1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4487 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Cocke –– 4487

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4488

Ms. Brown –– 4490

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4494

Mr. Hanson –– 4499

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I

suggested yesterday that the people of B.C. would probably be delighted

if the government either repented or resigned. They seem to be in the

mood to do neither, so under those circumstances, having discussed as

fully as I care to at this time the general tone of the budget, the

increase in taxation etc., for my remaining 18 minutes I'd like to go

to the area that I have particular responsibility for as an opposition

critic; that is, the whole question of health care in our province.

see in the estimates where there are increases, and certainly needed

increases, in the health care budget — an overrun last year in health

care of some $200 million. When you take those specific figures, such

as an overrun in hospital programs of $140,519,000, and add it to last

year's estimate, and then compare it with the increase this year,

you're coming up with something in the order of a 5 percent increase. I

think that would be something I could applaud in terms of acute

hospital care. I know we're spending immense amounts of money in this

particular area. From time to time the government hint that they know

some of the alternatives; that is, they know some of the ways of

getting around the problem that we face.

We're dealing,

unfortunately, with a contemporary situation where for example there

are 200 cases on the waiting list at Vancouver General Hospital. We see

it all over the province. We see it up north and in Kamloops. In

Kamloops — I'll deal with that matter in a moment or two — it's

probably going to get worse. We see it in Victoria: headline after

headline of people waiting for elective surgery. In 1979 in this

province the average wait was something in the order of four to six

months; in 1980 that rose to an average of five to seven months. Now we

all know that one can drown in a stream averaging six inches in depth.

Some of those people are waiting 14, 15 and 16 months to bring that

average to the point that it is.

We have been studying the

alternatives. We know, for example, that the acute-care hospitals

across our province are absolutely loaded with people who don't require

that level of care. They're called long-term care patients and they're

in our acute-care hospital beds, costing us an absolute fortune when

the alternative is so clear. You can build a long-term care hospital —

extended-care hospital, which is probably the highest level of care in

the long-term care process — for something in the order of 50 percent

or less of what it costs you to produce an acute-care hospital with the

same number of beds. But the significant aspect is that the operating

cost of that long-term care hospital is one-fifth of acute care — no

more than a quarter, generally one-fifth — and it's the operating costs

that are killing us, not the capital cost.

As this

government loves to hide their debt, they're going to hide their debt

very successfully in building hospitals, because I mean, after all,

those debts are amortized in cooperation with the regional districts

and they're a mortgage on the future. Frankly, I have no argument with

that. But what has happened here has been that over the last five or

six years the building program has been slowed down. Oh, I've seen the

government papers — the statistics — and what do I find?

have opened this many hundreds of long-term care beds in this province.

And what do I find when I look at what those beds are?

I've

gone over the lists and I find, for example, that they include the

Queen's Park extended-care hospital. That was opened during the time of

the new Socred government, but it was started by the NDP. I see the

university hospital has 300 more beds. I see Delta, Kamloops and a

number of other major extended- and long-term care facilities that

they're taking credit for, but there has been nothing significant done

since our initiative. The worst part of it is that this government

takes credit for bringing in the long-term care program. Sure, the

negotiations that had been going on for a number of years were finally

successful and you were able to lower it. You see, we always had an

extended-care program in this province, and have had for years. But now

the intermediate and the personal care, which had been negotiated for

some years — including the time when we were government — was brought

in under the umbrella. Having seen that, you would have thought then

that the government would have done something about it.

have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a study. My heavenly days, we can sure do

studies in this country. I won't lay this one on this government. It

was done by the federal Treasury Board in 1979 –– I guess it is a study

that we should all have a look at from time to time. It's a prognosis

for hospitals, including the effects of population change and the need

for hospital space up to the year 2031. It's a pretty significant piece

of work. Among other things that they say in this paper is a discussion

about what we're going to do about unclogging our acute-care beds. Let

me quote from it:

"Nearly a decade ago, a task

force appointed by the committee on costs of health-care services

reported that there are in acute general hospital beds a significant

number of patients who could be handled at other levels of care,

thereby reducing the cost to the community in the long run."

That

statement has been made over and over again. But what does this

government decide to do about it? Well, let me tell you what they

decided to do about it. On November 10, 1980 — just a few short months

ago — the then Minister of Health, now a famed hotliner, put out the

following press release. This is the gist of what he said. He said that

he'd established a special task force to review the problem of

extended-care and long-term care patients occupying acute-care beds.

For the sake of heaven, when are we going to stop studying a problem

that we now know how to solve? You don't have to set up a task force to

study this situation unless you are totally stupid and haven't had any

reference to the past whatsoever.

Focus should immediately

be put on a building program that will take the heat off the acute-care

hospitals. In terms of numbers, I doubt very much if we need one more

acute bed in this province. Yes, some need upgrading. Some are being

upgraded. But I doubt very much if there is a requirement for one more

single, solitary acute bed.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Not at all. But anyway, that member from the north, who had his ears

frozen at the time and his mind frozen ever since, can make his

comments in good time, and I'm sure that he'll have his opportunity to

argue.

[ Page 4488 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and we'll come back to resource boards, Mr. Member, quicker than you would like to see.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Let the communities make the decision. Government can't, and you've proven it.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, the state of the House at the present time

indicates that something has caused it to erupt, and I would ask the

hon. member to please address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I assure you, my name is not St. Helens, and I will try to do my best to....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It isn't St-anything.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Madam Minister, we both know.

The

establishment of this task force and the results of what they have to

say are totally predictable. The task force is going to come along and

tell us what we have known for a decade, and that is that we must

facilitate the need for long-term care patients — that is, give them

the facilities. In place of that, what do we see now? We see, for

instance, that 75 long-term care beds in Kamloops, the former Minister

of Health's constituency or bailiwick.... We see that they've announced

that it's closing down. We're assured by the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) that plans are now being formulated on individual bases to

assure that the needs of the residents are met. In tandem with that, we

got a release yesterday from the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops —

the acute-care general hospital, and it's not a huge hospital — and

they say that they've already got 29 extended-care patients in

hospital. We're suffering terribly in terms of our ability to provide

for those people requiring acute-care health care. We can't take any of

those patients from Mount Paul. Mr. Speaker, we are not seeing the

appropriate response to a situation that we all know the answer to.

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's time we stop doing studies and that we

turn things around in such a way as to say, very quickly, that we are

going to respond, not just with words but actions — and quick actions.

The stupid extravagance of wasting acute-care beds, which are not the

proper response to the needs of long-term care patients in the first

place, has to stop. Long-term care patients require something more than

solitary confinement. Yes, acute-care beds are the good response to

people requiring that level of care. You're only in the hospital for 6

to 14 days on an average, but you're in a very private situation.

There's no socialization; there's no activity in that setting.

One of the responses I heard recently was: "What should we do about the need for chronic-care beds?"

They

said: "Well, we're going to phase out St. Mary's Hospital in New

Westminster" — which is an acute general hospital, a great community

hospital built for surgery and medicine — "and we're going to convert

that into a chronic-care facility." I can't believe it. There's no way

you could make that hospital into a chronic-care hospital to save your

head. You're better to bring a bulldozer along, knock the whole thing

down and start all over again. The property isn't the right size

anyway. So what are we trying to do?

The kinds of responses

that we're getting are shortsighted. Mr. Speaker, there's another

response. I wish I had more time. I would like to really get into this

matter, but I'll have to do that in the estimates.

We're so

proud of our home-care program. Do you know that our home-care program

is actually going backwards instead of forwards? There are reduced

numbers of people delivering home care. In this country there is

something in the order of one home-care person for every 4,000 people.

We're a little better in B.C. In areas where they're really responding

to the need, such as Europe, there is one home-care worker for every

200 to 300 people. Great difference. You can cut costs if you can keep

people out of these expensive facilities, and you're not going to do it

going the way we're going. That's all I have to say on that subject. I

know that the opposition, or at least the government, feels that's

great. But I'm ashamed of them. I'm ashamed of the lack of any kind of

response to the real needs of health care and the needs to be

economical in the delivery of that service that we've seen from this

government over the years.

I want to remark about one other

thing — the B.C. rural health corps. After it was announced I went to

some of my friends in the Medical Association and elsewhere and asked:

"What do you know about it? Have you been consulted?" "No. Looks like a

good public relations stunt to us." Anyway, listen to the two

descriptions. In the throne speech just last December it said: "The

provision of health services to rural or isolated parts of B.C. has

been under serious review by my government. During this session this

assembly will be provided with details of the creation of a B.C. rural

health corps. It will be an agency that will assure primary health care

in all areas of the province." Guess what — nothing in the budget but

one word or two: "...a number of smaller but important initiatives will

also be funded by the ministry. A detoxification unit will be set up

under the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and health services to rural

communities will be enriched." Is that what we're talking about? It's

the closest I could get to anything in the budget relating to anything

outside in terms of rural health care. Another bubble that burst. Why

isn't there any kind of consultation?

The members opposite

were laughing when I talked about resource boards. Laugh all you like.

Government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot do it

from their vantage point in Victoria. Therefore the communities must be

involved. Therefore we must return to that situation.

HON. MR. SMITH:

In rising to support the motion and speak in favour of this budget I

would point out to you that it is a budget with courage, an up-front

budget, and a budget that faces problems of declining revenues in a

straightaway fashion. Taxes were raised in a direct way and on the

basis of a philosophy that people who were least able to bear the

burden of inflation would receive relief. They were also raised on the

basis that we would encourage energy conservation, and that we would

assist the handicapped people in society by providing relief and

rebates for them. It would be very easy to imagine other ways of

addressing the revenue shortfall problem which the gentlemen opposite

would no doubt have liked more. They would have liked a large deficit.

I'm sure they also would have liked to find other imaginative ways of

raising revenue, such as succession duties or doubling the corporation

tax. We know their solutions.

At the same time as they have been criticizing this budget for the amount of money that's been spent, they have been

[ Page

4489 ]

alluding constantly to ways in which more and more

public money should be spent and to more and more things that should be

done. I can only conclude that what they had in mind was a deficit

budget and reverting to the days of succession duties and higher

corporate taxation.

I also note in their speeches that

apparently it is Ottawa-bashing if you stand up and fight for the

resources of your own province and point out the impact of mindless

federal budget practices and natural resource policies; it is not

Ottawa-bashing if you lie down and accept all of this without criticism.

Another

policy that they would advocate, I gather from their speeches, is to

leave the resources in the ground — a kind of commercial Ludditism

which characterized their term in office in 1974, so we would have had

no resources revenue-sharing to the municipalities. We would have had

no money for denticare or for the expansion of long-term care. I gather

from listening to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) today that

he was the stepchild who gave birth to that program that was gestating

for about three or four years when they were in office but never gave

birth in the delivery room.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were going to.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's right.

Mr.

Speaker, this budget has to be viewed in a world situation; it has to

be viewed in the face of countries where there have been enormous and

major cutbacks in social service spending. I think for instance of

Britain, where the education budget this year was reduced by 4 percent.

Four percent was lopped off a $25 billion budget. In this province the

education budget is up 10 percent to 11 percent in schools and 20

percent in post-secondary. In this province social services have not

been cut back but, indeed, have been improved and have been made more

available for people. In the United States we also hear of massive

cutbacks in social services on an almost daily basis, and that has not

been the approach that the Minister of Finance is taking here. He's

taking the approach that people services are most important, and that

in order to expand and improve those people services we will raise

taxes in an up-front way.

As a person who shares with the

member for New Westminster a particularly filthy habit involving

tobacco, I have one small personal criticism that I would make on the

budget: I didn't have a chance to stock up beforehand. I don't object

to paying more money for tobacco or for liquor, and I think that's the

right place to raise revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to

congratulate the minister also for highlighting in his budget and in

his budget address a particular subject that is dear to my heart, and

that is the International Year of Disabled Persons. If there was ever a

time for the disabled to have their turn, and their motto so aptly puts

it that it is their turn, it is this year. Not only have moneys been

made available in a $3 million fund for the International Year of

Disabled Persons, but many ministries of government are going to have

special access initiatives for the disabled. I notice also, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister of Finance very wisely increased the

homeowner's grant for disabled persons and also provided for a full

rebate for fuel tax for the disabled and exempted transportation aids

for handicapped persons from the sales tax.

This year in the program for the International Year of Disabled Persons there

is a provincial committee chaired by Mr. Douglas Mowat, a well-known figure

in the Paraplegic Association. He has a number of workers in the handicapped

community advising him, as well as people in government who work with handicapped

persons. They will be advising government as to the allocation of the $3 million

in grant moneys. But the philosophy that I hope will underline this program

will be to first of all find ways of increasing public awareness as to the needs

of the handicapped. By that I do not mean an advertising campaign; I mean a

public information campaign pointing out that money spent to help handicapped

people help themselves is a good investment. I hope also that part of that program

will include a fair amount of work to increase employment opportunities for

handicapped people, that there will be incentives to employers and that employers

will be encouraged to give handicapped people access to jobs that have been

denied them in the past. What the handicapped of this province really do not

want in their international year is handouts; they really want a hand up.

We're

also going to have some other initiatives in government in the infant

development program, in the area of counselling and in the area of

education. There will be some very worthwhile long-term programs that

will emerge from the International Year of Disabled Persons. It would

be a great tragedy if those programs in that year were only start-up

programs with the kind of seed money that fired aspirations and didn't

deliver long-term goods. Those sort of approaches, which were so

characteristic for a long period of time of another level of

government, I hope will not be characteristic of our programs in the

International Year of Disabled Persons.

Also I would note

that in the budget there is a good emphasis placed on training. The

vocational training initiatives this year that we're going to launch

for young people will be important. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) has already launched a critical-skills program, which has put

almost a thousand more apprentices into training in the first three

months. In the schools we're going to proceed with the very popular

career preparation programs, backed up with work experience, which are

extremely popular throughout this province.

With those

initiatives and with the new initiatives in social services in this

budget that have been provided under day care for seniors and young

people — an approach which is a preventive approach for young people

and an assistance approach for the elderly — we're living up to our

social services responsibilities. The budget provides the framework to

do that, and the minister is to be congratulated.

I would

also like to say that the support the budget provides for local

government is impressive. The revenue-sharing grants this year to

municipalities are up over 20 percent. In my own constituency I notice

that Saanich's grants under revenue-sharing are up over 20 percent as

well, and in Oak Bay they are up over 13 percent. Those are very real

levels of assistance that the province has given to local government —

so much more important, really, than the old per capita grant that was

in effect before this program. The minister is to be commended for

highlighting and emphasizing those grants. He's also to be commended

because as a Minister of Municipal Affairs he initiated that program.

That program in a real way defers some of the burden of property taxes.

the field of education, the province this year will be spending about

66 percent of the entire educational money, exclusive of universities.

I notice that the figures often used

[ Page 4490 ]

the other side of the House talk about amounts like 37 and 33 percent.

There may be a little confusion in segments of the Legislature as to

how much money the government does spend on education. The members

opposite know that it's only the basic program of schools where the

government spends roughly 37 or 38 percent of the cost of that basic

program. But they also know, although they do not mention the figures,

that the province spends considerable sums of additional money on

public school education. For instance, it spends money on capital for

schools and school building. It spends money on teachers' pension

contributions, which were increased this year by almost $40 million.

They also know that the homeowner grant vote is a direct vote to defray

school taxes. Those are all moneys spent to defray the cost to local

taxpayers of public school education. In addition to that, they know

that the province pays the entire cost, both operating and capital, of

the colleges and institutes and that formerly part of that burden was

borne to the maximum limit of two mills by property owners. This

government reduced that burden.

So if you examine all those

items of education expenditure and look at the figures back in 1975 and

compare those with the figures in 1981 you will see that instead of

decreasing, the province's share has in fact increased from about 64 to

66 percent. I want to emphasize that message, because it is absolutely

wrong and false to charge that this government has in any way placed

more burdens for education on the backs of property owners. That is not

true.

I also would be remiss if I didn't point out that the

great Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) will

provide, under his part of the budget, a number of new magnificent

double-ended, double-decked ferries which will expand our ferry fleet.

They signal the fact that we have a strong commitment in this

government to continue to provide first-class ferry transportation

between Vancouver Island and the mainland. One of these vessels, the

457-foot ferry Queen of Oak Bay ,

was recently launched, will be in service in May and will be a great

addition to this fleet. It is being built in a local shipyard, with

local labour and by a British Columbia company. That is another sign

that this government has a commitment to providing local jobs and

stimulating the local economy.

It's with great pleasure that I'm able to speak in favour of the budget.

MS. BROWN:

I'm not surprised that the Minister of Education found it difficult to

speak for more than three minutes on the budget. There's certainly very

little in it that is, to comment on, positive. His masterful arithmetic

certainly goes in contravention of any arithmetic being done by the

school system, the B.C. School Trustees or anyone else, in terms of the

provincial government continually shifting the burden of taxes onto the

municipalities. I want to quote from a release put out by the B.C.

School Trustees. If they're not telling the truth, then maybe the

minister should set the record straight. It says here quite clearly

that last year the provincial government contributed 37 percent to

school board costs. It has dropped this year to 33 percent. It seems to

me that more and more of the expense burden is being shifted onto the

taxpayers in the municipalities. The minister denies this. His

arithmetic is obviously quite different from that being used by anyone

else in the province — Social Credit arithmetic.

responding to the budget, it had been my intention to make a couple of

comments about the way in which the budget affects the constituency of

Burnaby-Edmonds. I was just going to talk generally about the way in

which school costs are being shifted onto the homeowners in that area.

I was also going to bring to the government's attention the problem

we're having in Burnaby with the lack of affordable housing and the

lack of affordable rental accommodation. I was going to talk about the

fact that we need decent public transit in Burnaby, and that really we

would prefer to see less and less money being spent on monuments, like

the Annacis crossing and B.C. Place, and more and more money put into

people services and creating jobs in that area. I was also going to

comment on the fact that the budget totally ignored the needs of women

and native Indians, and on the impact this budget would have on those

two particular groups. That had been my intention.

I had

assumed that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), in

addressing the budget, would outline for us some way in which this

really horrendous budget — the blow it would cause and the suffering it

would cause to those people who are dependent on her ministry for

services — could be softened. I had anticipated that she would outline

some means of making it easier for them to deal with some of the tax

increases outlined in the budget. You can imagine my horror when the

minister rose and spoke for almost 40 minutes. She spent less than 10

percent of her time commenting on her ministry, the entire content of

her comments being to read from the budget address itself. I must

confess that those remarks were read much more ably by the Minister of

Finance on Monday. So not even that was done properly.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

It is true; she read word for word from the budget — I have the Blues

here — and as I said, not nearly as well as the Minister of Finance did

on Monday.

Less than 10 percent of her time was spent on her

ministry. She waxed warm and she waxed enthusiastic about the

convention centre and went on at great length about that and about

various and sundry other topics. It was certainly very cynical and very

cavalier and very superficial treatment of the people who are most

dependent on her and on her ministry for any kind of service — as well

as protection from her own government.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

That's not a sexist remark. I say this more in sorrow than in rage. I

have commented a number of times that I really wish the Minister of

Human Resources would spend more time concerning herself about the

needs of people and less time fighting for that convention centre. I

wish she would let the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) or

somebody else take over responsibility for the convention centre, so

that when she stands up in the House to talk about her ministry she

doesn't have to rely on notes prepared for her by the Minister of

Finance, so that she herself would be able to make some comments on

behalf of this particular group of people in our community.

What

I find I have to do is abrogate my responsibility to speak on behalf of

my constituency or on behalf of other groups such as women and native

Indians, who have been

[ Page 4491 ]

clobbered

by this budget, and spend all my time talking about the people in

receipt of income assistance in this province — children, seniors, the

disabled, the handicapped, and other groups who are totally dependent

on the whims and fancy of the Minister of Human Resources, and who are

being so totally and completely ignored by her. If we are to believe

that in fact Human Resources is a priority with this government, we

have to have some explanation from them as to why the increase, in

terms of the budget, is really only 11 percent and not the 18 percent

which we are told it is. In fact, if one compares the budget increases

of other ministries — and here I'm reading from a non-NDP newspaper,

the Province — we find that

in fact there are only two ministries that had lower increases than the

Ministry of Human Resources. One was Environment and the other was

Forests. Every other ministry had a larger increase than the Ministry

of Human Resources, yet we are told that this is a priority area of the

government. If we do any kind of calculations, we find that the

increase is really only 11 percent and not the 18 percent which is

erroneously mentioned in the budget.

The most significant

point of the increase is the very small amount of increase in the GAIN

program — 7.7 percent of the last year's estimate figures. If we add

the overrun which was paid off in warrants on March 4 of this year, we

find that there is a real increase of something in the nature of 6

percent. Now, as GAIN makes up half of the ministry's budget, if we

deduct half of the amount of the so-called efficiency saving, which is

$4 million achieved to control government growth, then we find that the

increase is really only 5 percent. That is from a government that lists

Human Resources as one of its priorities.

The background

paper which accompanied the budget tells us that inflation is projected

to be somewhere between 12.5 and 13 percent in 1981. Yet we find that

the poorest citizens in our province, the people who are totally

dependent on income assistance from the minister who is busy trying to

build a convention centre, will be getting an increase of something in

the neighbourhood of 5 percent in 1981.

The budget this year

has increased the health service component in Human Resources, the

Pharmacare program, by something like 2.3 percent. Compare that with

the increases which went into some other areas, or even compare that

with the increase which we find in the minister's office. The increase

there is something in the order of 10.3 percent. I'm sure that GAIN

recipients would have been satisfied to settle for that increase,

rather than the one they find they're receiving.

The

minister tells us that there is going to be an increase in the

staffing. We're going to be given 85 new social workers as a result of

a saving of $3 million. Maybe I should jog the memory of the members

about the memo which became public in September of last year, where the

minister negotiated a staff freeze in her ministry, making a commitment

to maintain 152 vacancies, which would result in a saving of $3

million. So the department was below staff to the tune of 152 workers

to start with, saving $3 million. In this budget, the $3 million is

returned but now it hires only 85 workers. So we find that far from

increasing the staff component, there is still a shortage of something

like 70 workers.

The $32 million to income assistance is no

increase at all. Last year when there was an 8 percent increase, that

resulted in $24 million. Now if we build into it the inflation factor,

we find that $32 million is not meaningful in any way. It certainly is

not going to help the people in receipt of social assistance to find

the $850 they will need to meet some of the tax increases outlined in

the budget brought down by the minister on Monday. It's been computed

that each family of four will need $850 just to meet those tax

increases outlined in the budget. This does not include increases in

hydro and other utility rates; it does not include increases in

transportation or anything else. Just to meet the increases outlined in

the budget a family of four will need an additional $850, and we find

that those people in receipt of income assistance in this province,

most of whom are children, if I may again remind this House.... Their

increase is going to be less than 5 percent, and they're certainly not

going to be able to keep up with it.

Over and over again,

whether it's the United Way report, letters from individual income

assistance workers, community groups or whether it's surveys which have

been done, the one thing that stands out most of all is that the cost

of shelter in this province far exceeds the shelter allowance which is

allowed by the Ministry of Human Resources. The shelter allowance is

not keeping tabs with the increase in rents. Mr. Speaker, if I can read

a quote from a survey done by the GVRD, it says: "Rental apartments in

the GVRD have increased in terms of 2 1/2 percent in 1980 on a base of

100,000." That is only a quarter of the demand, and that is one of the

reasons why, first of all, we have the zero vacancy rate. Then if you

add to that the fact that there isn't accommodation, the fact that

accommodation that does exist....

Certainly there is a difference between those which are controlled and those which are not controlled.

The

only comment the Minister of Human Resources made about rental

accommodation was that rent stabilization legislation had dried up the

incentive and that was the reason why there was no rental accommodation

— that rent control was bad. This is not held up by any of the surveys

which are done. The surveys which are done show that there's a very

great discrepancy between that accommodation which is covered by rent

control and that accommodation which is not.

What the survey

also shows is that even the accommodation which is covered by rent

control, even that accommodation where the rent has been held down, is

not covered and met by the shelter allowance which is paid by the

ministry. A study done by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing —

this is not an NDP survey — of 23 major urban centres in B.C. showed

that the $130-a-month shelter allowance for a single person was totally

inadequate to meet the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom

apartment. It studied places like Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Kelowna,

Kitimat, Terrace, Vancouver, Victoria and Williams Lake and found that

the average monthly rent, where there was control, ran in the

neighbourhood of $266 a month, and the shelter allowance, as I pointed

out, is $130 a month — just about half. Of course, in places like

Vancouver and Victoria where there's no control, the same rents run

$393 a month in Vancouver, $391 a month in Victoria and $372 a month in

Fort St. John.

It seems to me that if the Minister of Human

Resources was going to be making some kind of comment about rental

accommodation, her comment should have been to outline ways in which

the shelter portion of income assistance was going to be raised to make

it possible for people in receipt of income assistance to at least be

able to afford the rent of their accommodation. In fact, what happens

is that a study has shown that the average size of families on welfare

runs somewhere between 2.9 and 3 people. So what we're talking about is

two-bedroom accommodation, not even one-

[ Page 4492 ]

bedroom

accommodation. Again, a survey which was done by the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing — not an NDP ministry, if I may point that out again

— points out that the shelter allowance is inadequate, that the

allowance of $375 for two persons is not adequate in terms of meeting

either controlled or decontrolled rents in 9 of the 23 urban areas.

Again, it cited — if I can name some disparities — that in Vancouver

there was something like $199 difference; Fort St. John, $111; and

Victoria, $113.

I have copies of letters which have been

sent to the minister from someone living in Thetis Lake who talked

about how impossible it was in terms of finding accommodation. A letter

which was sent by the St. Christopher's Anglican Church of Vancouver on

behalf of a single parent there, signed by the St. Christopher's Club

and other concerned persons, pointed out that it just was not possible

to find rental accommodation cheap enough that the shelter portion

allowed by the ministry would cover the rent. That certainly is

something that the minister should have been addressing herself to

yesterday rather than talking about the fact that rent controls were

responsible for drying up the rental market.

The people who

are dependent on her and the services of her ministry want to hear ways

and means in which the ministry is planning to relieve them of this

burden, because in fact rent has to be paid. What happens, as the

United Way report showed, is that money is pulled out of food

allowance, clothing allowance, health-care needs, dietary allowance and

everywhere else in order to pay the rent, heat, light and utilities.

What happens is that the quality of life of these people deteriorates

even more, simply because the ministry is not addressing itself to this

very basic fact.

Everybody in every income bracket is

feeling the pinch in the housing market, but the people who are most

vulnerable are those who are dependent on the Minister of Human

Resources. Yesterday was her opportunity to stand up and respond to the

United Way report, the letter from St. Christopher's Church, the brief

from Skeena-Terrace, the single parents' association, First United

Church, SPARC and all of the other groups that say the shelter portion

is not enough. The rental situation is crucial, and there's absolutely

nothing from the Minister of Human Resources, except to say that

housing is tight because the NDP introduced rent controls. That is just

not good enough.

The most regressive form of taxation, every

economist agrees — even the economist from the Fraser Institute who was

quoted by the minister yesterday.... It's interesting that the only

institute she quotes is the most right-wing economic institute in

existence in North America today. However, even that economist agrees

that the most regressive form of taxation is the sales tax. What does

this government do when it decides to raise taxes? First we have a

pious statement from the Minister of Finance saying that every attempt

is being made to see that the people taxed are the people who can

afford to pay the taxes. In the next breath he goes and raises the

sales tax by 50 percent — the most regressive form of taxation, the

taxation that hits the poor harder than it hits anyone else. The sales

tax is the one that was raised the most — a 50 percent increase in the

sales tax.

You would have expected, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Human Resources

would have stood in her place in addressing herself to this budget and said:

"To soften the blow of that 50 percent increase in the sales tax to people

in receipt of income assistance my ministry has designed the following...."

Not a word. The minister stands and reads from the budget. Not one comment about

the impact that that 50 percent increase in the sales tax is going to have on

people in receipt of income assistance in this province — the seniors, the handicapped,

single-parent families and children. That 50 percent increase adds $850 a year

to the tax burden of every family of four in this province, and there has been

not one word from that minister about how that burden is going to be lightened

by any policies or programs in her ministry. It isn't going to be lightened.

This

morning the Vancouver food basket prices were released again. What do

we find? We find that there is an increase in every form of protein.

Eggs have gone up another 6.31 percent. Meats have increased another

6.36 percent. The only meat that has increased reasonably is pork; it

has only gone up 4.36 percent. All of the dairy products — cheese,

whether it's processed, cheddar or whatever — have gone up 6 percent.

Fresh vegetables increased in the vicinity of 38.4 percent. What are we

to understand from this? At a time when people do not have sufficient

money to meet their housing costs and they have to pull money out of

their food budget to pay their rent and utilities, the cost of food is

going up. In addition to that the government has added on to that

particular group the additional burden of a 50 percent increase in

their sales tax.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith)

said that he agrees with the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. Sure, those

are taxes which you can protect your children against, I suppose. I

certainly don't approve of kids smoking and drinking. But there is no

way you can protect them against the increases in the sales tax. That

is something that the Minister of Human Resources should have addressed

herself to — the increase in the cost of housing, food, transportation,

utilities and all those things. But she stands in her place for 40

minutes, and for something like 33 or 34 of those minutes she talks

about everything else except her ministry and the people who are

depending on her not just to serve them but to protect them against her

government. But she's not interested — too busy building a convention

centre; not interested at all.

The minister received a brief

last year from the residents of Skeena-Terrace, who are an articulate

group of people living in subsidized housing and in receipt of income

assistance, who have pointed out to her that the earnings exemption —

these are people who want to work; they want to get off welfare — has

not been changed through these many years; it's still $50 for one

person, $100 for a family. That's still it, despite the fact that

inflation and everything else keep going up year after year. A person

in receipt of income assistance who works is still only allowed to keep

$50, and after that, deductions left, right and centre off their

welfare cheque; or if it's a family, if it's a person with one child or

ten children — it makes no difference — they're still only allowed to

keep the $100. It's not even modified in that respect.

Then

the minister makes big speeches about an opportunities program which is

to give people self-esteem so they can go out and find a job. They go

out and find a job and, unless the job is able to pay them an

incredible amount of money, certainly more than they're getting on

income assistance, they're no better off. Their initiative is killed

and undermined and destroyed, because the income exemption has not been

changed. It is absolutely ridiculous. It's not worth it. In fact, what

is happening to these people is that the CIP and VIP workers are being

exploited, because they are

[ Page 4493 ]

putting

in hours and hours of work and in exchange for it, all that they can

get and all that they can receive is either the $50, if it's a single

person, or $100 if it's a family.

What about the special

dietary allowances for kids with special dietary needs? What about the

special dietary allowances for women who are pregnant? What about those

kinds of allowances? Do you think that anything has been done to take

into account the increase in the cost of proteins which I mentioned

earlier? The cost of milk and cheese and eggs and all of these things

which we're being told we need if we are to give birth to healthy,

normal children, has that been taken into account? Not on your life,

Mr. Speaker! That has not been increased through these many years

either. The GAIN legislation has a

section in it,

section 8, which, if

it is proclaimed, pegs it to the cost of living, which means that as

the cost of living goes up, the income assistance rate goes up. That's

never been proclaimed. This government pegs its budget to the cost of

living; it pegs its budget to inflation; it goes out and it creates

inflation because it says: the more inflation, the more income we get

as a government. It's an inflation-conscious government; it loves

inflation; it subsidizes inflation; it encourages inflation; it pegs

itself to inflation, but totally ignores it where people on income

assistance are concerned. They have it both ways; it's as simple as

that.

What we find is that a conscious decision has also

been made by this government that the cost of northeast coal, the cost

of the convention centre, the cost of the Annacis crossing, the cost of

Pier B-C and every other monument that this government is going to

erect to itself is going to be paid for by the poor people in this

province. That's a decision that this government has made, and that's

the reason why they raised by 50 percent that most regressive of all

taxes, the sales tax.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How much did that suit cost $800, $900?

MS. BROWN: I'll tell you, I didn't earn it by raising the sales tax 50 percent on the backs of the poor. I'll tell you that much about it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you buy it at Madam Runge's?

MS. BROWN: And I also bought it in B.C. I didn't run across to Alberta so that I wouldn't have to pay any sales tax on it either.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN:

That's right, so that he doesn't have to pay any tax on it. If you'll

look at the label you'll find it was manufactured in B.C. too —

manufactured in B.C., bought in B.C., paid for in B.C., without raising

the sales tax 50 percent in order to do it either.

Mr.

Speaker, the other comment raised in the budget had to do with day

care. I honestly don't know where the government gets the gall to ever

make any public statements about day care. Absolutely one of the most

disgraceful services in this province is the day-care system. The

number of children in day care is going down, and licensed, supervised

day care is going down, simply because the subsidy is totally

inadequate. Most people cannot afford to put their children in good day

care because there's no relationship between the cost of the day care

and the subsidy. More and more people are having to put their kids in

unsupervised, unlicensed, unmonitored day care. And this government has

the gall to stand up and make up any comment and put it in writing in

their budget that they're doing anything about day care. There is still

no money for capital expenditures in day care, still no money for

equipment, no money to pay decent salaries and no money for start-up

costs in terms of day care. The subsidy way of doing day care is that

it's pegged to the child. So when a child is ill for a period of time

and doesn't show up in day care, that amount of money is deducted. How

do you run a system that way? If you have 3 teachers to 15 kids and 2

children are out for a week, you have to lay off a teacher for a week.

Then suddenly the children come back, so you rush out and bring that

teacher back in.

There can't be any planning, organization

or increases in terms of quality of the day care developed in the

province simply because this government has no concept whatsoever, to

begin with, about what day care is all about. It's part of the

socialization process of the child. It's not a baby-sitting service;

it's not someplace you dump your kids just because you have to go to

work. It's an important part of the learning experience of the child.

You should be able to place your children in a good, decent and

well-run child-care system as a means of helping them develop as social

human beings. That's part of the process.

All of the studies

done show that children who have this kind of social contact early in

life grow up to be better citizens. When parents have to place a child

with someone who sits them down in front of a television set and leaves

them there because they're just baby-sitting — they don't know what

else to do with the child — or places a child in some kind of home

which they can afford which is unsafe, not monitored, not supervised,

not licensed and not checked, we are jeopardizing our children. Yet the

federal statistics tell us that there are still over 700,000 children

in this country under the age of six whose parents have to work —

whether it's a single parent, or both parents have to work — who are

being left in baby-sitting situations which aren't being monitored,

checked, supervised for safety or anything else. That is an utter

disgrace. It certainly is a disgrace for a government that can pay

someone $600 a day to monitor the giving away of a natural resource to

some foreign interest.

And to have the gall to put in

writing that they're going to do anything about day care! The

statistics just don't bear it out. We have one of the worst systems for

the delivery of child care anywhere in North America right here in

British Columbia, and we don't have to have that, because we are not an

underdeveloped country or a poor country.

We are throwing

money all over the place so that the Minister of Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) can dig a hole to his memory up in the

northeast of British Columbia and pour a billion dollars of poor

people's money down it too — $600 a day for someone to supervise that

minister's hole to his memory, and we have kids in this province who

are in unsupervised day care. We have a daycare supervisor, someone who

is in charge, who earns something like $950 a month — $975 a month

maximum for a head supervisor. The salary range for a day-care worker

starts at $644 a month gross — that's before income tax or anything

else comes out. Yet there's money to put out $600 a day...

MR. LEA: Plus a free lunch.

[ Page 4494 ]

MS. BROWN: ...and

lots of other perks, as far as we can understand, for someone to

supervise the Minister of Small Business Development digging his hole

to his memory.

There is no adequate after-school day care.

They had a scandal in New Westminster recently where they found that

the breaking and entering which was being done in that city was being

done by ten-year-olds. These were elementary school kids who, on their

lunch break, would break in, and after school at 3:30 it started, and

they were through their breaking and entering in time to go home for

dinner.

There is no after-school day care available for

these children. We've even coined a word for it in North America. We

call them "latch-key children." These kids who go around with the key

to the house hung around their neck, and they have to let themselves in

and out and take care of themselves. This is not in an underdeveloped

part of the world, if I may remind you again, but in one of the

wealthiest provinces and one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

There is no part-time day care, no crisis day care. If there's a crisis

in the family, there is nowhere that one can take the children

immediately and know that they are safe, in safe surroundings and being

well supervised. There is no thrust to encourage business to develop

day care on their premises, no use of the schools except in very small

instances. In Burnaby we are very lucky that we have a community

school, Stride Community School, which is used extensively, but this is

not true of most places.

The government should never talk

about day care until it starts putting its House in order, because it's

a shocking indictment of that government and the way in which it

regards children.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

So the infant development program is going to have its budget doubled.

I can't believe that! I am so pleased! Thank goodness it finally got

through to the Minister of Human Resources what we've been saying to

her for years. It costs $500 a month to send a person into the home to

work with the parent and the child to keep the child there. If you

institutionalize a child it costs $150 a day. Finally the dollars and

cents got through to them. Finally they figured it out, and the budget

for the infant development program is going to be doubled. Heavens be

praised!

It's a super program. It's an excellent program.

The only concern about it is that that money doesn't go to hiring a lot

of top-ranking bureaucrats, but that it actually goes into the field. I

know that there are presently 17 areas. There are six others:

Penticton, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo, Fort St. John, Powell River, Grand

Forks, Maple Ridge and Mission. I gather that Prince Rupert is also

planning and putting in for an infant development program.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cranbrook.

MS. BROWN:

Cranbrook already has one. That's one of the 18. There are six more

that have submitted budgets to the minister. They're asking that the

caseloads be lowered — they're still too high. They're still dealing

with 30 to 40 families for one worker. Mr. Speaker, in Alberta it's

only 12 families to a worker; the ideal is 12 to 15 families to a

worker. But for better or for worse, the dollars and cents finally got

through to the ministry, and we understand that the infant development

program is going to have an additional $680,000, I hope, or something

in that regard so that that program can have its system beefed up.

Everyone

talks about the International Year of Disabled Persons. I guess we are

relieved that this year is not going to be celebrated with buttons,

scrolls and ice cream on the lawn. However, I think that the disabled

would have been happier if the government had responded to their

requests rather than drawing up some of their own.

I just

want to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, what the disabled people

have asked for. They've asked for transportation; they need a

transportation system. I hope that when the minister responsible gets

up to deal with his estimates we will find that, in fact, they do have

that transportation system. They've asked for equality in employment in

the government service itself. They have pointed out that in the entire

workforce of the government there are only 170 disabled people who have

been hired. If we were to be fair about it, they should have 5 percent

of the workforce, and that would be 2,500 people. So I certainly hope

that all the ministers who are here are actively going out and trying

to embark on an affirmative action program in terms of the disabled

people.

They are asking to be covered by the minimum wage. I

think it's wonderful that we are having more achievement centres, but

they don't want those achievement centres tied to income assistance.

They want to work, and they want to be paid at least the minimum wage.

That's what they're asking for. The kind of work they do is worth more

than the minimum wage in many instances. This business of income

assistance grants or handicapped pension grants — that's not the

solution. They want to be paid a wage for the work they do, and then

you can keep the income assistance, and you can keep the pensions. They

don't want the pensions; they want a wage. That's what they want in

terms of their salaries.

Of course there is the old question

and out of government buildings. If you tie that in with their request

for transportation, they should be able to get to the 2,500 jobs that I

know the civil service is going to open up for them now that it's been

brought to your attention. If they're doing the job properly, they

should be paid the wage that goes with the job. In addition, in terms

of their achievement centres, for goodness' sake at least cover them by

the minimum wage and cut out all of this pension business. This is what

they're asking for.

The Human Rights Code has got to be

amended again. It's not good enough just amending the regulations, but

amending the code itself is very important.

I'm sorry that

my time has run out; I really regret that. I want to say that I can't

support the budget, because it really has not addressed itself to the

needs of the people in this province with the greatest needs. In fact

what it has done is shift the tax burden onto the poor, and I cannot

support that.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm happy to stand

here this morning as a member of this government and also as the MLA

for Cariboo in the central interior of our great province. I don't get

much opportunity to speak, because I have to sit here and listen to

that socialist nonsense all the time. Now that I have the opportunity,

I'm going to take full advantage of it. While I'm on that subject I

would like to draw your attention, sir, to the fact that this House

started on Monday and the Leader of the Opposition is spending his

second 25 minutes here this

[ Page 4495 ]

week,

and I want to welcome him here. I don't want any comments or

interjections from him unless he's legal and gets in his own seat. I

want you to look after him.

First of all want to

congratulate my colleague on bringing in this budget of $6.6 billion. I

want to congratulate him on the hard work that he put into it. There

were some real hard choices to make, and as far as I'm concerned he

made the right choices.

I can just imagine the howls we

would have heard from the other side if taxes had remained the same

with a shortfall of $625 million. Referring to the last speaker, the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), when she was talking about

day-care services, and the member before that, the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), when he was talking about health services,

those are what this government protects by the increase in taxation.

Furthermore, because of the policies of this government we have

prosperity in this province and can afford to pay a little more tax.

reminds me of the dark days of 1975 when everybody was on strike and

the socialist government called the Legislature and ordered everybody

back to work. There was nobody at work in 1975. They were all on

strike. And what did these great defenders of labour do? They ordered

them back to work. Well, the rest is history. They were put down the

tube and down there they'll be forever, because they'll never be relied

on to govern again in this province.

I haven't any problem

at all in defending this budget, and I'm sure our citizens agree that

if they want to maintain or increase our services, this is the only

option we have open to us. With inflation the way we have it and so on,

what are you going to do about it? We have to have the revenue.

might say that some of the sharp writers in B.C., with all the

gafflegoop they feed our poor public, are saying that the Minister of

Finance is all wet in his estimates from resource revenue. I'd like to

dwell on that for a minute. I don't know who they talk to, but I come

from a riding with a resource base where the hewers of wood for the

people down on the lower mainland to enjoy all the lovely things they

have.... I understand that in the sawmill industry today they can't

sell lumber at any price. So why are these smart writers disagreeing

with our Minister of Finance that revenue will be down?

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

You bet it will be down from stumpage, and these things all have to be

considered. They're serious. It's a world market, an export market, and

in the opinion of the government it isn't going to rebound when we

thought it would.

Natural gas. You know the story of that.

Our good old friend Pierre Elliott Trudeau looks after that; he sets

the price of gas. Over there they told us for four years to get the

price of gas up. We got it up all right and now nobody will buy it.

That's what we told you bunch before. Socialist bunkum! And the press

print what they say; that's what I can't believe. They get the front

page.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Back to the budget.

Health

care. Mr Speaker, if your assistant was in the chair.... We know what

health care is like in British Columbia; the Speaker and I know. We've

got the best health care in the world. Not in Canada, in the world.

I'll subscribe to that; I've got proof of that. And I'll be around for

a long time yet — don't get excited — thanks to the great health care

we've got in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Back to the budget.

this budget 60 cents of every taxpayer's dollar goes to three

ministries of government. The priorities of this government are Health,

Education and Human Resources. I didn't hear them say that. There are

17 ministries of government left to divide up the remaining 40 cents.

They don't understand that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Oh, yes, they want to bring up overruns. I'll gladly deal with

overruns. That member over there in the corner shovelled it out of the

back of a wagon — gave $100 million away. You didn't even get any

butter for the biscuits you gave away for the $100 million. We had a

$100 million overrun and even you, if you can see, got a better road to

drive on for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the Marguerite , Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll tell you about the Marguerite , but at another time and place.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, and here's something else we don't hear. I wish some of these

members would be in the House on health care. In 1973, when they had

command of all the money in the world and when they had inherited a

surplus and started shovelling it out of the back of the truck Human

Resources.... Do you know what the percentage of health care was when

they were government? Twenty-two percent. Today it's 30 percent. There

are our priorities,

Yes, we have great prosperity in this

province, and we take credit for part of it but not all of it. We

created the climate for the investments here. I want to tell you a

story about mining. These great mining experts over there.... I wish

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was here. He ended up

in their administration as the Minister of Mines. And do you know the

record he made for himself in all the world books? The best Minister of

Mines the Yukon ever had, because he drove them all out to the Yukon.

Now do you know what their mining policy is? "After we get elected,

come to the Premier's office." Well, they won't ever have that

opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Make a Deal" Barrett.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, that's their mining policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I lost all my notes; I had some copious notes here.

Nobody can deny that the economy of this province has turned around. Yes, we have prosperity, and prosperity causes problems.

[ Page 4496 ]

MR. BARRETT: You just said that you can't sell our lumber even.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's right. Lumber is hard to sell. We have these cycles.

The

other thing I might inform the House and the smart guys who write in

the business pages about is the metal market. They're saying it's

buoyant. Well, I don't know who they're talking to but I've got mines

in my riding and they can't sell copper or molybdenum today. But

they're saying: "The budget cut down revenue from minerals, and it's

not justified." I say in defence of this budget that it certainly is.

We want to maintain the level of service, and that's the policy of this

government.

MR. LEA: Name one thing that's selling well.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I don't like to be a pessimist like those

Johnnys-come-lately over there. I like to be an optimist. I've lived

here all my life and contributed a little, I hope. Yes, there is

something selling well: pulp and paper. But two other big items aren't:

lumber and metals. Check it out yourself. Again, in defence of the

budget, that's why the Minister of Finance budgeted for reduced revenue

from those particular resources.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has the

floor. I'll ask the hon. Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to

come to order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think any of these members should be disrupting my great speech here,

We'll

survive and everything will be fine. I want to reiterate that the

philosophy involved in arriving at this budget was to maintain the

level of service that our people are entitled to and will receive,

through to March 1982.

I want to mention an item here — this

is really interesting, Mr. Speaker; I know I have your attention —

about the housing shortage. Those people over there talk about the

housing shortage. Of course the facts of life are that we had more

housing starts in British Columbia in 1980 than any other province in

Canada. Sure, there's still a shortage and we're trying to do something

about it. They're hollering about that all the time. I just want to

really show where they don't practise what they preach. The NDP has

joined what they call — not I — the fat-cat ripoff developer sector. I

refer to the grand palace they're building in Nanaimo. You know, it's

going to qualify under the new 8 percent tax because I understand the

rooms are going to be about $80 a night. They spout off here about

low-cost housing. Why didn't they put their money into low-cost

housing? Yes, Mr. Speaker, they're a great bunch. They say one thing

and do another; they don't practise what they preach.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: They're also building a senior citizens' project and they're saving a room just for you.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you're back. Will you tell the Leader of the

Opposition to sit down and shut up. I've got the floor and he'll have

lots of chances to rebut.

I just want to emphasize this, and

it's all I'll say about it this time. They're involved in a 17-storey

hotel in Nanaimo. They had to have zoning bylaws changed to accommodate

it; it didn't even agree with the zoning bylaws of Nanaimo. You know,

it's going to block the waterfront view. Then we have this big

socialist mayor of Vancouver saying: "You can't do it in Vancouver."

It's double-talk all the way up and down.

I was hoping the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) would be here because I understand

that he's the head honcho in it representing the party. I'm going to

tell you, colleagues over there in the opposition, the way that member

interprets the budget you are going to have an overrun of about $70

million in that hotel if he practises the same kind of arithmetic. I'd

sure put somebody there to help him, because he's pretty bad at

arithmetic.

He is something like the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead). He said in the House the other day that we were going

to spend $350 million to put roads into northeast coal. That's enough

to put a road over the top of Tumbler Ridge and over into Alberta for a

ways. We have no plans to do that. Where do you get your figures? By

the way, while he's there, somebody told me he's a critic of this

ministry, and I appreciate that — I heard that.

The other day he was on Oatmeal Savage's program — Jack

Webster — and the subject came up about ferry service to the Queen

Charlotte Islands. He's my critic, you know. He said: "Well, there's no

ferry service to the Queen Charlotte Islands." We'd already hauled

about 10,000 people on a regular service for two months. The first

ferry service they've had over there and the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) is against it. I want to make that abundantly clear. We're

delighted that he's against it, because the people of the Queen

Charlotte Islands, 6,000 strong, deserve transportation and we

delivered it to them. Now they're going to tell the member for Prince

Rupert in the next election, which probably won't be until 1985 or

1986.... Well, I read the paper the other day. You know, they were

going to have an election three months after the last one. We've got

along so far. I think the next prediction is June or July or

something....

I'll tell you something about elections,

though, Mr. Speaker and members — this government was elected in 1979

with a five-year mandate and we intend to fulfil that mandate in spite

of all the columnists' gossip.

I want to deal for a minute

with what great B.C. people they are — Canadians — across here. I know

you'll permit me to digress a little from the budget. I don't like

dealing with the figures, because I can't get them to balance either. I

want to deal a little bit with where their great national party is on

the constitution. Where is it? I'll tell you my version of where it is.

We have seven provinces against it, including the very able Premier of

Saskatchewan and his government. Seven provinces against Pierre Elliott

Trudeau's constitutional package — the Liberal government of Ottawa.

You know, Premier Blakeney is against it and so are four NDP MPs from

Saskatchewan. We've got 12 of those NDP MPs in B.C., and I want to know

as a citizen of British Columbia and as a Canadian, how are they going

to vote? Because they were all elected in a fluke. Apart from that,

they weren't elected to go down there and get in bed with Pierre

Elliott Trudeau.

[ Page 4497 ]

have a few more words on this because I consider it a large item, as a

born Canadian who has lived here all my life. I want to quote what a

responsible MP says about these people. I'm quoting from Dr. Lorne

Greenaway — my MP —Cariboo-Chilcotin.

have written several columns on the topic of the constitution and

unfortunately I'm once again compelled to address the subject. I'm sure

you're as sick of hearing about the BNA Act as I am. However, there are

certain issues which affect everyone to such an extent that they cannot

be ignored. The right to own property is one such issue. Mr. Kaplan,

the Solicitor General, had accepted a Tory amendment to the

constitutional resolution which would have infringed the rights of

Canadians to own property. This right is already in the Diefenbaker

bill of rights. A week later, however, Mr. Chretien reversed this

decision under pressure from the New Democratic Party. The NDP had

threatened to withdraw their support for the package if the PC

amendment was included.

"The NDP felt that if

the right to own property was entrenched it would become very difficult

for government to expropriate land from both citizens and corporations.

They pointed out that the nationalization of Saskatchewan's potash

industry would have been very difficult with a right-to-own property

clause in the constitution.

"While I must say

that I do agree that expropriation would be tougher, I also feel that

it is a positive feature of the clause. I do not look forward to the

day when governments can take over the property of private citizens

with great ease. The debacle at Mirabel airport, that great white

elephant outside of Montreal....

"Unfortunately

in the interest of political expediency, the Liberals supported the NDP

policy on this issue, and Canadians are now being denied the right to

own their own property."

I just want to say that I can stand

in this House today and be proud of my MP. He was sent back there as a

Conservative MP, and he won't vote with Pierre Elliott Trudeau for

political expediency or any other reason, I'll tell you that. I want

just to conclude by saying that if they continue — and I throw this

challenge out to the 12 NDP MPs for British Columbia — and if they vote

with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as one citizen of British Columbia, I'd

like them to resign the day after.

Mr. Speaker, I want to

deal for a few minutes with something I'm very interested in, and that

is this northeast coal discussion. It's really amazing. I know a lot of

these people weren't here and don't know how this province was built,

but I'm going to give them a little history. Northeast coal opened up a

section of this province that was sitting there waiting to be opened

up. What's wrong with that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER:

You know, we've got experts over there. I guess the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is at his law practice this morning and the

other one is probably practising law.

But, you know, to open

up Tumbler Ridge and all that area for coal and transportation in every

sphere of life now is really important. I'm glad to find that out.

Everybody is getting concerned except the NDP, and the only thing they

approved in the budget was taking the tax off bicycles. They want

everybody on bicycles, but the citizens don't want that. Back to

northeast coal. Sure it's a good deal for our province. You have to

have leadership, and we've got leadership here in our Premier. We have

to develop jobs for the future and, yes, it's going to cost some public

money, but so did it cost money to develop Mackenzie and Elkford. What

kind of bunkum have you and a few of the dollies in the press come up

with to think that it had never happened before? I'll tell you what's

never happened before in this province: a surcharge put on to get some

of the money back. I never heard you say that. But I know what they did

do when they were government. I don't want anybody ever to forget those

three horrible years, 1972 to 1975. I know you'll remember it; you were

in the Legislature at that time — but I don't want anybody to forget

it. They talk about overruns and everything, and practically all the

overruns on construction of the BCR, of the Dease line, took place

during their term of government.

You know, they're talking

now about having to have everything on a profit basis before it starts.

They never even looked to see if there was a tree stump or a rock to

haul out if they did get the damn railroad built. That's the kind of

managers they are.

Their Minister of Labour, the now member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), all he was doing was blowing the

whistle and putting his engineer's cap on, playing hoghead while he was

a minister of the Crown.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's not interrupt the member.

HON. MR. FRASER:

For the information of the House, I've lived in the central interior of

British Columbia all my life. I lived at the terminus of the railroad

in the great community of Quesnel, where it used to terminate until the

late W.A.C. Bennett picked it up and made a railroad out of it — took

it to Prince George and down into North Vancouver and then up to the

Peace River. These people weren't even here when that happened, I know

that. That's why I wanted to relate the story about it.

You

know, this is where I don't agree with accountants. I see in our books

that BCR owes the province $700 million. Well, that's good chartered

accountant talk. But I'm going to tell you, it's just a straight

investment, and they've got it back tenfold; but the accountants didn't

put it in the right column when it came back. That's what I've got

against accountants. That's actually what happened.

We have

viable, well-established communities. That railroad is the lifeline of

those communities. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke wouldn't even talk

to me when it was on strike in '75. He wouldn't let me in his office.

No problem, let them suffer. I'm referring to the communities of

Pemberton, Lillooet, 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and Quesnel. I'm not

referring to that fat-cat Prince George, because they've got another

railroad.

There are 100,000 permanent jobs right there on that line. That's the most

wonderful incident we've got. We're going to take it now and get some

of our natural resources out to the markets of the world — create jobs. What's

wrong with that? They all holler: "How much are you losing"?

Well, why

[ Page 4498 ]

don't

they go back and do their research and find out how much it cost to put

the road into Elkford from Sparwood, or into Mackenzie — the power in

there? But they don't understand that philosophy. They're sure against

everything; I haven't yet found anything they're for. I've got a list

of the things you're against.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) come to order.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they're against practically anything that is

progress, that will guarantee a future for our great citizens of the

province, and that's most unfortunate. I only wish somebody would get

to them to give them the message that maybe that stance on their

part

isn't really good for our province and certainly not good for them. You

know, I shouldn't be telling them how to campaign; but I only wish

they'd keep their stance up. That's what I say.

The things

they're against that they've just pronounced in the last.... Here are

just a few of the things they're against: northeast coal, B.C. Place,

an improved highway system, the Annacis crossing — they're afraid of

that. Oh, and while I'm on that, there are more politics going on on

that. I want to thank the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), if he's

around — yes, he is — for the strong support he's given me on that.

We're building the Annacis crossing. The socialists still think they

can stop us. Well, we're building it now. We spent $16 million on the

Annacis crossing as of today. So, sure, we're having our problems with

access, but we're building it.

You know, we're not listening

to the nonsense from those people over there. They're against the trade

and convention centre, but they're against it, and the mayor, Mike

Harcourt, is against it, because it'll block the view. But the NDP

Party will go and build one in Nanaimo and block the view right out,

and get the zoning and go to city council and gerrymander their bylaws

to accommodate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. FRASER:

They're against Transpo '86, Mr. Speaker, against mining development,

against provision of suitable land for the development of housing, and

they are definitely against ferry service for the good citizens of the

Queen Charlotte Islands. They're on record against that. It's already

there. We don't have to make promises there. There will be a day when

that will be appreciated.

They're against the exploration of gas and oil. They want to control this, that and everything, and it's just.... They're

against everybody — an individual or an organization — who wants to

work and make a profit. That's a swearword in their vocabulary.

I'm

not sure, Mr. Speaker, what they are for, but I'm going to suggest....

You know, when the member for Prince Rupert was the Minister of

Highways, he told the tourists: "Go home!" I'll bet you they're going

to have a policy change in that party, because how are they going to

fill those $80-a-night rooms in Nanaimo if they don't get tourists?

Yes, I predict a change of policy over there.

I haven't said

very much about transportation. I just want to say briefly that

transportation is a worry and a problem not only in British Columbia,

but in all of Canada. It even gets the attention of the press now. It

never did before; it was always in the legal section. It's of interest

and concern to all citizens how they go back and forth to work. Mr.

Speaker, this year alone this budget provides a $63 million subsidy for

B.C. Ferries. After all the so-called high rates that they complain

about are paid, that's what all of the citizens of British Columbia put

into the ferry system. Our government is proud that we've got the funds

to do it. We've got the best ferry system in the world. It was just

written up in the London Observer , and it said so. Go and take a trip and find out for yourself.

I'd

like to make another comment regarding the budget and transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the government made the policy decision to increase gas

taxes. I want to tell you something; I've said it before. Number one,

never forget that the people of British Columbia own the highway

system. Number two, it generates this revenue from taxation. It not

only does that — this is the unfair thing, Mr. Speaker. I'm using the

approximate figures for 1979-1980. In 1979-1980 the province of British

Columbia got $180 million out of the gas taxes. You know what our

citizens don't know when they go to the gas pump? Pierre Elliott

Trudeau put an excise tax on in 1975. Now you know how he's giving it

to us in the ear! This went on in 1975 — it's still there. In 1980 it

generated $125 million from our British Columbia highway system — nice

deal. Okay, what's he doing? I'll tell you what he does with it. He

takes it back to Ottawa and gets lost in the $14 billion deficit that

the NDP supports back there. Not a dime comes back to this province for

looking after the highway system. We've tried, but they say: "Get lost."

just want to remind you of another thing on this subject. When they

were government in 1975 when an excise tax was imposed, there wasn't so

much as a whimper from them. They were the government of British

Columbia. That's what they tell us now when we go back and say: "Give

us some of this back." They say that the government we had then never

complained at all; they thought everybody was happy with it. But don't

forget that the federal government has nothing to do with all these

figures on world oil prices the press is playing around with. That's

been there since 1975. And of course they've stacked on top of that

since, to pay for all their socialism back there. You know, there's so

much debt involved....

I'm glad to see the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) back here. His law practice must have

closed down early this morning.

I wanted to put that on the

record so that our citizens understand. Yes, we still don't get enough

revenue. I'm not saying that British Columbia should. But the revenue

that's generated by that highway system — it costs us a lot more money

than that. It would be a way different picture if Pierre Elliott hadn't

siphoned it off in 1975 and taken it back there to keep it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, I'm not a bit afraid, Mr. Speaker.

just want to say it's a great budget. We'll be able to keep up with the

best level of health care.... They love that item. They really love

playing games with that one, but we still have the best health-care

system in the world. The one thing I didn't mention is that we've got

the largest hospital building program that we've ever had. Do you know

that in

[ Page 4499 ]

Ontario

they are are closing them? That's a little different. We never hear

that. Gee, I hope the press doesn't write anything about that; I don't

want to see that.

I say that I'm proud to be part of this

government. With this budget we're going to have a bigger and better

province. Everybody can rest assured now; I've announced the next

election date and I don't think we need any more election speculation.

Thank you very much for listening.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, before we recognize the next member, because of the style

of debate of the member who has just taken his seat I notice that the

House has tolerated quite a high level of noise. I would like to remind

us, though, that we do have the same red book, regardless of who is

debating.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of

hot air comes from the other side of the House, but what is clear in

the mind of the public of British Columbia is that this is a

pyramid-sales government. Those at the top get their beaks in the

trough. Those at the top, close to the cabinet, get all sorts of

political favours and the ordinary people of the province suffer. They

don't want senior citizens to be able to ride the buses for free or for

a nickel, as they do in other jurisdictions. But they're quite happy to

have the George Spetifores, the Joan and Sepp Wengers and the Eldon

Ungers make a big buck off the public in this province.

There

is a case today, for example, that has come to our attention. It is

very analogous to the Agricultural Land Commission. It is the case in

Chilliwack, concerning the Heritage Advisory Board that sits and

advises the government on decisions relating to heritage in this

province. They had a study done by the late Jack Herbert — spent a few

thousand dollars on it — and he was looking at a particular piece of

property in the Fraser Valley. That particular piece of property was

what they call the Edenbank Farm. The Edenbank Farm, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, was the first dairy co-op in B.C. It had the talents of a very

famous architect also. The house wasn't too much, but there were a

number of other buildings there. It was the finest example of early

dairy farming in British Columbia, and the idea of the Heritage

Advisory Board was to have the provincial government purchase this farm

and have the Fraser Valley College keep it as a living farm. It wasn't

supposed to be dead artifacts. It was supposed to be an early dairy

farming operation at which the students could learn and which the

citizens of the province — not only provincially but nationally — could

benefit from.

The interesting thing is that the Heritage Trust, which is a creation of this government chaired by Mr. J. V. Clyne.... He

was very much in favour of the purchase of this. The terms of the sale

were extremely favourable. The owners were going to allow the

government to buy it for a reasonable price and they were going to give

$200,000 of the money from the sale back to the province for the

development of this farm. Isn't that good? Well, guess what? A

prominent friend of the Social Credit Party came in with a development

proposal for condominiums and the cabinet overruled the Heritage

Advisory Board and the Heritage Trust when the money was available. The

local heritage advisory committee wanted it; they weren't asking for a

handout — they had the money. There was Woodward money in there. And

guess what happened? For political purposes, because the person was a

prominent Socred, he got the land. He's going to have a development of

condominiums on that land. That is what the public understands, not

that kind of hot air that we just heard.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where'd you get the $70 million for the hotel? Tell us about that.

MR. HANSON:

This is a new one. This is a current one and I think there must be

members on that side who used to sit on this side who are a little bit

embarrassed by that. It's only seven acres. There's lots more outside

of the ALR to be dealt with. But seven acres — it's a non-renewable

heritage resource, it's a functioning museum, it ties in with a

college. The people wanted it. The money was there, but the politics is

what's killing this government, which is fine with me.

Take

another one: the Windermere gravel pit. You're aware of that one, Mr.

Speaker. There are 33 acres over there in Windermere right along the

highway. It's beautiful farmland that used to be vegetable-producing

land. It was owned by an elderly couple who are residing in the

Okanagan. They'd applied for it to be taken out of the land reserve

years before in 1976 and it was turned down. They are Joan and Sepp

Wenger, who were very close political associates of the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

They put an

option on these 33 acres subject to it coming out of the Agricultural

Land Commission. It was turned down. A request for reconsideration came

from the minister to the Land Commission, they corresponded back to the

Wengers and said: "The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, your MLA,

has asked us to reconsider this proposal. We've reviewed it again at

his instruction and we still find that it is agricultural land. It is

food-producing land and therefore we will not recommend that it come

out of the land reserve."

What happens then? They do a

setup. They do a setup through the regional district. The regional

district officials later on said: "The instructions came from Victoria;

we were just doing what Victoria told us to do. They recommended the

land come out for gravel which they really needed." There is gravel

everywhere in that valley. The Columbia Windermere study, as the member

knows, points out that there is gravel everywhere. But the interesting

thing is that when you control the source of the gravel, you have money

in the bank. You have tons of cash in the bank because gravel is like

gold. Gravel sells for $4 or $5 a cubic yard. Hay land is just a few

thousand dollars an acre.

The member is very embarrassed

about this because his political backside is being roasted over it in

that riding. They haven't forgotten, and they won't forget it later on

either.

So the Wengers then put an option on the land

subject to it coming out of the ALR. They then feed it through the

regional district, and guess what? They leave it in the ALR, but they

allow a gravel pit to be used on that site. There is no possibility for

reclamation. It would affect the drainage of the Elkhorn Ranch and the

other ranches around it. With the steep slopes there is no possibility

of reclamation whatsoever. They don't care. You know why? The Wengers

paid $110,000 for that land — a lot of money for farmland, a lot of

money for ALR land. But overnight that land has a paper value of over

$5 million. That is a dandy payoff, isn't it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: How much?

MR. HANSON: Over $5 million, even by secretariat documents — $5 million overnight, minimum.

[ Page 4500 ]

That

is what the public sees. They know they can't ride on the bus. As

seniors, they know what they're getting in their monthly cheques. They

know what their transportation costs are. They know that their school

taxes are going up. But they see friends of this government...attempts

being made....

They keep getting stymied because, guess what

— the conclusion of this — they had forgotten that the Agricultural

Land Commission controls the Soil Conservation Act, and it would not

give a permit for the removal of the soil. Guess what? The Wengers got

caught paying $110,000 for that land, and they can't even take the

gravel out of it to make their $5 million to $7 million — the regional

district planner's own figures. Incredible! They got caught again. They

got caught in the Gloucester. They got caught on the Wenger thing. And

they're going to get caught on the Spetifore one. They tried to set

that up too. Incredible! They've been going on for years and years, and

I know, Mr. Speaker, when you read the clippings in the Provincial

Library here.... Which prominent Social Credit people have been

involved in that case? Robert Bonner, Leslie Peterson, Peter Hyndman

and Walter Davidson have all been involved. It's the who's who of the

Social Credit party. He is a central Social Credit person. Okay, fine.

The

Agricultural Land Commission was there to protect farmland. They tried

to pull a fast one there. They set it up. Mr. Spetifore hired expensive

consultants — the same people who did the Gloucester property. They

made glossy reports with acetate overlays — nice, fancy little maps and

all kinds of stuff — and spent a bundle on it. They managed to

stickhandle it through quickly at a public hearing just a few days

after the notice came out of the Delta council. Very few people knew

about it. They stick-handled it through Social Credit members on the

Delta council, and had it referred over to ELUC, had a quick secret

meeting over at the Laurel Point Inn with the MLA for Delta (Mr.

Davidson), where they checked their scripts. Mr. Boyd Ferris gave them

two minutes each — "you speak for two minutes, you speak for two

minutes, this is what the line is, you shut up." They met at a quick

22-minute ELUC meeting, which the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers), who chaired the meeting, called a technical hearing. It wasn't

a technical hearing; it was just a set-up — just a quick "You've got

it, George" — $50 million, maybe $100 million. Incredible! No concern

about the farmland. And all of a sudden Walter Davidson, who to my

understanding was a former policeman, is now a soil scientist. He's an

agrologist, an agronomist — he knows what farmland is.

The

so-called park was tidal marshland — a couple of early Crown grants.

But Mr. Spetifore filled in that tidal marsh himself. He built a dike

across the end, filled it in, dumped stuff.... You read the early

clippings in the 1970s and in the early 1960s, and the residents were

complaining of the stench created by organic material and salt water

all mixed in together creating that rotten-egg smell. You know, you

smelled it in elementary school when they had that apple blossom and

took the lid off — that kind of smell, same chemical, hydrosulphuric

acid. They filled in that land.

Do you know that to develop

that land for houses would involve dumping 50 tonnes of lime per acre

per year to sweeten it so that the acid wouldn't eat your house, or

that they'd have to put preformed concrete pillars into the ground,

specially treated so it wouldn't eat the foundations? It was virtually

undevelopable land. He filled it in. And we don't know the legality of

all that. We saw early 1959 letters from the lands branch giving him

permission to build the dike across Crown land, but the Crown could

retrieve that land anytime and he would be responsible for any

desecration, destruction or inconvenience to the public. That is the

carrot to get his 523 acres out of the land reserve. How could you go

for that? Because you don't give a damn about farmland, that's why. You

don't care. You'd rather pay off your big, fat buddies. It's sickening.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Yes, you go ahead. You get on your feet when you get a chance.

There

are things that I wanted to see desperately in this budget for my own

constituency. There are great needs here in the health-care area and in

looking after the seniors, who are a major component of the population

here. I'm not going to go into them now. I'm going to talk about these

things later in estimates.

The general picture that the

public has of this government is that you are a bunch of political

payoff artists for your buddies. It's a pyramid-sales government: those

down at the bottom are the losers; the people up at the top have their

beaks in the trough. Edgar Kaiser got the Denver Broncos off the backs

of the public of British Columbia. He paid $40 million for them; he got

$40 million out of the BCRIC-Kaiser coal deal. It's really sickening.

The Sepp Wenger Windermere gravel-pit episode, the George Spetifore

thing and now this Eldon Unger carry-on out in Chilliwack — it's really

disgusting.

I would think that any fair-minded person in

British Columbia, looking at the record of this government, is not

going to be snowed by this nonsense in this glossy booklet on your

budget. They know what they're having to pay and they see the kinds of

rewards that people close to you are reaping. That did not occur

between 1972 and 1975. There was a redistribution of wealth at that

time and you didn't like it. You didn't like the people getting a fair

share.

Mr. Hanson moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:18 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada