1979 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 31st 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

95 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Lauk — 95

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 96

Mrs. Wallace — 100

Mr. Bawtree — 105

Mr. Levi — 109

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave to table a

document. The document is an issue of the Ubyssey, who don't often get

it right, but, by George, on this occasion they have. There's a very

thorough story on the press conference with respect to the fusion

reactor, in which we made it quite clear about the slim chances....

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh my, they don't want the newspapers

tabled. Well, give it back to me, Mr. Speaker, and I'll ask instead

that the issue be sent across to the leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett). He's got many friends on the campus and I think he'd like to

read the news reports from there.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the reason leave was not granted is

that we cannot ruin the traditions of the Legislature and the press

gallery, and table the accurate reflection of a press conference.

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for supper, I was referring to the Premier's credibility.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, it's mostly on your tie.

We catalogued time and time again the inaccuracies and

misrepresentations made to the people of the province of British

Columbia with respect to the government's actions and policy. I was

dealing with the statement made by the First Minister of this province

that B.C. was not for sale. I asked the hon. members of this House to

consider the record of this government. Consider the sale of Panco

Poultry to one of the most disreputable multinational corporations in

the world — we cannot even eat a chicken or a turkey in the province

without compensating foreign shareholders.

It's a shocking thing indeed. Why, as the statement "B.C. is not

for sale," which came from the lips of that First Minister, so misrepresentative

of the record of that government and that Premier's attitude? The Foreign

Investment Review Agency was established by the federal government to prevent

foreign takeovers. The Premier was making direct representation to the federal

government to try to destroy that federal agency so that British Columbia could

be sold to foreign interests. Victoria buses sold to Gray Line; Panco Poultry

sold to Cargill.

government? The proof is a secret federal cabinet document that the

next Premier of British Columbia released on January 18 of this year.

The document was signed by the federal Minister of Industry and says

that B.C. has strongly resisted the federal policy of trying to keep

Canadian industry Canadian.

Because of this strong opposition from British Columbia, the federal

government is considering watering down their policy to make it easier

for foreign interests to acquire British Columbia businesses. I think

it is sad, indeed, that we have such a weak-kneed federal government to

bow to the pressure of a government that wishes to sell out what

remaining industries are Canadians- and British Columbian–owned. It is

a clear and unmistakable condemnation of this government's policy

towards foreign ownership. What does foreign ownership mean to us in

British Columbia? What it means to us is compensating foreign

shareholders. I ask the new Minister of Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Veitch): what's a fair return for an investment in the

province of British Columbia? Most people would say 10, 13, maybe 15

percent. That's high.

What about the foreign-owned corporation of Kaiser Resources? Do you

know what the average return since its operation in Sparwood has been?

The average annual return has been 35 percent. Who owns the shares of

Kaiser Resources? Foreign shareholders. Foreign shareholders are

compensated. The same with B.C. Tel shares: 56 percent of the profits

of British Columbia Telephone goes to foreign shareholders.

Is it any wonder that our imbalance of payments is so high? An

imbalance of payments represents that money which flows out of this

country, which flow into the pockets of foreign shareholders. It is our

annual mortgage payment for the negligence of this government and the

federal government. Is it any wonder that we are on the tail end of the

American economy? Is it any wonder that we have one million unemployed

in Canada, and the highest unemployment rate of all industrialized

provinces in Canada right here in British Columbia? Right here in this

province we have the highest unemployment rate, the highest bankruptcy

rate, the highest foreclo-

[ Page

96 ]

sure on homes.

What's the result of that sellout? Since this government took

office, there have been 74 foreign takeovers with a loss of almost

5,000 jobs. It's a loss in the sense that those jobs are not as secure

with foreign company ownership as they are with domestic ownership. I

can give you example after example after example over the years where

this has proven to be the case, where foreign competitors take over

similar operations in Canada and shut then down to create a market for

their own companies that produce in the United States.

It's a sad record — little companies and big companies. Crow's Nest

Industries, Salmo Forest Products, MK Canada Natural Resources, Brameda

Resources, Northwood Properties. B.C. is not for sale, Mr. Speaker?

What about the credibility of this government? What about the

credibility of that Premier who has no longer seen fit to sit in this

House? For four years he has attacked the NDP for his own failure,

attacked the previous administration for his inability and ineptitude

in getting the economy moving in this province.

And now he is up in Prince George blaming the federal government. He

realizes that the people are no longer listening to his empty and

hollow statements about the NDP based on misrepresentation. He has made

those statements so often now that the people of this province

disbelieve him. He is now attacking the federal government in panic and

in desperation. He's like a little boy blaming everybody but himself

for his own failures and his own mistakes. In four years he has done

nothing. He's created a smokescreen attack in every inept move he's

made. More bankruptcies; more foreclosures; we're being taxed to death;

ICBC premiums are outrageously high. He has presided over four years of

economic disaster in this province and he has no one to blame but

himself, certainly not the NDP and certainly not the federal

government. It's his responsibility.

There have been four years of economic misery, Mr. Speaker, and

these years have been characterized by a divisive and poisonous

government, a government that does not call upon the province of

British Columbia and its people to join together in unity to solve

their economic problems, a government that deliberately separates and

divides the people of this province to fight one another, and a

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who thrives on teachers

fighting parents and school boards, and school boards fighting

teachers, and so on. He likes that; he thrives on it. I'm saying that

this divisive and poisonous government is destructive of the fabric and

the unity of this province and soon, I hope, it will be defeated.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I rise in my place to speak in support of an

outstanding throne speech, one which heralds the 1980s, a new decade in

this province — a decade which will be heralded as well in the days to

come by what I am confident will be an outstanding budget speech, a

budget speech which will take us into the first months of 1980 as a

fiscal period.

Mr. Speaker, we have had in the few hours since this outstanding

throne speech the charade of a cynical, tired non-confidence motion.

The NDP leader — the pro tem NDP leader — has had the gall to suggest

that this government is lacking in economic planning, that this

government has not given outstanding stewardship to the economy of this

province.

I think it will be appropriate to put the discussion which has

occurred in recent hours and during the past couple of days in a

context which can be drawn from unimpeachable sources. The sources are

cited in a book entitled "The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream"; the

sources come from within the NDP. Let us begin with the observation of

the former NDP MLA for Richmond, Mr. Harold Steves, who says: "We were

never given any more than 60 minutes' warning of what was going to

happen." Well, Mr. Speaker, that was 60 minutes more than the people of

British Columbia got.

Let us go to another memorable quote, this one from none other than

the former Premier, the former Minister of Finance, that all-seeing

economic genius who, upon seeing the first double-entry bookkeeping

year-end balance, said: "What's this $2,000 doing in here twice?"

Let's examine the record of these economic geniuses who've been

attacking the credibility of an outstanding government. I quote from

page 82, "The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream."

"Barrett had not kept expenditures in check. These had

risen in 1973-74 over $113 million, 5 1/2 percent above budget

predictions that had already called for an increase of $361 million. In

1974-75 the discrepancy between original and revised estimates had

soared even higher, as actual expenditures increased 14 1/2 percent

over original estimates."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: "Overruns had been experienced in welfare, $100

million; in education, $56

[ Page 97 ]

million over allocations which themselves were already up to

$67 million over 1973-74; and in health, $25 million over estimates already

up almost $110 million over the previous year; a total of $147 million for other

departments, whose total budgets had been already increased $221 million over

the previous year.

"This lack of caution continued in Barrett's 1975-76

budget, which called for the outlay to be increased $692 million to

over $1,050 million. This represented a 27 percent increase over the

previous year's actual expenditures, and a 41.5 percent rise over

budget estimates."

I'll go on:

"Barrett had intended to balance the budget by raising

the provincial income tax by five percentage points to 36.5 percent of

the federal rate."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR BAWLF: But wait!

"At the eleventh hour, though, adviser Marc Eliesen,

the real Finance minister, convinced the Finance minister that the move

would be

an act of political harakiri. Less than 16 hours before the

budget was to be presented, Barrett and his advisers were scurrying

about trying to make up this sudden loss of revenue estimated at $115

million."

That's economic planning, Mr. Speaker.

"Although the NDP leader had previously decided to end

the practice of underestimating revenues so he could balance his new

budget, he now went to the opposite extreme and overestimated them by

$200 million. This situation was apparently objected to from every

chartered accountant in the Finance department to every deputy minister

they could buttonhole on budget day, with particular emphasis on the

serious overestimation of the forest revenues.

"In response, there were considerable objections,

needless to say, from an intelligent opposition. The younger Bennett,

the then Leader of the Opposition, and the Finance department's

chartered accountants, were to be proven right. Resource revenues

plummeted $165 million; sales tax dropped by over $60 million;

corporation taxes declined to $57 million below estimates. These

declines were only partially offset by the rise of other revenues,

resulting in revenues amounting to $191 million less than predicted."

That's economic planning, Mr. Speaker — strong leadership.

"Barrett began to demonstrate signs of panic as the

reality began to become evident in succeeding weeks and months. On

September 18 he vowed to balance the budget, proclaiming: 'We've been

spoiled in this country. We've had it too easy and we've been led to

believe that things come easy.' He ordered an expenditure cutback of

over $52 million and a freeze on civil service hirings. He held back

the transfer of gasoline and licence plate revenues to ICBC."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Oh! A little hanky-panky there.

"It was not enough. He then resorted to subterfuge,

issuing a mid-year financial report on October 2 which declared a

'surplus' of $94.6 million, but neglected to mention non-budgetary

transactions of $108.2 million."

I'll give you one further quote from this everlasting monument to

the economic stewardship of those economic planners over there.

"Lacking formal or informal training in the fields of

economics and finance, Barrett had neither the upbringing nor the

inclination to use the positions of Finance minister and chairmanship

of the Treasury Board for purposes of economic planning. According to a

former Provincial Secretary of the party, the absence of economic

planning characterized not only the approach of the Premier, but that

of the entire government. The problem, he opined, was that the

government had no idea of economic priorities. Nobody in that

government ever sat down and said: 'What are we trying to do this year

and how will we go about it?"'

Need I say more? These are the people who had the audacity to stand

up here in recent hours and say that this government lacks economic

planning.

Let us compare the record. That government increased spending at the

average rate of 27 percent per year at a time when they could only have

fuelled inflation. It was uncontrolled government spending. This

government has kept government spending within inflation guidelines.

This government has existed in a responsible framework.

When that government took office, the gross provincial product was 9

percent; in their last year they had driven it down to 1 percent. They

came in on the greatest wave of

[ Page 98 ]

economic expansion in the history of this province, and in three years they killed it: it went from 9 percent to 1 percent.

MR. MACDONALD: Nine percent of what? Do you know what you're talking about?

HON. MR. BAWLF: The increase in the gross provincial product.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: From 1972 to 1975, it was reduced from 9

percent increase per annum to a rate of 1 percent increase per annum.

Today this government and this province are performing at a recovered

rate of 4.4 percent increase per annum in gross provincial product, a

full percentage point ahead of the national economy.

MR. BARRETT: Quote your source.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'll quote a source. When that government took office,

in their first full year, revenue from the forest industry to the coffers of

this province was $282.28 million. The next year it had gone from $282 million

to $186 million. In their final year, it had dropped from $282 million to $70

million. In the first year of this government forest industry revenue was up

to $81 million; in the second year, it was up to $144 million; and in the third

year it was up to $306 million. Mr. Speaker, that shows you the trend of the

economic stewardship of two governments.

Mr. Speaker, that party in government drove capital out of this

province. Between 1972 and 1975 capital investment in the forest

industry declined significantly. Capital investment, which means the

security of jobs in this province, declined significantly through a

lack of confidence in the government of this province and an evacuation

of capital.

In the years since 1975, capital investment in our number one

industry stood at $562 million; in 1976 it rose to $720 million; in

1977 it rose to $851 million; and in 1978 to $934 million. At the

present time the announced commitments of the forest industry for

capital investment stand at over $1.2 billion, that is a turn-around in

confidence.

Not only is capital returning to this province, Mr. Speaker, but entrepreneurial

initiative — small business and large — in this province is being restored.

And I give you the comparison for the three years that that party was in government

as compared to the most recent three years: in total, incorporation of new companies

in this province is up 38.6 percent over the three years of that party in government.

The registration of extra-provincial companies, representing a return a confidence

to this province, is up 52 percent over the three years they were in government.

I ask you which record speaks for economic planning in this province.

One of the reasons that confidence is there is because we have a

stable climate in labour management relations in this province. I give

you the simple comparison, Mr. Speaker, of man-days lost through

strikes and lockouts between the term of that party in government and

our three years in government. In their three years in government

4,179,000 man-days were lost through strikes and lockouts in this

province. In the three years that this government has been in office,

compared to that 4,179,000 man-days, there have been 2,672,000 man-days

lost. That is a very significant improvement.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinnaird is not very happy about the comparison.

Mr. Kinnaird would like to have the kind of handle on government that

he had over that party when they were in government. Mr. Kinnaird, in

fact, is not satisfied, to the extent that he would like to be the

leader of the NDP, and that's apparent today. So we have a pro tem

leader, and round one in that leadership struggle just went to Mr.

Kinnaird last weekend in Esquimalt with the nomination of the candidate

for the NDP in Esquimalt.

Mr. Speaker, we've had the red herring of natural gas prices thrown

on this floor, and it smelled. It smelled of typical misrepresentation

by those members opposite. They would criticize the provincial

government for a price of $2.16 per unit for natural gas exports when

they know full well that that price is regulated by the National Energy

Board, and they know full well that the price is going to $2.30. And

what is the excuse offered for this criticism?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a dollar below that it should be.

HON. MR. BAWLF: They are saying that it's a dollar below what

it should be. The Mexicans are asking $2.80 per unit, and they haven't

got it. But the approach over there is to kick them while they're down

and to hold our best trading partners up to ransom. Mr. Speaker, I want

to tell you that not only is it unprincipled, it is unwise — penny

wise, perhaps, but pound foolish. The day is rapidly approaching when

we will be glad we haven't seized every opportunity to kick our best

neighbours

[ Page 99 ]

and our first trading partners.

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

HON. MR. BAWLF: We're hearing from the member for Vancouver

Centre, who went on a great cynical diatribe before the dinner hour

about integrity. Mr. Speaker, I just have one question for him. I

understand that he spoke the other day to the student body of Vancouver

College, a Catholic high school in Vancouver. I would just like to ask

him whether he included in his speech the reference that he and his

party opposed funding for independent schools in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Let's hear it about integrity.

Mr. Speaker, this province has sound, stable government laying a

solid economic footing for the decade of the 1980s. I want to say that

as a Vancouver Islander I am proud of the progress we've made on this

island under this government in three short years. We have completed

the most costly highways project in the history of this province, which

is the North Island highway, a project which would still be stumbling

along in low gear under those people in government.

Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding, without the benefit of federal cost

sharing, with the development of Duke Point in Nanaimo, which is a

massive industrial port development in this province. We have on stream

the largest ferry construction program in the history of this province.

That is in response to the most outstanding tourist season in the

history of this province, an all-time record for tourism not only on

Vancouver Island but throughout the province, and an all-time record

for traffic carried on B.C. Ferries, all of which occurred despite the

efforts of that opposition — and, I might say, that government, when

they were there — to discourage tourism.

Mr. Speaker, I recall the remarks of the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) in this House in an attempt to whip up a negative hysteria

towards the tourist industry in this city and on this island. I recall

the remarks of that member to the effect that tourism would fail here.

I recall the talk of that member, the criticism of this government in

regard to its economic policies on Vancouver Island. So we have long

awaited his first constructive proposal for Victoria's economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, we had it the other day, and it was that we encourage the federal

government to evacuate Work Point Barracks, the purpose of this being to accommodate

an industrial park. We have land in this region coming out our ears for industrial

parks if ever the municipalities in this region will get down to designating

the land for that purpose. But along comes the second member for Victoria, the

NDP member with the brainchild of the century, and what is his brainchild? He

would have the federal government talked out of Work Point Barracks. He would

have then shrink the national defence commitment in this community which is

historic, which goes to the very roots of this community. Before he's done,

no doubt, he would have to move a thousand jobs to some other posting. A battalion

occupies that Work Point Barracks.

As far as I'm concerned, if there's a legitimate purpose that the

federal government is serving today, it is the defence of this country;

it is preparedness for defence; it is the role of international

policing for peace. It is a role that should be expanded and it is a

role that is a future part of the economy of this community. It's the

stupidest solution I have heard, to have those people turfed out of a

perfectly valuable defence installation in this city because the

municipalities in this region cannot agree on an industrial site. A

thousand jobs he would have leave this community.

Mr. Speaker, this government, I would remind you, has brought three

new Crown corporation head offices to this community. This government

has brought stability to government employment that that member

opposite would have thrown away. This government brought about the

early reconstruction of Ogden Point after a disastrous fire, a

reconstruction which assured the creation of more than 100 jobs in our

last remaining major port facility.

Mr. Speaker, this government brought about a reform which has

benefited the property taxpayers of my constituency. In this regard I

would correct the remarks of the leader of the Conservative Party. He

indicated, from total misinformation, that the property taxpayer in

Victoria has suffered at the hands of this government.

In the period that this government has been in office the property

taxpayers in the city of Victoria have seen an increase in the annual

levy for school purposes amounting to a total of $3.1 million. In the

same period increased aid to the city of Victoria, and through the city

of Victoria to its property taxpayers, has been in the order of 82

percent, in the amount of $4.36 million which is

[ Page 100 ]

well in excess of the total increase in the school

levy on those same property taxpayers. It's a result of this government

paying its fair share of property taxes in this province for the first

time. This alone has brought to the city of Victoria an increase of

$1.6 million. Add to that the first municipal revenue-sharing program

in this country, which is the envy of municipalities in every other

jurisdiction — another $1.15 million through the city of Victoria to

its property taxpayers. Add to that the increase in homeowner grants —

a further $1,585,000, making a total increase in aid in three years of

82 percent, far outstripping the increase in the school budget. Let us

not have any more misleading comments from the opposition benches on

that subject.

On top of that, thanks to the foresight of the former Social Credit

government, we have a Provincial Capital Commission in this city,

devoted to the beautification and enhancement of this unique city. As a

result of this government's effort we have a much improved Inner

Harbour, and we have the historic Crystal Gardens under restoration. We

have plans now well underway for the construction of a convention

centre on government land in this city's harbour, which will secure,

with the cooperation of this government, more than 1,000 permanent jobs

for this city.

It's noteworthy that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has

remained totally silent on this subject. We can only conclude from that

that if he's not supportive, he's against it. And if he's against it,

it would be his choice in government to take it away — the same as they

would take away the shares from BCRIC. They would take those away as

well. They would deny private ownership. They would deny the right to

have and hold and decide on one's personal financial future. They would

have us relieved all of our individual prerogatives in this society. I

want to tell you that their promise to take away those shares is just

the tip of the iceberg.

I ask these people opposite what they would take away if they were

in government. What would you take away? What companies would you take

over? What rights would you take away? That's where they are attempting

to mislead this Legislature and the people of this province. They are

hiding their real intentions behind a bunch of tired rhetoric. I

challenge them to tell their true intentions to this Legislature and

the people of this province. Theirs is the practice of subterfuge. I

quote their own party members in "The 1,200 Days; A Shattered Dream."

They don't want the system to work. They don't want individual

initiative to succeed in this province. They don't want the kind of

initiative that built this province in the first place. They want to

undermine it; and then they would like to take it away; and they would

like to have their own socialist utopia. And that's the straight goods.

No amount of tired mish-mash of waffle from over there in attempting to

avoid an outstanding throne speech can conceal that.

In three years they erected an unprecedented array of obstacles to

all types of initiatives. I have the duty and the honour to bring some

of those obstacles down under my ministry, and I intend to do so. I

intend to cut the red tape, the maze of over-government and red tape

that we inherited from that party in government. I intend to do so in

light of the fact that this government will entrench individual rights

so that no NDP government to come could ever withdraw them. We will

have, as this throne speech has indicated, a bill of rights to entrench

those individual rights. We will have a fair compensation Act to deal

kith expropriation by government. We will have legislation to remove

discrimination against individuals by reason of age, sex or geographic

distribution in the application of automobile insurance rates. We will

have services for people that are building on an outstanding record in

government. This government brought in long-tem care. This government

brought in universal Pharmacare. This government is spending on new

hospital construction at the unprecedented rate of $100 million a year.

This government will bring in denticare, which will ensure adequate

protection for every individual.

There has been no constructive comment from the opposite side on the

plans outlined in this throne speech which will launch us into the

1980s with unprecedented security and quality of life for the people in

the province, and with better-defined rights for the individual — just

a lot of tired, misleading rhetoric to conceal their real intentions.

No matter who is the leader of the NDP, whether it's

Blood-in-the-Streets Kinnaird or incompetent, scheming Dave Barrett,

the people in this province are not going to fall for that again.

MRS. WALLACE: I wasn't quite sure, as I listened to the

previous speaker and two or three before that, just what we were

discussing in this Legislature. I had rather thought that we were

discussing a throne speech brought in by that government and that we

were the opposition over here offering our ideas and criticisms. It

seemed as the debate went

[ Page 101 ]

on that the people over there were opposing

something or other that the people over here were bringing in. I'm a

little confused as to whether or not they are discussing the throne

speech, or whether they're still fighting the election. It seems that

they are still fighting the election of 1975. Perhaps the call for the

federal election has sort of prompted them into an election spirit, and

they're beginning to warm up for a provincial election.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I was very interested in the remarks that the first member for

Victoria made and the reading that he gave us from the little book that

he had. I have a paper here that I'm going to read a little bit from.

MR. KEMPF: Did you read the book?

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, yes, I read the book. I've read "Son of Socred" too.

This is something called the News Advertiser. It says it's Skeena's

most-read newspaper. I'm sure you're familiar with this, Mr. Member for

Omineca. It has some interesting things. It talks about "Dogs Still

Call the Shots in Terrace Area." I guess that's a problem that this

provincial government has put up there. Here are the firefighters

signing a petition because they're being cut off at Kitimat. That must

have something to do with provincial funding. "Skeenaview to be

Closed." That's a long-term care hospital.

That's not really what I wanted to read to you. I wanted to read to

you something on the other side of this January 23 issue. It's called

"Socred Finances. A Comment."

AN HON. MEMBER: Author?

MRS. WALLACE: The following financial document is made by a

John Green, provincial Conservative Party finance critic. It's very

interesting. I'm just going to read you a small part of it. It's

talking about the 1975-76 budget. It says:

"One of the things done by the present government that

masks the true record has been to increase the spending totals for

1975-76, which is generally considered to be the last year of the NDP

government. It is usually overlooked that Bill Bennett controlled the

spending and accounting decisions for the last three months of that

year. And every dollar of the spending that he could put on the books

in that time made the NDP record look worse and his own look better.

"It was during that period that he had Clarkson,

Gordon and Co. 'coordinate the production of certain unaudited

financial information,' to quote the cautious wording of the accounting

firm's report. Using the Clarkson Gordon figures, Bill Bennett on

February 20,1976, told the people of B.C. that the NDP government had

run up a budgetary deficit of $541 million. The actual figures, when

the accounts for that year were closed, was $139 million.

"The Clarkson, Gordon report also contained a

statement that the Premier may not have been so pleased with: 'If an

expenditure is made on March 31, the fiscal year end, it will enter

into the calculation of the surplus or deficit. If it is made a day

later, it will not. Therefore, the timing of the expenditures or

revenues can have a significant effect on the final result.' Anyone who

chooses to believe that Bennett-Wolfe used their legitimate control of

the timing of those last-minute entries in order to give

Barrett-Stupich a fair break is perfectly free to do so. They might

also want to check under the pillow to see what the tooth fairy has

left for them."

I think it's very interesting that the financial critic for the

Conservative Party would write that kind of a commentary about this

present government and about the former administration.

I'm sorry the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has left, but

I just can't resist. This is the paper he sent over to us to supposedly

justify his position, and I just want to read you a couple of bits out

of this. He says they told it right, so you know I've got his word for

this. I'm quoting from the paper he sent across the floor.

"'But the decision to proceed with"' — and he's

talking about the reactor — "'let alone locate the plant won't be taken

for three years.' McGeer faced a hostile reception from reporters who

suspected the minister was milking the scheme for pre-election

publicity."

This is what he told us was also 100 percent correct, so he can't argue with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't back down on that one.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right.

He goes on to say the public broadcasting systems know "that serious

problems remain in developing a first wall, a blanket, which can

[ Page 102 ]

effectively contain the nuclear fusion reaction."

That is very interesting. This is the paper he sent us to justify his

position.

"McGeer admitted B.C. has only a slim chance of being

chosen as the project site if it goes ahead, and there is still strong

competition from Quebec, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy for the

site."

Here's an interesting one:

"McGeer said he expected opposition to the proposal

from some environmental protection groups, but he said 'sophisticated

environmentalists' would not object."

I wonder what a sophisticated environmentalist is?

AN HON. MEMBER: A Socred.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's probably it.

Then there's just a final one: "McGeer termed speculation on success of the bid as premature." Really!

I have been very impressed with one thing in the throne speech, and

that was the dental care proposal. I'm not going to say too much about

it at this time, because we can't really know what that proposal is

until we see how much funding is provided to establish that dental care

program. I've listened very carefully to the speakers from the

government benches, and every one of them in referring to that program

has just backtracked a little more than the one before. I suspect when

we see this program it's going to be even less all-inclusive than the

supposed universal Pharmacare that was introduced a few years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll be administered by the tooth fairy.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it'll be the tooth-fairy dental care program.

This government has insisted that they are doing wonders for the

economic development in this province. Well, it certainly hasn't come

into the Cowichan Valley. I have had numerous people in my constituency

office with excellent projects. I had one group of people in who have a

method of manufacturing a very decorative wall board from alder. It's

something akin to the old-fashioned V-joint. They could produce this

from wood that is actually going to be destroyed. As anyone who went on

the foresters' tours will recall, the stand of alder that Pacific

Logging has had for some 25 years is going to have to be removed,

because they simply cannot find a market for it. Yet here we have this

group of people who have a very good product. They can produce it, and

it will be economically competitive with decorative plywood paneling.

It can be produced. They would employ about 30 people....

MR. KAHL: What's their name?

MRS. WALLACE: They have been trying desperately for funding.

Those are the kinds of industries that B.C. Development Corporation

should be funding.

MR. KAHL: What's their name?

MRS. WALLACE: There is no way that they can get funding from

B.C. Development Corporation. They have tried the B.C. Development

Corporation. They have tried various methods of funding, and nothing

has happened. They have not been able to get funding. In fact, the

interest rates are cheaper to go to a private bank than they are to get

funding from B.C. Development. There is a company that would provide

something like 30 jobs in the Cowichan Valley. It has not been able to

get into production because of lack of support from this government.

MR. KAHL: What's their name?

MRS. WALLACE: The broken record over there....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: No, they are not goats. They are legitimate

people trying to operate a business in the Cowichan Valley. I am not

going to be bullied into using their name. There is another concern.

MR. KAHL: How can anybody help them if you won't tell their name?

MRS. WALLACE: I'll talk to anyone who's prepared to talk about then. What can you do about it, Mr. Member for Esquimalt?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: There is another very innovative system of

producing building material. There is a gentleman from Austria who

lives in the constituency, who has the technology. He is a qualified

technologist in producing building blocks, as used in Austria, made

from wood wastes and cement. He, too, has been trying to get some

assistance. He is working with the local Economic Development officer.

This has been going on for some three years. He was one of the first

people who came into

[ Page 103 ]

my constituency office. There again is a project

that could provide low-cost building material and it's a fireproof

building material. It, too, would provide jobs.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Since when did the Minister of Forests have anything to do with small business and the B.C. Development Corporation?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly, I'll send them down to you.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the members across are having

difficulty dealing with the member. I think that they should be brought

to order with respect to giving her time for her speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair could not agree more with the point of order.

Continue please, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: The first group of people I was talking about

that do the wallboard from alder were looking for a government loan of

something in the vicinity of $30,000, which would have in turn produced

30 jobs. That's $1,000 per job. I was very interested in noting some of

the figures that came over my desk from the joint programs sponsored by

the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development, provincially,

and the federal body, where they are funding the forgiveable loans for

small industry. These are additions, not new industries. New industries

cannot start up. This is simply to increase existing industries.

I did a little calculation on those figures. Sure, they're providing

a few jobs. I think there are about four or five jobs caning up in the

Cowichan Valley as a result of that. But do you know what those jobs

are costing, on an average, according to the figures provided by the

Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development? It's costing the

taxpayers of this province something between $4,000 and $5,000 per

possible job to be created by an increase or an addition to an existing

industry. I think that represents some of the imbalance in this

government, where a new organization that is prepared to go into some

economic investment and prepare a new product, create a new industry,

is not able to get funding. Yet existing industries are able to get

funding, at such expensive cost, even to provide one or two jobs.

One of the things, of course, that is very close to my heart — and

I'm sure it is very close to yours, Mr. Speaker — is the cost of food.

As you know, you and I and other members of this House have been doing

a tremendous amount of study on the cost of food. I don't know whether

you share my disappointment with the results of our study or not, but I

am very disappointed with the results of that study. It was a

time-consuming study; it's a costly study.

The figures in tonight's paper — and I heard the program on the

radio this morning — have indicated that food has gone up in excess of

21 percent in just the last few months. Last year the cost of food went

up by 21 percent, and there were indications then that it would

increase even more in the coming year, and that appears now to be borne

out. Some of those prices, of course, were increases at the farm gate;

but it is interesting to note that the increases at the farm gate were

far less than the increases at other levels. For example, in February

this year the price of turkey went up by 36 percent at the retail

level. The final price, Madam Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan),

went up by only 12.5 percent a pound. Do you believe that that's fair?

The retail price of chicken want up 71 percent during the same period;

the increase at the farm gate, 15 percent. In June of 1978 the price of

bacon went up 22 percent and 34 percent; sausage rose by 75 percent;

but the hog price received by the farmer rose only 5.8 percent.

While this was going on, Mr. Speaker, we found that at the retail

level prof its increased by 38 percent, but their sales volume

increased only 17.4 percent. Now it doesn't take a mathematician to

recognize that there's something very strange going on there. And when

you couple that with the differences in the percent increases between

the price at the farm gate on those few examples that I have given and

the percent increase in prices at the consumer retail level, it points

out to me in no uncertain terms that there is a problem in the food

distribution industry.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the report that has just been filed in the House

says that everything is well. This report cost the taxpayers $3

million. There are approximately 78,000 words. Do you know what that

works out to? Forty dollars a word.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: We've produced, as the minister says, a lot of other documents which will sit on the shelves somewhere. I don't know if

[ Page 104 ]

you have read them, Mr. Minister. I have read some

of them. I haven't read them all, but I think we are in the minority,

Mr. Minister. You may have read some of them too, Mr. Speaker, because

you worked on that committee. He shakes his head.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Not all are research reports. I haven't even

seen them all yet, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

Eventually, perhaps, I will. But there are two or three chapters that

deal with processing in this report, that deal with food at the retail

level and at the distribution level.

You know, I suppose in my calculation of the cost per word of this

report I should have given some weighted average to the

recommendations, because the recommendations are the things that are

probably the most important. The recommendations are interesting.

The only really extensive recommendation coming out of these pages

of verbiage that does anything or makes any recommendation relative to

the retail and distribution end of the food chain in the way of any

suggested moves that might improve the situation — in spite of these

figures that I've just given you, Mr. Speaker, that indicate to me in

no uncertain terms that there are problems there — is one of about 120

words.

This is $4,800 worth of advice that the government is getting out of this committee. I'm going to read it to you:

"The committee recommends that some form of consumer

information program be established that would describe the various B.C.

food sector concerns and needs, to better inform the public about how

the provincial food production processing and distribution sectors

function, in order to alleviate some of the mistrust and suspicion on

the part of the consumers. This might well be carried out by all

segments of the industry from producer to retailer in a consistent

manner, with coordination of information being undertaken by the

proposed B.C. food products marketing council."

That's $4,800 worth of advice to this government, and that's not

going to do much of anything for the cost of food to the people on

fixed incomes and low incomes in this province. The report donates one

small paragraph — a couple of sentences — to that whole problem of

people on below-average incomes.

I agree that for a person who is earning a good income, an average

income even in British Columbia.... The average income that is used in

this book is $17,000, which may or may not be correct. I think it's

probably fairly accurate. On the basis of that, about 15 percent of

your disposable income is spent on food if you live in British

Columbia. But how many people are getting much less than that amount of

income? How about the people in the lower brackets?

I always read these little blue sheets and yellow sheets that the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) puts out very carefully.

They're put out by the nutritive division of his ministry. They give

the cost, moderately low-cost food plan at Victoria prices. They're

very detailed. They give the prices for an adult — male, female — then

the various age groups. This particular one gives the costs for

February 1978 and February 1979. It's a very interesting one, Mr.

Speaker, because, according to the Minister of Health, the cost of

providing a low-cost but adequate diet right in Victoria has gone up an

average of 40 percent in one year.

For example, to feed an adult male in February 1978 cost $69.30. In

February 1979 it cost $94.17. To feed a 13- to 15-year-old male child

in February 1978 cost $67.56, and in February, 1979 cost $93.18. Now

those are the kind of cost increases that have occurred in one year,

according to the Minister of Health.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Per month, yes. Those are the Minister of

Health's figures. You want to talk to him, if you think it's too much. Don't talk to me.

MR. KAHL: Is it too much?

MRS. WALLACE: No, it is not too much. But I wish you would

tell that to the Minister of Human Resources because as you know, we

have had some ignominious increases in GAIN recently. They're not even

effective yet; they will be effective April 1,1979.

I would just like to point out what has happened with those

increases. Based on the Minister of Health's figures, for a family of

four — the average-size family — it would have cost approximately $215

a month to provide an adequate diet in 1978. But by February 1979

that had increased to $300; that's about a 40 percent increase.

Now if you're in receipt of social assistance and if you're living

alone, the support portion of the new increased allowance is $110.

That's for food, for clothing, for entertainment, for transportation,

for telephone; for everything except shelter, you get

[ Page 105 ]

$110.

According to the Minister of Health, food costs $94.17, so that

leaves you something like $15 or $16 for all those other things. You

know and I know that instead of eating a nutritive, adequate diet,

people who are on those kinds of limited incomes are not going to eat

properly. It's affecting the health of a whole group of people who are

in that low-income bracket. If it happens to be two people, a man and

wife — a woman lives much cheaper than a man apparently, as far as food

costs go; it's $94.17 for the man and $71.34 for the woman — it comes

to a total of $165.51. But two people are entitled to a total support

of $175. That leaves $10.51 to provide two people with clothing,

transportation, entertainment, telephone — all those extra things — for

a full month.

Now it's unfortunate that the Minister of Health and the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) didn't talk to each other before

these increases were brought about. It's nothing short of a disgrace

that those kinds of raises are being treated as outstanding increases

for people, when, in fact, people have less buying power now with the

raises than they had back in February 1978 because in February 1978 you

might have just stretched it and made it do, but it is impossible to

make it do at this point in time. This government is not facing its

responsibilities to the citizens of British Columbia, to the people who

are working for a minimum wage and to the people who are unfortunately

unable to get employment.

Yesterday we had some outstanding figures quoted in this House — I

believe it was by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — which indicated

that the true number of unemployed was something in the vicinity of

200,000 rather than the official figure of 111,000. When there are that

many people unemployed it is obvious there are not enough jobs to go

around, and that this government has failed miserably in its

job-creation program. It has failed in its services to people and it

has failed to get the economy going again. It seems prepared to sit

back with committees and commissions and, in my opinion — at least in

the committee that you and I sat on, Mr. Speaker — we were taken to the

cleaners. We spent $300 million and got something that is going to be of

little or no value to any group of people in this province. We were

taken to the cleaners by the people we employed.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Ask the man sitting next to you, Madam Member.

We were taken to the cleaners, and this cabinet, this government,

have been taking the people to the cleaners with their taxes, their

assessments and their abuse of the little people in this province. They

claim to be doing things for individuals. They talk about a bill of

rights that's going to protect individuals. I can tell you, there is no

economic freedom, no bill of rights, and they have done nothing to

secure economic freedom. The cabinet and the government have taken the

people to the cleaners and I am confident that when the election is

called, the taxpayers and the voters of this province will take this

government to the cleaners once and for all.

MR. BAWTREE: It's an honour for me to take my place in this

debate, representing the Shuswap constituency. It is more than a year,

I think, since I had the opportunity to enter into a debate on the

throne speech. During that time, we had two important additions to the

cabinet. I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member

for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford) on his appointment as Minister of

Agriculture. While there are great difficulties in facing the food

industry today, I believe there are also great opportunities with us

now and just over the horizon. I know that under the minister's

direction, with his great experience, opportunities will be grasped for

the people in agriculture and for the total economy of the province.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I also congratulate the member for Burnaby Willingdon (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) on his appointment as Minister of Tourism and Small Business

Development. His attitude towards red tape and bureaucracy will be of

great assistance to small business in this province.

In recent days and weeks there have been many changes and statements

made with regard to a committee that was sitting in this province for

many long months. One of the charges that has been made, I believe, is

that there has not been sufficient accountability in that committee.

Well, I would just like to point out that one of the first things that

happened when that committee was set up was that there was an

accounting system established before any moneys were expended. That

system was reviewed at that time by Mr. Harold Price, the departmental

comptroller assigned to the select standing committee. He indicated

that the accounting system not only met all the government's

requirements, but in fact substantially exceeded those requirements in

the

[ Page 106 ]

provision of detailed accounting information.

There have also been charges about overruns with some of the

computer corporations. It is true that there was on one occasion an

estimate that came in considerably higher than what had been originally

indicated — $31,400. I believe the statement has been made that there

yes a $33,000 overrun. The amount over was $31,400. We persuaded the

company that they were not completely blameless, and they picked up

$18,000 of that overrun. The committee in fact paid for $13,400. That

seemed to be a legitimate price for the services they gave us. The

mover of that motion to spend that money was the hon. member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the seconder was the hon. member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) .

On another occasion, there were charges made that some of our

employees were using their equipment without any authorization from the

committee. Well, it just happens that it was all in Hansard on July 27,

before any equipment rentals were made. The various prices were all

discussed in great detail in front of the committee, and it was moved

by Mr. Stupich that we endorse the chairman's recommendations. Then we

had a great deal of discussion on the matter. The hon. member for

Boundary Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) came up with a great many

suggestions and concerns that he had about hiring that particular

consultant to provide some equipment to the committee. He said: "I

suggest that this type of arrangement can cause problems — if not now,

then at a later time. I think that not only must you be innocent, you

must appear to be innocent also." And he went on to explain his

concerns in some detail.

The hon. member for Nanaimo said:

"Mr. Chairman, I don't know just what the minister is

concerned about. We have offers from a number of people. The persons

who have done the legwork on this have told us that the equipment

offered by this company called Goldenrod is at least equal to any other

equipment that's offered. I see no harm in a person, other than an MLA,

having one or even several contracts with the government ongoing. If he

were an MLA it would be a different matter, but there's nothing hidden

about this. It's all open and above-board. His rate of pay as a

consultant is shown in this document. It's been agreed to."

Everything was completely above-board and in open discussion.

Then I see in the paper that there has been some concern about the fact that

the committee did not come in with any recommendations that would reduce the

price of food in this province. Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that was not

within our terms of reference. But I'm a little surprised that that member

should be making these suggestions at this time. The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) knows full well that the largest ingredients — there are many

ingredients that make up the price of food in this province — are the price of

the raw product from the primary producer and the cost of labour. So when

she goes around saying that she wants to reduce the price of food, what she's

saying is that she wants to roll back the price that the farmers are getting

for the food. Yet the evidence that we have is that in most products the farmers

are not making an excessive profit and in some cases are making no profit at

all.

The other largest ingredient going to make up the price of food is

the cost of labour in this province. And I'm very surprised that that

member would suggest that she vents to roll back the wages and salaries

of our workers in this province. Even though those in the

food industry are getting more than they are in most other places in

Canada and the Pacific Northwest, I didn't think that she would suggest

that they be rolled back. Yet that is what she's suggesting.

I think she's also trying to indicate that there are very large

profits being made at the corner grocery store by those people who stay

up until 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night servicing their customers. I

don't believe that the profits at that level are excessive either. And

in the major chain stores it's been well documented that the profits on

sales before tax are 2 percent. That means that if we got rid of all

the profits and the taxes on those profits, we could reduce $1 worth of

food down to 98 cents. If we took the profits after taxes — that is one

cent, 1 percent — we could reduce the price of food from $1 down to 99

cents, hardly significant enough to make very much difference in the

cost of the food basket in this province.

So much for the statements from the hon. member. But before I leave

this discussion on the committee, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the

members of the committee who worked so diligently. And I also want to

recognize the contribution that was made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). They made a

very significant contribution.

Mr. Speaker, probably the most significant message coming out of the throne

speech in this debate is the great difference between those of us on the government

side and those in the opposition. The message is loud and clear: the rights

of the individual must take

[ Page 107 ]

precedence over an all-powerful state. We believe the individual, on

his own initiative, with encouragement from government, will create a

higher standard of living for all our citizens than will a socialist

regime that believes in controlling the lives of all our citizens, that

believes in controlling all businesses, including the financial

institutions.

We all know what happened in those three years when the province was

under the socialist regime. Industry faltered; investment money left

this province at a faster rate than ever before in our history.

Nowhere is the philosophical difference greater, I suppose, than in

the handling of the shares of the B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation. The NDP would have us believe that the shares are

worthless, which means that they did not spend the taxpayers' money

wisely when they bought — or stole — those businesses. At the same

time, they want all their supporters to turn the shares over to their

party to finance the next election. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) says he wants to finance his campaign with the BCRIC shares.

Well, he'll either be running a campaign with no funds or else he

disagrees with his colleagues. He should disagree with his colleagues,

really, because he knows full well that the shares, under a progressive

government and a healthy economy, are a good investment for the people

of B.C.

While they are confused as to the value of the shares, they're also

confused about ownership. They think that government ownership is just

as good as individual ownership. They don't understand that there is a

difference between what is ours and what is mine. You know the

difference, Mr. Speaker. When you speak of your charming wife as your

wife, you don't mean our wife.

Individual ownership confers many privileges and responsibilities

that are not available to state ownership. I know the vast majority of

people in this province know that there is a difference, even if the

socialists don't. And just as there is a difference between the Social

Credit and the NDP philosophies on ownership, so is there also on

individual rights.

We in this party believe that government should serve the

individual rather than have the individual made a servant of the state.

The introduction of a bill of rights will, through legislation,

guarantee fundamental freedoms for all people in this province. The

rights of the individual will be further protected by the introduction

of new legislation dealing with the expropriation of property. I know

the property owners in the Shuswap area will welcome legislation to

reduce the present multitude of expropriation statutes. The normal

process is for government to introduce more and more new legislation

and leave the old in the statute books. The Repeal of Obsolete Statutes

Act will be seen as further proof that we are serious when we say we

intend to reduce unnecessary government and free business and the

individual so they can build this country as our parents and

grandparents did.

One of the most important services the government can provide for

its citizens is accountability. This government in the past 3 1/2 years,

since December 1975, has an enviable record of accountability. The

appointment of an auditor-general, the issuing of quarterly financial

reports and the creation of the Committee on Crown Corporations all

introduce a measure of accountability. This record of accountability is

necessary to instil confidence in our citizens that their affairs are

in good hands. This was sadly lacking under the NDP and was the

greatest factor which led to their defeat in 1975. The people of this

province want, above all else, a proper handling of their tax dollars.

I note that the leader of the Opposition.... I'm referring now to

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), not the chap who's

been going around the province holding leadership rallies. I would just

like to suggest that maybe we should have a contest in this province

and find out just who the leader is. Maybe we could call it "Would the

Leader of the Opposition Please Stand Up?" I note also that there is

very little confidence in that leadership on the other side of the

House. Taken their great, esteemed leader introduced a motion of no

confidence in this government, five of their members supported that

motion and spoke on it. Less than one-third of their members supported

their leader in that motion.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is

claiming credit for the denticare program, but nothing could be farther

from the truth. The truth is that this program has been introduced in

spite of the NDP, not because of them. The socialists don't realize

that programs of this kind are not brought in because somebody sits

down and writes a nice program. This can be brought in at this time

because our government has worked for many months and years to build a

healthy economy and managed the affairs of this province to the point

where we can afford a denticare program. The 100,000 increase in the

number of jobs in this province in the last three

[ Page 108 ]

years is very impressive, but it's just the beginning of what we will accomplish in years to cane.

When our party formed the government in 1975 the mining industry was

in a shambles. Most of the development had been chased out of this

province into the Yukon and elsewhere around the world. The forest

industry was not confident enough to invest in capital improvements.

The tourist industry was putting up with worse roads than this province

had seen for decades. In just three years the capital investment in the

forest industry has gone from $562 million in 1975 to double that

amount at the present time. The revenue from our forests was estimated

to be $135 million in 1975, but you remember that those estimates were

really not based on anything much more than a crystal ball. We all

remember that that was just wishful thinking, as the revenues that year

turned out to be nearly $100 million less — $44 million rather

than the $135 million that was estimated by the Minister of Finance. By

comparison, the revenues this year are the highest on record, at

approximately $250 million. The mining industry has returned to this

province, the workers have come back from the Yukon and from other

places around the world. Last year mineral production was valued at

nearly $2 billion.

I want to say a few words about my constituency and the surrounding areas, and how the government policies will affect them.

The impact of the Revelstoke Dam construction has created growth,

not only in the Revelstoke area, but also in Salmon Arm, Sicamous and

some of the smaller areas such as Malakwa. You can get a fairly good

idea of the impact on the various communities when you realize that the

increase in school numbers, in numbers of school children attributable

to construction, has been greater in Sicamous than in Revelstoke, where

the construction is taking place.

There is great need to have new industries and job opportunities

coming onstream to take up the slack when the dam is completed. The

tourist industry has great potential for growth in the Shuswap and

Revelstoke areas. My constituents welcome the $50 million travel

industry development agreement. This will almost certainly improve

tourism in that area. The most important ingredient to improve tourism,

however, is, and always will be, a Minister of Highways who is prepared

to build roads rather than tell the tourists to go home.

We all know what happened under the last government. We have a

number of people who feel there is an opportunity for the production

and processing of agricultural products in the Shuswap and Okanagan

areas. The announcement that greater assistance will be available for

establishing processing plants, and for range management, will be

welcome.

You all remember what was happening under the NDP regime. They were

going to create a processing plant in the Interior of the province, at

Enderby. They were going to invest in that company. It was going to be

run by the government, and very largely owned by the government.

However, the program never got off the ground. Nobody in the area had

sufficient faith that it was a reasonable project. Then what happened,

of course, the Social Credit got elected. Today that plant, in a

neighbouring town, is nearing completion and will be slaughtering the

first birds on April 16, under private enterprise.

One program that is just now starting in the Shuswap, and will be

continued in the future, is the program to improve the productivity of

our forests. It is imperative that we make an all-out effort to harvest

more trees than we do at the moment. I am sure that we can in the

future harvest at least 150 trees where we now harvest 100. The

commercial thinning and fertilization of our timber stands will provide

the mills with sufficient timber, so there need be no reduction in the

allowable cut.

If, at the same time, we embark on a program to log off the large

tracts of decadent cedar and hemlock stands, and reforest those areas,

we will be able to achieve an increased harvest in the future for our

children and grandchildren. I believe we should funnel all our unused

labour resources into a forest improvement program. There are many

make-work programs at all levels of government that I believe would

give greater return over the long term if channeled into our number one

industry. I suggest that many of our handicapped, people on welfare,

and recipients of unemployment insurance could all be usefully employed

in our forests to improve the yields.

The people of the province are appreciative of the efforts of the

Minister of Health in providing the long-term care program. We in the

Shuswap are happy to receive approval for a number of projects, for the

expansion of the Enderby Hospital to allow extended-care beds. Phase

One of the Shuswap lake Hospital in Salmon Arm expects to be going ahead

by September, with Phases Two and Three coming onstream in the coming

years.

The intermediate-care facility in Salmon Arm for 75 beds, plus 10

outpatients, will be a first for that area. The Pioneer Society are to

be congratulated in pushing this project to the extent that

construction will be started in mid-summer.

[ Page 109 ]

In addition to this construction presently underway, approval has

been granted by the minister for the establishment of a community

health centre in the village of Chase. Unfortunately the Kamloops

Hospital decided not to go ahead with that proposal. Therefore, I'm

sure the Salmon Arm Hospital will be assessing its position to see if

it could administer such a facility in that Chase area.

The opposition have said that things are very bad in this province.

They're always preaching doom and gloom. I would just like to give you

a few statistics.

The value of exports through British Columbia ports has increased

to $9.5 billion this last year compared to $8.3 billion in 1977. The

provincial economy, in total, generated an increase of 4.5 percent. The

gain in average monthly employment, as to a total of 1.1 million.

Compare this advance with the 1976-77 charge of 2.8 percent. The

average unemployment rate declined to 8.2 percent last year, from 8.5

percent in 1977. For Canada as a whole, average employment increased by

3.4 percent and the unemployment rate averaged 8.4 percent. In British

Columbia, labour income from salaries and wages climbed to $14.3

billion from $13.3 billion in the previous year. Production in the

mining industry, although failing to show a very significant charge,

did increase to $1.95 billion. It's an unfortunate fact that the

mining; industry is not coming along as rapidly as it should. Most mine

developments are being held back until after the next provincial

election. The industry was burned very badly once. No one can blame

them for including politics in their assessment and in the feasibility

studies they are presently undertaking.

This province is once again enjoying a sound economy.

MR. COCKE: Oh, came on. Nonsense! You just quit and see.

MR. BAWTREE: Once again, yes, Mr. Member, the province is

able to create economic growth to supply jobs for our people. It has

been achieved with great difficulty and I know the people will not

readily throw it away, as they did in 1972. We are just beginning. I

would like to quote from one of the greatest leaders of our time, Sir

Winston Churchill.

"Now this is not the end; it is not even the beginning of

the end; but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Now that we have re-established sound economy in this province, we

will go forward. We will go from strength to strength, for the benefit

of all our citizens. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: Well, I must congratulate the member who has just sat down.

When in doubt, always quote Winston Churchill. If you can't remember the

quote, just make it up as you go along. That's the way he used to do it,

anyway.

I was a little surprised.... Now there's that horrible little man

over there who is going to chirp all night — we've got 40 minutes — you

know, if we could have that little man sit over there quietly, we would

have a very enjoyable last 40 minutes. So you keep casting your eye at

him, Mr. Speaker; give him that gimlet eye of yours to keep him quiet.

I was somewhat disappointed with the previous speaker. When he was

talking about the food commission — in his capacity as the former

chairman; I think it's now, as they say, defunct, since the committee's

not operating — he said, in reply to something that the member for

Cowichan had said regarding the committee doing something about food

costs and food prices, that it wasn't one of the mandates of the

committee. Well, I would beg to differ, Mr. Member, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that that was one of the mandates of the committee. I would

call your attention to phase 4 in the overview. If you go to the end of

that section, it says:

"The committee shall consider any changes in the

present food marketing system which may be beneficial to consumers,

producers and merchandisers, and shall recommend methods whereby

government may influence the adoption of such changes."

It occurs to me

that this is a straight forward mandate for the committee to have

looked at all aspects of the food industry — food costs, how it affects

consumers and recommendations. I think when you go to the

recommendations

section on page 181, you have to be somewhat

disappointed at the lack of specific recommendations in regard to food.

We've been told that the committee spent just over $3 million — $3

million of expenditures in relation to the whole question of food and

land and agriculture. I have mainly concentrated in looking at the

report on the food aspects, because in my capacity as the critic for

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that was the thing; I was mostly

interested in. I must say that after reading the recommendations in the

summary section, I am a little at a loss to know what the committee was

doing in its research in respect to the whole question of food. They

say in the report that they used not original data, but collected data

existing in the literature. There is no original research done in

respect to that question — that

[ Page 110 ]

man is going to open his mouth again, Mr. Speaker; I'd much prefer

that he didn't — there was no original research done in respect to this

question of food.

It says so right in the report. What they did was collect a lot of existing data.

And then they go on to say:

"The food prices in B.C. do not appear to be too high

when compared to those prices in the rest of Canada, to those prices in

other countries and to those prices in the past or to the level of

income earned or the portion of disposable income spent on food in

British Columbia."

That was based purely on a collection of data that they got from

other areas, except that they did do a survey. We don't have any of the

specifics on the survey, but they talk about a survey.

"B.C. residents are not required to pay a greater

amount of their income for food than residents of other areas; indeed,

B.C. residents appear to pay one of the smallest proportions of income.

However, the above conclusions are based on averages. It is undoubtedly

true that food prices may be too high for some people of fixed or low

incomes."

And that's just the group I want to deal with: fixed- or low-income

people, and my colleague for Cowichan started to develop this point.

There are about 600,000 people in this province, 25 percent of the

people of this province, who come within that category of fixed or low

incomes. They are not in the position to only spend 15 percent of their

disposable income on food.

In order to make my point more specific I want to take two

categories of people who by edict of the government remained at the

same level of income for three years. I just want to deal with the

people who are classified as handicapped in this province, and people

who are in the 60-to-64 GAIN program, or GAIN-less program. In January

1976 the amount of money that was granted to those people was $265,

which was an increase that was announced by the previous government,

and it came into operation by the present government. That was for the

handicapped and for the 60-to-64 group.

On April 1,1976, the people over the age of 65, who were part of

what used to be called the Mincome program.... The Mincome program was

the handicapped, those 60 to 64 years of age, and the over-65s. The

over-65s received the quarterly increase; it had been the practice to

pass on the OAS-GIS increase in this province since January 1974. But

the handicapped and the 60-to-64 people did not receive that increase.

It is only within the last three months that there has been talk that

they're going to get some kind of increase in any case.

So we should examine what kind of impact the effect of food costs

had on those two categories of people, something like 25,000 people in

total. For three years those people were denied any increase at all,

yet in those three years we saw the cost of food increase by 30

percent. Yet that government that boasted every year of a surplus of

$101 million, $143 million and $148 million did not have any feeling to

say that these people would be entitled to an increase. For three years

that went on, and 25,000 people in this province received no increase.

In the report they say, yes, there are problems with people on

fixed income. The figures were quoted by my colleague for Cowichan —

the Victoria study, the information coming from the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland). It costs $90 for someone to live in a family if

it is an individual and $75 for a woman. Let's take the $90 and take

somebody at $265 — that certainly isn't 15 percent of their income or

20 percent or 25 percent or 30 percent; that is 34 percent of their

income — and examine within that $265 the impact of the rent. After

all, rents went up something like 21 percent over these three years.

What I'm trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is this: this is a

government that has said constantly that it has concern for the people.

I pointed out to you just one small group, 25,000 people, who for three

years were forced to live on the same income, as though it was the year

1976, and in the space of one year — between March of this year and

March of last year — we've seen an increase in food of 21 percent. They

are to be condemned for that kind of action.

I want to return just for a minute to the report. What I would have

hoped we would have got out of the report is a firm recommendation in

respect to some kind of provincial food policy, a policy in respect to

what the government is going to do to give leadership in terms not only

of the food industry but in terms of food pricing and growth of the

agricultural community, so that we can move towards a greater degree of

self-sufficiency than we have now.

But that's not in here. In fact, they talk about two possible

solutions for low-income people. They say in the report: "It is

undoubtedly true that food prices may be too high for some people on

fixed or low incomes. The focus in that case should not be towards

lowering food prices but towards enhancing

[ Page 111 ]

those low incomes. This is regarded as a social problem and not

the fault of the food system."

One of the things that they have not taken a look at.... They talk

about doing something about incomes. You have people on fixed incomes.

You are talking about a further transfer payment. More money from the

taxpayer to subsidize these groups. If you're talking about people who

are earning low incomes, then you're talking about doing something

about improving those incomes. The only time-honoured way now in this

country in this community to get income improved if you're working is

to have a collective agreement and to be able to bargain for it.

So the two options that they talk about are the kinds of things that

for years that party has always railed against: no more subsidies, no

more welfare for the poor. Then they talk about in the report.... We'll

see when we get into the debate just how many people endorse this kind

of stand. But what they have avoided completely in the report is

discussion of the problem of prices. For two years in this country we

had the AIB that was supposed to be in there to look at wages and

prices. Only in six examples did it do anything about prices, but in

well over 3,500 examples they did something about rolling back wages.

It seems to be, particularly in the free enterprise system, that

there are no solutions whatsoever to increasing food costs, other than

somehow getting more money to people, whether it's a subsidy or a

transfer of payment to people on fixed incomes, and then bleating

rather calmly about the idea that the people should get more money from

employers in the non-collective agreement area. To me, the way they

look at it is not very practical.

Surely the committee would have spent some worthwhile time examining

some of the factors that make up high food costs. I do not accept what

the previous member said, Mr. Speaker, about the profit picture.

You know, he talks very blithely about the fact that they had only a

one cent profit on the dollar, when we're talking about a volume of

food expenditures in this province of over $2 billion. This is the food

expenditure in this province, over $2 billion; and in the country,

almost $16 billion.

One of the areas we needed to look at last year; we tried to elicit something

from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), to direct that committee to look

at the whole question that was raised by the staff of that committee and by

members on this side of the House on the whole question of kickbacks — kickbacks

in supermarkets in terms of the large producers and the chain stores. There

was an absolute refusal on their part to do that. We heard some bleatings from

the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that we

have no jurisdiction to do it. Yet the province of Ontario have done it. They

at present have a royal commission which is looking at this very fact. They've

gone to some expense to set that up. We didn't have to go to any expense.

We had a committee that was there, sitting, and could have done something about

it, and didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did.

MR LEVI: No, you didn't. The member dreams that you did. I'm

telling you that you didn't do anything about it. If there was information

that you had in terms of cancelled cheques — and we were told there were such

cheques — we were told by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that

what he has recommended is that it be sent to the combines investigation people.

We'll have to find out from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

whether the information went down and what was the evaluation of the combines

investigation people — in fact, what happened.

It is no good you saying or the former Chairman saying across the

floor that "we did do something about it." You had an opportunity to

convene the committee, to have a series of public hearings in which

you could have asked directly the major chain stores just exactly what

is this question of kickbacks. But you avoided it. Completely avoided

it. It would have been an opportunity to clear up once and for all a

very serious problem that exists. It's talked about. We know that a lot

of people are prepared to talk in camera. We know that people are

prepared to talk on the phone and tell you all sorts of things. They

won't come forward. We will see what happens as a result of the royal

commission in Ontario.

That committee, if it failed in one area particularly, it failed to

come to grips with the question. It's a question that has been around

and hovering over the food industry for at least 20 years, since the

combines investigation people had an inquiry in 1958, when they missed

an opportunity. Three million dollars, incidentally, is three times the

amount of money that all of the government in 1978 spent on information

on nutrition.

We did not get an in-depth look at the whole question of corporate

advertising, and that kind of thing that goes on in the industry.

It's no small industry, this whole business of advertising. In 1978 some $90 million, as

[ Page 112 ]

spent on advertising in terms of food. We know that for every dollar

that's spent on food, 14 cents goes to advertising and packaging.

We would have been happy to see some recommendations coming out that

were firmly placed in here in respect to what we might deal with in

terms of the large chain stores. There has been some move by some chain

stores towards no-brand packaging. We've yet to see the results of that

kind of experiment, but it might very well be that it's a move in the

right direction. That should have been looked at by the committee. And

if it was worthwhile endorsing, it should have been endorsed and more

encouragement given to move in that direction. It's simply not good

enough to come in with recommendations suggesting that if the food is

too high, then we've got to give people more money in terms of salary.

We've got to look at the mechanism and find out whether in fact the

incredible corporate concentration that exists in the major food chains

is a serious factor in respect to food prices. Based on some of the

inquiries that have taken place — not in Canada but in the United

States, in Senate hearings — I would suggest that corporate

concentration is a factor. That was missing in some of the terms of

reference that they had to look at in this report.

I hope that we can look forward to some debate at the appropriate

time — presumably in the Agriculture estimates — in respect to this

report.

In respect to the problem about the expenditures and whether proper

expenditures were or were not made, I would suggest to the chairman

that he might do a service to himself and to the committee and put the

whole thing in the hands of the public accounts committee and let them

have a go at it and see exactly just how money was spent and if it was

spent properly. That kind of process can always be useful to future

commissions and future committees.

I want to turn now to another committee, a standing committee of the

House, the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. It's in its

infancy. It's beginning to find its legs, and some interesting work has

been done. I have a number of criticisms about it which I've expressed

to the committee, and I'm prepared to express. The meetings of that

committee are not frequent enough. I think there are some serious

problems with the kind of work that we do in respect of looking at some

of the Crown corporations.

I do have some serious concerns about those Crown corporations that are not

in the

schedule of the Crown Corporations Committee. I'm very concerned,

particularly in view of some of the problems that I have read in respect to

the Systems Corporation, why that Crown corporation is not part of the

schedule

of the Crown Corporations Reporting Committee. I have also raised the same question:

why isn't the British Columbia Building Corporation on the

schedule of that

committee?

That would be a golden opportunity for that committee, not only for

the members of the committee but for the staff of the committee, to go

almost hand-in-hand with the building of the Crown corporations and

seeing the mechanisms as they are developed — not have to go in after

three or four years and wade your way through the bureaucracy and the

reports and work out — which is a very big time factor — what kind of

questions you want to elicit in order to get some understanding of what

goes on in Crown corporations. I'll have more to say about the question

of the two corporations that do not at present come under the Crown

Corporations Reporting Act.

It's interesting that three years ago, when the present government

had its first throne speech, the theme by the mover and seconder was

one of freedom. We heard great speeches in those days about the need

for freedom and individual rights. As a matter of fact, I think my

friend from Dewdney spoke in the debate in his usual arrogant fashion.

Yet it's taken three years and four months for that government to come

up with some ideas about what they are going to do to protect the

freedoms they say are in jeopardy. I'm not aware of those freedoms that

are in jeopardy. I mean, when they said it three years ago, that was

after the election in which one of their themes in that hysterical

election was something about freedom.

So for over three years they've sat back, and now they've come up

with an idea that we're going to have a bill of rights. I must say, Mr.

Speaker, that I am very cynical about that kind of bill of rights

because I've been very cynical about the Premier's complete involvement

and obsession with wanting to became a constitutional expert overnight.

With all the problems this province has to face, he's spent most of his

time fiddle-faddling around the constitution. He sees that as a major

priority. Now if he's bringing in a bill of rights, if it is a

last-minute thing because of sane things that the former Minister of

Human Resources said, well, that might have merit. But I doubt that

that guy has that kind of influence, so I don't think that's the reason

for it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hold it. You know that's not right.

[ Page 113 ]

MR LEVI: You mean it' s true? That's why he's bringing it

in — because of what you did? My gosh, that man has got more influence than

I thought he had.

The thing is, on the question of rights, when the bill comes in,

we're going to have an opportunity to hear from all of those people

over there just what rights are in jeopardy and what rights need to be

enshrined or entrenched. We've got to entrench these rights; we've got

to put them in. Then we're going to have a real, conflict because....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's "entrenched," Bill, because if you don't entrench them you wind up in the trenches having to fight for them.

But 3 1/2 years later they come up with the idea that they want a

bill of rights. That's what the public out there are screaming for.

They're not terribly interested in high food costs. They're not

terribly interested in unemployment. They're not worried about the loss

of health-care standards. They're worried about a bill of rights. If

anything, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, is a boondoggle, it's that

kind of thing.

MR. SKELLY: You need one under Social Credit.

MR. LEVI: Well, but that's something the NDP have to bring

in, because if they bring in a bill of rights, who knows what will be

in there? Car dealers, car kickers, millionaires — my God, the people

won't even be in there. One has to be very skeptical.

I would have thought the one piece of legislation that might have

come in.... It's something that people on that side have talked about,

that the Premier talked about the first year and the second year, but

he didn't talk about it last year. Where's the conflict-of-interest

legislation? That was a big discussion. That was one of the Premier's

big things he was going to do. He was going to straighten out this

problem of conflict of interest, and it is something that needs to be

straightened out. When are we going to get the bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It will be done.

MR. LEVI: We just got a cabinet secret. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

tells us it is going to happen. He should know, because in the department that

he is responsible for, he has a man who is kept very busy looking at some complaints,

particularly in the municipal area, about conflict of interest. I think there

have been something like 10 or 12 in the past 2 1/2 years in various municipalities

where officials have been involved in the dubious practice — and I think it

is a dubious practice — of purchasing land when they're employed by municipalities.

There are other areas of these kinds of conflict of interest. Where

is that legislation? It's not here. I don't know that we have to see

whether, in fact, it's going to come in. If not, then I think they're

missing out on an opportunity to introduce something. They have a

desire to let the sunshine in. You're going to have to let the sunshine

in on the whole question of conflict of interest.

I want to talk just briefly, if we've got another 15 minutes. I want

to talk, just for a minute, through you to the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) who sits there so quietly taking it all in. That's

very good. I want to talk to him about the B.C. Systems Corporation.

When I made a statement two or three weeks ago about the B.C. Systems

Corporation, I utilized a report that came to us in the mail. It was

the third draft of a report from a committee of deputy ministers.

They'd all seen it, and they'd all agreed to it. They were deputy

ministers of the six departments who were the major users of computer

services in the government. This was not a report that we had made up.

This was a report by six responsible ministers. The date on it was

October 15.

The first response we got from the minister and one of his officials

was that the report was out of date. We heard from one of his officials

to say that the deputy ministers were guilty of sour grapes. We will

have an opportunity, when we get into the debate on the minister's

estimates, as to whether he agrees with that description that there

were sour grapes in respect to the deputy ministers. Or were, in fact,

the deputy ministers, after analysing the situation, stating their

major concerns about that corporation? What we are concerned about is the

contents of that report, which says that things are not as they should

be, and there are two recommendations from the deputy ministers which

strongly suggest that a great deal of the control of the corporation

should go back to the department.

The question is: where does the minister stand on this? We have some

mixed statements from himself and from his official. As I understand

it, the corporation came into being officially in September, 1977. From

the public accounts of 1977-78, it was presumably operating. They have

an income and expenditure. It's all there in the balance sheet. It

[ Page 114 ]

officially took over the functions of all the departments, according to the 1977-78 public accounts, on April 1,1978.

What we'd like to know from the minister, and we'll have to get

that, of course, in his estimates, is when the report was requested.

If it was requested four months after the corporation was set up,

that would take us to sometime in July, 1977. The report was completed

in October, 1978 and delivered to the minister who, presumably, had an

opportunity to look at it. That would take us sometime into November

and then, presumably, some decisions would be made to do something

about the problems. We hear from the president of the corporation that

the report runs out of date and everything is okay.

Well, we still don't hear that everything is okay, but we've yet to

hear from that minister as to exactly what actions he took, if any. He

might have decided in November to do something about the Systems

Corporation when, lo and behold, the Premier came along and dumped

BCRIC shares right on top of the corporation, took the president of the

corporation away from his major job of running the corporation, and

said: "You're in charge of the BCRIC share issue. Get with it." And

there we are. Those are the facts that are in the report, which the

minister says is out of date.

What he's really doing is putting down six senior deputy ministers in the department, who are asking....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: What are you so twitchy about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We only have ten

minutes to go before the hour of adjournment. Perhaps we can have a

little quiet for the last ten minutes.

MR LEVI: We have to have an opportunity for the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in his estimates to come clean on exactly what is taking place

in the Systems Corporation. Nobody is talking about dismantling the Systems

Corporation; we want to know just what exactly are the administrative problems

in there. If you have problems with department heads, with other deputy ministers,

then there has to be some discussion about working it out.

We hear from the president of the corporation that it's all soul.

Well, that's remarkable. If it's all soul I want to know what an

advertisement from the Ministry of Health is doing in "Business Week"

advertising for programmers for computer programs in that ministry.

What' s going on there? If he tells me everything is okay — that's the

statement that the president made — everything's okay. The sour-grapes

people have been satisfied. Yet they're advertising outside the Systems

Corporation for work in the Health ministry. What has really happened?

Has the Health ministry won the argument, that they want to take back

what is in the first and the fourth recommendations? First, they want to

take back the decision of what kind of system they want; second, they

want to be able to go outside the system. So we want to know about

that. We haven't any of those answers.

We'd also like to know from the minister if he could tell us whether

in fact the person who has replaced the chief financial officer of the

corporation.... Is he still there? Is he the man who comes from

Clarkson Gordon in Toronto? We've asked, but we haven't heard from the

minister whether in fact that's not a conflict of interest when

Clarkson Gordon are the auditors of the corporation. Yet the person who

is the acting finance chief is somebody from Clarkson Gordon himself.

Now we know the minister has told us this afternoon that the BRIC

share thing will have to quit until the budget comes down. I don't know

what he's going to tell us in the budget about the BCRIC shares, unless

he's going to produce for us a balance sheet. That's not his style to

come down with a lot of facts and figures about expenditures. He

usually tells us that it will be available all in good time. When will

it be available? When the public accounts come out. And when will the

public accounts come out? Well, since he has his accountability, and

he's got his auditor general.... For years in this province we used to

get public accounts in August of the year. Now we get them in January

of the year.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You haven't been in the House long enough to know anything, Mr. Member.

We used to get public accounts every August. Now we have to wait until January.

HON. MR. WOLFE: How many quarterly reports do you get?

MR. LEVI: The quarterly reports don't tell you anything. What

kind of nonsense are you talking? Quarterly reports — what do they tell

you? Not one of then is audited. Quarterly reports — what nonsense.

Every one has a headline on the top: "This is not audited." What are

you talking about — quarterly reports? The only thing we can go on is

the information that's contained in public accounts, and now

[ Page 115 ]

we have to face another six months before we get them. I'm sure the

the kind of answer we're going to get from the minister, when he brings

down his budget, is that all of the information on the expenditures of

BRIC and the calculations in the estimates will then be available in

public accounts.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Those backbenchers say I'm wrong. My God! He knows

something I don't know. We haven't heard anything yet from the

minister. He's sat quiet. The minister has been so quiet. He has

allowed the presidents of the corporations to give all the answers.

He's allowed that president to put down the deputy ministers who wrote

the report. It's not something that they initiated themselves. It's a

report that the minister requested, yet we have not one word from

the minister as to what happened as a result of that report.

We don't know, to this day, whether anything was done at all in

respect to that report, if we are to presume that from the minister's

own words — they started the report four months after the corporations

were set up in July. It would probably take that long to do some kind

of report. Remember we were looking at a third draft, but we don't know

from that minister what took place at all.

He's decided to be very silent about it. He was warned in the

beginning about rushing in and trying to do everything in terms of

centralized computer systems. They might have been trying to work

things out, but when the chaos of the BCRIC shares was dumped on them,

there was no possibility at all of working anything out.

I suspect, on the basis of the advertisement that the Department of

Health has now got in the March 9 edition of "Business Week," that

some of the departments have taken the bit in their teeth. They've gone

out and decided that for the benefit of the department they're going to

have to obtain their own services. We don't know, and we want to learn

from the minister whether in fact this is the tacit understanding that

exists between the minister, the corporation and the departments —

that things are so bad that we had better let them go out so they can

complete their work, because one of the reports talked about the

question of the availability of time.

Another part of the report talked about cost. We raised that

question of costs in the estimates last time. When we talk about the

whole question of accountability, which they've been talking about over

there, we want to know — and we're serving notice on that minister that

we intend to find out from questions, both in his estimates, presumably

in the debate on the BCRIC Bill, when it cones out — just exactly

what's going on there in terms of that system, and in terms of

accountability in expenditures of the public money.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada