[ Page 3537 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement

Resignation of Prime Minister. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3537

Mr. Howard

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Government News. Mr. Howard –– 3537

Transit worker negotiations. Mr. Macdonald –– 3537

Security programs division. Ms. Brown –– 3538

Kemano project. Mrs. Wallace –– 3538

Westwood motor sport park. Mr. Rose –– 3538

Bus safety. Mr. Passarell –– 3538

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Mr. Blencoe –– 3539

RCMP report on Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Macdonald –– 3539

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Ree –– 3539

Mr. Lea –– 3540

Mr. Stupich –– 3542

Mr. Passarell –– 3546

Mr. Rose –– 3548

Mr. Hanson –– 3553

Mr. Lockstead –– 3556

Division –– 3558

Mr. Parks –– 3559

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 3560

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

RESIGNATION OF PRIME MINISTER

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in light of the announcement this morning from the Prime Minister that he is surrendering the mantle of leadership of our nation, I'm sure that this Legislature would wish to formally recognize his years of service to all Canadians. Since his election to the highest office in our land in 1968 it is fair to say that our Canadian political history has been one of the liveliest on record, if not the liveliest; not necessarily always serene but certainly never dull. Whether one agreed or disagreed partially or completely with the direction and policies of the Prime Minister, there is no question that he triggered and stimulated thought among all Canadians. I think everyone must recognize and indeed congratulate, despite personal political beliefs, the stature that he has achieved for our country and for himself in the theatre of world affairs and his most significant international credentials.

On the world stage, Prime Minister Trudeau certainly enhanced Canada's role and our country's recognition and respect as a world leader in the search for universal peace. We all hope that his successor, whatever his or her political stripe may be, will carry on and further that quest in the interests of all mankind.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the views expressed by the government House Leader accord with those which we would express as well. Prime Minister Trudeau indeed has served his country and this nation with determination and distinction. Perhaps if one could single out a lasting contribution that he made to this nation it was the patriation of the constitution so that it became and is now a Canadian document, rather than a document of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster. He also had a concern and a vision about world affairs, probably to a greater extent than any other Prime Minister in our history, with the possible exception of the late Prime Minister Pearson, who was at one time the Minister of External Affairs of this nation before becoming prime minister himself.

MR. ROSE: I would like to introduce and have the House welcome my constituency secretary, Mrs. Gwen Ranger and her friend Olga, who is visiting us this afternoon from San Francisco.

Oral Questions

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary about the "rag" that is currently being distributed through the mails in British Columbia, and whether he can confirm that the government has spent something in the neighbourhood of $150,000 to $200,000 to print and distribute 1.1 million copies of this throughout the province on a householder mailing basis.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the B.C. Government News publishes the same type of newspaper that was used by a former government of this province, between 1972-75, to inform the people of British Columbia of the activities of government. We have brought down a budget of substantial taxpayers dollars, a budget in excess of $7 billion, and I think the people of British Columbia have the right to know where their dollars are going to be expended. That is why we decided to issue the B.C. Government News, which was issued previously and frequently by a former government of this province.

MR. HOWARD: I notice that he didn't answer the question. One hundred and fifty thousand bucks of taxpayers' money in a time of restraint, and you don't give a good goddamn about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Clearly the member has gone well beyond the bounds of parliamentary and acceptable language in this chamber, and I must instruct the hon. member to withdraw the remark. In the parliamentary tradition, I'm sure he will.

MR. HOWARD: In the parliamentary tradition I wish that the minister would have acted accordingly as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you need, another headline?

MR. HOWARD: Certainly I withdraw them.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: It's a disgusting display on that minister's part, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've always been disgusting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

TRANSIT WORKER NEGOTIATIONS

MR. MACDONALD: A question to the second member for Surrey as chairman of the Metro Transit Operating Company, a Crown corporation responsible to this Legislature. Why has he intervened in the negotiations now going on with the union, with a statement that those negotiations and the contract will never be exempted from the provisions of Bill 3?

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. member?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I've asked....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Next order of business.

MR. MACDONALD: I've struck out completely. What's the matter?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not the first time either.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the first time in two years that that member has been struck dumb, although I don't think he had very far to go.

[ Page 3538 ]

To the Minister of Human Resources, and this is a serious question. Negotiations are going on.... I don't want to repeat the whole question, but the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) has indicated that in no way will a collective agreement be exempted from the provisions of Bill 3. Do you agree with that?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East is well aware that we do not interfere with negotiations. We have not interfered and will not interfere, and we will let the collective bargaining process take place accordingly.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary to the hon. minister then. Negotiations are going on, and I understand a negotiating team is trying to work out acceptable language governing layoffs and recall. If they do, they'll make an application to the commissioner, Mr. Peck, for exemption from the provisions of Bill 3. Does the minister agree that that's a reasonable proceeding and that she won't interfere with it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't plan to interfere on the floor of this Legislative Assembly or outside this assembly.

SECURITY PROGRAMS DIVISION

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. It has to do with an item in the budget, which was tabled last week, on the funding for security programs. Will the minister advise why B.C. needs a security programs branch and what work is to be performed by that branch for the $440,000 budget allocation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. It would seem to me to be a matter better dealt with under estimates, or even under the budget debate, but not as a question. I'll take it as notice.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question, because this is a new item. I wonder if at the same time the minister would bring back and table in the House detailed policy directives and operating instructions on what the security programs branch is going to do. Could he do this prior to consideration of the estimates. We'd like to know what the branch is going to do. Is this the secret police finally coming out into the open and being funded, or what is it? Why do we need a security branch, and what is it going to do? If he does that, Mr. Speaker, it might inform him at the same time as it is informing us that there is such a thing happening in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: It could be encompassed by the first question, which was taken as notice, hon. member.

KEMANO PROJECT

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. I recently received your advice that Kemano is holding public information meetings in March and April, and I'm wondering whether the minister is prepared to advise the House regarding the Blue Paper that his ministry completed last fall, I believe. Can he advise us whether or not that Blue Paper relative to the Kemano project is now completed?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question on notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is trying to find the Blue Paper and find out whether it is completed, would he also consider bringing back to the House information whether or not he is prepared to file that report in the Legislature prior to these public meetings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would have to determine which Blue Paper. There are a great many papers that we have in the ministry. I'll take it as notice and then decide what to do with it.

WESTWOOD MOTOR SPORT PARK

MR. ROSE: I have a question to the same minister. The minister is aware that his department has a planned housing development on part of the land that has been occupied for years by the Westwood race-track in Coquitlam. I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us if he intends to proceed with the housing development and land development for housing in 1984 or in some subsequent year.

MR. SPEAKER: That's future policy, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Well, I wonder if the minister would mind taking that as notice, because I'm certain that if I write to him he'll give me a reply. It's really important, because the people who operate that race-track contribute to the financial base of Coquitlam and Moody. If the land isn't needed for housing, is the minister considering leasing it to them on a year-by-year basis? At the moment they have to get out of that place this year, and they would rather not.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to the first question is: in subsequent years. The answer to the second question is yes.

BUS SAFETY

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for B.C. Transit. Last week the minister made a statement regarding safety inspection on buses. The minister referred to the current operating contract for Victoria and Vancouver but failed to mention the contract provisions that all transit vehicles shall be inspected annually at provincial motor vehicle testing stations. I wonder why the minister kept this information from her statement previously.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had implied that in my answer. Also in the answer was a commitment to come back to the House with a broader explanation plus information on another question relating to the same subject. I had hoped to have that information today. I think I will have it in tomorrow's question period.

[ Page 3539 ]

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the same minister responsible for the sale of Pacific Coach Lines, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the contract between Gray Line and PCL. Is there a clause, Madam Minister, requiring the Gray Line to continue to serve all of the same Vancouver Island communities that are currently served by PCL?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In making the public announcement I did state that there is a commitment by the company to follow the same routes. But in view of the specifics of the question, I think I would prefer to take a look at the contract itself and come back to the House with further information. Generally speaking, so the member will not alarm the travelling public of Vancouver Island, I would like you to know that what I said at the press conference announcing that sale holds true today. The agreements now in place on the three lines follow the same towns and communities that were serviced before.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the response from the minister. There is some concern among those communities that you may be saying that the service will continue but that there is some discussion whether or not it will be once a week or once a day or once a month, Madam Minister. I think that should be clarified. At least they can be shown that that kind of service will continue.

A further supplementary. Because of the discussion not only in this House but also outside this House in terms of the sale, is the minister prepared to table in the House the contract between PCL and the three buyers?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to make two observations. The first reference to once a week, once a month or once a year is exactly what I had hoped the member wouldn't place in the minds of the people on Vancouver Island or anywhere else. I had hoped the member would congratulate the government for being able to bring together an offer that does retain a service within the private sector, knowing full well that the private sector appreciates that for these past years this line has been heavily subsidized by the people of British Columbia.

On the second part of your question, as to whether I will be willing to table the documents, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice, as well as those other questions.

RCMP REPORT ON MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a short question to the Attorney-General. Have you received the RCMP report on irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the final report on that investigation is forthcoming shortly, and I will be making a statement on it at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mayor Ivan Messmer, mayor of Penticton, and the administrator. Mr. George Paul. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I'm standing here against the amendment to the motion moved by the opposition, and in support of this budget.

At the beginning of the session today I listened attentively to the comments by the respective House Leaders concerning the imminent — I hope imminent — resignation of the present Prime Minister of this country. I appreciate the platitudes that are due him with the years he served in office and the international recognition he has given Canada in that forum. But, Mr. Speaker, I also recognize that during his tenure and under his government the national debt of this country has grown to such an extent that any single radical economist ten years ago could not have foreseen it.

MS. SANFORD: You tripled the debt in seven years.

MR. REE: I realize that. I realize the federal debt has tripled in seven years.

Interjection.

MR. REE: That's all right. You always need snipers,

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the federal debt was forecast to be $12 billion. It ended up close to $30 billion. This year the federal debt is anticipated to be $30 billion or $31 billion. I forecast it will be closer to $45 billion by the time the year ends. This debt has to be repaid one way or another. It is that repayment that has interfered with and affects the performance of this province in industry and in growth in the next number of years. There are basically two ways to repay that debt. Firstly, by taxes, and such a method will certainly reduce the economic growth of the whole country. Secondly is certainly by inflation, which is historically the method by which the debt of this country has been repaid in the past 25 to 30 years.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It is with respect to that method of repayment that compliments should be given to our Minister of Finance for his present budget. Maintaining the deficit within this province at a minimum will allow the people of the province to benefit in the future by a minimal taxation within the province, compared to excessive taxation or excessive inflation to repay the federal debt. We will be in a better position here than elsewhere in the country to recover and grow from the recession we have been experiencing. I think the Minister of Finance and the government of British Columbia have shown leadership during the economic problems of the last few years, leadership in restraint which has been followed elsewhere in Canada and leadership in restraint which has been followed elsewhere in the world. It's this continued

[ Page 3540 ]

leadership that is going to assist us, this leadership which has reduced the provincial budget for the first time in 31 years. No other federal or provincial jurisdiction in North America has had a reduced budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Louisiana.

[2:30]

MR. REE: They're a state, Mr. Member, when you know your geography. The words were "federal and provincial jurisdiction."

The reduced size of the budget bodes well for this province, particularly when during this year we are continuing to suffer the effects of the recession. During this year there is going to be some growth. We may not see any improvement in the unemployment picture, but I think we will see some improvement in the employment side. Additional people coming on stream will increase the numbers employed. During this year there will be an increase in productivity. People's expectations have become less. They are not expecting to receive the wages and increases they have in the past; they are not expecting to receive benefits or assistance from government as they have in the past. This message is getting out to people. This is a period of adjustment, a period of levelling economically within our province, and I think we're going to come out of it stronger in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, I was out the other evening to a group — the Greater Vancouver Library Federation, to be exact — and I had the pleasure of announcing that their funding assistance from the government for this next year, the 1984-85 fiscal year, would be the same as they had received in the previous year. That group were delighted. They had anticipated, as have a great number of people, that they would be receiving less, because most people have been. But one of the reasons they have received the same funding is because they have established restraint within their organization over the past few years. They are running the libraries in the greater Vancouver area to more clients than they ever have before with fewer employees than they've had before. They are showing a considerable increase in productivity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even fewer employees?

MR. REE: Yes. It is with that that we're going to show growth in this province, because there will be increased productivity.

Unfortunately there are still a great number of people who anticipate continuing in the lifestyle we have had. I don't think it's going to happen. We can no longer have two cars in the carport, the recreational vehicle, the fishing vessel and the holidays we've had before. None of us in this province really have the productivity to afford that.

We cannot expect the same as we have enjoyed, and it is with lower expectations and higher productivity that we are eventually going to recover from the recession. I think this budget, being less than it was last year — and I would hope maybe next year the same or even less than this year — will assist us to come out of the recession with, as I say, reduced expectations.

In presenting the budget the Minister of Finance made some comments, and I'd like to repeat them if I may. He was discussing certain changes in property taxes that we've seen in this budget, and he submitted certain legislation with respect to that. Apropos of his discussion of that, there are two paragraphs that I'd like to repeat.

Despite these measures, concerns have been expressed to me, both in my recent consultations and previously, that British Columbia's taxation of business is somewhat higher than in competing jurisdictions. To ascertain whether this is the case I've commissioned a study of the tax burden on a variety of types of business in several jurisdictions. The analysis is complex and difficult because of differences in tax systems. Nevertheless, I expect to use the results of the study as a basis for a consultative process to be undertaken this summer.

In conjunction with these discussions the government will conduct a thorough review of the impact of taxation on economic development. Consideration will be given to innovative tax measures for stimulating new investment by large and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Finance for this program of review of taxation toward encouraging investment in this province. One of the biggest encouragements for investment is a stable set of laws in taxation so that industry, when it is looking to invest within the province, will know what the rules of the game are. I ask the Minister of Finance to consider this in his reviews, consultations and deliberations. Business, when it is investing in the province, has to know what the rules of the game are, and they cannot have the rules changed quickly without prior notice; secondly, the rules should not be changed retroactively. When they play the game, they want to know the rules throughout the game. When they've won the game, they don't want to be told they've lost because the rules were changed after the game. I ask the Minister of Finance to consider that very seriously in his review.

There is one small aspect that I would commend the Minister of Finance on. In my constituency I had a gentleman come in and see me one time whose wife was on oxygen, recommended by her doctor because of her illnesses. He was having to purchase portable oxygen tanks and oxygen valves for control, oxygen equipment and oxygen to maintain her life, so that she could function in her home and outside. Without the purchase of these she would have been confined to an acute-care hospital. At the time the gentleman spoke to me he was paying sales tax on the purchase price of the equipment and oxygen. I took that matter to the Minister of Finance, and I am pleased to see in his budget that as of the day of presentation, February 20, oxygen and oxygen equipment under medical recommendation have been removed. I commend the minister for that.

I started off talking about the gentleman who is going to be vacating his office in Ottawa. I made a comment that he has been the leader during a time of very high budget deficits that are going to affect every man, woman and child living now and being born within the next 30 years in this country. I turn to that gentleman, offer him his hat and say: "What's the hurry?"

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I just can't pass up the opportunity to make a few comments on those of the previous speaker. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano said that he thought it would be a good idea if Prime Minister Trudeau would leave right away, because the Prime Minister and his government since 1968 have tripled the national debt. As far as I know, those figures are fairly accurate. But I don't know why he wants him to resign over that. Is it because it took this government only eight years to triple the provincial debt, and that the Prime Minister took too long? Is he a piker? I think it is indicative of that side of the House — not all of them, but

[ Page 3541 ]

some of them — that they cannot, even for a moment, be gracious. Every year since 1968, with the exception of nine months, the Prime Minister of this country has served this country to the best of his ability. He has served us with vigour, and he has given us new style. We may not agree with everything that his government has done, but he has served this country and served it well. On the day of resignation, we can at least give him the respect for having been the Prime Minister of this country for all those years.

Mr. Speaker, they will be glad to hear that I'm not going to take too long today, but I would like to point out that there are two major areas of concern that this budget should have addressed. It didn't even make an attempt in either area. The first and foremost area that we have to understand is that we are not in what could be called an ordinary recession; in other words, it isn't going to be the same kind of economy in the future as it was in the past.

A recession is when you're dealing with a continuing economy and there's a dip in that economy; in other words, an economy that is continuing but isn't producing all that well for the moment. This is not an ordinary recession in that sense. We are leaving one economic order and going into a new economic order. We are going through a transitional stage. We have been since the early 1970s. The effect of the economic revolution we are going through is being felt by many citizens and businesses in this province. Through no fault of their own, they are the victims of an economic revolution.

The budget does not address that question. The budget does not address how we leave this old economic order and go into a new one of value-added industries that we must go into. By that I mean that if it is impossible for us, say, in our copper industry, to compete in the international marketplace because of new industries or new producers coming onstream — such as Zaire and Chile, who are selling below their own production costs for balance of payment purposes for their respective countries and because they are heavily in debt to the international financial system — then we cannot produce copper when we're meeting that very unfair cut price from new producing countries. The other problem is that the usages for copper are being downturned because of new technological advances — such as fibre optics and plastics. Those are the kinds of problems we're facing.

When I talk about value-added industries, I'm saying that if we cannot produce copper cheaper than Zaire, or more efficiently than Chile, then possibly for a value-added interest we should be looking at producing the kinds of technical skills and technology that would allow us to sell smelting and mining systems to Zaire and Chile. We should be heading in that direction. Our educational system and our economy should be designed to take us there. Yet there is not one word in this budget that shows the government even suspects for a moment that we are going through an economic revolution. and that we have to go from an old into a new economic order.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker, what could be more irresponsible? One of two things are happening. This government does not know that we are going through this industrial revolution. Which means that they have no right to sit in those government chairs. To be that ignorant of the economic world around them as government should make them consider resigning. Either that or they do know it is going on, and they don't have one single answer to address the problem, which would mean that the same course of action would be desirable — that they get out of the way. Either lead or get out of the way and let someone else lead. That part of the budget does not deal with our future or with the new economic order. I think most citizens recognize it as a challenge we have to meet in this province and not be discouraged. It's a challenge that we as legislators should be willing, anxious and able to meet. For this budget not to address that issue leaves one on this side of the House wondering — and I'm sure leaves the people in this province wondering — why it is that this government either doesn't know about the problem, or is not willing to address it.

The other area this government has not addressed is the severe dislocation that is happening to citizens of this province because of the economic revolution we are going through. People in the fishing industry are being dislocated. I suppose '"dislocated" is a nice economic term to describe the human misery that comes from people losing their jobs through no fault of their own, through businesses going out of business not because they're bad business people, but because they've been caught as victims in an economic revolution; and through no fault of their own, the human misery, after spending your entire lifetime either working at a job for wages or working for yourself in business, of seeing those years of hard work disappear and your future look bleak. Human misery, and the human misery brought around by this economic revolution, has not been addressed in this budget.

As an example, 25 percent of our young people under 25 have no work and, for the most part, no opportunity to gain employment in the immediate and foreseeable future. What is the government's answer? They say people 25 years old don't need as much to eat when they're unemployed as do people who are 26 years old. That's sounds like a bit of fuzzy-headed thinking to me, Mr. Speaker. Doesn't it to you? What the government is saving to someone 25 years old is: "If you want to go to work, then go to some other part of the province." Does the government really not understand that there are young people who are willing and able to work in every community in this province, and there is no work?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, there are always people in an economy who don't want to work or who are slackers, but they are few. And that is a constant percentage of the employment figures. But when you are reaching figures of 15 and 16 percent and, if you had an accurate figure, possibly 20 percent in this province, you can’t convince me that that many people, that many citizens in our province, don't want to work. They do want to work, And you can't convince me that 25 to 30 percent of people under 25 are lazy oafs who have no desire to work. They do want to work.

This government has not addressed the serious problems of dislocation and human misery that this economic revolution is taking us through. There is no better example than the fishing industry at present. We have a fishing industry that is in serious crisis through the bad management of two senior governments — the province of British Columbia, in terms of protecting habitat, and the federal government, which has the overall management of the fisheries. They have let down British Columbia, let down Canada and let down the fishing industry in this province through bad management. Through that bad management on the parts of both governments we have a fishing industry that is in crisis. Is this government not going to speak up for the fishermen in this province who are

[ Page 3542 ]

being dislocated, through no fault of their own but through the bad management of their elected governments? Are they not going to stand up and say: "We're not going to allow a person who has spent 30 or 40 years in the fishing industry to be thrown on the ash heap"? Is their answer that people who are victims of this revolution should go on welfare? Those fishermen have no pensions. Many of those fisherman have been in the business all their lives, and even if the retraining programs were there, many of the people affected by the dislocation in the fishing industry wouldn't be able to take advantage of them.

Rather than throwing the people who are dislocated in the fishing industry onto the ash heap of welfarism, would it not be better to treat them with dignity, as citizens of this province? Would it not be better to say to some of those fishermen who are being dislocated: "We have work for you in cleaning up habitat making sure that the streams in this province can produce fish for the future"? That would be a good investment in the future. Would it not be better to invest in that, rather than to put $470 million into a sinking fund to pay off debt on the BCR? Would it not make more social sense? Would it not make more economic sense? Would it not be better for others in the fishing industry who are being dislocated to have the opportunity to retrain? Wouldn't it be better if the educational system in this province had a system of taking these dislocated British Columbians and putting them into training programs and educational program that would bring a return to us in the future? Wouldn't it be better economically and socially? Wouldn't it be better to invest in our human capital?

We have two opportunities to invest money for the people who are being dislocated from the fishing industry. We have the availability of work, to make sure that our salmon-spawning rivers, our herring-spawning waters, and the whole habitat that produces fish in this province would be put into better shape so that our stocks would come back. It makes sense. This government hasn't spoken about that, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what they hope will happen? They hope that people will think it is a federal responsibility and that no one will point an accusing finger at them. But it is not only a federal responsibility; it is a provincial responsibility. Even if it were a federal responsibility, these are British Columbians we are talking about, and if the government of British Columbia will not stand up for them, who will?

By necessity, the concerns of citizens should be the concerns of government; otherwise why have a government? I am sure that many fishermen could be employed in productive wealth-creation for the future. I am sure that other fishermen and people affected in the fishing industry could be retrained and educated to bring us wealth in the future. There is also going to be a portion of those people who are being dislocated who will not have the availability or the ability for training. There are some who will not have the ability to work in habitat protection and create wealth that way. What about them? What about people who have no pension plan? Are we just going to say to them: "Sorry, it's all over; you are no longer citizens of worth; you are no longer citizens who have a right to dignity in our society, even though you may have spent the last 40 years of your life working hard, investing money and producing for the people of this province and Canada"? Why is this government not standing up and saying it's not good enough that we throw these people who have spent their lifetime working on our behalf, as well as their own, onto the ash-heap of welfare? We must take a look at giving these people a decent pension so that they can spend their senior years with dignity and a feeling of self-worth.

We all know and admit that the problems in the fishing industry are serious, and that there has to be a buy-back plan for fishing boats. We know that there is too much capital and too much efficiency out there chasing too few fish. But for the federal government to talk about a plan that will buy the licence back to pay off the bank and leave the fisherman with a boat with no licence, which is virtually worthless, is immoral. For this government that represents British Columbians not to take a stand with the federal government, but to stand in stupid silence, is more than any British Columbian should have to take.

It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. This budget does not address the dislocations and the human misery of people who are the victims of an economic revolution that is no fault of their own. Where does this budget fail? It fails in both the short term and the long term. It fails because it does not look to our citizens who, through no fault of their own, are going through misery, and it fails because this budget doesn't take one tiny little step into the new economic order. It completely misses on both counts. Anybody who doesn't support the amendment to this budget is not standing proudly as a legislator and saying: "I support British Columbians, and I will vote for this amendment because this budget does not address the problems of British Columbia and British Columbians."

MR. STUPICH: I think I'll start by reading the amendment, just to refresh our minds as to what the amendment actually is. It was moved by Mr. Gabelmann and seconded by Mr. Cocke that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: "but 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."

The government might argue that the debt load that the federal government has loaded onto itself and the debt load that the provincial government has loaded onto itself is the reason why governments generally are prevented from doing anything about the unemployment situation.

[3:00]

1 was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) in talking about the federal deficit as though that were a crime and ignoring completely the provincial deficit and the history of that deficit and what's been happening there. He might well read page 63 of the budget to see just what has happened in the last 13 years, most of which was under this particular administration. It goes back to 1971. It shows that the direct and guaranteed debt of the province of British Columbia has increased every year from 1971 through to 1983. There's no argument about that. Whatever government was in office, the debt was going up. It also showed that from 1971 to 1975 the debt as a percentage of the gross provincial product decreased every year. During the last part of the W.A.C. Bennett administration and during the whole of the NDP administration the debt as a percentage of gross provincial product decreased. While the total debt was going up as capital works were being constructed, we were well able to handle it because the gross provincial product was growing even faster.

[ Page 3543 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Then the Socreds were re-elected, and the picture changed immediately. The debt as a percentage of gross provincial product started increasing, and did so for three years in a row. It decreased slightly for the next three years. And in the last three years, 1981, 1982 and 1983, it has climbed faster than ever before. In 1983 — in this table — it exceeded the proportion in 1971 for the first time. At the end of 1983 the debt as a percentage of gross provincial product was 28.2 percent, which was the first time it exceeded the proportion in 1971 when it stood at 27.4. Certainly this administration should not be talking about the debt of the federal government, when for the first time we've come within shooting distance of the debt per capita figure for the federal government. We have nothing to be proud of here in the province of British Columbia when it comes to measuring our debt load per capita or in proportion to the gross provincial product. We have nothing to be proud of when we're talking about the way we've kept the economy moving; indeed, that has not been the case in the last ten years.

The 1983-84 budget estimated a deficit of $1.6 billion. If we are heading into such a deficit, it would be the first time in the history of the province since 1971 that a budget actually forecast a deficit in the province. It's not only bigger than anything we had before; it's far and away larger than the total provincial budget in the last year when a deficit was actually forecast in the province of British Columbia. To go from nothing to $1.6 billion in one year is really something for the government to be ashamed of. Of course, I'm relating this to the nothing forecast the year before. We all know that that forecast was a political rather than financial statement. In fact, the latest figures we have for that year show a deficit of $978 million. So in reality the deficit was 60 percent larger than the one that was truly there, rather than going from nothing up to a total of $1.6 billion in one year.

At the time the Minister of Finance forecast the $1.6 billion budget.... I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker. That was on July 7. By that time he had the experience of two full months — April and May; June was behind him, but he didn't have the figures. By the time the budget was drafted in the month of June, the minister had the experience of two months. Certainly in Finance they knew better, and I would think they would have communicated with the Minister of Finance. It was obvious at that time that the deficit was grossly overstated. I spoke within hours of the Minister of Finance delivering his speech and said at the time that it was overstated by some $500 million. Over the months since then various economists from UBC — I'm not sure about Simon Fraser, but UVic too — and a number of newspaper analysts, columnists, etc., have come to the conclusion independently. None of them noticed that I said it on July 8, but they have since come to the conclusion that the deficit is overstated in the neighbourhood, generally, of half a billion dollars. They're saying roughly $500 million, which is what I said, as I repeat, on July 8, 1983.

In the budget that came down last Monday, the Minister of Finance is revising his figure. I can recall the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in particular reacting to me saying that the deficit was overstated and saying that I would eat those words one day and that the government was quite correct in estimating the deficit that high and that he wished that I was right in my estimate. He's not here today for me to throw those words at him again now, but the Minister of Finance is now admitting that the deficit, instead of being $1.6 billion, is likely to be $1.3 billion — $300 million less than the figure forecast a year ago. Mr. Speaker, he's still wrong. He's still overstated. As I look at the figures for the deficit and as I see that expenditures are pretty well in line with what was budgeted — a little higher....

The government is spending a little more money than was budgeted last year, but its revenue is still grossly understated.

If we look at the figures for the nine months — and we do have the nine-month report.... I would like to have been able to compare this with last year's and the year before that and the year before that. It used to be, in the old days, that we got a nine-month report regularly. Now we get a ten-month report or an 11-month report or whatever, depending on when the budget happens to be coming down. It's nice to have it more up-to-date, but it makes them....

MR. REE: We didn't get any interim reports in 1972-75.

MR. STUPICH: The comptroller-general has been issuing these reports for as far back as I can go, Mr. Speaker. The member says he didn't see any between 1972 and 1975. He wasn't here, but the comptroller-general has been issuing these reports for a long, long time. I don't know when they started. It was going on when I was here in 1963, and it kept going until the present administration took office and stopped bringing a budget down before the end of the fiscal period.

In any case the most recent one that actually dealt with nine months that I could find in my files was one for 1976. By comparing the figures for nine months I find that, not on the average but regularly, the picture for nine months is not as good as it is for the full 12-month period. The figure for nine months shows an expected deficit of $707 million, On that basis I would project that the deficit would likely be some $900 million rather than $1.3 billion at the end of the fiscal period. However, the Minister of Finance tells us that expenditures are going to be higher than budgeted and that revenues are likely to be lower than this would indicate, and on that basis says that the deficit will probably be $1.3 billion. I say again that he is wrong.

Even if the deficit per month which has been, over the last nine months, $78.6 million doubled in the remaining three months of the year, the deficit for this year would still be $1.18 billion rather than the $1.3 billion that the Minister of Finance is predicting. So I'm going to stand by the estimate that I made last July 8 based on the interim financial statements that we had at that time for the first two months of the year. I'm going to say again that when we see the final figures for the year ended March 31, 1984, the deficit will not be the $1.6 billion originally estimated; it will not be the $1.3 billion given to us last Monday, but will be about $1.1 billion.

The point of all this is that if the government said a year ago, "We can handle a deficit of $1.6 billion" — and certainly there was no indication in the budget that the government was going to have any problem handling it; they had all kinds of ways to deal with it but no money for job creation; as a matter of fact, there was money for job creation in there — and they could do all this and live with a deficit of $1.6 billion.... If that were the case, as soon as they realized that there was more revenue coming in than was expected, they were in a position to do something about the worsening unemployment situation in the province of British Columbia.

This amendment takes the government to task for having done nothing last year and proposing to do nothing in this

[ Page 3544 ]

budget before us now to deal with what is still a worsening unemployment position in the province. They have the money to do it. They could have lived with a deficit of $1.6 billion — they told us in the July 7 budget. The deficit was not going to be $1.6 billion, and they knew it. That has been since proven. The figures show that it was less than was estimated and, as I say, Mr. Speaker, less again. So there is no excuse for the government to have ignored the tragic unemployment situation in the province the way they have.

What have they done about it? I just want to look at a couple of expenditure items in Table 6 of the budget that came down last Monday. One ministry is supposed to be doing something to encourage new business development in the province. The minister travels the world round, over and over again, and is supposed to be doing something to increase our trade possibilities to build up business opportunities here in the province. Let's look at his budget. How much was it in the budget that was presented July 7, 1983? I don't expect you to remember the figure, Mr. Speaker; I wouldn't have. It was $140.9 million. With that kind of money he might have been able to do something, in spite of the fact that he's away so much. Things might have happened. He has a ministry and something positive might have happened. But how much was spent? According to the estimates for the full year ending March 31, 1984, not $141 million but $49 million — roughly one-third of what the Legislature voted. And that's the ministry that was supposed to be creating new employment opportunities.

That wasn't the only item in the budget for new employment opportunities. Employment development account: they proposed to spend the whole $245 million. The Legislature voted $245 million for an employment development account and $141 for the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, a total of $386 million. That's quite a bit of money when you're talking about a deficit of $1.6 billion. The government obviously was expressing some concern in the budget when we voted $386 million, in those two items alone, for job creation. They spent approximately $100 million less than that.

But what are they proposing to do in the year ahead? The situation is worse. The number of bankruptcies is higher than ever before. Unemployment rates in B.C. are still far ahead of most other Canadian provinces, and getting worse day by day, week by week and month by month under this administration. You'd think they would realize that it was necessary to do something about it if they wanted to serve the people in the province. So what are they doing? There is no employment development account at all. The $245 million was spent last year, and that's it. There's no provision for any employment development account. In the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development there is not the $141 we voted last year, not even the $49 million that was actually spent — or that will be spent, according to the revised estimates — but some $2 million less than that. Yes, that is one ministry that should really be doing something to try to get the economy moving, and instead of that they say: "We're spending less in that ministry. The only ministry where we're spending more is Health. Aren't we good? Aren't we great? We're making sure that nothing positive happens in the province of British Columbia. We're cutting back on our spending, even in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development." What a shocking attitude for the government to take at such a time in the economic history of the province.

We have another budget this year, another deficit forecast of $661 million, which includes an amount of $470 million that is being granted to BCR to take care of its old debt. Just how important is it today, February 29, 1984, to take care of this old debt? Four hundred and seventy million dollars is a nice chunk of money for BCR, and certainly they do have old debts to take care of. Some of them will come due between 1983 and 1987; some $34 million is due in that period. That's an average of a year away. But that is only $34 million out of $470 million. Another $40 million will come due between 1988 and 1992. That is six years away. Why are we borrowing $40 million today to give to BCR to provide for a debt, some of which does not come due until 1992? Some of it doesn't come due until 1993 to 1997 — I'm taking the oldest ones. We're borrowing $237 million now to provide for a debt that does not have to be paid back until 1993-97. Mr. Speaker, $383,348,000 doesn't come due until 1998 to 2002, and the balance of $45 million doesn't come due until 2003-2005. That all adds up to $740 million, more than the $470. There are sinking funds that reduce the figure.

[3:15]

My point is that BCR doesn't need that money now if it's being given to BCR to provide for old debts, because those old debts don't come due for many years down the road. But that $470 million would replace the $470 million left out of the budget this year that was in last year but wasn't spent last year. The government has the financial wherewithal. It's able to get this money; they have expressed no concern about being able to raise the money. They could finance a job creating program had they any will to do so. They have no interest in financing projects to put the unemployed to work. There are many; we've talked about them in the budget debate. In this particular debate I think I shouldn't be specific, other than to say: think of the tremendous job that could be done in forestry, and think of all the pressure from all of the groups outside the House, the people working in the industry, the university professors concerned about the future of the province with respect to the forests and the effect this will have on our economy when we have mined our forests. As I said in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, it was a mistake to have a mining engineer looking after our forests. His attitude is, as with mining ore: "Cut and get out." Unfortunately we've been doing that too long in B.C., when it comes to looking after our resources, and we should not be handling our forest resources in the way we handled our mining resources.

The Minister of Finance said not only that this money was to be used for old debt, and specifically not for Tumbler Ridge.... He made quite a point of saying that. When I asked whether or not we still had the same guarantees with respect to Tumbler Ridge, I erred; I should not have said guarantees, but the same responsibility to make payments for interest and capital. That was the question I intended to ask, Mr. Speaker, because as I read the financial statements, the provincial government is committed to make all interest payments on a further $450 million, not just interest but the capital-repayment as well.

Reading from the financial statements, note 4, "Tumbler Ridge Branch Line":

"In 1981 the railway began construction of the 130 kilometre Tumbler Ridge branch railway line to the coalfields located in northeastern British Columbia. Since the inception of this project, the government of the province of British Columbia has granted

[ Page 3545 ]

$2,700,000, purchased $45 million of share capital, and arranged the railway's interim financing to construct the branch line. The government of the province of British Columbia intends to retire the interim financing" — that's the capital, Mr. Speaker; we're talking about $450 million — "with equity capital financing."

In other words, we're going to buy more shares in the BCR or contribute more capital, as one reads this note, to the extent of some $450 million. I can recall being told in this Legislature that not one cent of taxpayers' money was going to go into the subsidizing of the export of coal to Japan. Certainly the financial statements indicate otherwise. They indicate that the whole capital cost of this line, estimated to be $450 million, will be paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia when through their government they buy the shares in BCR, or contribute capital — whatever way it appears on the balance sheet.

Reading further from the note: "Until such time as the interim financing is fully retired, the province intends to annually subscribe for equity capital equivalent to the amount of interest capitalized" — not just the amount of money borrowed to construct the line, but also the interest capitalized in the cost of that line — "and to provide annual grants equivalent to the amount of interest charged to operations." Then it goes on to talk about the total cost of the line.

If we have all that money to pay for the export of coal to Japan, surely we can do something about the tragedy of unemployment in the province of British Columbia. We have money to give to BCR, which doesn't need some of it until the year 2005. We have money to pay the total cost of the Tumbler Ridge line, which was built solely to provide coal for Japan. We have money to do all those things, but nothing to do the things that need to be done here in the province of British Columbia, which could be done by the thousands of people lined up in the province waiting and hoping for some employment opportunity. The government's answer to all this is to cut back on the spending in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, to have the minister travel more and do less, and to cut out the employment development account completely.

The $661 million deficit forecast this year is $1 billion less than the figure last year. The government says: "Isn't it great? We've actually reduced the figures." Well, I told you two areas in which these figures have been reduced. They claim to have reduced the estimates for 1984-85 — and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, they're just estimates. How much comparison there will be between those figures and the final figures, I leave it to time to answer. But in any case, that's all we have.

The estimates are $56,800,000 less than the revised figures for last year. The revised figures for last year are higher than the original figures. When we dealt with the budget in July 1983, we were told that the expenditures would be $8,445,000,000. We're now told to expect them to be $8,446,800,000 — a difference of $1,800,000, which is close estimating, Mr. Speaker. If the figures come out to that figure, then the Ministry of Finance is to be congratulated for coming so close on the expenditure side. They boast about a reduction of $56,800,000 in total expenditures without explaining that in one area alone they have reduced expenditures by $247 million — in the area of creating employment opportunities. There is $2 million less for that Industry and Small Business Development ministry, and $245 million less for the employment development account. That's a total reduction of $247 million. As I said earlier, if we compare the original estimate given to us on July 7 of $386 million in those two areas — $386 million compared to $47 million now — it's a decrease of $339 million. And the government says: 'Aren't we great? We've reduced total expenditures by S57 million, and to accomplish that we reduced the employment-creating opportunities in our budget by some $337 million." Mr. Speaker, is that progress? Is that looking after the needs of the people of the province as the Lieutenant-Governor urged us to do in his opening speech? I think not.

This government has been successful in one thing only. Had they deliberately set out on a move to destroy the economy of British Columbia and had some really intelligent people working for them doing it, then they couldn't have succeeded more than they have done in the last year. There's no question about that, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance said something rather revealing in his budget speech. I mentioned this before, and it's worth mentioning over and over again: "The recovery in the United States was led by consumer spending." On July 7 of last year he did everything within his power to make sure that consumer spending in B.C. would decrease. In the budget before us now the government has taken a further step to make sure that consumer spending decreases even further. By every measure of accomplishment that it is possible to devise, B.C. has done worse than the rest of Canada. There's only one way in which we've exceeded the rest of Canada, and that is in the destruction we've done to our own economy.

Mr. Speaker, in the budget last July the minister threatened some 300,000 people in the province — those are the figures used by the Provincial Secretary — that 25 percent of them were going to be fired without cause. That's one in four. There are at least four people in the House right now, and if we were working as employees rather than as MLAs, one of the four would be gone, if that formula were to apply to us.

In every government office, in every municipal office, every school board office. every Crown corporation office, everyone working there or out in the field would be aware that for every four of them, one of them was due to be fired without cause. There were some changes in that legislation after, but I'm talking about the budget of July 7. Mr. Speaker, none of those four would go out and spend any more than they absolutely had to. The sword was hanging over all four of them. Even after one of them had gone, it might be a different four. They still didn't know; and they don't know to this day which of them may get their notice next. People like that aren't going to spend money. It's not just the four who are working for the government, or the 300,000 who are working in the total public service. They have friends and relations, and they visit people they know, and when they passed on their discouragement and their concern about what was happening to the B.C. economy, then the rest of the people in the province would also be influenced not to spend money.

It's small wonder that retail sales have not increased in B.C. the way they have in the rest of the country. It's small wonder that the recovery that was led by consumer spending in the States and in some parts of Canada just hasn't taken place in the province of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance, as I said, and the government — he's not doing it himself; I can appreciate that it's government policy — have done everything they could to make sure that consumers didn't spend money, with the result that personal savings in

[ Page 3546 ]

the province of British Columbia are higher now than ever before.

Listening to the Minister of Finance read his budget, one would think that he had some recognition of what he had done by saying that the way to recovery is to increase consumer spending. If you do increase consumer spending, you increase demand and then stores and small businesses sell stuff. If they are selling stuff, they have to buy more from wholesalers, and wholesalers from the producers — it works right down the line. What's the point in trying to encourage business people to spend more money expanding if they aren't able to sell what they are able to produce with their present facilities? You have to increase consumer demand. You have to persuade consumers to spend, especially when they have large savings.

The government has taken exactly the opposite tack, and they are doing it again in the budget before us now. That is why this amendment was moved, Mr. Speaker, if for no other reason. All of the other services being cut back are important — there's no question about it. But by increasing employment the government is increasing revenue for itself and would be increasing consumer confidence. It would be doing something to get the economy moving. By getting the economy moving, by increasing consumer confidence and employment, the government in turn would eventually have enough revenue to start replacing some of the services that have been taken away from the people of British Columbia.

Why did the government choose to go against even its own best advice? Why have they abandoned the people of British Columbia through this policy of continually saying to the people, who have been the victims of the government's policy and the victims of the depression that we're now in, that they are the ones who are going to have pay more and more to get us out of this hole that we're in? They are the least able to pay. Why not get the economy moving? Why not do as the minister said they did in the States; that is, to increase consumer confidence and consumer spending?

Mr. Speaker, 25 percent was bad enough, but what did we hear in the budget a week ago Monday? The minister is now saying that in some ministries, in some areas of services, the figure may go as high as 50 percent. Even if there was some feeling that the worst is over, the program of firings started in July 1983.... We're now eight or nine months beyond that, and maybe we can start breathing again; maybe we can start relaxing because we're doing our job — not us, but the public servants generally are doing their job — and look forward with a little bit of confidence to the future. Then they are hit with this budget to the effect: "We haven't really started to get rid of you yet. We're going to get rid of up to 50 percent in some ministries." If anything could have been calculated to have done more damage at this time, I can't imagine what it would be. Why? I don't expect the Minister of Finance to answer me today, but I expect to be asking that question again and again. Perhaps one day I will get the Minister of Finance to comment on it. Certainly there isn't anything he could have done that would have been worse for the economy of British Columbia, and I use his own words to prove that to him. It is true that B.C. deficits are very high. They are very high because the government has destroyed the economy of British Columbia. They have discouraged everyone in the province against any possible plans they might have for improving the economy.

[3:30]

When I spoke in the budget debate, I mentioned figures on unemployment, bankruptcies and services being done away with. Every one of these things is a measure of the degree to which we have failed in British Columbia. This particular amendment deals with unemployment. There are many things that could have been done, and my colleagues have been talking about some of the specifics. I say again that the one we could move into most readily and quickly with the largest long-term gain would certainly be in forests. We've abandoned our forests to a greater degree than ever before under this administration. Apparently there are no plans to build up that resource.

Mr. Speaker, the government stands condemned by its own words. It has taken the wrong remedy. It is doing nothing positive to try to increase employment opportunities. Even some of the members on the government side of the House ought to recognize how wrong the Minister of Finance and the government are and should support this amendment. I don't really expect it, but if they were to read it honestly and to measure what this government has achieved with any degree of honesty, they could do no better than to vote for the amendment currently before the House.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, are we going to have a rousing debate here?

There are a number of issues, and I want to talk about the amendment in relation to the great constituency of Atlin. The first one I would like to discuss is Stewart, the largest community in the Atlin constituency, which is having unemployment problems with the closing of Granduc. Imperial Oil is pulling the plug in Stewart.

Interjection:

MR. PASSARELL: It was getting so dead that I just had to coax the member from Taiwan to get up and start yelling. Now he walks off. I thought we'd wake up some people and get the gallery going. Is he catching another plane to Japan this afternoon — or London or the South Pole? That would be a great selling spree down to the South Pole. Penguins? I chased him right out of the House. We know the game.

The community of Stewart is finding itself caught, as many rural communities are, with depression and recession and the problems of a resource-based town when the company closes. Stewart is the largest community in my riding, and the problem is that when the only mine in town closes, the community is caught, because you just don't go off to another mine three or four miles down the road or off to another business.

It is fine for the government to stand up and talk about its employment program, which I haven't seen but is supposedly there somewhere in fantasy land. The community of Stewart involves hundreds of individuals who no longer have a mine to work in. I'll be one of the last ones to ever say that a government should come in and buy a mine that is not a profitable operation just to keep jobs, because that's silly. You can't go out and buy a mine to keep people working. There has to be some kind of middle-of-the-road program to help these individuals. They have homes, their families are there, they have mortgage payments, car payments or truck payments. Now that the mine is down, what is there for them? I found the number of cabinet ministers who travelled to Stewart during the May election last year interesting. They were

[ Page 3547 ]

saying how great free enterprise is. There is some merit in it, and by the same token, some bad. Now that the mine is closed, where are all those cabinet ministers who came in?

Another issue I'd like to discuss are some ideas that I have with regard to job and industry development in the province. W.A.C. Bennett believed in public enterprise. You just have to look at his record with the ferries and B.C. Hydro to see his interest in public enterprise. There is a need for government in the role of creating employment in this province, as well as there is the role of private enterprise. I have some ideas for job and industry development that we could be using, working in conjunction with public and private enterprise.

The first one is mini-hydro projects in this province. When it comes to hydro development, we have always thought that we have to build big and spend big. We are finding the money is no longer there to build those giant hydro projects. There is, as well, no need for the power any longer. What I would like to look at is a program for job creation in the far north with mini-hydro projects.

The federal government has a very similar program, which they call the slow-poke program. The slow-poke program is for development and generation of power, but what the federal government wants to do in small communities is to put in nuclear reactors. I don't particularly want to see nuclear reactors, but we could by the same token allow private enterprise to go out and work on some of the small streams and rivers in the north and throughout this province to develop power for the power grid instead of building large dams. We should allow private industry the opportunity to go in and develop power generation for local consumption. This is a step that I would like to see happen.

Another one is public enterprise — something that comes up quite often down here in Victoria, and I think the media likes to play games with it — for the use of garbage to generate power. We are having a problem on the mainland of finding areas to dump the garbage from cities. It is becoming more and more of a problem. Using garbage, instead of just finding more and more dumps. Money and jobs can come out of garbage if we look at it realistically.

Third issue: resource and development. Right now we export many jobs by exporting our resources; we're a resource-base province. By the same token there's a role here for British Columbians in secondary or primary industry if we use our resources for the benefit of the people of this province, allowing public enterprise as well as private enterprise to play a role in the research and development of this important area.

The fourth area I'd like to talk about where we could have job creation in this province to help the 225,000 people who are presently unemployed is a greater emphasis on sea farming. I am certainly sure that we could develop the expertise in this area, as many of the Scandinavian and European countries are moving further and further into sea farming

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Our largest industry in this province is probably forestry, and yet we're finding problems in this area with world market prices, and problems in our own province with regard to this industry. I would like to see co-ops set up in small rural communities where seedlings could be grown. We have many large tracts of Crown land in this province, and certain communities could be allotted certain Crown acreage. Seedlings could be developed on those acreages and then sold to the multinationals as part of the conditions of tree licences. They would have to buy the seedlings from communities in the areas where they operate. I look particularly to TFL number 1, the largest tree licence in the province, which is in my riding. It makes no sense to bring seedlings from the state of Washington to TFL number I to plant, when we have so many people unemployed. It would be a good community job-creation program for young people, in which they could have free Crown land to develop seedlings and then sell them back to the big forest companies.

Another issue I'd like to raise is that maybe we could put the word out that there's a gold rush in the province of British Columbia. It might be a novel idea. I'm looking at putting the word out in the world press. We can see how many members of the press here are interested in the debates going on in this Legislature. There is so much going on out there with regard to small placer operations. If the opportunities were there for small placer operators to go in and have a gold rush in northern British Columbia.... It seems that more and more regulations are coming down to keep the small placer operator from going ahead, in the spirit of free enterprise, and doing the job. Placer operations are not usually major operations dealing with foreign companies; they're individuals who live in the province of British Columbia as Canadians. But the opportunities are falling away from them.

In the far north, the area I represent, in the Yukon the federal government has come in with new placer regulations. I know my friend the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has probably heard about these. The federal government is trying to....

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. We've got to get rid of them and allow the individual free enterpriser to go in and start working our rivers and streams. The federal government has come in with new regulations when it comes to placer operators, and it's almost impossible for these individuals to secure a piece of property and be able to operate a placer operation without causing some kind of a problem that some bureaucrat in Ottawa or Victoria thinks will destroy the environment. I'm one of the first individuals.... I live in the north and I want the environment of the north to be protected, but placer operators don't go out and destroy the environment.

An individual I refer to time and time again in my speeches, an operator who has been working a claim since World War II, was told last year that he had to close. Some bureaucrat who came up from Victoria said he was putting too much mud into the river. He wasn't even in operation yet; it was the spring runoff that had come in. They closed him down, as they do a lot of placer miners in the far north, because of the spring runoff. They said there was too much mud running into the river and destroying the fish habitat. But there are no fish in the river where this individual has been mining for the last 30 years. I doubt if there ever were fish in this stream a hundred years ago, let alone what old George is putting into it. It was the spring runoff. When the snow goes in the springtime, a lot of mud runs into the creeks and streams.

Interjection.

[ Page 3548 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Well, we've got to watch him, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). If we let these bureaucrats make any more decisions for us in the far north, they just might do that. I think a little more common sense would go a long way when it comes to development in this province.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, Mr. Member for Vancouver South, you don't understand about old Bob. Old Bob is somebody you would probably support. You'll have to talk to my hon. friend from Surrey here to bring you up to date about old Bob. Old Bob has learned one thing about the information I sent him. He has such a novel use for it. He's finally realized he has to take the staples out of the material I sent him. It's a lot smoother without the staples.

The last aspect I'd like to talk about, when it comes to the economic problems that face us here, is the use of large make-work programs. I don't think they work. I don't think they're valuable. In the 1930s President Roosevelt was able to use large public make-work programs, which were successful at that time. I don't seriously think that large make-work programs at this stage in time are going to benefit anyone. They might provide some short-term employment, but the amount of taxpayers' money needed to provide this kind of program.... In the long run, I don't think it would be beneficial to either the taxpayers or the employees.

I gave seven positive ideas on development and job creation on this amendment. I think there has to be a lot more debate, putting minds and heads together to start coming up with some alternative programs, whether it's mini-hydro projects or looking at British Columbia as a new gold-rush area. We can't allow 225,000 people to be unemployed in this province. This is a great and rich province. It makes no sense to have a quarter of a million people unemployed.

MR. ROSE: I always enjoy the enthusiastic one-handed applause I get when I get up from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) sitting over there fiddling with his pencil.

Naturally, I suppose, I'm going to support the amendment. I think it's a particularly important one, when we consider the level of unemployment we have. The fact that this concern has been omitted from the budget is, I think, rather cruel and heartless.

The other day a speaker complained that the language of the amendment wasn't very graceful or elegant. I think I'd be inclined to agree with him; the wording is a bit awkward. But that really isn't the point. It's pretty awkward when you haven't got a job too. As far as I'm concerned, too many of our people in this country don't have jobs, and maybe they're not going to get them back either. As the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, I don't think it's going to be something that we're going to work our way out of or restrain our way out of. I think there's a whole new technological age coming. I know this is dull stuff, but it's inevitable. It's happening all over the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: We understand better than you do.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm not so sure you do appreciate that as well as we do. I understand that even jobs for engineers are hard to come by now. Some of them even have to run to be elected in the Legislature, jobs are so tough to oversee. There are these public jobs, the snout-in-the-trough jobs — but there aren't enough to go around. A few of us are lucky; we get in the public trough. But many don't have that; they have limited means and limited access. Some group of people has to be concerned about that. The concern of the government over there is for what they believe is best for the economic health of the province. I don't deny that they believe this. I happen to think they're wrong. I happen to think they're heartless in many ways. I think they're cruel, really, but I don't doubt their sincerity. These Khomeinis of economic fundamentalism really believe that what they're doing is the right thing. I know that if we can say anything about the Minister of Finance, we can say he is sincere — even when he's fooling.

I'm not sure that everybody really understands the extent of the problem, and how soul-destroying it can be. I don't think they understand for certain, either, that it isn't something we're going to get over simply by tightening our belts and hoping that the poor will pay for our recovery. We have had a recovery, of sorts, over this last year, but unemployment hasn't gone down appreciably, and the province is in a dreadful state. It's even worse than it was in December. I must admit to the Minister of Finance — and I do this graciously — that over January our unemployment is down marginally. Whether or not that can be claimed as a great victory for our new restraint policy, I'm sure it will be. I don't think it's got anything to do with it, myself, but a lot of people do.

I think that, in contrast to improving things, you've killed the boom. I think we were on the verge of recovery, and your budget and all your bills that came along last July killed it. I think you're going to have to take the blame for it. We're going to hang it on you anyway, even if you don't accept it. You'll deny it, of course. You've killed the boom, that's what you've done. We are on the brink of recovery all over Canada. Look at the last year.

MR. R. FRASER: It started in Ottawa as of today.

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, it didn't start in Ottawa or anywhere necessarily. You claim that you're concerned about the debt in Ottawa as part of our economic downturn. I can recall when the provinces had all the surpluses and the feds had all the debts, because of transfer of payments. I understand that, too. And that wasn't very long ago. Now the provinces have all the debts, along with Ottawa — triple the debts in about seven years.

Bankruptcies in B.C. are the highest in Canada. They went down everywhere else in Canada. Here they are in this morning's Province: "1982 the Worst Year Ever for Canadian Bankruptcies." There were 41,843 in Canada, of which 3,234 were from British Columbia. Last year bankruptcies in Canada drifted down, but the bankruptcies in B.C. last year jumped 25 percent. You can look into various reasons for that, as this particular author, Ken Bell, did. He blames the real estate boom, allowing people to borrow beyond their means without proper equity. But you can also say that if you kill consumer spending and consumer confidence to spend, that's going to contribute to some of the bankruptcies. There's no escape from that either. We tend to hang that on you, and there's no reason why we shouldn't. If you're going to take credit for the good things, you also have to be able to take the blame for the bad ones, not blame the world markets. That's not good enough.

[ Page 3549 ]

Where are these unemployed people? Here we've got 12.7 percent, or 85,000 people, living in Vancouver, many of them attending soup-kitchens. It was estimated that there were 35,000 homeless people in the city of Toronto. They're doing a whole series on CBC this week on the homeless, the people without any shelter, living in Toronto — in one of the richest countries in the world — attending soup-kitchens and various other handouts, and sleeping in drop-in centres or shopping centres. There is not a word, not a jot or tittle in the budget about our concern for the unemployed.

What are we concerned about? Are we concerned with battering wages down to the point where we make this place safe for investment? I'm told that we have something like the fifth-highest investment rate per capita in the world right here in British Columbia. Why do we need to do this?

Victoria: 16.2 percent, or 18,000 people, living in Victoria are unemployed. They like to be unemployed. Welfare recipients drive Cadillacs. They love to be unemployed, you know. They like that soup.

AN HON MEMBER: What are the MLAs in Victoria doing about it? Nothing.

MR. ROSE: The MLA in Victoria is here doing his job. He's doing his job, and attempting to get the federal government, since the British Columbia government won't do anything, to come in here and drop a little money on the place. That's what he's attempting to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the 400 jobs at Yarrows?

MR. ROSE: I see the chorus over here is yacking about Yarrows. What the chorus should....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't going to bring this up. I think the fact that there are 400 jobs created at Yarrows is a good thing. I don't deny that at all; why should we knock it? But let's tell the other half: you had planned $30 million to be spent in Victoria, and you cut it to $9 million. Is that really going to help those 16.2 percent or 18,000 people unemployed?

The Kootenays have 10 percent unemployment; the West Kootenays — 23.6; the Okanagan — 18,000 people or 17.8 percent; the southern interior — 11,000 people, or 19 percent; the lower coast and the lower mainland — 101,000, or 13 percent; Vancouver Island — 14,000 people, or 18 percent; the central interior — 15,000 people, or 16 percent; the Peace River and the northwest — 5,000, or 11.8 percent....

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you like us to follow the New Zealand experience?

MR. ROSE: I suggest to my hon. colleague, who shares at least one of the municipalities with me, that there are ways of approaching this problem that are not necessarily the Australian or the Now Zealand approach. But it certainly isn't this kind of Khomeini approach that you're undergoing at the moment. That hasn't done a thing. It's put more people out of work. As far as the benefits are concerned, we have in British Columbia one of the lowest benefits in the western world, in terms of the unemployed. In unemployment insurance the Canadian rate is far below the German, British or French in real dollars.

What we have to deal with is the number of people who are unemployed. What we're trying to talk about is the number of people who need jobs: over 200,000 of them here. You can't get out of that. Unemployment has dropped by 1 percent across Canada in the last 12 months.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a start. The infrastructure's in place.

MR. ROSE: You can't eat the infrastructure. I think what you're suggesting is that somehow if the world recovers we'll be in shape to take advantage of it. In the meantime, you're quite willing to sacrifice literally thousands of people with dumb stunts to cool off the recovery. The recovery was here. You killed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just rolling.

MR. ROSE: It's rolling, all right. It's rolling backwards. That's where it is. Bankruptcies are up, and all the rest.

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Show me statistics.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to my hon. friend that I went over a number of those statistics before he came in. Since he's tuned in late with his ears, I wonder if you'd mind asking him to tune out with his mouth for a little while. I think that would be a helpful contribution. If he wishes to get up and speak, I'll yield the floor to him in about, oh, half an hour from now, when I have him thoroughly disgusted and thoroughly cornered with the brilliance of my arguments and the logic of my presentation. But in the meantime, I find his shouting somewhat distracting.

But I would like to tell you a little bit about this. I'd like people to know: who are these people who have to be put out of work for the good of the country? Who are these people who have to be given unemployment or welfare as a solution to their problems? Young people. The unemployment of young people across Canada rose from 12 percent to 20 percent in two years. In British Columbia it's 25 percent. For those with a university or post-secondary education it's only 8 percent. And what have we done about that? We've cut back on our funding for educational institutions. At a time when people are unemployed, we give the kids a card and say, "Go and create yourself a job; we'll give you this card, " while we cut down and raise fees to the point that even if they do get a job, access to the universities is going to be seriously limited. These are the people who are particularly vulnerable.

Older workers used to be secure, but no more in Canada. Because of the decline in manufacturing, the person who had.... He was immune to recessions. He found it almost impossible to believe that he would be out of work, especially if he was a business executive or somebody with training. Now we have, as I said earlier, engineers and business executives out of work, and if they're over 50, they have a great deal of difficulty finding employment, because they're too high-priced, they're overtrained and too many people feel that they're overpaid. The solution to that is $10 million. Give the kid a card. He goes down to the A & W. He was working there anyway for $3 an hour. If he has the card he can

[ Page 3550 ]

be taken on by the A & W, and now the government's going to pay for half of it. And they say: "Oh, well, that won't work. It's only for new workers." I know what happened in the bridging program. The federal....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, it was a federal-provincial make-work program. When you guys backed out of it, it became a federal program. But it was a federal-provincial program.

Reforestation, which was once handled by paid IWA workers for the big wood corporations.... They suddenly found themselves laid off, and they became part of the bridging program, because their wages were subsidized. The same thing is going to happen here if we don't watch it very carefully. But $10 million is a piddling program anyway in terms of the need. You give the kids $10 million for a summer work program and take away $14 million in grants, which you gave them last year to go to university.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The loans are still there.

MR. ROSE: Of course they are. You remind me of the Liberals. Lester Pearson campaigned all over the country in 1965. He said: "Ten thousand scholarships." But when they got into power it became 10,000 loans. Last year 18,000 kids were unable to pay their loans. They defaulted on those loans because they can't get any work. So here's another group of people, young people and.... And women; they're going to be the last hired, the first fired, the lowest paid, the part-timers....

MR. PARKS: That's nonsense and poppycock.

MR. ROSE: It's true. The incidence of part-time work in this country has been climbing — not because people want to work only part time, but because the jobs are only there for part time. They work with no frills, no benefits or anything like that, for stores like Eaton's and Woodwards' and other places where they don't have to pay any fringes. Yet the number of people among the part-time workers who want full-time work has doubled in two years. I'm trying to document this, which was ridiculed as "poppycock," and I can document it. You can always yell and ridicule, as you are wont to do, as a method of argument, but StatsCan says that women's wages are less than 65 percent of men's wages, and part-time workers are three times as likely to be women as men,

Another thing: when we cut back on the public service or the service industries, we destroy jobs for minorities and women. In the United States, teaching and general work in the public service have been the largest employers of visible minority groups and for women. If you cut back on the public service you cut back on opportunities for both minorities and women, so they are going to be hit too.

Native people: in this country unemployment rates for natives run from 30 to 80 percent. There are terrible conditions in many of those places. The disabled: unemployment rates well over 50 percent. We took 50 bucks a month away from them. This is grudging. This is really cheap stuff. Small businesses: I've talked about the bankruptcies. Farms. Single-industry towns like Stewart and Alberni are nearly devastated. And somehow this is supposed to help us out of our troubles. I don't understand how that works.

Here's another StatsCan figure: the after-tax corporate profits in this country in 1983, third quarter, rose 92 percent over the same period in 1982. Unemployment dropped 1 percent.

MR. REID: Surely 1982 was a benchmark.

MR. ROSE: I don't have the figures for 1984, but we'll have a look. I'll bet that when you get a look at 1981.... Well no, unemployment hasn't changed much in those years. The 1982 corporate profits were down; I know that. They were lower than 1981, but they were about the same as 1983. If you look at the graph, you will see that they still went up dramatically between 1983 and 1984 — damn near doubled — but unemployment didn't drop. So this idea of increased productivity as a cure for unemployment is a lot of nonsense. We're going to find ourselves one of the most efficient peoples in the world if we carry on with this automation, and among the most destitute. You lose intensive job opportunities when you automate. I don't think there is any alternative but to automate. I'm not suggesting that we're going to be King Canutes and tell the tide to go out; we aren't. But we certainly should stop these old chants of some sort of....

It sounds like some economist dancing around the fire shouting incantations like, "Free enterprise! Restraint! Can't spend your way out of debt!" — all this kind of stuff. It doesn't get us anywhere.

What we have to do together, all of us, is to sit down and examine where we are. Where are we in terms of our economy? You talk about a benchmark. Is this a period from which there is no return? We won't be going back to the large manufacturing, labour-intensive kinds of activities that we once had. When we do that we've destroyed the middle class, and when we destroy the middle class we destroy the purchasing power and taxing power that the middle class provides, because they have decent wages. You can't get much tax money out of welfare or unemployed people.

MR. REID: But you can't get much money out of people who make no money in business either.

MR. ROSE: The thing is that if most of your....

You're a businessman, and I'm quite sure the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) is quite a good businessman. But if your customers haven't got any money, they're not going to buy any automobiles. How many millionaires shop at the local supermarket? Not very many. The businessman in the small....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, they send the chauffeur; they don't go personally.

By and large in the small towns such as Langley or Mission, or any one of these burgs that are part of our beautiful province, the businesses are supported by people of average and middle income.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Lots of them could be, because there's lots of money being made in Langley, so we can't be against that. But I'm not making a point about the number of chauffeurs driving Daimlers.

What I'm attempting to talk about is that unless we have a well-paid group of people, we're not likely to have very good

[ Page 3551 ]

business. Business will not be good in these local stores, and I don't want to go over again what we said about Qualicum. From a study made there we learn that 23 teachers were fired and an additional 35 jobs disappeared. That's not going to be much help to the chamber of commerce or any other group of people in Qualicum, neither the 23 who were fired nor the 35 who lost their jobs because the 23 didn't provide the business, which was one-and-a-half again.

I have attempted to suggested to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of people working part-time. Profits have gone up, and employment has not gone down. It has gone up in British Columbia. The business climate is not improving; just ask anybody in the real estate business these days. The business climate in British Columbia is not improving. A lot of people on the other side of the House are going to shout, "How great thou art, " this Khomeini of economics. But I haven't seen it reflected in the earnings of the people and in business in British Columbia. I don't think we're going to do it. You're not going to do it by cheap wages; you've got to have decent wages. People have to have decent incomes or they're not going to be purchasing things.

In the United States they're talking about a consumer-led recovery. You can't have a consumer-led recovery if there is no confidence. The profits have gone to investment abroad.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Employees are not going to be paying many taxes if they're all on welfare. There are ways....

Let me tell you how we're getting rid of some money. Here's the federal budget for 1983 — increased corporate tax incentives by over $2.6 billion over four years. That's $2.6 thousand million, and that's a lot of dough. What were these tax incentives for? Were they because the Liberals, Socreds and Tories love the corporations? Well, partly. But the other part was the theory that if you gave them those incentives, they would invest here and would provide jobs for our people — which is a laudable motive. I don't think we can necessarily be against that, but they don't provide the jobs. They take the profits and they invest them abroad. That's what they've done with their money over the last two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: The forest and mining industries?

MR. ROSE: Not them, but that's....

There are petroleum incentive grants of $8.1 billion over five years. What have the feds cut back on? They've cut back on payments to the provinces by $5 billion — money for people, education and health. They didn't cut back as much as the province did. The minister is complaining loudly, wailing and crying and saying that the business of denying the province the right to raise its own health fees was mischievous. This treasury got $100 million extra this last year from the feds. They spent $40 million on health. What did they spend the rest on? Roads, railroads, holes and coal? I don't know, but it didn't go to health. Now we've got an 8 percent surtax on our income tax. It's not that I object to paying for health through income tax; I happen to think that's the way it should be paid for. I don't think there should be any limit on it either. If a guy makes $20,000 a year, he should pay his 8 percent. If he makes $100,000 a year, he should pay his 8 percent on his income tax. I have no objection in principle to that. I have lots of objections to a rotten and unfair tax system, because that's what we have, but I have no objection to the idea that we should pay for health care out of taxes.

Kids are battering down the doors of our post-secondary educational institutions because their courses are being limited. The feds increased the funding $27 million last year. What did the province do? The province cut it $27 million, so they had a $54 million decrease. This is what's happening to our economy. We have a combination of a double whammy between the feds and the provinces, and that's very difficult for us.

[4:15]

Let's get back for a little to the business of incentives. If you have to give $2.67 billion in tax incentives to the major corporations to create jobs, then some evidence should be there that they've created them; but they haven't. I think Government should give money in terms of incentives only when those jobs actually appear as jobs. You hope they will spend it on jobs, and they invest the money abroad or they give the money back to shareholders or they pay it out to increasing modern equipment so that they displace even more people. I don't think that is a reasonable use of taxpayers' money.

Real investment has gone down 14 percent in this country since 1980. It has reversed itself. In spite of all the money that has been given out — $2.6 billion and $8 billion in PIP Grants. not all of it spent yet — real investment is down 18 percent. In spite of all the money we have been shovelling out, we haven't realized the grant we're giving in terms of unemployment or investment. What is this government going to do? Are they going to make it easier? Are they going to give them some more? Are they going to use a larger shovel? I don't think that is fair.

You are worried about an extra 8 percent tax on medicare when you have deflected $51 million out of the pot, far more than what your tax will collect anyway. I don't think they really believe in medicare, Mr. Speaker. My friend and former colleague, our health critic in Ottawa, Bill Blaikie, had this to say in a recent newspaper article:

"At worst, these arguments come from a right wing that would have governments spend less money on social programs by transferring the costs to various users of these programs. This would enable the business sector to get even more tax breaks from the government as an incentive to investment and as an offset against the declining profitability of their businesses and the declining international competitiveness of their products, due not to the decline of the worker productivity, as many argue, but rather to global economic conditions manipulated by the very multinational corporations whose freedom to do so they would vigorously defend, and to the social and environmental limits of the economic model in which they now work."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That is perhaps a bit tortuous as a quote, and not particularly gripping, but I think the suggestion here is that to increase the amount of giveaways to corporations it is necessary to cut down on the number of social services. If you cut down on the number of social services and throw more people out of work, it seems to me that you are causing the very thing you are trying to cure. That is my objection to what the government is doing and what they intend to do.

What shall we do about all these things? We have an economic model with which this side basically disagrees. We

[ Page 3552 ]

don't like what they are doing. We think it is wrong and dumb-headed. They think it is the right thing to do, and they are the government. I guess we are stuck with it until there is another election or people rioting in the streets or something like that.

MR. REID: Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from.

MR. ROSE: Well, maybe we should have a look at these ideas. What are we going to do if we have a situation where we are going into technological change. We are not going to have the labour- intensive industry we once had, and we need to provide work for our people. We can't say that we won't have any automation or hooking the computer to the satellite so that we have instant communications. All this sort of thing is going to require two distinct kinds of people: highly trained software and hardware developers, the engineers of the computer, and, of course, the drones to put together the chips, who will ultimately be replaced by automation. That sort of thing has been going on in Taiwan and Korea for some time. It may not be in the future. We may be able to have our own drones here, but ultimately they will be automated as well.

If this would lead to a tremendously new lifestyle of leisure and pleasure and fulfilment, that would be fine, but that isn't what has traditionally happened. The benefits of this automation have mainly gone into profits. It hasn't been distributed to the working people, except through the unions, and unions are getting smaller. In the United States unions are dwindling. It may happen here that there is going to be a combined effect of a deliberate attempt to get rid of unions and find their roles changing.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I hear from my left, Mr. Speaker, somebody talking about "cooperation." I think that is a worthy objective. I would certainly rather have seen that than the confrontation we had here last July. You're beating them over the head with an olive branch.

MR. REID: Inside or outside?

MR. ROSE: Anywhere. It's like motherhood used to be: everybody's in favour of cooperation as long as the other guy does all the cooperating.

What do you think we need to do if we're going to handle this business of transition into automation? I think one of the first things we need to do is increase the involvement of the people affected in the technological chain. People are not going to be rushing out saying: "Hey, I've got a terrific job here as a secretary; replace me with three word processors." If that is going to be the future, then people are going to resist it. So if there is going to be new equipment in a mill or shutdown decisions by corporations, there have got to be changes that involve the people in the decision-making. We can't just show the Luddite approach but must proceed with a reasonable kind of planned, cooperative introduction of these things. As I say, we're not King Canute.

The second thing is that there are layoffs and costs associated with technological change, and you've got to have severance pay provisions, pre-notice provisions, something that takes the sting out of these things. We haven't been very good at that up till now. And we have to share the benefits.

Why should one group...? Sure, we've had a terrifically difficult time in the last couple of years. We began to recover in 1983 but, as I pointed out earlier in my remarks, this recovery has not been shared. There has been a recovery of profits, but there hasn't been a recovery in employment. That is where all these things that have been happening are unfair. Who gets the benefits? We all share in the recession, but who shares in the recovery?

We've got to do these things and try to avoid the disruptions and job losses that are caused by the introduction.

Mr. Speaker, we have an institution in this country called the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy. They did a recent paper on the economic problems of the country: "The Unemployment Problem and What To Do About It." I'm not saying that....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Will you guys shut up for a little while! It's very distracting, you know. Go outside and fight.

Some of these people who are on here would probably be dismissed as dewy-eyed socialists, liberals, leftists and academics, so therefore they can't be practical people because "they ain't never met a payroll." But I'd like to name some. We have a consultant, Lieutenant-General W.A. B. Anderson — he's a public servant; he's been in the army, I guess. He's a Lieutenant-General; most of them have been in the army. Mr. Robert Baldwin, research department, CLC; Professor Diane Bellemare, Department of Economics, University of Quebec at Montreal; John Cornwall, Economics, Dalhousie; Arthur Donner, consulting economist, Toronto; Walter Gordon, chairman of the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy; John Grant, director and chief economist of Wood Gundy Ltd., Toronto; Mr. Honderich, the publisher of the Toronto Star — hardly a left-winger, that one; Mr. Michael McCracken, president of Informetrica Ltd., Ottawa; Professor Frank Reid, Centre for Industrial Relations, University of Toronto; Abraham Rotstein, professor and vice-Chairman, Canadian.... I'm just giving you an idea of the kind of mind and the kind of people who have gone to work on the problem of unemployment. I know it doesn't concern the government or the minister particularly, because I understand he's got another form of employment that he'll soon be fulfilling — and I wish him all the best in his new job, because it's a lovely place, and he'll be able to see a lot of nice shows there. I'd like to come and visit him when I come over the next time.

Here's a summary of some of the suggestions that this group made last summer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you trying to get rid of me?

MR. ROSE: No, I'll really actually miss the minister. That's my problem: I keep missing him. I aim to hit him, but I keep missing him.

Here are the various proposals that were made for reducing the level of unemployment, as summarized hereunder. I'm just going to read them and maybe comment parsimoniously on one or two of them. The expenditure — this is for all of Canada — of about $3 billion over two years on public works at the municipal level. They have covered their tracks here by saying at the beginning that these reputable economists believe that the deficit is not the source of inflation, so we could quite easily spend that kind of money.

[ Page 3553 ]

Mr. Speaker, I just finished my introduction, but you tell me I have two minutes left. Well, let me go on then, but I won't comment on this. Proceed with improvements and upgrading the railway transport system. Apparently that's underway — I hope so. That was the promise of the Crow. Stimulate the housing industry. Build about 40,000 single detached units in the next calendar year. Bank of Canada should be instructed to lower interest rates so people can buy those houses. The hours of work, the lifetime of work, should be made shorter. They said that if you have five people in the plant and you can only afford four, wouldn't it be better to hire the five, have each one of those people take one day off, and pay them their unemployment insurance? So you have five people working four days instead four people working five days. It's the same cost to the system.

We should stockpile certain things such as nickel, until the markets improve, assisted publicly. We should stop levying surtaxes on people. Suspend and limit the period of provincial retail sales taxes and federal consumption taxes. All manufacturing companies, regardless of ownership should be reviewed, and we should be buying Canadian from Canadian manufacturers, and they should have a holiday from certain profits if they are going to export their stuff. The decisions respecting implementation of proposals made by the task force on Canadian motor vehicles, parts and the industry should be implemented as soon as possible. What that means is simply this: other countries, notably Mexico, Argentina and Australia, have the cars that are sold in the country built in that country, and we don't. That's one of the reasons we lose jobs. I know the reason for it: we've got a tremendous export surplus with Japan, and the minister wants to keep that. I don't blame him, but I don't see why, if Mexico can build cars, we can't in British Columbia — more than just 100 little Toyotas.

There is going to be a debate going on for the next ten years about the distribution of wages. The content of work has really just started, and it's going to become more urgent all the time.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take my place in speaking in support of the amendment.

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is clear from the budget speech that this budget offers no hope for the people of Vancouver Island....

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Victoria?

MR. HANSON: Particularly Victoria, Mr. Member.

I recount to the House the demise of the local economy over the last few years, as a result of the ineptitude and passivity of this government in playing any kind of leadership role in this community, particularly on Vancouver Island but more particularly right here in the Capital Regional District.

Mr. Speaker, I know you remember that it wasn't that long ago that we had 150 federal jobs here in this city with the RCMP headquarters. There was a payroll of something in the area of $6 million a year plus spinoff services, supplies and other ancillary industries that were support networks for that administrative centre. Only in Quebec is the RCMP headquartered away from the capital city — it's headquartered in Montreal rather than Quebec City — and here in British Columbia the shift was made to move that operation over to the mainland. That was a net loss of 150 direct jobs and probably an additional 250 indirect jobs.

We also saw, in this hemorrhaging of our economy, the transfer of the CN Express — a relatively small operation, but a money-making operation in terms of breaking even for the federal government — a federal government Crown corporation. That particular communications agency moved onto the mainland.

We had a major fish-processing plant — the Oaklands plant, which operates under permit from the provincial government for the processing of fish. As you know, the buying and processing of fish is under provincial regulation by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Ministry of Environment. The passivity and ineptitude of the minister responsible allowed the Oaklands fish plant to close its parent company, which was a joint venture with the Marubeni Corp. and the Hoko Fishing Co. of Japan. They were operating a number of plants in British Columbia, and they decided that they would close the plant here — a seven-year-old plant — and make the fishermen steam from the west coast of Vancouver Island all the way through the Strait of Juan de Fuca over to Richmond to sell their fish.

The result was that the fishing fleet of southern Vancouver Island has been shifting over to the mainland. Clearly, if they can't sell their fish for processing here, other than to B.C. Packers, which takes fish in the round for flash-freezing down off Dallas Road.... But there is no opportunity for them to moor their vessels in Victoria, sell their fish here and have it processed so they could then take the capital they get for their fish and invest it in the local small business community in equipment purchases, manufacturing of marine technology goods, stores and so on. What we have on this Island is an economy in demise. The light manufacturing industry, of which fishing and fish processing is a major part.... In fact, it rivals the Vancouver-Richmond-Ladner area in the number of vessels — about 1,000 vessels in southern Vancouver Island and about 1,000 in the Fraser delta area. But we're losing that needlessly because the government in its ineptitude refused to take any kind of direct action through the regulatory process to ensure that that plant stayed open. A number of studies have been done which indicate that it's a viable operation. It employed, as you know, in a three- or four-month period up to 500 to 600 people. It could have operated year-round as an anchor to our local economy.

But what's been happening, Mr. Speaker, is small manufacturing operations.... The Labatt's brewery, which had 200 people working two shifts, is closed. It was a heritage building. It was the only brewery on Vancouver Island. It had one local union serving that plant. It did not ship its product off the Island. It had 45 percent of the market share of Vancouver Island, and yet it was deemed by Labatt's to be more profitable to move its operation over to the brewery in New Westminster.

The point of making some of these historical remarks is that this trend to decline continues. I'd like to cite a couple of statistics. The value of shipment of goods in manufacturing from the capital region in 1972 was $177 million. The total of all of Vancouver Island was $803 million. This includes all manufactured goods, primary industry activities, pulp and paper, fish plants and so on — small manufacturing. What has been happening is that in 1979, the most recent comprehensive figures we have, the capital region had a total of $380 million for a total Vancouver Island share of $2 billion.

[ Page 3554 ]

The proportion of the capital's share declined sharply over just this brief period of seven years. Of the total value of goods shipped from Vancouver Island, the capital's share was approximately 25 percent, and now it is something in the order of 12 percent.

There is no economic strategy for Vancouver Island. There is no overall plan at all. One of the factors which is impeding any development on Vancouver Island is the excessive tariff for commercial traffic on the B.C. Ferries. The commercial rate is calculated by the amount of footage for those tractor-trailer trucks. It's something in the order of $2.60 per foot. Clearly, when a company setting up business on Vancouver Island takes into account services and goods required in light manufacture, that cost of doing business is an impediment. In fact, it is pushing small businesses over the edge and out of business.

Light manufacturing used to account for a very large component of the employees working here in this area. I have some figures from a report produced in 1981 called: "A Study of the Projected Growth of the Economy of Vancouver Island." It's a government publication put out by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It states that in 1972 there were on Vancouver Island 5,000 employees in manufacturing. Seven years later, in 1979, the number was almost identical. You have growth in industries, but at the same time a falling-away of a large number of small businesses. The success rate, in terms of the population growth, has not been consistent. The population on Vancouver Island is projected to grow markedly over the next 17 years. I'd like to find that graph for you, Mr. Speaker. I think you'll find it interesting that the provincial government has not to any degree anticipated the kind of projected growth potential, or in any respect answered the question of what people on Vancouver Island will be doing for a living. Everyone is either going to be collecting social assistance or be on unemployment insurance. If there is no plan to provide value-added employment opportunities on Vancouver Island, clearly this population increase will not be accommodated. I'll try to find this statistic, Mr. Speaker.

The present population of Vancouver Island is 475,000. The people are paying taxes for a transportation system which happens to be on water rather than on asphalt. We are being double-taxed because of the usurious rate structure for the fares. I can't believe it when I read that sign as you drive out to the ferries. They give the rate for a car, plus $4 for each passenger. For people who have to travel frequently on that system, that is an incredible cost. It comes to about $28 one way for a driver, a passenger and a small vehicle. It's incredible. This study projects that the population of Vancouver Island in 2001 will be 735,000, up by more than a quarter of a million. Only 17 years from now we're projecting an increase in population of a quarter of a million on this Island, but there's nothing in the budget that indicates any long-term plan to create employment to stabilize industry or provide any kinds of incentives for key marine-oriented industries, or for technology that could be related to our resource-based industries in logging and mining. There are no real tourist plans. There is no real research and development plan. There is no clear structure that will anticipate any kind of livable region for Vancouver Island.

I would commend this report to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips); his interjections clearly indicate that he has not read it. He does not know how gloomy the prognosis is in terms of the lack of planning by this government. Under 1.2, Policy Matters, it says:

"The economic development of Vancouver Island is determined to a large degree by the policies for development adopted by the government of British Columbia and the residents of Vancouver Island. Such policies can be mutually supportive of development if they are developed effectively, or they can be contradictory, hence restrictive and restraining."

Clearly the policies of this government are restrictive and restraining. The fares for commercial rates on the ferries are too high. They impede business on Vancouver Island. We are a part of British Columbia; we are not a separate province.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would mention to that new, first-time.... that one-timer from Maillardville-Coquitlam down at the other end of the room, the man who doesn't understand the rules of this House, that under the New Democratic Party government the ferry system was funded out of general revenue as a transportation system, in the same fashion as are highways in your riding and in the other tidings in this province. It was paid for out of general revenue. No subsidy was paid. It was regarded as a service, in the same way that a hospital or school or road is funded. What we have under Socred wreckonomics is punitive double taxation of the people who reside on Vancouver Island. They pay their taxes for highways and schools and so on, and the Social Credit government double-taxes them with fares whose structure is totally unjust.

[4:45]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would commend that member to read the highway breakdown by electoral district. You will find that of the approximately half billion dollars in the Highways budget, about $20,000 is used in highway development in my riding of Victoria.

What I'm saying is that if this government had a comprehensive view and an economic plan, they would recognize that the transportation network for the Island tends largely to be on water, and we pay for that in our taxes. We don't mind. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A, Fraser) has heard me make this comment a number of times in this House. We're happy to spend tax dollars from our income tax for snow removal and highway construction in other parts of the province that require blacktop for transportation. Our appeal to that minister is that our highway network, which is on water, should be paid for in the same fashion — out of general revenue. We happen to have a toll system on our highways and it discriminates against the people of this island.

I would have preferred to see a budget with some sound proposals on how to stabilize our economy on Vancouver Island, rather than the decline over the last ten years wherein we've lost federal government agencies, a brewery, the RCMP headquarters and various kinds of light industry. We could have had a budget that indicated there would be fish processing plants, incentives for light marine-oriented research and manufacture, that our tourism industry would be stabilized, that we'd start making logging, milling and mining equipment on this island, that we'd start getting some

[ Page 3555 ]

value added out of our raw resources, that we'd stop exporting raw logs to Japan, and that we would have an energy program to use waste materials that are lying on the forest floor.

I quote from the report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways:

"The fishing industry is relatively small in the province, compared with other commodity industries. However, we are capable of employing a large number of people in the processing of that resource, even though the catch is declining because of the inappropriate enhancement and stream protection programs of this provincial government."

In 1980 the landed value of fish declined to $181 million from $333 million in 1979. We all know that salmon escapement figures peak and trough throughout the province, but to have a decline in two years from $333 million to $181 million is something that indicates that our fishing industry is in crisis, and there is nothing in this budget that acknowledges the provincial government's role or responsibility in the fishing industry at all. If we were in power, Mr. Speaker, we would be looking seriously at having a fishing ministry and looking at job creation and value added to that raw resource that is being sold abroad.

We have the highest quality product in the world. There is a ready market in Asia and all over Europe for our fish products, and yet here we are exporting raw resources with no value added whatsoever. The Asian or Scandinavian countries then take that high quality spring salmon or herring or abalone, and put people to work making specialty products and doing processing such as smoking, pickling, jarring and so on. I don't know if you like Japanese sushi, Mr. Speaker — those thin little slices of high quality salmon that you get charged between $1.75 and $2.25 for. If you were to pack an OPEC-sized oil drum with that product the value would be incredible. Here we have a resource that we're selling for bargain-basement prices and in turn getting virtually no jobs out of it, with the exception of the capture, harvesting, and flash-freezing of it.

Is there anything in the highlights of the budget about how we're going to get more jobs from fisheries, our forest industry or from mining? Particularly on Vancouver Island — we have two major mines here. What are we going to do in tourism? Are we going to insist that VIA Rail upgrade its facilities and become a bit of a tourist backbone on Vancouver Island? Is there encouragement for the ski industry which is developing up around the Comox-Courtenay area? Nothing there at all,

What we have instead is an extraction of $90 million of capital from a double tax in health care by increasing a surtax on income to provide health services which are already paid for in income tax. Clearly it was a way of gathering up another unjust tax which will unduly penalize the sick and the elderly. We know that our health services and our educational system are deteriorating. There's an increase of provincial grants to the private school system and, conversely, a reduction in grants going to the public school system.

We understand that in April the school boards are going to be so strapped for funds that they're going to have to start laying off the crosswalk attendants. At one time they were volunteers, and then because of the lack of reliability of having such an important service based on volunteers, people were paid by the school districts to attend to those school crosswalks in high-volume intersections. In many instances they are going to be laying those people off and relying again on volunteers who may or may not attend. They are going to be cutting back on the number of custodians and so on who do the maintenance and repair of our schools, so we're going to have a degrading of our Crown assets in terms of our school plant. That is false economy.

In terms of the bidding that's going out on construction of public institutions, we're having more and more haphazard construction. There's a turning away from unionized construction, where there are tradespeople who are well skilled in building a school or hospital for a lifespan of 75 to 100 years. What is happening is that construction is being awarded in a substandard way. and modifications are having to be made to bring those plants up to standard.

Also in our school system they are going to be laying off more and more teachers' aides — people who provide the additional help to teachers to provide services to children in need within the classroom because the class size is getting bigger as the pupil-teacher ratio on average is going up. More an more children who are in need of special attention are being mainstreamed into the public school system, and that is something that is desirable providing there are sufficient aides in the classroom to give those students additional help. Because the cutbacks hit first at things like diagnostic services in schools that were provided there to identify the learning-disabled child, people with reading disabilities and other kinds of comprehension problems, more and more students are being lost in the shuffle and are not going to get the special care and attention they need. These children then get a low sense of self-esteem because they fail and they feel frustrated. They get a poor self-image, and it manifests itself in behavioural problems. Oftentimes the parents — if they're unemployed or having difficulties financially themselves — don't have time to give that child, and in the long term there is a situation where a young child who could have had diagnostic help to feel that there is nothing really wrong — he just needed special assistance in gaining skills in some area — starts feeling that he can't cope with school and drops out or becomes delinquent in his behaviour, and as a result society as a whole has to assume responsibilities that were totally unnecessary in the first place. That is the kind of prognosis that is laid out for us, unfortunately, in the budget. They're going to be cutting back and singling out and scapegoating teachers for an abusive attack on the education system in this province. Rather than seeing the recession as an opportunity to upgrade skills, retrain and offer the maximum educational opportunities for people, it's being used as an area to cut back and to downsize the intellectual potential of a whole generation of British Columbians. In the future, when the recovery occurs, we will then be having to compete with other jurisdictions who have taken a totally opposite approach and have decided to use this as an opportunity to invest in the human capital of our population and to provide the educational opportunities that this particular time allows.

We have a government so callous, so myopic and so in allegiance to the Reaganomics and Thatcher approach that they're willing to pay $470 million towards eliminating the B.C. Rail debt. Some of those particular notes don't come due until the turn of the century, and yet they have set their priorities in such a fashion that they are willing to invest scarce dollars into relieving a long-term debt that the B.C. Railway has incurred. The things that suffer are our education, our health, and job creation possibilities that could have been created by putting capital into those areas.

[ Page 3556 ]

The extra income tax for health is clearly one that we will oppose vigorously on this side of the House. It is extremely unfair to double-tax for health care when, clearly, money is being misspent in northeast coal and in other grandiose projects, and particularly on Mr. Douglas Heal, who never misses an opportunity to produce some kind of an expensive brochure at the expense of various kinds of learning aides for the blind and various kinds of special health care that should be available in our institutes and are not because that money has been skimmed off to pay long-term debt for B.C. Rail.

[5:00]

So, Mr. Speaker, in summary I will just conclude that there is nothing in this budget that gives hope to my constituents and my colleague's constituents. There is nothing that gives hope to the people of Vancouver Island. We unfortunately are seeing more business bankruptcies and more businesses unable to compete with the mainland because of the excessive commercial ferry rates and the lack of incentive and opportunity available to us on Vancouver Island. We don't see any encouragement whatsoever to attend to the 16.5 percent official unemployment in our own city here. It's a national disgrace that our capital is now designated as a depressed area by federal regulations. It's because this government is totally obsessed with a right-wing philosophy that leaves the well-being of the people out. It's entirely a right-wing chartered accountant's approach to the economy. They see themselves as collectors of taxes for the benefit of a relatively few individuals. They do not govern for the benefit of everyone. They discriminate on a regional basis. It is well documented in terms of the capital that they're plowing into certain areas of the province at the expense of others, and unfortunately Vancouver Island, and in particular Victoria, is suffering.

Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues I will be voting against this government's budget and for our amendment, which is a motion of non-confidence in this budget.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm going to be fairly brief. I've got a bit of a cold here, but I did want to get a few things on record.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you'd quite smoking you'd be better off.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If you'd quit raising the taxes we'd all be better off.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few things to say on this budget, particularly on the amendment. This amendment deals with unemployment, and I will be supporting this amendment, which is a motion, as my colleague just said, of non-confidence in the government's budget. I know how these things go. Oppositions rarely win non-confidence motions. I guess if they did we'd have an election every year. In any event, we know that there will be a vote shortly, and we know how the vote is going to turn out and what's going to happen, because there's not one member over there who, even if they thought they couldn't support this budget.... I'm sure there are some members over there who couldn't support it and don't really like this budget very much, but they will vote for the budget and vote against this amendment because the Premier has told them so. Pie in the sky — possibly some of them think they might get in the cabinet one of these days. Lotsa luck, fellas and ladies.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MRS. JOHNSTON: What an imagination!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yeah, I know where you're coming from. Anyway, they do as they're told and have very little say in government policy, very little input into the kind of budget that we have in front of us. Michael Walker had a lot of input, and that's true. But the fact is that the budget provides very little hope for the average person in British Columbia. There will be very few new jobs. We will continue to have the slowest growth rate of any province in Canada. The job opportunities for young people — for all of our people — are practically nil, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that we are going to face, when we see the legislation that will be coming in later this session, another very, very difficult year, as we did last year.

I said I was going to be short, but there are a couple of things I want to discuss here. I've got piles of notes on the budget, but first of all, while I see the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) here in the House, I want to bring something to his attention. It's not the biggest item in the world. Some time ago in part of my riding on the Sunshine Coast there was a referendum dealing with a nuclear-free zone. There have been a number of these referendums throughout British Columbia. The referendum carried in a big way. The regional district in that area — I hope the minister is listening — requested that highway signs be placed on each end of Highway 101, around Langdale and at Earls Cove, notifying the public that this was a nuclear-free zone. Quite frankly, to make a long story short, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways refused. I know the minister is not aware of this, because I haven't discussed it with him. The fact is that just two days ago I received a letter from the deputy minister, with whom I'm able to work quite well, by the way. But the ministry decided not to allow the regional district to put up these two simple little signs. I want to ask the minister.... I'll wait until he's finished talking with his colleague over there, because this is important to the people on the Sunshine Coast. I'll move on and get back to this when the minister is listening, because I want an answer from the minister on this one.

Oh, he's free now. I'm asking you, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will now take into consideration — and I'll talk to him about this when I can — allowing that regional district to place signs, one on each end of Highway 101 along the highway, announcing to the public that that area is a nuclear-free zone by referendum of the overwhelming majority of....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, Mr. Member. You can appreciate that we're on the amendment to the budget, and we're not debating the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways at this time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I understand that very well. I think I've been around here some years longer than you, and I understand the rules of the House very well, Mr. Speaker. But the fact is that I did tell my regional district in that area that I would bring this — it's one of the main reasons I'm up here this afternoon — to the attention of the minister at the first opportunity. This is my first opportunity, and I'm going to keep my right to speak in this House as long as I'm elected here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Possibly, Mr. Member, that element would be best left for question period.

[ Page 3557 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to give me a nod if he can't speak — say yes or no. Are you going to give me a little nod and say yes, that regional district will be allowed to place their signs there now? No? Okay. I'll discuss it with him privately, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that really worries me is the tack this government is taking with watchdog agencies. The Crown corporations committee has been literally done away with; for all intents and purposes it's gone. If you look through this budget you will see there is no budget this year for the Crown corporations reporting committee. Why? I don't understand it. What have they got to hide? That's an agency that was brought forward by this government, and I agreed with it at the time. I thought it was a very good idea. I remember our present Premier, at a conference in Ottawa, bragging that we were the only province in Canada at the time with a Crown corporations reporting committee. It was wiped out, and I think I know why. They have something to hide. The committee was doing too good a job, and so they have done away with it.

The functions of the auditor-general have been reduced significantly by a reduced budget — I won't get into that at this time. Once again I think it's because the government has something to hide, and I'll get to that in a minute.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right. Mr. Speaker, you were a member of that committee; I wasn't. When I finally got on the committee there was no committee left.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member asks if that tells me something. Yes, it certainly does. Quite frankly, it tells me that the government has something to hide.

I'll tell you what they have to hide, Mr. Speaker, and it deals with the ombudsman. The financing for the ombudsman's office has been reduced significantly. Backbenchers who really haven't got a clue of what is happening inside cabinet or their own government fly trial balloons for the government. They think that's part of their function. They have no independence at all and will vote any way the Premier or people in the Premier's office tell them to. I doubt very much if they have any personal contact with the Premier. The fact is that the ombudsman is on his way out, and we all know it. I don't think they've got guts enough.... They'd like to fire him if they could get away it, but I don't think they'll do that. I think what they will do with the ombudsman is....

I believe he has 14 or 15 months to complete his five-year mandate. He won't be returned. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Walter Block or a Michael Walker appointed the next ombudsman. He'd probably do it for free, and then we're all in trouble.

The point I'm making is: why is the government downsizing or abolishing these watchdog agencies? I'll tell you why. And we had a very good example brought to this House a short time ago. Less than two weeks ago the ombudsman brought report No. 7 to this House regarding practices within the Ministry of Forests. There was no mention in that report, as far as I can determine, of criminal intent or negligence. The ombudsman merely said that sloppy practices and mismanagement in the Ministry of Forests were costing the people of this province multi millions of dollars. You can pick your own figure. We could all estimate. We could say $5 million or $6 million. It could be $100 million for all we know, and it could be much more. It bothers me that we may never know.

In order to cover up, the Attorney-General — the government, the cabinet, but through the Attorney-General — has called in the RCMP for a criminal investigation. Whether there were criminal activities or not, I don't know. Based on the meagre evidence, I doubt it. I hope there wasn't, but that's not good enough. The government is purposely attempting to deflect away from the real problem multi millions of dollars that could have gone into health care, education, aid to the handicapped, road signs and ambulance service, which I'm going to talk about in a minute — these kinds of things. They have not done a thing about it. The minister left the province. He's traipsing around Germany — I don't know what he's doing there; it must be beer time — on taxpayers' money. When these cabinet ministers go on world trips.... There is one sitting over there who just got back from a steambath in Japan, I believe. He goes over four times a year for that. That's okay, but they never report back to this House. There is never a press release. They have not sold anything; they have not done anything. What have they done? The last time that Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) went to Japan he came back and they'd cut down on our coal orders and the price. If he goes much more often, we won't be selling any of that coal, and it will be 150 years before the taxpayer ever gets any return on their investment on that northeast coal deal.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did your members report to the House.

[5:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, Madam Member, they did, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is that the cabinet budget for world travel this year is up again over last year. While they've cut the budget for the handicapped, for education, for health care, here we have these cabinet ministers traipsing around the world at taxpayers' expense — paid-for holidays, first-class usually — and they never report back to this House or anywhere else. What have they accomplished? Nothing. They've accomplished nothing.

I want to talk about something else briefly, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned ambulance service. You'll find this particular item in the budget under Health. One of the things this government has done in the name of restraint is centralize ambulance services in a number of ways. I think they're going to privatize the service, quite frankly. I honestly believe they're going to privatize the ambulance service, but they haven't said that yet. Here is one of the things they've done. They've centralized dispatch services around the province in rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, you're not going to believe this, but as of a very short time ago, to phone an ambulance anywhere in Powell River you have to phone Nanaimo. Can you imagine that? You have to phone Nanaimo to call an ambulance in Powell River. I'm going to be bringing documented cases before this House at the appropriate time. I've discussed it with the Minister of Health (Mon. Mr. Nielsen), and he still hasn't answered me. This is almost two weeks ago now. I want to tell you what happens. I have four documented cases,

[ Page 3558 ]

signed by people who have phoned for an ambulance. The line is busy. There's no way they can get an ambulance. People's lives are at stake. One was a very serious heart attack case.

I'm telling you, this is your restraint program. They've got money to travel around the world, but they can't put a person in to dispatch an ambulance in an area the size of my community of Powell River. What I'm talking about here is documented, and you'll be hearing a lot more about it, I'm sure. People have been phoning the fire department attempting to get through to ambulance service. There have been a lot more cases than four, but I have four documented cases that I'm talking about now. They have to phone emergency in the hospital, and this kind of thing. The fact is they can't get through. The explanation I got locally was that when they decided to change the dispatch service over to Nanaimo.... Can you imagine phoning Nanaimo for an ambulance on Phillips Road in Powell River? Do they know in Nanaimo where Phillips Road in Powell River is? Of course not.

They were going to leave the back-up service in in case of emergency. They took the back-up service out immediately, and the explanation I'm now receiving is that it's B.C. Tel's fault. There is a malfunction in the system, and it's their fault. The fact is that I checked with B.C. Tel, and there's no problem with B.C. Tel. The line is overloaded. They have a large portion of upper and lower Vancouver Island, all of the Sunshine Coast and Powell River and you can't get through. In the meantime people could die. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a death because of this yet, but I want it on record that if there's one death because of that so-called restraint program of this government, you're going to hear about it in this House. I'm very angry about it. There are a lot of very upset people.

What really bothers me more than that is that when I brought this matter to the attention of the minister last week, he said he would respond immediately. He said he would find out what the problem is and if there is a real problem he would do something about it. I've got the fire department, the hospital people, the ambulance people, individual citizens and the city council of Powell River, and nothing has been done. I'm still waiting for an answer from that minister. I'm angry about it. I raise this topic under this budget because it is part of the budget, and I'm very much afraid.

In fact, I'm making a prediction right now that within the year the government will have privatized the full ambulance service in this province. More than that, the service will deteriorate. One of the things they've done now is some type of shift-work operation where you have only partially trained people on the ambulance service on call after hours, Once they get the message, which sometimes they don't get....

They are not qualified people, and it's not the kind of ambulance system we've had in the past. That's here with us today. I'm quite angry about it.

I had a number of other topics, but as I am not feeling that great, I'm not going to get into them. Before I take my place, I will mention that we understand that there are funds in this budget for parliamentary reform. I am not going to get into a lot of detail here, but I believe that it is time we had parliamentary reform in this House. I know that there is a motion before the House at this point, and no doubt there will be a committee struck and, hopefully, changes will be made. I think that we operate in this Legislature in an archaic method. I know that during the past year or two attitudes on each side of the house have been very bad from time to time. Understandably so — some of the legislation has been, certainly from my point of view, very contentious, very antisocial. It has hurt a lot of people. Everybody understands restraint, but some of the legislation.... In terms of procedures in this House, without going into a lot of detail.... I have thought about it a great deal over the years and advocated parliamentary reform in this House. I'll be watching with a great deal of interest and hope. TV, for example. I personally have no objection to having the proceedings of this House televised. I think that all of the members would think a bit more before speaking, but more than that I think seven other provinces televise all or part of their proceedings. I know it is not the type of show that you would watch on prime time in the evening, but at least the constituents all over the province would have the opportunity to watch their MLAs at work.

No matter what side of the House you are sitting on, over this last three and a half weeks there has been some very good debate in this House from both sides. I kid you not. Good points have been made by members. Unless you write your constituents or send them Hansard, which is almost impossible to do, they never know. At one time, although the sessions were shorter, everybody spoke in this House, even if it were only a line or two. If they had something to say, the major newspapers of the day'would carry a paragraph or two about what that member did. I'm not blaming the media; the media have changed. The thirty-second news clips on radio don't allow the radio people to do a proper type of interview. The one or two minutes on TV don't allow the reporters to adequately report some of the speeches — at least the plaints that some of the members make.

I have heard some very good speeches from Socred backbenchers. I may not have agreed with them. The member from Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made a very good speech the other day. Several of our members have made very good points during the course of their speeches.

I am looking forward to parliamentary reform, and with that I will conclude my speech, because I know one more member wishes to speak before the vote is taken.

[5:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 26

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 3559 ]

On the main motion.

MR. PARKS: Now that we have taken care of that relatively spurious amendment put forth by the opposition, I would like to make some comments in rebuttal of a number of the totally unfounded and obviously ill-researched comments of the members of the opposition.

The last three speakers of Her Majesty's opposition also saw fit to make grandiose statements about a budget that didn't take into consideration the necessity of jobs, of taking care of the 200,000 unemployed in this province or of being progressive in our financially responsible ways. I wondered why the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) saw fit to restrict his comments to the now-lost jobs in the Oaklands Fisheries complex and the now-lost jobs in the RCMP complex, when not 72 hours ago we all heard the announcement that right here in Victoria the B.C. Ferry Corporation had awarded a contract of some $8.2 million from B.C. Ferries and some $0.8 million from the federal sharing concept, whereby 400 jobs are immediately created. As soon as the Queen of Alberni is refitted there are a remaining 75 jobs coming forth from this tender — an immediate infusion of jobs in this particular constituency which both the first and second members did not see fit to discuss.

Not only did they not see fit to discuss the positive aspects of what this government is doing, they have failed to recognize what truly has to be considered an imminent, if not existing, crisis in our province. In our forest industry we have a crisis between the heretofore friendly factions called the pulp workers and the wood workers. I see in this evening's headlines, as a matter of fact, we have Mr. Munro's resignation being asked for. Isn't that an interesting turn of events? Not many months ago we had Mr. Munro and Mr. Gruntman and Wee Jimmy Sloan all in this battle together — all in this battle to take on the Social Credit government. But what happens when the truth of the economic times begins to filter down to the real workers? What happens when one group of union employees go back to work, content that they have proven their point, content to take a three-year contract and content to be productive in this province? What happens when but a short month later, fellow unionists — yes, but not working out of the same job site — find that they are being picketed by brothers in the labour movement and being prevented from going back to work?

I can appreciate the quandary that Mr. Munro find himself in in having to support the concept of union solidarity. Clearly the message being given to this government and to the people of this province by the IWA workers themselves is: "If we have work to do and we want to go to work, then we shall go to work." The concern is about what we see happening in some of these places. In Mackenzie the picketers are being assaulted with wood, stones and snowballs, of all things. I understand the same thing is happening in Fort St. James. The fact remains that the workers are insisting on being heard. They are insisting on going back to work. In fact, they are keeping the mills open.

I think that type of crisis should be addressed by the opposition, when they claim to be concerned about progressive government. When the workers of this province say that things have to change, surely all of us must be concerned about what that's doing to our economy. It’s very fine to suggest on the one hand that this government should be putting more money into human resources and social costs, but what happens when $8 million a day in direct wages and salaries is being lost because of this ridiculous strike? Because of the secondary picketing of the IWA, some 12,000 employees of approximately 38,000 of their workforce are being prevented from going back to their jobs. Obviously there are more dire indirect consequences. But at this time, that picketing is clearly legal. Our provincial labour legislation says that that type of off-site picketing is legal. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is time for this House to look at changing that labour legislation. I personally would endorse such a change. The message we're receiving at this time from the IWA workers is that picketing certainly should be allowed or endorsed as an essential weapon in the arsenal of the unions, but it should be restricted to the actual job site of the workers affected.

I see the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been quoted once again....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Do you see him? Where is he?

MR. PARKS: He's been quoted; I should add that he's not here in the House.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: Well, that may be true, hon. colleague. He may not be here that often, but he has a way of getting his quotes into the media. I was most interested in a quote, I guess, from yesterday evening's news that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is striking again, criticizing our government ministers for travelling abroad and spending our money in that way rather than spending it on social services.

It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that these trade missions, these opportunities for our ministers to spread the word around the world of what our government is doing by way of an infrastructure, are an excellent allocation of funds. Both the second and first members for Victoria were again criticizing the so-called "government junkets" not a few minutes ago. It is interesting that the Times accurately reflected on that on February 19 and pointed out that even Victoria is "missing the immigrant boat." That was their byline, not mine. They understood and pointed out that, to the credit of the B.C. government . It has long been aware of the potential benefits for this province, with Hong Kong figuring prominently in trade and investment promotion trips by cabinet ministers.

Undoubtedly there is a tremendous value to be gained by meeting with our Pacific Rim trading partners and encouraging trade with our province. As the Times pointed out in that same article, in the past three years alone entrepreneurs and other self-employed immigrants from Hong Kong have brought $2.25 billion into Canada and have created more than 14,000 jobs. I would think that even the members of the opposition would say that's a pretty fair return for the few trips that have been taken by our cabinet ministers.

Job creation is an important aspect of our government's program. We were criticized for not utilizing the term "unemployment" in our budget or in the throne speech. Certainly the Minister of Finance did not specifically refer to the unemployed. but he did do so in indirect terms. Clearly this government believes that the allocation of our scarce funds to the direct creation of jobs is not the way to go. We have seen that course taken in Ottawa, and I'm afraid the legacy that has been created is one that I'm very proud that we are not

[ Page 3560 ]

following. But we do have a number of programs that are indirectly doing their fair share in creating jobs.

Just yesterday afternoon the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and, I believe, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), announced the $10 million student loan program. Skeptics have referred to it as Socreds encouraging student tycoons. Well, that might sound humourous, Mr. Speaker, but I do not see how any responsible member of this House can criticize our encouragement of the youth going out and looking for opportunities of creating new jobs. If the young people of today recognize the fact that becoming entrepreneurs is a successful way of making a position for themselves in our economy, they will better understand the fallacies that are being spread by the opposition in this House and throughout the province.

Referring to students in particular, I note that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) was somewhat sceptical of the program announced by the Minister of Finance whereby the grants were being done away with and in their place a new form of student loan was being introduced. I would suggest to this House, Mr. Speaker, that it is again a sign of the times where the so-called gravy train has come to the end of its track. I don't believe there is anything wrong with suggesting to students that we are still prepared to advance them the funds that we've been doing in the past, but we recognize the truth and the facts of our current economic times, and we're going to have to ask them to repay them. Mind you, it's not going to have to be repaid until they finish their education, and no, it's not going to have to be repaid for some months after they've graduated, and yes, the interest rate is going to be close to non-existent. It's just going to be nominal. That, in my opinion, is an extremely reasonable way of dealing with encouraging students and not just allowing pure grants.

[5:45]

The loans themselves are part of an overall program to encourage students in this province to attend our post-secondary institutions, but it's a very expensive part of this province's budget. I note that for each student in post-secondary education the cost to this province is almost $7,000, and yet I understand the highest base tuition, which is at the University of British Columbia, is just under $1,200. That's after the approximately one-third increase in tuition this past year. That means this government is highly subsidizing the cost of university students. I don't think anyone should speak against that, and I don't believe the members of the opposition are intending to speak against that; but surely when they are concerned about the fact that tuitions have to be raised — referring to the fact that the grant program itself has been discontinued — they should recognize that this government is already subsidizing that program to a tremendous amount.

Referring to job creation programs, I find it somewhat disappointing when we hear the diatribe about no jobs being created in the budget. We have a convenient lapse of memory, when certain members of the opposition take their place in this House. They forget to recollect — for the benefit of the House — that we have some $300 million going into the ALRT line in Vancouver at this time; $100 million going into the Expo 86 program; $74 million going into B.C. Place; and more than $100 million into hospitals and schools. All of those projects, Mr. Speaker, create a tremendous number of jobs. I understand that the number is somewhat in excess of 15,000 and they are the types of jobs that have tremendous indirect spin-off. Again, I think that selective recall by so many of the members of the opposition is unfair, if not misleading, to those of us on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have some further comments to make, but I'll ask your indulgence until tomorrow and take this opportunity to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.