wants to talk about cabinet ministers. Well, I'll tell you that there isn't a cabinet minister in this province who travels on a trip who doesn't bring back millions of dollars of business to British Columbia. I would like to see what dollars these school trustees are going to bring back to British Columbia when they get their little vacation in springtime in Toronto.

MR. BLENCOE: How much did Don Phillips bring back?

MR. REYNOLDS: Don Phillips brought back orders like you wouldn't believe, Mr. Member from Victoria.

I guess if they could learn to read, Mr. Speaker....

Some of these members don't want to read, except for the socialist manifesto. If they would just read the reports that come out....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He was too young to sign the Waffle Manifesto, but their leader wasn't.

The ministers who are travelling for this government.... The ministers who went to India have Indian delegations coming back to Canada who are going to spend millions of dollars in this province. Why aren't the New Democrats honest about it and say: "The only reason we're mad is that we're not where you are. We can't be out travelling the world, to the socialist countries to tell us how to socialize the province a little bit more." They wouldn't want to sell them anything; they just want to import them: "Let's bring a few more socialists in here."

[10:45]

Do you remember Bob Williams, Mr. Speaker? He said: "We'll scramble the omelette so well that you will never unscramble it." How hard he tried. Thank God the people of this province got rid of them after three years.

As I said earlier, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance. He is sitting here, and is one of the ministers who has been listening to most of the speeches from both sides of the House. The budget has been well received across this province. The member for Victoria is hearing it from his constituents, I know, because most of us are here during the week, and we have to go around Victoria and see a lot of people. They are telling us that they like the job that the Minister of Finance did in his budget. They know the restraint program is working in this province. They know that when recovery comes, this province will be the first one out of it, and we will recover.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's nice for these NDP people to sit here and laugh and chuckle — they'll still be chuckling after the next election. Some of them will get re-elected; it's inevitable. It's good for the system; we need an opposition. But I sincerely hope that the new leader of that party really tries to whip the group together, because they could use a positive approach as to what they want to do in British Columbia. They might even come up with an idea we could steal from them once in a while, but I haven't seen one in all the years that I've been looking. There are no positive proposals. If they want to talk about jobs instead of this negative motion, why didn't this party put forward some proposals in their motion? If the NDP even had any political smarts, they would put something in there that would embarrass us to vote against it. It's not embarrassing to vote against that motion. It's nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: One of the members says that they probably couldn't agree. They have a party of 22 people, probably in about nine different factions now in the leadership race, who can't agree on how to attack the government. They could have put a motion forward that would be embarrassing, but they don't even have the smarts for that. Any party that is not smart enough to do that couldn't create a job in this province, and that's why they will never be the government of this province again.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it's a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, but I cannot be sincere and state that. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who just spoke....

MR. R. FRASER: Great speaker!

MRS. DAILLY: He's a great speaker for the Socreds, all right. He has no subtlety; he lays out clearly for the people of British Columbia the right-wing, neo-conservative philosophy of the Socred government, which some of the members over there are a little too clever to speak about in quite such raw terms as that member delights in. But I'm glad he does, because we know that he's been put up by the government. He's the hit man, and expresses very clearly just what kind of philosophy the Social Credit government is basing their policies on. We've been telling the people of British Columbia, but I'm glad that member is articulate; if he keeps talking like that there'll be no question in the minds of the people of

[ Page 3502 ]

British Columbia what kind of a government they really have to deal with.

For example, he ranted on about the NDP not having any job-creation ideas. Obviously he has only listened selectively to our members, many of whom throughout this debate have posed ideas for job creation. If you took the time to go through Hansard, I think you would find them. I intend to mention a few myself today.

I would find it almost amusing, if it weren't sad, that the only job-creation project which the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound came up with today was to have more dinners for Henry Kissinger. If you recall, he kept telling the House that one way to create new jobs for people is to have more VIP dinners. I'm sure all those unemployed of all ages out there must feel very comfortable knowing that the Social Credit answer to unemployment is to have more dinners for Henry Kissinger. The interesting thing about those VIP dinners is that many of the people who came to them are obviously Social Credit supporters, because they're about the only ones who can afford to come to that kind of dinner today. Most of those people paid over $100, and most will be able to claim it as an expense on their income tax. That's the kind of job creation which that member talks about.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take up time giving my personal opinion of Henry Kissinger — not in this debate. I wish I could, however, because it is completely opposite to that member's.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't think a debate on unemployment, with so many people in the province waiting and hoping for some answers from this government and from the opposition.... I'm sure they don't want us to indulge in a debate on a former American diplomat who came to Vancouver to speak. I think it would be a waste of time.

The other point that shows very clearly where the Social Credit government stands philosophically was when that member said something which shocked me, even coming from that member. He actually referred to school trustees going across Canada to a convention, and questioned why they should be going at a time of restraint. Do you know what he actually ended up with? He compared school trustees going across Canada with the dollars which he claims — but he can't validate it or back it up — his cabinet ministers bring to B.C. by their trips. Nobody's ever been able to back this up for us. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has made many trips out of this province. The interesting thing is that it's costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars, but we've never had a report yet. Not one report from that minister on exactly what he's been doing and specifically what jobs he's brought back. He's talked about pie-in-the-sky things, but we've never had any specifics. It's a tragic thing that a minister of this province can travel all over this province, paid for by the taxpayer, and he has no responsibility to come before this Legislature and give us a specific report. That minister, of course, never does say anything specifically. Maybe it's better not to ask him, because we would just be treated to another wild, arm-waving speech that has no substance.

But back to what the member said, which even I found shocking: "Can those school trustees who go back east bring back dollars? Of course they can't." In other words, he was saying: "What good is it for those people to travel when they can't bring back dollars?" Doesn't that show exactly where the philosophy of the Social Credit is at? They don't think there's any importance in this world to a person travelling to come back with ideas, with thoughts — with ideas that they can put into action in their school system. Mr. Speaker, you know this, because you were a school trustee. I know that you went to some of those conferences. I agree that you don't get too much out of some conferences, but you manage to find something in every conference that you can take back to your own district which will help improve not only the quality of education but often save money for your district. I remember finding that when I was on the school board. I was pleased to find out what other school districts were doing to save money. To have that member stand up and say they can't bring back dollars.... Everything is equated in terms of dollars, not people and not ideas. Heaven help this province if it's going to have to be ruled by that kind of thinking even for another month.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm trying to be positive. Compared to most of the members on the government side, I've been very positive.

It's absolutely necessary to refer to the last speaker, because the debate we are indulging in in this House is supposed to be an exchange of ideas. I can't refer to my ideas without also referring to my opponents' ideas. I think that's what makes debate interesting. I would hope so.

Back to the situation we're facing today with unemployment in my own district in Burnaby. I want to give you an idea of some of the figures that the people of Burnaby are facing. In January 1982 there were 2,057 people registered at the Burnaby Canada unemployment centre. This was excluding those who were on unemployment insurance claims for sick leave or maternity leave. These are not people who entered the market for the first time; these are people applying for or eligible for unemployment benefits. In January 1982 there were 2,057. In January a year later, under the Social Credit famous restraint program, which is entirely a myth and just a lot of words....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Let's deal with facts. I want to deal with facts, not myths. The facts are that in '82 there were 2,000 people on the unemployment roll seeking benefits. In 1983 under the Socred restraint program we have 4,757 people. A year later, in January '84, we have still more than 4,000 people, double from the time that this infamous — I won't say famous any more, Mr. Speaker — restraint program of the Social Credit government came in. Burnaby's unemployment has doubled.

I would say to you that even if I were not a politician or even if I were not an opposition member, I would have to say what's happening in my province and in my community. This government brings in a so-called restraint program saying everybody has to pull in their belts. "Trust us. We're going to make things better. Everything's going to be great in B.C. if you just support our program." Yet a year after that program

[ Page 3503 ]

has been in, the unemployment figures have doubled. I don't think you have to be a politician or read a great deal about economics or unemployment to say to yourself: "There's something wrong here." This is the point I'm trying to make. If we just look at the facts, we see that the restraint program of the Social Credit government isn't working, so we have to ask: why not?

[11:00]

We concede, and we always have, that times have been tough all over the world. But the interesting thing is that other provinces in Canada and the United States are picking up. But somehow or other, good old B.C.... According to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), everyone is just flocking to B.C. I'd like to have the figures to back that up. Of course, he's noted for just making his general statements with no backing up. How could people flock to a province which at the present time has the highest unemployment rate in Canada? They aren't fools. According to the figures I have here, in January '84, region 2, which is the West Kootenays alone, 23.6 percent, one of the highest. As my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds said, it is the highest in Canada — 23.6 percent for one region. In January 1983 it was 51.6 percent, and now in 1984 we have 23.6 percent, which shows a slight improvement, for which we are pleased. But my concern is that there is nothing lasting. This government says to us — and the previous speaker just stated — that the NDP hasn't any answers, just quick little projects. Most of the things that he mentioned to us today, including the ALRT one, are not permanent work. The sad thing is that when the ALRT does go in there may be spinoffs, but as far as the average person goes, let us remember that most of those buses may be automated. So what happens then to all the employees who are presently being used? One has to say that we'd better look at the projects that the Social Credit government is also bringing in to question how long-range they are. Even the jobs up in the northeast coal: how many of those jobs, at a cost of over $200,000 per job, I believe, are going to be there permanently, particularly with the problems that the government is now having with the price of coal?

If they were not sad, some of the comments by that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound would be absolutely ludicrous. But unfortunately he probably does go out on the circuit and prattle away and use those generalized statements that show a completely right-wing neoconservative philosophy that is not going to bring us out of our problems, as has been shown in England and in most of the countries which have adopted these simplistic theories of turn back the clock, let's go back to the good old days and everything will be okay. What the members of the Social Credit are not doing is addressing the problems of today to look to the future, when it comes to jobs. That's the area I want to deal with. To do that, of course, you have to study, as we would hope the members of the cabinet would be doing with all their staff, and say: well, if there are no particular jobs for many of our young people at this time, then would it not be better to put them into proper training and train them for the jobs of the future? But this government isn't even doing that. Most of these jobs that they're bringing up here, such as those the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is bringing up, are going to be low-paying. Women are going to be used, because they consider that women are the ones who can stay at the poverty level, unfortunately. This is an attitude some people have. It's not good enough. The NDP says: wouldn't it be much better to take some of those pools of money, some of which are being used for very questionable projects by the Social Credit, and put them into some job training for the many young people who are out of work today?

He referred to the Minister of Labour's great press release about jobs for students. Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree with anything that will help students earn their own way so they can get through university. Nobody's going to knock that. It's a student program. But the problem is that the majority of the unemployment today is out there with a lot of unskilled high school dropouts. And from what I understand, that program would not be applying to these young unskilled males and females out there. I hope I can be proven wrong. I hope you can tell me how that program will deal with those who are really seriously in trouble. I'm thinking of the under-25-year-old who is unskilled and who is not a student. I would like you to spell it out to me. I hope one of your members will.

Mr. Speaker, if you can show me that that program is geared to help the unskilled, the non-student, as much as the student, who unfortunately is going to be coming more and more from an elitist class in British Columbia, then I will accept your words. But from what I can see from that program, it is not helping those at the moment who are unskilled, come from low-income families, and do not and will not be going on to university or post-secondary education. I want to know if it is helping them in nearly the same proportion as it will be helping those who can go on to education in our post-secondary institutions, which must be done, because I know that the Social Credit government has moved back in their support of the outright grant system for students.

Everything is topsy-turvy with this government. Of all the times to make it more difficult for a student to get to university, this is not the time to do that. And yet this government has taken that step. I know that most students today say it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to get to university because of the lack of jobs. Maybe this program will address that to some degree, but at the same time this government is making it increasingly difficult for the students by removing rent controls. Already word is coming out that vacancy rates are going down. There are going to be fewer places to rent, which means the prices of the apartments that the students must rent will go up. At the same time you are creating these barriers for them, you are also going to remove the grant portion of their loans. What is going to happen here is that we will be back again to the old elitist system where those who have parents or wealthy relatives who can help them are going to have far greater opportunity to go to university than those who don't.

I think the tragedy of the Social Credit government is that with their policies they are going to continue to turn the clock back. All the gains that have been made in the last 40 to 50 years to bring about equality of admission, to give everyone the opportunity, no matter what their income is, to move on, are all going to be reversed. Yet the member from Vancouver–Howe Sound actually stands up and says in this House: "We're the party that believes in treating everyone equal." I contend that the Socred policies are doing exactly the opposite.

At the moment I am concerned that there is really no massive program coming out of Labour or Education which would be looking at the future for our young, unskilled people. You just have to take a walk into town in any city in this province today to see the tragedy of these young people walking around with nothing to do. I know it must affect all of

[ Page 3504 ]

us. I'm sure the Social Credit members feel the same as I do. I'm sure they have relatives and friends who are out of work. Everybody must be touched, in some way or another — some more than others. You obviously want to help them as I do, but what I contend is that your policies are not helping us, because you are not thinking to the future. You are obsessed with building things instead of people, and the two have to go together. I referred to that when I spoke on the main motion just a few days ago. I don't think anyone could put it better than an economist whom I have already referred to the Social Credit to read. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) ran right out and got the book by Robert Reich, and I know that he is reading it. He is going to be converted very shortly. I'd like to quote an interview with Reich:

"'A false dichotomy is made between economic expenditures and social expenditures. Spending on plant and equipment' — which is the Social Credit approach — 'is seen to be good and hard and tough and spending on people to be somehow soft, ineffective.

"'This view is 100 percent the opposite of the way we should be thinking,' said Reich. 'Spending on new plant and equipment isn't going to get us back on our feet. Much of our problem today is that new plant and equipment can be set up instantly anywhere in the world. What is going to get us back on our feet, the key factor of productiveness today, is the quality of our people.'"

This is something that the Social Credit members do not seem to comprehend. When you make Education cutbacks, you are affecting the quality of the education of our children. When you make it harder for people to get to university, everyone suffers. I am talking about academically qualified people. The article continues:

"Skilled people aren't enough. They have to be skilfully managed. Modern management no longer means the shiny new systems of the Harvard Business School,' said Reich; it means instead the old human virtues of participation, equity, security."

It is interesting that the Social Credit are always talking about getting back to the good old days. The NDP believes in the old, human virtues of participation, equity and security.

I think this is something that the Social Credit government must be really seriously faulted for: they are not providing the framework for equity and participation by the workforce. As a matter of fact, it is the opposite. The member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound today brought up the matter of unions fighting unions. You know there was almost a sense of.... I won't say, "glee," but I heard a member from the opposite side laughing. You have to ask yourself: why is union fighting union? I accuse the Social Credit government of building such an atmosphere of confrontation in this province with their restraint program and their legislation that they have contributed to this worker-against-worker situation that's happening in British Columbia. It is on the heads of the Social Credit government. When people get insecure, made so by a government that seems to have purposely created insecurity, then they turn on each other; it's a human instinct. No worker wants to fight another worker, but you only get those kinds of scenes in a province that has an anxiety about the whole province, where people are constantly afraid. This government has created that atmosphere. Reich gives a good example here. He says:

'If you look at the companies which are growing most rapidly — IBM, Du Pont, Hewlett-Packard — you are struck'" — he's talking of course about the United States — "'by the extent to which they'" — these big companies — "'practise participation, security and equity. There isn't a great deal of difference between the pay of the highest and lowest employees. There is a great deal of consultation about new products, improvements, changes in the workplace. There is a high degree of job security.'"

We're accused of not being positive. These are the kinds of things we feel the government in charge should be encouraging in meetings with union, with labour and with government. This government seems so afraid of entering, they claim, into the economy and the marketplace. If you won't touch that, at least enter into having meetings and trying to build up a lack of confrontation in this province.

[11:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We keep hearing: "You can't do things for people. They've got to do them for themselves." The interesting thing is that that philosophy does not follow through for the big boys and girls of the province, because when it comes to assisting the large corporations, this government certainly seems to have a fear of taking them on, as is witnessed in this recent business over the scaling problem. That is not an area which I'll enter into now, because it's not to do with my debate at this time, but I know others will. But it's really laughable when the Social Credit members stand up and say, "You've got to get out there and fend for yourselves," and yet we find that they are quite willing to give subsidies to large companies and corporations to come into this province. At times I'm afraid the results will be to benefit not the citizens but only the pockets of those corporations. That's why, as I've said many times, we're on this side of the House and they're on the other.

The fact that they won the last couple of elections....

In the long run, I'll tell you, they won't continue to, because they had the opportunity through propaganda and access to millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to put across their right-wing rhetoric, which created fear and insecurity in the people of British Columbia. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a grassroots movement springing up in this province which is seriously questioning the policies of a government which puts plants, equipment and machinery entirely ahead of people, and does not see that people are still the major resource of our province. If you lose their cooperation and create insecurity in the people of this province, I can assure you that that government will soon be turned out — and the sooner the better.

HON. A. FRASER: I enjoyed the remarks of the last speaker, the member for Burnaby North. She was going to tell us all about the opposition's employment program, but I'm still listening and waiting. I didn't hear too much.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I'm opposed to the amendment and will be voting against it, and I'm all for the budget and will be voting for the budget.

MR. BARRETT: I'm shocked, Alex.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm sure you must be.

[ Page 3505 ]

I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). He and his staff had to come up with two budgets in a short period of about eight months, and this does put a heavy load on that ministry I congratulate them for the good job they've done in this short time.

There is lots of financial information from the last budget and in this budget. I would like to remind the House that things have changed a lot in the last seven or eight years in our province and in this Legislature, and remind you that I guess we're now financially better-informed in the Legislature than we ever have been in the history of our province. I refer to quarterly reports brought in by the Minister of Finance, which bring us roughly up to date on the position we're in. I observe the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asking: "Where's the quarterly report?" I get a real kick out of that, because when they were government they didn't have any reports of any kind, let alone quarterly reports.

The other thing brought in by our government was the auditor-general — appointed, I believe, in 1977 or '78. She does an excellent job, and this is further financial control. So, you know, things have moved a lot since the Leader of the Opposition led the government not too long ago — 1972-75, in case you've forgotten, Mr. Leader.

MR. BARRETT: How about the ombudsman?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, yes, this government brought in the ombudsman too. He sure is entitled to make all the reports he wants, and he's making lots of them.

We didn't have any of these reports to bring us up to date, and this is certainly helping not only members of this Legislature but also all the citizens of this province. I would remind you that we still have the estimates in the Legislature, and remind you that when they on that side were government they forced estimates through the House without even a vote. I experienced that. So again, things have changed. The opposition — and I was a member at that time — were told to sit down and shut up, and dry up. Anyway, the votes were going through — right from that table. That happened here. We don't see any of that happening.

MR. BARRETT: Closure — 20 times last fall.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, you know, when you were just rounding up and churning up old history, it was about time that something was brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, this budget has the first reduction in money in 31 years. To me that means that, hopefully, not as much will be required from the taxpayers, who are the citizens. We're not going to take their money and spend it in the abundance we have before. We're going down the other way.

This budget budgets for about a $670 million deficit, compared to the approximately $1.3 million the Minister of Finance says we'll probably have by the end of March 1984. This is a definite good turn for all the citizens of the province. It has cut the anticipated deficit in half. I also get a big kick out of people observing that the deficit would be less than $1.6 billion, and they say that in a critical vein. I only say that I hope the deficit is less than $1.3 billion. I don't see that we should be criticized if we can reduce the estimated deficit.

I guess we all have philosophical differences. the NDP believes that everybody should work for the government and our party believes that the private sector should be the generator of jobs. We want to create a climate in this province which furthers investment, so that the private sector will create the jobs. We don't want to hinder the private sector any more than we have to, and this is our philosophical difference. We've had an experience in British Columbia to go by. When the NDP formed the government in 1972-75, they entered into all kinds of enterprises: sawmills, pulp mills, chicken factories that manufactured left wings, and car insurance. They operated farms, and they bought every bus they could get their hands on and took those over — bus lines all over so that we're still paying for that exercise in socialism. Gradually we're working our way out of it, but it's still costing. I think the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) said yesterday that on the buses alone owned by government in the last six or seven years.... The deficit alone, because they are owned by the government, was $50 million. I think we can do a better job than that in the private sector, and that's the way we're going on that specific item. The private sector will supply the service, and we don't have to subsidize any bus rides.

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to sell ALRT? C'mon, Alex. Billions are being blown on that.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about leadership. We don't have the problem they have on the other side. Their leader up and ran away from them last June or July; he left the NDP opposition in limbo by announcing that he was stepping down. They have had their problems ever since, and it is reflected in this Legislature to a great degree. A vacuum was created. They're all out on the leadership trail, and this place is really irrelevant to those members over there. I don't think that should have happened. As far as our leader is concerned, you bet. He's our leader, and we're real proud of our leader. We don't have any leadership problems.

Getting back to restraint and recovery, our Premier Bill Bennett brought it in as a policy in February 1982. We also fought an election on the basis of restraint. We won that very handily. On behalf of our leader, I might say that he has taken insults from all over the place. He now stands out in Canada as a real leader trying to control spending of government and effect restraint and recovery, which other people haven't done. I personally think that the government of Canada is an example: it is completely out of control. When they get to the level of a $100 billion budget and boast about it.... You can certainly see it when you pay your income tax. As Canadians we can't afford to go on like that.

MR. BARRETT: You just upped the income tax.

HON. A. FRASER: Regarding income tax, I might say to the Leader of the Opposition that we should be getting a lot more. We're sending a lot more back to the capital than we get back.

I get a great kick — and I'm glad my colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is not here, although he is different than other professors because he stands and is counted as an elected official — out of all these professors making their observations about different things in government, whether it's budgets or whatever it is. I don't pay too much attention to them, because I consider that they've got a conflict of interest.

[ Page 3506 ]

MR. BARRETT: And you don't have a conflict of interest, eh?

HON. A. FRASER: No.

We fought the election on May 5 on restraint, and we won it handily. I know that the Leader of the Opposition....

I'm delighted to see him here when I'm speaking; I'm highly honoured. The very few times he is here, he shows up when I have something to say. Back to the election of May 5. As I said earlier, the NDP fell apart, and the leader said he was stepping down. The next thing was Solidarity — they took over as opposition in British Columbia. One observation, as I saw things unfold in the latter part of 1983, is that I think you people should be.... It should be pointed out that we had the legislative session and then we had, unfortunately, a strike in the public service. You people went on strike too, and I think your wages should be deducted for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hah!

HON. A FRASER: Well, there wasn't one of you who came into the Legislature, to your offices, from November 1 to 13. You should have your salaries cut for that.

Interjections.

HON. A FRASER: Absolutely! You weren't here, and there were lots of people looking for you. What were you doing going on...? You had nothing to do with the strike.

Interjections.

HON. A FRASER: I was here. They were looking for you, young fellow, all over the place. And when are you going to get those illegal signs down off your constituency office?

[11:30]

The other thing they are quite concerned about....

They have a lot of people over there vying for leadership. That is all going to be resolved, though, in my opinion. Bob Williams is coming back, and he will lead the whole bunch of you, regardless of who is named the leader. I know that my good friend the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is pretty worried about that. That's where all that leadership ruckus will end up. He'll be back, and I guess rightly so. He stepped down for a fee of $80,000 to let the present leader of the opposition get back in.

As I said, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is waiting for her job creation and so on. I want to deal with that a little. First I'll mention the ALRT. All the people on that side are opposed to the ALRT. They said so. That creates jobs. I'm not going to get into the figures, but it's probably 1,500 now. It provides the transportation system they've been waiting for on the lower mainland for years. When you say we haven't any job programs, you should get your blinkers off and go out and take a look.

Let's talk about B.C. Place. In spite of you and in spite of the council of the city of Vancouver, B.C. Place has generated lots of jobs and will continue to do so. So don't sit over there and say we haven't done anything. As a matter of fact, the observation we get over here is that they feet our government is maybe getting a little too involved in generating projects and we should leave more to the private sector. But B.C. Place is a really successful development. You opposed all that, and so did the socialists on city council in Vancouver. Yet that goes ahead and creates jobs. I can't understand why you're against that.

Regarding other projects of this government, let's deal with Expo 86. This government went after that Expo 86, and they got it. It's already generating jobs in our province, and will continue to do so until the fair is on in '86. Hopefully there will be permanent jobs following that. I don't know where you get the idea that's in this motion that we haven't any job generators. And these are just a few projects.

I know you won't like hearing it, but I want to deal with another project, one that is not government but which our government took a position on. That's to deal with getting rid of the Crow freight rate. Not taking credit for it, but I remind the Legislature, and particularly the opposition, that we brought that subject up in the Legislature through a motion last year and our government went on record as supporting the government of Canada to resolve the Crow freight rate. I make these observations on the resolution. It was resolved by the parliament of Canada but all the socialists here were against it. All the socialist MPs of British Columbia were against it — Sid Parker from Revelstoke, and Kristiansen from the Kootenays.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: They were MPs for the prairie grain farmers; they weren't MPs for the province of British Columbia. They were playing prairie politics. They've never paid their share of the freight rate on their commodity, but the lumber shippers from British Columbia did. The NDP wouldn't have anything to do with resolving that inequity in the transportation system. Now people are already at work on the major projects to upgrade the system so that we can get a better transportation system in Western Canada, and in all of Canada.

I want to tell you where it's effective in B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: You're in bed with Trudeau.

HON. A. FRASER: Sure, sure. When it's for the good of the country, you've got to forget.... At least you should support the politics of your own province, not support the politics of the prairie provinces. That's all it was.

MR. BARRETT: You're in bed with Trudeau. Shame on you!

HON. A. FRASER: You don't like to hear it but....

Following resolution of the Crow freight rate, a sum of $5 billion is going to be spent in British Columbia upgrading the two rail lines — CN and CP. I'm now going to tell you where it's going to be spent, and when.

First of all, it's projected over the period 1983-1993, and the amount is approximately $5.4 billion in our province. This is talking about jobs, Mr. Speaker. You'll be interested in this because it affects your riding. Here is where the money will be spent. Also, the Transport minister for Canada, Lloyd Axworthy, told a meeting that the railways are required to get their goods and services from Canadian suppliers wherever possible, and in particular from sources in the region where a particular project is taking place. His discussions with the

[ Page 3507 ]

railroads indicate a willingness to live up to this statutory requirement. Just to answer the catcalls over there, there's a statutory requirement under the agreement that the railroads have to abide by. The projects announced so far go about one third of the way toward the ministry's estimate of $9.5 billion in total spending in the western provinces over the decade. Among the CP Rail projects, the biggest is the Rogers Pass tunnel, which will cost $600 million with its associated bridges and track. I might say on the tunnel that it's my information that they're almost ready to call the tenders on that now.

The next items of expenditure in our province are: $21 million for double-tracking in Revelstoke; $50 million for a new yard and car-repair shop at Golden, which is actually under construction; $25 million for improved communication around Field, B.C., on the edge of our province; $15 million for a new train-control station at Sparwood in the Kootenays; $55 million for the purchase and installation of concrete ties in British Columbia; and $10 million for a new operational control building in Vancouver. That's the CPR.

Among the CN rail projects announced so far are $940 million for upgrading and double-tracking much of the Valemount-Vancouver line, which I think you'll know has already started creating jobs; $570 million to upgrade the B.C. north line to Prince Rupert, which is the line running from the B.C.-Alberta boundary right through to Rupert; $150 million to overhaul yards in Vancouver and North Vancouver; $60 million to expand and upgrade facilities at Prince George, including upgrading the yard and buildings and a new locomotive-maintenance facility; various other upgrading projects at Kamloops, Boston Bar, Blue River, Smithers, Terrace, Endako, McBride, and other B.C. centres; $6 million at Ridley Island, Prince Rupert; and $1.8 million at nearby Watson Island. Our government went on record to get a better transportation system, and we're happy that the jobs are now being generated. When the opposition says that we haven't done anything about jobs, I think they should brush up their memories just a little.

The other thing I might say is that at the end of all this will be a world port at Prince Rupert, one that everybody has talked about. Our government generated it with northeast coal. Now with the railroad system changed, we're going to have a second world port to the world markets that are so vital to the economy of our province.

A lot has been said about northeast coal, which this government definitely led on. We're quite satisfied that we're right. The opposition again opposed everything regarding that all through construction. Now we have a brand new community of Tumbler Ridge in our province with approximately 3,000 gainfully employed — talking about employment. The other thing that is not mentioned very much is that we also have a brand new transportation system for the northwest part of the province, including an upgraded rail line, and, as I said earlier, a world port at Prince Rupert. I don't understand why these people are so much against that.

Dealing again with the budget for a minute, there has been talk about paying off the debt on the railroad. I am indeed happy to see that the debt has been paid off, because if it wasn't, maybe we'd lose the railroad. I have a personal story that will take me a minute to tell. My dad was the member for Cariboo from 1912 to 1916, and he got defeated because of the then Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. I don't want to see us lose the railroad because we haven't paid the debts, so I'm delighted it has been paid. I don't want to lose on that issue, because it's the lifeline to the interior and the north of the province. I know the people in the lower mainland and on the Island don't realize that, but there is nothing wrong with what happened there at all.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: There's that little fellow, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), talking about jobs. If you'd be a little more objective, maybe things would go better for you.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: The Leader of the Opposition said to speak through you, Mr. Speaker, but if you would be a little more objective, maybe your community would be better off than always being negative on things that take place.

The amendment reads that "the most obvious problem of record unemployment has denied many of our citizens the right to participate in our society and has thereby condemned, them to a life of subsistence." Well, Mr. Speaker, that's why I said at the beginning that there is nothing further from the facts. This great province has a great future. Because of this government's support and active participation in many exciting projects, as I have mentioned, many opportunities will be available for employment in our province at the present time and in the immediate future of, say, five years. The NDP opposition are on record, as they always are, as opposing all these exciting future projects. They will have to live with those decisions and tell the voters of this province why they always have the Negative Nellie approach. I'm sure they're going to have to change their thinking or they will never be government. I don't think that will ever happen, regardless of how many leadership campaigns they have.

Mr. Speaker, I am really honoured this morning with such an audience. As I said at the beginning, I oppose the amendment and will vote against it, and I support the budget and will vote for it.

[11:45]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it a singular honour to be able to follow the Legislature's best-known punter. He calls them at the track the way he calls them in the House. He's a loser at both places. It's a great opportunity for me to deal with some up-country, home-grown fertilizer that's spread down here with the ability and efficiency of an elderly gentleman who remembers the 1916 campaign. He was on a horse and wagon campaigning for his father at that time, and is continuing with the same literature. Today we had a little example of good old down-country, Huey Long style of politics. If it moves, blacktop it, up in his riding. He's done a pretty good job of that.

I want to deal with just a couple of things. I hear the minister's stomach grumbling and growling at 15 minutes to 12. I wouldn't like the cabinet to miss a meal. I know that all those people out there in the soup lines and soup kitchens for free handouts of food appreciate the minister's speech today telling them how wonderful things are. But there are a couple of inconsistencies in the minister's speech that have to be addressed before lunch. I thought I'd just pick out a couple while everybody is still gently asleep and won't be too upset with it. For instance, the minister says he wants to privatize the bus system because, if I may emulate his auditor-general-

[ Page 3508 ]

like approach, he said: "It's costing us a lot of money. We subsidize it every year." Are you going to sell the ferries, Mr. Minister?

MR. COCKE: They already have.

MR. BARRETT: You already did that, and you're paying twice to buy them back with that deal with those Ontario sharpie finance firms. You mortgaged the house, and you're paying for it twice to buy it back. You owned the ferries once. You're the only outfit in the world that sold the ferries for the chance to buy them back at twice the cost with a trust company in Ontario. That's what they're doing. Isn't that a smart move? You've got to really get up early in the morning to figure out a way of selling something you own for the chance to buy it back at twice the price with a bonus. Those Ontario sharpies skinned you. It's a lucky thing you don't wear a toupee; they would have taken that too.

Then you've got the nerve to get up here and talk about that nonsense of selling off the buses. Why don't you sell ALRT? You're getting in a hole to the eastern banks for hundreds of millions of dollars that the children of this province and their children's children and their children's children will have to pay off because of your dumb-bell financing on ALRT. And you sell off the buses — hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this province. Why don't you privatize that? Who would buy it — Conmac? Don't kid yourself. There isn't anybody who's going to buy the ALRT. That is going to cause debt in this province for generations. You've got the cheeky nerve to stand up and say: "We're going to privatize it."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Then there were a couple of other things that you said — not to rough you up too much before lunch. There goes a member from this House, walking out now. He might as well. They've wrung their hands of him. He was the Chairman of the Crown Corporations Committee that was supposed to audit the books of the Crown corporations. What have they done with that, folks? Why, they've eliminated the Crown Corporations Committee. No more checking into those books. No more of that grubby, dirty-fingernail, up-country search into those accounts, boy. We'll hide those books as fast as we can. And you alienate that poor, hard-working member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who gave his great all and sacrificed for that committee. He'd even do it voluntarily, not for the money. What are you smiling at?

And then there's this pious stuff about how they cut the budget. I mean, you know, that has really got to be good old Barnum and Bailey and Fraser cornpone. Guess what's going on, folks? They cut the budget. Pssst! You want to know what they didn't cut? Pssst, come back here in the alley, folks, and we'll tell you how we work it. You see, we cut the budget by $25 a month to the poor, because we've got to line them up for their soup with their little begging bowls. Meanwhile, back here in Victoria, where the peasants will never find out what's going on, they've doubled the travel budget for cabinet ministers and their senior staff. Oh, boy, I can see them now, getting on television and saying: "Oh, we cut the budget here, we cut the budget there — here a cut, there a cut, but not for us. We're waxing fat. We travel to Hong Kong, Bangkok, Tokyo and everywhere else in the world. We even go to Germany for some Black Forest cake." They never once mentioned doubling the travel budget for cabinet ministers and senior staff. Did you hear that before, folks? No. Guess what. Do you think they're going to say that over there? Don't shake your head, Mr. Speaker; I don't want you to participate in this debate. But I want to tell you that they'll not be running around British Columbia telling the folks: "Hey, we doubled our travel budget." They are becoming the transportation experts of the world — SST, Orient Express, anywhere in the world, there they go. Shhh! There goes another cabinet minister. Pssst! There goes another one. They never travel on the same plane. They don't even buy group fares. They've got so much money they go first class — up there, drinking the cocktails and the martinis, telling the folks how they cut the budget, and laughing all the time with the stewardess. I can see them dozing off in the first-class cabin and the stewardess waking them up, saying: "Oh my, you must have had a lovely dream with that big smile on your face" — the big meals down in their bellies, and the booze washing it down, saying: "We cut the budget." Yahoo!

Where are they? These guys are producing travelogues on their own 16 mm films. Can you see them coming back with their slides? "This is my latest travel. I was in Birmingham, Alabama, and I chartered a plane over to Hong Kong. I learned how to eat with one chopstick." Can't you see 'em? This is the biggest bunch of phony government members that I have ever seen. They double their own travel budget, and they say: "We've sure taken it out on the poor. I want everyone to stand in line for a bowl of soup." Not to be angry; not to be upset; just think, every $25 a month cut off your welfare cheque is helping the cabinet ministers of British Columbia travel. What a sacrifice! My goodness, look at this brilliant group of sacrificing cabinet ministers who have given up so much to come into public life. Don't they deserve to travel first-class with filet mignon sticking in their ears and booze going in the other ear. What a bunch of hypocrisy! You think it is a big joke to double the budget for travelling cabinet ministers. They have their nerve to go around saying that they cut the budget. Some poor little old lady wants some jam with her toast at the end of the month; she can't have it because the boys and girls have got to travel. One of the girls came in here yesterday with that big tiger on her blouse — did you see that one? That's the new slogan: "Hold that tiger." You can't keep them down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put a tiger in your tank.

MR. BARRETT: Put a tiger in your tank with the taxpayers' money: you got it right, man. You'll never hear one of them going public on television saying: "Well, we have to double our travel budget because we are sacrificing so much." But I have to thank you for one thing: when you are out of town, there is less grief. That's one benefit.

Then I hear the minister talk about the Crow rate and the prairie farmers. They're in bed with the Liberals. The CPR got free land right across this country, and they never lived up to their original deal. You're touting for the CPR? I never thought I'd see the day when a Socred cabinet minister would stand up defending the CPR, which got away with murder in this country and is still getting away with more. And you're praising the CPR. If they don't like the original deal, why doesn't the CPR give back the land? That is the kind of free enterpriser they have over there, Mr. Speaker: give the free enterprisers everything. The CPR has hosed this nation right from inception, and now they have got away with more, and

[ Page 3509 ]

that minister is right in bed with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I can see him up in the Cariboo saying: "I don't like Liberals." Down here he is praising them. I can just see a mug shot of him with a big buss right on the cheek with Pierre. Do you think they will ever see that picture up in the Cariboo? Oh, no, no. Political room-mates. That gang is in bed with Pierre Trudeau — all of you in one big bed with the blankets over you. What's going on? The CPR still comes out, and they're not pregnant. They've done very well.

Mr. Speaker, the other nonsense that the minister pedals here.... He's a nice fellow — nothing personal, Mr. Speaker — but he pedals an awful lot of nonsense and horse feathers. I've just started, and I don't want to upset the cabinet ministers' lunch. They all have to have a good meal before they take off and travel again to the four corners of the world so they can continue that great travelogue — putting salesmen on the road. They send the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to sell coal to Australia. You've got to be a real genius to figure that one out. One of the biggest coal producers in the world has swiped half of our market into Asia and they send the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to sell coal to Australia. They couldn't sell it in Newcastle, so they sent him to Australia. It takes brains to figure out ways to waste money. You guys don't even do that. You just throw it up in the air. You say: "Anything that stays up there is the taxpayers'; anything that falls to the ground is ours." What an outfit!

Mr. Speaker, I think that I'll save the rest of my time for later on this afternoon. I just want to end with a little admonition of straight, up-country homily to the minister who just spoke: "Don't kid the troops. Have a little fun. Smile once in a while." When you come in here and tell us how you cut the budget and double your own expenses, at least do it with a little grace and humour. It's all a big joke, isn't it? It's a tragic joke to the people of British Columbia. I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.