1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1741 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Retroactive tax bills.

Mr. Passarell –– 1741

Mr. Speaker rules –– 1741

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1741

Mr. Macdonald –– 1744

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1745

Mr. Stupich –– 1748

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1754

Mr. Cocke –– 1757

Oral questions.

Air fare for Pearson Hospital technician. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 1760

Tabling Reports

Legislative Library annual report.

Mr. Speaker –– 1760

FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker,

speaking in my capacity as MLA for Saanich and the Islands

constituency, I wonder if you would convey the regrets of this House to

the family of the late Perceval George Jack James, who passed away in

Lady Minto hospital in Ganges on Saltspring Island on March 26. Would

you express particular sympathy to his wife, Dorothy, and to his three

daughters, one of whom is Audrey Bennett, the wife of our Premier, as

well as to the grandchildren and other family members. On more than one

occasion Jack James has been in this chamber on ceremonial occasions,

and he was known to many members present and past. We were very sad to

hear of his passing.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's the wish of the House I'll prepare the appropriate message. So ordered.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery today from Alberni

constituency. I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Barbara Barrett

and her daughter Jacqueline.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I

have a guest, a constituent of mine, an eminent counsel in the city of

Vancouver and a member of the Vancouver bar. I would ask this House to

welcome Bill Esselmont to the chamber today.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this morning are four students accompanied

by Mr. David Freeman from the village of Alert Bay. I ask the House to

make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker,

in the gallery today are two good friends. One is on his second visit

to the gallery and on his first visit to British Columbia. Mr. Chuck

Hoffman is with us again today from San Diego. He is accompanied by a

very good friend of many of us here, a young man who has served very,

very well for this assembly, this government, and the people of British

Columbia, Mr. George Lenko.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, in the gallery is Mr. John T. Gilbert and Mrs. Gilbert. Mr.

Gilbert is the Clerk of the Legislature of Bermuda. Please make them

welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL:

It is to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent

public importance, namely, the need for the relief of northern British

Columbians who are now faced with retroactive tax bills as a result of

a decision by Revenue Canada affecting tax benefits which are required

by them to make their livelihoods.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the responsibility of the Chair in this matter

is to determine the urgency. I must find that since we are presently engaged

in the estimates of the House in which opportunity will occur almost immediately

for its debate, it does not qualify under standing order 35 as being urgent

enough to set aside the business of the House. I so rule.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $551,612.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should take the opportunity during my estimates

to stress once more the very nature of British Columbia and its

importance both to Canada and to the international trading community.

This province provides not only a window on the Pacific Rim but port

facilities that can give access to Canadian and British Columbian

products around the world. Because of geography, British Columbia is

not a strong trader within our country. Our products are world products

and, as such, must have and be given access to the world. British

Columbia ports and British Columbia transportation facilities take not

only our products but other products from Canada and ship them to many

communities in the world. Our ports and our transportation systems also

receive products from other countries, products that will help serve

the needs of Canadians and balance that trade which is vital to the

trading nations of this world. Trade is not a one-way street; it is a

two-way street and one which British Columbia is enthusiastically

pursuing, not only because of our own interests — the development of

our own economy and resources — but also because it is useful to Canada

in balancing Canada's international balance of payments that British

Columbia plays such an aggressive role.

Much has been said

during the past few days about specific trade missions. I wish to state

that this government has made external trade opportunities and market

opportunities a primary concern and priority of this government in

seeking to improve the lot of and the opportunities for not only the

present working generation but future generations. These missions are

important not only in an economic way but in a political way — to

solidify friendships and make new friendships around the world.

But

when we travel, Mr. Chairman, we do not travel as British Columbians;

we travel as Canadians, representing a strong part of our country. As

strongly as we feel about the importance of our own areas within this

country — and all provincial Premiers and all people in all provinces

of this country feel a strong identity with their own geographic area —

we would presume too much to assume that the people of all other

countries of this world understand the Canadian Confederation or the

way provincial rights and the provinces work within the system, or even

know about our provinces or much about the internal workings of our

country. It is therefore important when we travel abroad, Mr. Chairman,

that we travel as Canadians, for that is the identity we carry in the

world, just as Australia is an identity, although it has some very

important producing states within Australia, but when they travel — and

their resource ownership is similar to ours

[ Page 1742 ]

they travel as Australians, they present an Australian face to the

world. So it is that when we and our officials have travelled, we've

travelled as Canadians.

It's important, Mr. Chairman, then

to realize the goals of these various economic missions, and let me

specifically talk about our first major trade mission in 1977 to

Europe. It was important that we improve the image of not only our

country but our province; it was important that we utilize the

diplomatic services that are available to provincial delegations.

Because, unfortunately, delegations by the previous government, who now

sit in opposition, did not utilize these to the extent that would have

put forth a strong face for Canada and this province. They did not use

those facilities to that extent when they made a previous visit. There

is some delicacy in international matters, and that is why we chose to

go the proper route.

There were also impressions created by

missions which did not use those facilities that had to be erased from

those countries, particularly from the business communities in those

countries wishing to trade with British Columbia. Many of the requests

and much of the need from that mission and from others were apparent

not only to British Columbia but also to our people in business and

industry who would carry on the trade with the rest of the world. It is

not the role of this government of British Columbia to be involved in

trade; that is for the private sector. But it is our responsibility to

create a climate here and to help create in other places a climate of

opportunity which is consistent with the diploma tic arrangements made

have been presented by previous missions which did not recognize that

they carried a Canadian responsibility when they went to visit these

countries; to allay any fears which may have been created by the

impression that these countries were hostile to foreign participation

and to the expansion of foreign markets. It was important for that

mission in 1977 to have the fullest cooperation of the government of

Canada.

A number of questions have been raised about the

purpose of the visit. The purpose was to show a favourable climate in

British Columbia, politically and economically, which could be built

upon by business and industry in our province and in our country; also

to show that we were a strong part of Canada, and that we were

committed to a united country at a time when the concerns of the

European community and Great Britain were not focused solely on British

Columbia but were concerned with the political climate in Canada

because of the election of the Parti Quebecois and their stated aim to

separate and to break up this country. It may come as a shock to some

members of this Legislature who, when they travelled, took a very small

view of the world but a large view of themselves that they were more

interested in the political stability of this country and the political

stability of the provinces — particularly British Columbia, whose

reputation was not particularly enhanced by the previous government.

is interesting to note that the bulk of their questions surrounded the

country and our constitutional efforts to deal with not only the

preservation of a country which included the province of Quebec but

also the feelings of British Columbia and our future role in this

country.

The political mission was important — to do away with old impressions, to meet

immediate concerns, and, yes, to talk about and foster new trade opportunities.

While British Columbia has dealt and does deal primarily with the United States,

and while new opportunities are being developed in the Pacific Rim, there are

historic links with the European community that can be fostered, as we have

attempted to do. These can grow to the mutual benefit of British Columbia and

Canada and of those countries with which we trade and deal.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to detail, for those in this House who have

missions travelling as Canadian missions, how they work, because it

involves a great deal of cooperation and political preparation. It

involves daily briefings — in fact, a number of briefings — not only on

our own internal concerns, but also major briefings by embassy

officials, trade officials, political officials, on the type of

questions to be asked by various people within the European Economic

Community, and by various countries and firms — because the mission

took two or three parts. One part was courtesy, on behalf of the

country, to organizations that have no ability to conduct trade, such

as the European economic commission itself; there were specific

missions with government officials in particular countries, to talk

about our country and respond to questions. And then there were general

meetings, in which the businesses and industries that might be dealing

with those businesses and industries within our province and within our

country — those are the people who will do the job after we create the

climate and deal with concerns about our country as both a stable

political entity and a reliable supplier....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It would be improper for me, Mr. Chairman — and this should temper part

of some of the debate that goes on — to betray the briefings from

federal government officials about certain questions and the types of

questions that would be asked by certain individuals — and their

preoccupations. However, I would point out to this House that that

mission wasn't secret, it wasn't confidential, and travelling with this

mission were three press people from British Columbia, three press

people who were invited to participate in those briefings, who had

knowledge of the specific aims and objectives of what this government

and what was expressed at those meetings.

It would be

interesting if those people, the independent press who travelled with

the mission, who reported on the mission, who were given the courtesy

of not following a junket and reporting on people standing on the great

wall of China with a camera in their hands, but who actually sat in on

the working sessions — the briefings by the Coal Board in Britain, and

would be interesting to hear their impressions and their assessment of

what the mission was about and what went on. They know full well. Not

only were some statements made that could be highly controversial in an

international sense, but also some of the questions which were asked

and statements which were made about the former government of British

Columbia would not only be highly embarrassing to those people, but it

would be difficult for me to relate what an impression they had left in

the business and industry community and in the political community of

Europe. I have no intention of going to the level of that group and

that party in either the way they dealt as a government or the way

they're willing to deal in opposition as individuals or collectively.

[ Page

1743 ]

Do not let them create the impression that only a few of them conduct themselves

on this level. By their silence or perhaps their attempt to run away, they can't

run away. I refer to members like the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt)

and others. They are a part of the general tone of the attack and the general

tone of maintaining the style and conduct of the New Democratic Party as it

has been not for just the last four years, but for the last 20-odd years in

this province. It is a style that has dealt less on policy and more on silly

personal attacks. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, it would be easy to resort

to the type of response that these attacks warrant, but we don't have the

luxury of that type of frivolous behaviour, because we have the responsibility

of government. But I do wish to impress upon this assembly and the members sitting

here the importance of the trade missions which have gone out, both politically

and by staff officials — the technical missions which have followed up the cooperation

with business, industry and, yes, labour, in being a part of missions to specific

countries around the world which provide opportunities for British Columbians

— and the sensitivity of the politics, both international and national, that

must be dealt with, explained and understood.

Mr.

Chairman, it is not easy to deal and tread as softly as one would. It

is not always easy to deal where the bulk of the questions will be

asked on Canadian policy when Canada has a moratorium on uranium.

That's why it's important to be briefed on both those people who are

preoccupied with uranium in Europe — and there was a preoccupation

among some of the people at that time, although not all of them were in

a position to do anything about it. It was a personal preoccupation

because they were advocates of nuclear power and wished to have

information about whether Canada was going to be a supplier. Not only

were they interested in British Columbia products, but they were

interested in the developments taking place in other parts.

had to have briefings about Saskatchewan being able to emerge from

being a have-not province to being a have province, because the large

basis for their future economy will be the development of uranium.

Certainly the people of Saskatchewan appreciate that fact, and they've

made a decision upon it that that's the way they'll stop being a

have-not province in this country and be a have province. Certainly

there are international questions as to what the Canadian moratorium at

that time was on what shipments of uranium would do to traditional

Canadian supplies. Certainly British Columbia has not, was not, and is

not now a producer of uranium.

Yes, among the many potential

resources, obviously, because some exploration had started and had

certainly been identified by a mining authorization by the previous New

Democratic Party government in this province, questions as to whether

British Columbia would be a supplier might have been on the minds.

Primarily the concern was Canadian. Yes, there were questions, but was

the purpose of the mission to flog uranium to Europe? No, it wasn't and

no, it has never been.

This province has not had a stated policy on that specific resource — not stated

by any government that I know of — because we have never had to deal with it

as a producing product in this province. What we have had is exploration that

was encouraged by the New Democratic Party and the mines minister of the time,

Leo Nimsick. This was specific exploration for uranium. But now this government

in these days has had to deal with the fact that exploration was leading to

indications of some resource that was not known before.

This

government has made a policy decision. It is the first policy that a

government has publicly stated in this province. It was the seven-year

moratorium on exploration and mining of uranium in this province. It

means clearly that this province has concerns that are expressed among

our people. The mining community and the mining climate create such an

opportunity now in other areas, including copper, coal and molybdenum.

It is timely that we do it without injury to those who would work or

invest in the industry. It will not create either personal or economic

interruptions, but it will do something to allay the fears of those

people who have been concerned that this activity has been going on.

That is now the policy of this government.

Let me talk again

about the need for international access and representation and also the

governments in presenting a face to the world. Indeed, the face we

present is a Canadian face. It's a country which I'm sure all members

of this assembly are proud of and are willing to fight to hold

together. We must express to the rest of the world that those who

create doubts about the future political stability of this country are

but a few and those who are and continue to be government are working

not only to retain the country but to make it stronger. That is the

type of message we have been carrying around the world.

also have to carry a message that we are a reliable and secure

supplier. In the past Canada and, particularly, British Columbia have

not always been considered by those who would trade with us and who

receive our goods to be secure and reliable suppliers. Not only do they

look for price and quality in the commodities they buy from British

Columbia and Canada, they look for security of supply and delivery. The

uncertain industrial climate that British Columbia has had in the past

and disruptions in delivery have worried those who have dealt with the

people of business and industry in this province. They want assurance

that this province and this country are working to resolve the

uncertainties that have taken place in an industrial way in this

province.

It was encouraging for us to go to these

countries. More recently we had an even longer record of success

showing that the number of man-days lost due to strikes and lockouts

has been steadily decreasing since this government assumed a leadership

role in this province. We can be considered a secure and reliable

supplier of necessary goods which others would wish to purchase and

which create employment and economic activity in this province. It's a

message that needed to be told. It's a message that needs to be told

again and again, because without these assurances the world isn't going

to beat a path to our door.

It was evident during the early

seventies when we were not government that they were beating a path not

to our door but certainly to those countries who are our competitors,

such as Australia, They were beating a path to their door, beating us

out of traditional markets and taking away jobs and employment in this

province. That isn't just an empty statement. That is an historical

fact and part of a record of which this province can't be proud, but a

record which is changing. We now have a record of recognition and

acceptance by those who trade with British Columbia and Canada. That is

why it's so important for us to also get on with developing new port

and transportation links, such as the port of Prince Rupert and an

additional rail system, to end the single de-

[ Page 1744 ]

pendency

not just for British Columbian products but for the wheat that goes

around the world from the great Canadian prairies plus our Peace River

country. There are questions every day about the security of supply of

a single outlet from the west.

We need those facilities; we

need them to help other parts of Canada as well as our own, and they

must be built, and we need them for the development of our trading

opportunities as well. Northeast coal development has long been talked

about, but under the ministry — formerly the Ministry of Economic

Development, now the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development — the first major concrete steps have been taken and worked

on, both in Canada and with the international community, to prepare the

way for the development of those resources for our benefit, for the

employment of our people.

Other British Columbia products

will flow; other British Columbia products will be developed in the

northwest sector of this province because of that proposed development.

It hasn't come easily. The work in getting the federal government to

participate in the feasibility studies, the needed infrastructure, the

assessment and division of its costs, have all been important in

leading up to this point in time where I feel that we're on the

threshold of success. It's more than a major vision, Mr. Chairman. It's

more than pie in the sky development of infrastructure or

transportation for development's sake; it is development that can be

carried on in a responsible, sound and very rewarding manner for

British Columbians and for this country. It isn't a pie in the sky

vision; it isn't rhetoric. That development on the threshold of success

is going to be very real to British Columbians. And it didn't just

happen. It's taken a lot of hard work, not just by the politicians

trying to allay the political concerns and prepare the political ground

for our province and our country, but by the numerous officials and

technical meetings, the reliability of the information being gathered

for both our respective governments' industry, and those who will deal

with us — because they don't deal with pie in the sky, coloured

pictures and drawings; they deal with hard facts and know that we have

the ability to prepare.

We also need this cooperation, not

only internationally, but with our national government — a type of

cooperation that we have developed because we need it just for the

development of our internal industry. I see today that in the last

little while there has been concern about a small company in Kamloops

which started up and deals not only with the local market but with the

international market. It prepares pizza, which has an extensive

market...

MR. LEA: Pasta.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

...and pasta, and has an export market that is important to it. We see

the problems that Canadian policy or policies elsewhere can create for

a small company, yet they are important to our province. That type of

entrepreneurial talent will be lost not only to Kamloops but to B.C.

and Canada if it's allowed to get away. It needs help; it needs the

cooperation and decisions of the Wheat Board of Canada, which is not

controlled by this government but is important to other areas. That's

why I'm pleased to say that our Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is playing an active role now with the

firm to be able to stay in Kamloops, in British Columbia. It's not just

big companies and big forests and big mines, it's government dealing

with government to help promote small business as well — to encourage

them, but to prevent regulations and decisions that are made in other

parts of the country from hurting industry and business in British

Columbia. We don't want to lose the little bit of export market this

firm has, but primarily we don't want to lose that entrepreneurial

talent and that type of go-getter from our province or from Kamloops —

they're necessary.

Mr. Chairman, these are the reasons why

a Canadian face to the world, but we have cooperated in a number of

ways on our own internal development, and we expect that cooperation to

come back and help our large business, our large industry, and our

small business and our small industry. We not only want to see new jobs

created, we want to see jobs retained.

Mr. Chairman, these

are thoughts that all members of this Legislature should consider —

actions that have been positive. Mr. Chairman, due to personal

appointments, I would now move....

Mr. Chairman, those are

thoughts I thought I should leave with the members of this Legislature

because it's part of the record and part of the message we're

continuing to state for British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I've been here since 1960.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Too long.

MR. MACDONALD:

Too long, yes, as the Minister says; maybe it is. But I have never seen

— and I'm sure many of the longer-term members have never seen this

kind of a scene — as strange and bizarre a handling of estimates as

we've seen in the last two days. Have you ever seen anything like it,

Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've never seen the opposition in such a bizarre state of mind.

MR. MACDONALD:

Let's go back to where the Premier is asked for an explanation of a

clear contradiction in the evidence. Instead of doing that, the caucus

assigns all these members to get up and make speeches and rally to his

defence on subjects that have not been asked about by the opposition,

and had been covered in the throne speech debate. And then the Premier

gets up as if he were filibustering his own estimates. He is not

rendering himself accountable to the questions being asked, but giving

these long speeches of 30 minutes, which we've all heard many times

before.

AN HON MEMBER: And then he runs out the door.

MR. MACDONALD: And now he's gone.

Now,

the Premier said — I want to answer this — that we're sinking to a

level of low personal attack. And I resent that. I'll tell you why. One

of the first and essential duties of a parliament or a legislature is

to make sure that it is not misled by ministers of the Crown, to make

sure that it is told the truth. Whether it's the British Parliament, or

any parliament or assembly, or the Senate of the United States, or

Congress, they all insist upon that. Do you mean to say that when we ask

[ Page 1745 ]

for

an explanation of that contradictory evidence — and never get it — that

is a low personal attack? We'll not back off on that point, Mr.

Chairman, not for one minute. I regret the amount of time we're taking

in getting an explanation of Etienne Reuter's revelation from the

minutes of that meeting, and the apparent contradiction, but there's no

reason at all why this opposition should abdicate its responsibility to

ensure that it's told the truth by those ministers over there. No way!

You've

all gotten up and made your nice little speeches about the Premier.

But, Mr. Chairman, all those members and ministers who got up must have

been thinking that the Premier — your leader — was dodging something.

You must have all been saying to yourselves that you kind of admire the

straightforward way he dodges the issue. He knows what the issue is,

eh? You all know that.

The second member for Vancouver South

(Mr. Hyndman), who is now busily engaged in conversation down in the

corner — I don't want to disturb his thoughts — held up these documents

up, which seemed to indicate that the Premier had misled this House —

they and the press clippings and the statements that had been made by

the Premier and that the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — and said: "That's not the kind of

proof that would stand up in a criminal court." Well, Mr. Chairman,

we're not in a criminal court to begin with. But when you have the man

who kept the minutes of the meeting that took place in September 1977,

in writing, stating facts that are totally at variance with what the

Premier has told this House, then you'd think, if we had leadership in

this province, if we had accountability, that the Premier and that

minister would get up and offer their explanation of that evidence.

I'm talking to an empty chair because the Premier has taken off. He has an engagement; but he....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Aw, come on, he took his 30 minutes and filled the time, and.... Don't

you think, Mr. Chairman, that we're being manipulated in this

Legislature on these estimates, with every kind of parliamentary

manoeuvre, to get away from the fact that there are very serious

charges involving the credibility of the Premier of the province?

That's what we are talking about. Is it not manipulative — those long

speeches, those repetitive, rambling speeches that the Premier's giving?

don't believe for one minute that if the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) were the Premier of this province, he wouldn't

give an explanation one way or another about these letters. And we

would have had this thing all over two days ago. You can nod your head

on that, Mr. Minister; I know you would. And, you know, we do have a

crisis of leadership in the province of British Columbia. The refusal

to be accountable on these estimates calls into question the

leadership. It may be true, Mr. Chairman, that no minister, including

the first minister, has to answer questions on his estimates, or any

other time. We can be here forever. That's the rule. But then the first

minister also does not have to be the Premier of the province.

you are the Premier of the province you have a duty to give a fair and

clear and truthful statement to this Legislature. So I don't see how we

can leave aside a matter of credibility of this importance aside. There

must be an explanation as to whether or not this Legislature is being

misled and abused, and whether the truth is being told to this

Legislature. That's more important than the issue. The issue is uranium

and whether it was being sold and things of that kind; but that's not

the real issue. The real issue is the integrity of the government of

British Columbia as it is now constituted. That's not an issue that can

go away at all. There's every reason to believe, in the flat

contradiction of these statements, that this House has been abused and

misled. To say that we shall not even get an explanation from the

Premier of the province of British Columbia is something that all of

these members of the Legislature, whether they're on this side or that,

should think carefully about. Ask yourselves whether that is leadership

or not. If it isn't, there should be a change of leadership in this

province.

We've had all the cabinet shuffles in the last

little while. To be quite frank, Mr. Chairman, they seem to be very

manipulative. You know, if somebody is strong they put him in an

obscure position or a difficult position — this kind of thing. Forget

all that.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh,

come on, it's happened; you know perfectly well it's happened. You know

there's been a lot of manipulation going on in terms of those cabinet

assignments — not yours, but some of the others.

I say this,

and then I'll take my seat. I wish we could get a reply from the

Premier; we can't. We've had lots of cabinet shuffles and changes, but

there's one more to go, because for two and a half days, with a serious

charge involving integrity raised in this House, we have had no

explanation from the first minister of the Crown. Instead he's simply

run away. That's not good enough for British Columbia.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in introducing Bill 7 into the Legislature at the second

reading stage, I would like to observe to you and to all members the

fact that this is one of the important and vital pieces of legislation

proposed in the budget of March 11 of this year. It has companion

legislation, but I don't intend to speak about other bills except to

indicate that there are several which flow from that budget debate, all

of which reflect in a straightforward manner the financial strength of

British Columbia as we move into the 1980s.

As members well

know, Bill 7 dedicates $188 million to funds to encourage industrial

activity, to develop and conserve our energy resources, to assist

employment and tourism and to provide a contribution to the capital

requirements

[ Page 1746 ]

transit systems in British Columbia. The $188 million is provided

partly from the revenue surplus of the 1979-80 fiscal year, $38

million; and partly from the statutory appropriations from the 1980-81

year, $150 million.

In my short time as Minister of Finance

I have been asked by a number of British Columbians, and by people from

other parts of Canada and from the United States, how it feels to be

Minister of Finance. Well, there are not many jurisdictions in which

one would happily accept the position of Minister of Finance; British

Columbia is one where I very happily accepted that position.

has been the custom over a number of years, these funds are in addition

to the regular amounts provided in the estimates. I would like to deal

specifically with some of the elements which make up Bill 7, Special

Funds Act, 1980. There's $5 million to set up the Barkerville Historic

Park Development Fund. This money is to be used for the restoration,

further development and maintenance of this famous Cariboo goldrush

site.

It was last year that I, as Provincial Secretary and

Minister of Government Services, paid my last visit to Barkerville; and

I realized with some distress that the major restoration activity had

taken place through 1957 and 1958 in readiness for the 1958 centennial.

The fact is that time moves along. Recently some members of this House,

as well as individuals in the public service who are charged with

responsibility for Barkerville, observed, quite properly, that it was

beginning to look just a little frayed. There's a considerable amount

of restoration work to be done to save dwellings and old office and

commercial buildings within the site, as well as to expand and improve

the area as a tourist attraction.

During 1979 the heritage

conservation branch of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and

Government Services, together with the parks and outdoor recreation

division of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, conducted a joint

study to determine the future restoration and capital needs of

Barkerville. My colleague the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will, I'm sure, be quite willing

to speak about that when his estimates are dealt with, or indeed at

some other time.

Based on the recommendations outlined in

this review, an allocation of $5 million is being made, under the terms

of the surplus revenue bill, to establish the Barkerville restoration

fund. I'm pleased to say that plans are already well advanced for

stabilization work to commence on some 17 historic buildings at

Barkerville and at nearby Cottonwood House, which was, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, a major stopover point in the early days of British Columbia.

This initial work is designed to be the preliminary step of an overall

four-year program of heritage restoration and capital works. Indeed, if

we as government were not in a position to do this now, I think we

would see very distressing deterioration at Barkerville. And in 1980-81

we would also see an inability of the operation of Barkerville to

handle the ever-increasing numbers of visitors from British Columbia,

Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia who want to see this very

important site.

As I indicated in October of last year,

I had the opportunity to visit Barkerville and to become acquainted

once again with this outstanding site. It is undoubtedly irreplaceable.

I'm very pleased that we were in a position to see that these special

funds could be made available to ensure proper action on property and

building restoration, capital works and related public services — to

make sure that the Minister ofIntergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is listening carefully, I will refer to those as "infrastructure."

understand from my colleague the Provincial Secretary, who is the

minister responsible for heritage conservation, that the concept plan

for the Barkerville restoration project will be printed and released

some time later this year, as a public document for discussion. As I

said, I'm sure the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government

Services will want to expand on some of the details of Barkerville when

his opportunity arrives.

Within this bill $15 million is

allocated to establish the British Columbia Place Fund and to start

work on this very exciting project in Vancouver.

Members on

both sides of the House are well aware that in 1986 there is every

indication that British Columbia Place will be the site for a world

exposition on transportation, under the name of Transpo '86. Obviously

it will be a focal point for celebrations marking the centennial of the

founding of the city of Vancouver, and a centennial of the arrival in

Vancouver of passenger service by rail from Montreal.

Both

Transpo '86 and British Columbia Place are of world significance, Mr.

Speaker. Multimillions of visits are expected — not visitors, but

visits. Those individuals who will come for Transpo over its five

months and will participate will see it on several occasions, as well

as greater Vancouver, Victoria and British Columbia residents who will

want to see it through the course of the full length of the exposition.

It's therefore vital that this project be successfully developed and

that work start almost immediately.

I would also refer, Mr.

Speaker, to another activity I undertook in my former portfolio of

Provincial Secretary, and that was to carry to the International Bureau

of Expositions semi-annual meeting in November, in Paris, the

province's presentation with respect to Transpo '86. It is very, very

accurate to say that the presentation was extremely well received, and

while we do not yet have registration by that international body

comprising some 38 members, certainly we can expect that later this

year.

There is an item within Bill 7 which other members

will want to speak of as well, but with your permission I would like to

spend just a few moments speaking about downtown revitalization,

because there is in this proposed piece of legislation $25 million to

be established as a downtown revitalization fund. As an elected member

from one of the two metropolitan areas in British Columbia, may I

emphasize that I don't believe it is the intent of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to exclude Victoria and

Vancouver, but this money is to be used in communities throughout

British Columbia.

Again, how fortunate we are, as a

province, to be in a financial position to be able to allocate that

amount of money for downtown revitalization for the start of this

decade. You will know, Mr. Speaker, and members in the House will

admit, I'm sure, that all too often on the North American continent in

fast-growing areas — and the province is obviously one of the

fastest-growing areas in Canada — there can be experienced a decline,

even a disintegration and an abandonment, of the central city core of

even small communities as residents move to the suburbs and a variety

of businesses follow that particular movement. There are also other

communities which are perhaps not caught up in quite the same

mainstream of growth as other municipalities, but which provide a

comfortable existence for their residents, but

[ Page 1747 ]

are not necessarily able to maintain the quality and character of their relatively small downtown area.

Each

member here today, I think, could identify two or three or four

communities where clearly it's not very exciting in the central part of

that community. This $25 million will certainly, under the management

of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, go a long way to do a number of

things to encourage business, to encourage municipal councils, to

encourage individuals, to encourage all involved in a particular

community to assist in the revitalization. This is not a case of

government saying: "Here is the money. It's a blank cheque, and we'll

do it for you." But rather, it may be seen as seed money — a very large

seed; in fact, $25 million worth — but money which I think will

generate many, many millions more in that particular kind of activity.

It is a revolving fund which is set up under this legislation. It will

make funds available for improvement projects in designated areas of

municipalities around the province, and that is an important point to

restate.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs will

obviously want to expand on that at some point during this session. The

projects are expected to cover a variety of municipal improvements, and

restoration of the exteriors of privately owned buildings and public

buildings as well.

Many of us will recall the activity

undertaken by the Devonian Group of Charitable Foundations, firstly in

the province of Alberta under the name "Mainstreet Alberta," and later

introduced, I think, in 1977 — I'm subject to correction — in the

eastern part of British Columbia, with the same foundation providing

funds for "Mainstreet B.C." Mr. Speaker, even that program had a

dramatic impact on a number of communities along the eastern edge of

this province. I refer again to this fact to emphasize that it is not

restricted just to Vancouver or Victoria, but is to spread around the

province.

There's more money still in Bill 7 for the people

of British Columbia and for the 1980s. There's $10 million to establish

the Energy Development Fund. This fund will be used to support

development of alternatives to gasoline, and enhancement of the

existing government energy conservation and substitution programs. I

see a very encouraging cooperation and coordination taking place

between the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, the

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, and the Ministry

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources with respect to ensuring that

the kind of research and development which we know can be undertaken in

British Columbia is ready, providing the funds are there to assist and

support it. There's $10 million for that alone, Mr. Speaker — another

indication of this government's willingness and ability to face the

challenges of the 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, $30 million is within

this bill to set up the Fraser River Crossing Fund to be used toward

construction of an additional crossing of the Fraser River in the

vicinity of Annacis Island. The ten-kilometre highway and bridge

project — because I think we all realize it is not just a bridge that

must be put in place — called the Annacis system, is expected to be

completed by 1984 at a total cost of $130 million. At the peak of

construction some 4,000 new jobs will be created, 1,000 directly in the

construction of the project and 3,000 in related industries, Some

members opposite said that there was nothing in the budget with respect

to employment, but there will be 4,000 new jobs at the peak when this

particular project is underway. Clearly on the basis of the timetable

which has been established — 1984 — a great deal of that employment

activity will occur quite soon.

Fast-growing suburbs south

of the Fraser River make this new crossing a priority, and the

construction

schedule has been brought forward, in fact, by the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) from 1985,

which was originally anticipated, to 1984. It seems that so many people

want to live in that particular part of our province that the areas to

be served by the Annacis system are growing faster than any other area

in British Columbia. I think it is important to note — and it would be

derelict of a government to overlook this fact — that almost 30 percent

of the Greater Vancouver Regional District population is expected to

reside in Surrey, Delta and White Rock by 1985. Mr. Speaker, you may

have the first, second, third and fourth members from Surrey; that's

the kind of growth to which this government is responding with the

start of the Annacis system project in this bill. Obviously this new

structure is expected to reduce traffic on the Massey Tunnel and the

Pattullo Bridge. The new highway and the bridge system will have

provision for two additional lanes of traffic, which could be used in

the future for preferential bus or light-rapid transit systems.

Mr.

Speaker, $25 million is provided in Bill 7 to the Lower Mainland

Stadium Fund, and this is in addition to $25 million appropriated last

year. The fund is, as we know, to be used toward the construction of a

lower mainland amphitheatre for a variety of sports activities and a

number of events, the list of which would be so long that it's

virtually impossible to outline them. I thought that the $25 million

which was placed in a fund last year by my predecessor was a terrific

start. I thought that the rest would have to be perhaps paid for on an

as-you-go basis out of estimates. But again, through the careful

financial management of British Columbia by my predecessor and by this

government, we have the opportunity knocking more than once, and a

second $25 million in that fund.

The next item I would like

to speak about is $20 million to set up the North East Coal Development

Fund for construction of provincial support facilities associated with

the development of coal extraction in that part of British Columbia. My

colleague immediately to my right will certainly want to speak about

that, as will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) when he takes his place in estimates in Committee

of Supply or in additional debates.

Mr. Speaker, $3 million

has been allocated here to set up the Provincial Computerization of

Libraries Fund, to assist in instituting automated cataloguing and

circulating systems in public libraries throughout the province. I've

had the feeling for a good many years that as a government, whether it

was in the NDP years of 1972-75, prior to that, or since, we have

tended to be very, very cheap with respect to funds for libraries

around B.C. I think this amount of money....

MS. BROWN: You're still cheap.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Well, you see, Madam Member, no matter how much we want to assist, you

can't say anything positive about it. She says we're still cheap. Madam

Member, this is a significant start. You and your government didn't

have $3 million to allocate to library computerization. You were broke

in 1975. So don't say we're still cheap. This is a start. It's a start

in which I take a lot of pride.

[ Page 1748 ]

MS. BROWN: It's not even a drop in the bucket and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

You know, Mr. Speaker, the comments from across the floor say far more

about that side of the House than they do about whether this should be

$3 million or $13 million or whatever. The fact is that as a member of

government I have indicated that we have not been, over the years,

generous enough — that government or this government — to libraries in

British Columbia. Too much of the load has fallen on the local

taxpayer, and I intend, to the best of my ability, to alter that. We've

started in this bill, this year. The letters coming to my desk and to

the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services are not

negative, such as the comments we've heard from across the way this

morning. They say: "Great start. Keep up the work."

You

are negative. Those members are so negative. Three million dollars for

computerization. The library people, the volunteers who work on

libraries in British Columbia on boards and the professional librarians

say — and I say it again —"Great start."

I spoke earlier

about the Annacis system. Fifty-five million dollars are placed in this

bill to set up the Urban Transit Fund, which will be used to cover the

province's contribution to the future capital requirements of the Urban

Transit Authority.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) laughs, chuckles and cackles, or whatever it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The fact is, there is a very significant amount of money placed here —

fund and money, if you will. The formula is in place, and the

provincial cost would occur at some point as equipment is purchased —

whether it be new buses, new trolley systems, LRT or a variety of

things. We are in a position, with the money being placed in a fund

now, not to have to go to the bond market later to go into debt. This

is a tremendous start on transit in British Columbia. As the Urban

Transit Authority decides, what the government of British Columbia is

saying is: "The money is there. It's in a fund, and when you need it

for capital purposes, we don't have to go to the market." Mr. Speaker,

thank God we don't have to go to the market right now.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it is an exciting package, and I think that members

opposite would admit also, perhaps privately, that it's an exciting

package. We have tried to identify those areas — historic, present,

small community, transit, culture and a variety of activities in

British Columbia — which will benefit from this kind of funding. This

government has the opportunity, the ability and the funds necessary to

undertake that work now. It fulfils the government's objectives of

assisting employment, industrial activity, energy needs and future

public transit capital costs. Thus it will result in benefits to every

British Columbian, present and future.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 7.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the minister's rather lengthy explanation of this bill

points out the first problem in dealing with this bill that I intended

to mention. It sets up, or at least adds money to, nine different

funds, and yet we're supposed to deal with the general principle of

legislation that puts money into nine different projects.

The

minister, in discussing the legislation, went through them point by

point. I think if we are going to discuss this bill in general

principle we almost have to follow on his heels and do the same thing.

But I think it is going to require the participation of many members in

the House, not simply the Minister of Finance and one or two from the

opposition. What about all the other ministers the Minister of Finance

mentioned in going through the legislation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you going to vote for it?

MR. STUPICH: We listened quietly, attentively and carefully.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, you did, Dave.

MR. STUPICH: All right, I did — most of us did.

I'm

going to try to recall some of what the Minister of Finance said. I

wasn't able to take notes of everything. Certainly we'll have it before

us on Monday. First he mentioned the Barkerville fund. I don't think

anyone could oppose spending money on Barkerville. I think that's a

great idea. I don't think anyone would object to the fact that we're

setting up a fund for $5 million and spending only half of it this

year. It takes time to do that kind of work; one should take time and

do it properly.

But in telling us about the program, the

Minister of Finance said no doubt the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would like to say something about this bill

and fill us in on some of the details. I think he included the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as one who would like to say

something about this bill and fill us in on some of the details.

Possibly the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) would have more

than a passing interest in what's happening to this very important

tourist attraction and would like to fill us in on some of the details.

Perhaps even the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Chabot) might like to take

some

part in discussing Bill 7 in second reading and deal with that

part of the legislation in which he has some interest.

Mr.

Speaker, how can we deal with legislation in general principle when one

out of the nine programs mentioned in this legislation affects

ministries where we have at least four cabinet ministers involved? I

think we are doing a disservice to the members of the House in

presenting them with legislation that covers as much ground and as many

ministries as this bill does in one section, let alone in nine. Surely

that isn't the way to bring legislation before the House if we're going

to get any kind of discussion.

I think the minister, in

making his presentation with respect to the Barkerville fund, shows

that he knows something about what's happening in Barkerville. He has a

good general knowledge of what's happening there, what should be

happening and what can be happening for the good of the citizens of

British Columbia and for the good of people coming in to took at what

we have here in B.C. I think that's great. He has a good general

knowledge of it.

But in making his own presentation he

suggested to us that there are four other cabinet ministers who would

like to take

part in the detailed discussion of this one single

program. That's not responsible legislation — bringing it to us in that

form. Why not a separate bill to deal with Barkerville —

[ Page 1749 ]

bill that would be under the name not of the Minister of Finance, but

of one of these other four people who will have special concern about

Barkerville?

Then B.C. Place — and the work must start

immediately. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only one who has really spoken out

on B.C. Place is the Premier. For three days his estimates have been

before this House and he has absolutely abandoned any....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I'm being told it's not true. In the three days of debate

where the Premier's estimates have been before this House I have not

heard him mention B.C. Place. Now I might have missed it. Three days is

a lot of time and he might have covered it. But, frankly, I don't think

he gave us any kind of adequate explanation. The explanations he gave

outside of this House for which he set up media affairs and told people

outside of this House what he was planning to do with I don't know how

much money.... I don't know what it's going to cost in total — nobody

does at this point — but at this point we are talking about $15

million. We're supposed to vote for a $15 million fund. The Premier

tells people outside of the House what he intends to do and how great

it's going to be and, in three days of presentation of his estimates

before this House, doesn't think it's worthwhile mentioning it even

once, to my knowledge.

The Minister of Finance tells us

something about it, and we thank him for that. Somebody has bothered to

tell the MLAs in this House something about what's going to happen to

$15 million. But the minister who spoke about it publicly hasn't taken

advantage of that opportunity. He isn't here now — that's no criticism.

I don't intend to criticize him for not being here now to discuss it

but I do say that this particular project should be discussed when the

Premier is here to talk about it since it's his baby, I understand. He

should be here piloting through legislation dealing with B.C. Place.

Then we should make the decision whether or not we want to put....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) says it's

his. I don't think the Minister of Finance referred to the Minister of

Environment in his remarks. But, again, he may have; I missed it. He

talked about so many ministers in dealing with this nine-point

legislation. The Minister of Environment said B.C. Place is his. Did

the Minister of Finance mention the Minister of Environment in telling

us who was going to be answering detailed questions about B.C. Place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. STUPICH: If he did, I missed it. Maybe he missed it in his notes.

Mr.

Speaker,

Part 2 deals with $15 million for B.C. Place — you can't deal

with the general principle in talking about nine different programs —

and the minister bringing that forward should be the Minister of

Environment, if he says it's his. Why didn't he bring in the

legislation dealing with B.C. Place?

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't know it was going to happen.

MR. STUPICH: It's being suggested behind me that he didn't know it was going to happen. Maybe he found out at that breakfast meeting.

Downtown revitalization. This is a great program. [Applause.] But just a minute; I'm not quite finished with B.C. Place.

think it's a great idea. I'd like to hear the Minister of Environment

tell us more about it. I'd even like it if some of the money were going

to be spent. But I note that a year from March 31, 1980, on March 31,

1981, according to the budget speech, there will still be $15 million

sitting in that fund. That's going to be real progress on B.C. Place

if, after having the money available for a year, we still have the

money available one year from now. Yet we have to start immediately.

What are we going to start with if we're not going to spend any of the

money? That's what the budget speech tells us. A year from now the

balance remaining in that fund will be $15 million.

I think

we're all excited about the prospect of downtown revitalization. I

think important work was done in the city of New Westminster. I can

recall last year in the Legislature — I don't know whether it was

before or after the election; it must have been after because there

wasn't much time before — in talking about downtown revitalization, a

number of the members, including myself, said: "If it's working so well

in New Westminster, how about extending the same opportunities to other

communities in the province?" The Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said fine, but it would take a

lot of money; he hoped to do it eventually. Here we see the evidence

before us. Their hopes have been realized and the government now has

$25 million to put into downtown revitalization. The Minister of

Finance again told us the general principles of downtown

revitalization, and hoped that it would not be limited to the major

centres of the province but would be available throughout the province.

We all share in that hope. Certainly Nanaimo would like to have a good

chunk of that money. The city of Nanaimo already has had some

discussions with government about getting some of that money for

downtown revitalization. Perhaps I might take just a few minutes to

talk about the importance of this to Nanaimo. There have been recent

reports, newspaper stories, to the effect that Nanaimo has four times

the national average of shopping centre space per capita. I think

that's a terrible situation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Whose fault?

MR. STUPICH:

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development asks: "Whose

fault?" That's a good question. Certainly not mine. Not his. No, I'm

not suggesting that for one moment. But in the meantime the downtown

area is suffering. I don't think it should have happened; I don't think

we should have that acreage of shopping centre space. I don't think the

investors coming in have invested wisely in looking so far into the

future. I question whether city council has made wise decisions in

allowing that kind of thing to happen, because it's going to hurt the

whole community for quite a period of time. There's no doubt about

that. But in the meantime, apart from all those investors, I really

can't be terribly concerned about the money that the Hudson Bay Company

is investing miles from the centre of

[ Page 1750 ]

town; I think the Hudson Bay Company and Woodward's and Eaton's will survive; all those people will survive all right.

But

what about the downtown area? That's the important part; that's where

I'd like to see the Downtown Revitalization Fund working. I'd like to

see the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development come before

us and say: "I now have $25 million to assist municipalities and this

is what we intend to do. We've had discussions with these

municipalities; we're going to do it." The Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development suggests that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is involved as well. I think that's

great, but I think the Minister of Finance is not the one who should be

giving us details about this program. It should be the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Likely, in second reading on this legislation, they will want

to say something about the way in which they intend to use that

Downtown Revitalization Fund — in second reading, which would seem to

be the only way to deal with this legislation. I do have one concern,

Mr. Speaker, and that is, of this $25 million, we will have spent only

$5 million a year from now. I would have hoped that more than that

would have been available in Nanaimo alone. Only $5 million will be

spent.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Speaker, I think the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development knows more about the plans of the city of Nanaimo than I

do. He says: "That's for sure." And that's so, the city council made an

appointment and discussed it with the minister. They're keeping it to

themselves for the time being, and I think that's the way it should be.

I've no objection to being left out of those discussions at this time

but I do have objections and concerns that only $5 million out of this

fund will be used within the next 12 months. I would like to think that

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance — all of them — would

set their sights a little higher than that and, with all the money that

they have, would use something more than $5 million out of $25 million

in the course of the next 12 months. That's for second reading — energy

development.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development says that it

should be spent wisely. I would agree with that too. But I think even

that minister could plan to spend more than $5 million over a 12-month

period in the province of British Columbia and still spend it very

wisely. Another concern I have is that if he waits until the next year

and the year after that, the extra $5 million that he might have spent

in this fiscal period will buy only $3 million worth of work a year

later. So I think there's some concern, Mr. Speaker, for doing the job

now and not just putting that money away in a fund and letting it

accumulate interest.

People in the province, in the west and

perhaps in the whole world, are becoming increasingly concerned about

alternative sources of energy. The rapidly increasing costs of the

conventional forms of energy, the need to find alternative forms, the

need to conserve — we're all becoming more and more aware of that daily.

can recall when the NDP administration in 1973 thought the time was

right for people to start talking and thinking about energy

conservation. As a gesture, we said we would turn the lights out on the

parliament buildings for a few hours so that people would recognize

that government was taking some lead. The community just wasn't ready.

We were ahead of the people. There was no response to any suggestion of

energy conservation or alternative energy sources. We tried several

things during our regime that just weren't accepted — people weren't

ready for them. But now they are. The rate at which the cost of energy

has been going up, and the increasing concern about the shortage of

conventional forms of energy, make people aware that something has to

be done. So I think it's a great idea that the government is putting

$10 million into a fund for energy conservation projects, alternative

energy development, or whatever.

The money will be

available, Mr. Speaker, but what are we going to do with it? In the

first place, the Minister of Finance suggested that the.... I think he

said the Minister of Energy would be telling us about this. I'm not

sure; I didn't write it down. He might have forgotten to mention him;

he's mentioned so many others. But I still assume we will get the

details from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) — whatever details are available. I assume it is

the Minister of Energy who will have to stand up in this House, perhaps

in second reading of this legislation, perhaps in committee stage, or

somewhere down the line, and tell us why he has no plans for spending

one cent of that money in the next fiscal period. Because on March 31,

1981, the budget tells us, there will still be $10 million sitting in

that fund. Mr. Speaker, is that all the ideas they have over there?

It's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources who should

be standing up and telling us why he has $10 million to work with, but

he's not prepared to spend it. You'll get your opportunity.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, I thought you wanted me to go now.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not quite finished. I've fault to find with five other programs before I finish.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm really surprised that the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources is so quick to stand up now and tell me, when he

couldn't think of anything to put into the budget. Surely if he had any

input it would have gone to the Minister of Finance and he would have

said: "Yes, I can spend $100 out of that $10 million. Give me $100 and

I'll spend it." If he had any ideas at all, he would have gone to the

Minister of Finance and said: "Look, we will use up some of that money

in the first fiscal period. Just let us have it." But it's not there.

No plans.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor. Interruptions cannot be tolerated.

MR. STUPICH:

The Fraser River Crossing Fund is number five on the list of projects.

It's going to create 4,000 new jobs. It's going to cost $130 million to

build another parking lot, which is really what bridges and highways

are.

There's another one down at the bottom of the list: the Urban Transit Fund, which I'm going to talk about at length

[ Page 1751 ]

later.

I would far rather the $130 million went into urban transit and $55

million went into the bridge; because, really, that's what it's going

to be: another place for cars to line up while they're waiting to get

from point A to point B. I'm opposed to it.

But, Mr.

Speaker, it's not the Minister of Finance we want to talk to. It's the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) who should be

telling us about this bridge. I know the Premier announced it, but

surely the Minister of Transportation and Highways is the one who

should be standing up and telling us why we need the bridge, why we

need it in that location and why we need it by 1984. He should be the

one dealing with the detailed questions and, even in general principle,

about their proposal to put $130 million into a bridge — more than a

bridge — that is probably going to cost twice that by the time the

thing is ready to park the first car on. But instead of that it's the

Minister of Finance that brings it in.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says I don't like the messenger.

Personally, I have no concern about the Minister of Finance. I have no

ill will towards him, but I don't like his bringing in legislation like

this which has no general principle to it. You can't talk about a

bill.... The Minister of Finance proved that to us himself, because he

spoke for some 30 minutes and dealt with it seriatim — general

principle. Item by item he dealt with this legislation; he explained

what each program was, and then told us in each case of one, two, three

or four other ministers who would be telling us about the details of

the programs that are provided for in these funds.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. Some members, who are not in their seats,

take it upon themselves to interrupt the proceedings of this House.

It's a practice we cannot condone.

MR. STUPICH: The

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund. Mr. Speaker, I'm continually being asked

if I'm against this. Well, if people will listen they'll find out how I

feel about this whole legislation, and about the whole principle of

bringing in legislation that covers so many different programs and so

many different ministers. Then I'll get into the financing a little

later on. I'm not finished yet.

On the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund, the Minister of Finance sort of

threw in the towel himself. Here we're putting another $25 million into

a Lower Mainland Stadium Fund and he said: "I thought it would have

been in estimates. "The Minister of Finance thought that it would have

been in estimates. Well, it should have been. That's really where it

should have been had they thought about it in time, but they didn't. So

as an afterthought they stick it into a fund. There is $25 million

there already; $25 million going in this year — a total of $50 million.

A year from now there will be $45 million left. They're going to spend

$5 million on it. Whether I'm against it or not doesn't really make

much difference, Mr. Speaker, since they don't intend to do anything

about it except spend the first $5 million. Are they against it? Why

put $50 million into a project and spend only $5 million out of it if

they really believe in it — support it — and want to do it? Mr.

Speaker, we should be asking the people on the other side of the House:

are you in favour of it? If you're in favour of it, why not do it

instead of just talking about it and instead of salting the money away?

North East Coal Development

Fund. In speaking about northeastern coal development, number 7 on the

list, the Minister of Finance said that no doubt the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) would be

very interested in this and would like to fill us in on the details. No

doubt the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) would like to discuss northeastern coal development and

would like to fill us in on the details. I would think that even the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) might have

something to say about it. I think that if anything happens before this

is finished, he's certainly going to be involved. All these people want

to get in on it, yet it's the Minister of Finance who has to bring it

in in general principle as one of the items on a list of nine. It's not

important enough to stand on its own. Is that the attitude of the

government? Do they think that none of these things is important enough

to stand on its own two feet? Do we have to lump them all together in

one bill dealing with nine projects, all of which are so unimportant

they bring them forward in sort of an omnibus form? Then they hope that

the right minister will be here at the right time so that we can ask

that minister for the details of these different projects. The minister

asks if we are against that. What difference does it make, if once

again they don't intend to spend the money? There's $20 million being

voted in this legislation. A year from now $20 million is still going

to be sitting there. What difference does it really make whether the

members of the House are for the project or against it, if the

government doesn't intend to spend the money? If they did spend the

money, it's great for the people who own the coal rights.

remember some very interesting figures put to this House by the leader

of the Liberal Party when he was speaking about northeastern coal

development, and how much it was going to cost the citizens of British

Columbia to subsidize the export of this depleting resource. According

to his figures, there was little net gain to the province of British

Columbia. At that time I don't know whether he contemplated that the

citizens of British Columbia would be putting was going to cost this

amount of money into the project before it ever got started. The

Minister of Finance said that the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development would like to talk about northeastern coal

development. I'm sure he would. He could regurgitate the speeches on

this subject which he's made in this House for, I think, the past six

years. And for the past four or four and a half years as Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development, he's been making speeches

about northeastern coal development. That's all they have been —

speeches. Nothing else. Now we're putting $20 million into a fund, and

we're going to let it sit there.

Provincial computerization

of libraries. We have some serious questions to ask about that.

Certainly the reports we've had from people in the business of

providing library services are something less than enthusiastic about

this particular proposal. I'm not suggesting it should not be done at

this point. I am saying that there are some pretty searching questions

which have to be asked about this particular way of improving library

services, and whether this is the right thing to do first. I don't

know. I don't pretend to be any expert in

[ Page 1752 ]

library

matters but, I suggest, neither is the Minister of Finance. I would

suggest that there are other ministers who more properly should be

associated with bringing in this particular proposal, and who would

bear the responsibility of telling the House exactly what is going to

be the effect of this, whether this is the end or the beginning of

something to improve libraries, or whether it's the proper way to

start. These are the kinds of discussions we should have. But would we

really expect the Minister of Finance to enter into a detailed

discussion about that kind of service? I don't know. If he is able to

deal in detail with all those questions which could, should and will be

asked about these nine programs, why then do we need 18 other cabinet

ministers? If he knows that breadth of detail about every program

coming before us in this one particular piece of legislation, then it

would seem to me that there are a lot of cabinet members over there who

should be doing something else.

The Urban Transit Fund. I

was going to say it's the best joke of all, but it's too serious to be

a joke. We're going to put $55 million into a fund; it's not enough. We

should really be pushing urban transit instead of the bridge or any

other project. But we're not going to spend this. We're going to leave

$55 million in that fund until somebody wants it for capital, but we

don't intend that any of it will be available in this fiscal period.

The budget tells us that by the end of March 1981 there will still be

$55 million sitting in that fund.

The Minister of Finance

tells the story differently: that sometimes it's due to the good fiscal

management of this government that we have all this money to work with.

At other times it's because of the unexpected revenue from natural

resources. Certainly he would admit that both of those had something to

do with it. I would admit that the natural resource revenue is what

produces almost a billion dollars more revenue than was estimated.

A suggestion was made that taxes should be cut. In the Vancouver Sun ,

March 25, 1980, the Minister of Finance said: "While the alternative of

further tax reductions is no doubt a politically appealing one, it

would be financially irresponsible to fund them with such a volatile

revenue source." That's a good argument. With so much of this money

coming from what is, admittedly, a volatile revenue source, it would be

irresponsible to reduce taxes; that's an argument I can accept as being

one presentation. I think it follows, though, that if the revenue

source is that volatile, then we should be doing something special with

the money coming from that volatile revenue source.

Somehow

the province of Saskatchewan has been much talked about in the

Legislature during discussion of the Premier's estimates, as though

what we're really discussing is whether or not the province of

Saskatchewan should get a vote of confidence from the Legislature. But,

Mr. Speaker, the province of Saskatchewan at least is using its revenue

from its depleting resources in an attempt to diversify the economy of

the province, investing it in the future of the province of

Saskatchewan. That's the route they're going. Alberta has talked about

doing the same thing and to some extent has done it, but we are blowing

it on a bunch of projects, some of which — at least one of which — the

minister himself suggested more properly belong in estimates. There is

no question that many of these others more properly belong in estimates

and should be funded not by volatile revenue sources, but by the

regular revenue sources available to government. The volatile revenue

sources, if they're going to be collected and kept by government,

should be used in long-term projects to improve the economy of the

province.

There is an alternative argument. I said I can

understand the argument made by the Minister of Finance that we

shouldn't reduce taxes when we're dealing with volatile revenue

sources. There is another argument put forward by the Premier of the

province, an argument to the effect that "the key to getting the

provincial economy back on track is a tax cut which would put more

money in the hands of individuals and corporations for investment." So

said the Premier of the province. And there are the two positions.

You've got a lot of money. If it's from a volatile revenue source, one

argument is that you should put it away or put it into something that's

going to develop the economy of the province. The alternative approach

is that you should reduce taxes and let individuals and corporations

use this revenue in improving the economy of the province.

The

Minister of Finance isn't doing either. He's putting the money away in

funds that will be available to be used for certain programs, if the

money stays there. But you'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that this particular

administration has previously cancelled the funds when it needed the

money for some other purpose as did the NDP administration, as a matter

of fact, once. There was a fund for another crossing...

HON. MR. CURTIS: Another body of water.

MR. STUPICH:

...and another body of water, but we felt that wasn't the route to go,

Mr. Speaker. We felt we should be doing something about urban transit,

and as an alternative set a SeaBus operation in motion that's still

working, and that is the route we went. So there is nothing wrong with

cancelling funds. But if these funds are being set up as devices to

reduce surplus, and we pretend that money is set aside for certain

programs and there is no real intention of using them for those

programs, but rather bringing the money back in when you want it for

something else, then, I think, that's being devious.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You don't really believe that.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations says I don't

believe it. I've seen it happen before. It's the first time that we've

had these forward projections, I suppose, but it's still....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member for

Nanaimo, I don't believe he wanted to suggest that I was being devious

in the preparation of this bill. Surely that was not his intention.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not, but I'll ask.

Was it the intention of the member to impugn the character of the Minister of Finance?

MR. STUPICH: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I believe this approach is a devious one, but I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Minister of

[ Page 1753 ]

Finance or anyone else is being devious in this. No, I don't believe that for one moment, and I don't intend to suggest that.

Mr.

Speaker, there are some real problems in our community right now.

There'll be lots of opportunity to talk about many of these at other

points in the debate, I would think. Revenue is at an all-time high,

with an extra billion dollars last year over what was estimated. It is

projected that it is going to go much higher in the next year, and I

think the only thing we can say about these projections is that in all

likelihood they're conservative rather than liberal.

The

personal income tax is at an all-time high, in spite of the arguments

that we've had from the members on the government side that we should

reduce the load on individuals. Nevertheless personal income tax is at

an all-time high — not just the rate, but the amount being collected.

The social services tax, in spite of the fact that there have been

nominal reductions in the rate of tax and in the removal of the tax

from some items....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon.

member. There is a bill on the social services tax under which perhaps

the present debate would be more acceptable.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, it would be more acceptable if I was talking in particular about

those reductions. What I'm talking about is that in spite of the fact

that there are some nominal reductions in the rate and in the removal

from some items, the projected increase in revenue from this source is

16 percent. At a time when inflation is running at 11 or 12 percent,

we're actually going to collect 16 percent more revenue in total from

this source, according to the estimates, than was estimated a year ago.

Now whether the figure will be that, we don't know at this point. But

all I'm suggesting is that the government intends to keep its revenue

very high.

There is one other source of revenue that I do

want to talk about, and this one concerns me most. It's the revenue

designated as "interest from investments." The estimates a year ago,

for the year ended March 31, 1980, were to the effect that we would

collect $52 million in revenue from interest on investments.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, Mr. Speaker, what I'm talking about is the fact that the

government has collected an extra $180 million in revenue and is

proposing to dispose of it in these ways. The alternative to disposing

of it in these ways is to return it to the taxpayers and let them

choose what investments should be made, or put it into some other

program. In other words, there is an alternative available to the

members in this House, and that is to defeat this legislation and to

urge the government to bring in some alternative proposals that would

use this money for long-range development in the province or return

revenue to the taxpayers themselves and let them make the decisions as

to how the money should be spent.

That's the alternative I'm

asking the members in the House to consider right now, an alternative

to putting the money into these various funds and letting it sit there.

The budget tells us that most of this money is still going to be

sitting there. Out of the $213 million — and I'm including the $188

million and $25 million that was put into the lower mainland fund a

year ago; that's a total of $213 million available in these nine funds

— a year from now the government expects there will still be $170

million sitting there. It's the money and the fact that the government

is going to be earning interest on that investment — interest on that

$170 million in this period — that I am expressing concern about at

this moment. The total interest — I can only deal with the totals

because those are the figures we have.... It was estimated a year ago

that we would collect in total $52 million in interest from investments

such as these — $52 million represented by these various funds. The

revised estimate says $90 million. Interest rates have been going up

regularly since the revised estimates were prepared, and there's no

doubt in my mind that the government will collect at least twice as

much as it predicted from this one source in the year ended March 31,

1980. What's even worse is that it will collect twice as much as is

predicted in the year ended March 31, 1981, because the amount of money

has doubled and the interest rates have gone up even faster.

Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that instead of $145 million coming from

interest on investments in the year ended March 31, 1981, with all

these funds being set up and no money being spent out of them, the

government will actually collect in the neighbourhood of $300 million

in interest from investments. My concern is whether or not the people,

the taxpayers, should have that money to use for their purposes. At a

time when the number of people faced with losing their homes is being

talked about daily — because interest rates have gone up so high,

people are having to refinance mortgages — and at a time when taxpayers

are being milked to the extent that the government is going to earn

some $300 million interest on investments while the taxpayers don't

have that money to reduce their mortgages so that they might escape

some of the very large interest imposts, this government is telling us

that it's going to put this money in the bank. That's what it's saying.

It's saying that S170 million of this will still be sitting there a

year from now, and: "Aren't we great. We're collecting money on this

investment — we're collecting interest money on the short-term deposits

in the banks." And the people all over the province are losing their

homes because they aren't able to meet the mortgage interest.

Apart

from all the other problems in our society, I wonder whether the

Minister of Finance couldn't have come up with some better way of

spending, investing or using this $188 million than to tell us he's

going to put $170 million of it in the bank and let it sit there for a

year and earn all kinds of interest on it. The fact that people all

over the province are suffering in having to pay very high interest

charges doesn't really matter to him.

There was one program

that's not legislation. It was announced out of the House — the $200

million loaned to the credit unions, which various ministers have said

is going to cost between $11 million and $40 million over a three-year

period, I think. That's all they've done about reducing the cost of

interest for homeowners. When they've got this kind of money, and when

they're going to be earning $300 million interest on investment, all

they had been able to do to help the people of the province who are

having to pay high interest charges on their mortgages is to say:

"Well, we'll help over a three-year period. We'll contribute somewhere

between $11 million and $40 million, and good luck to you. In the

meantime, we're going to earn all this interest in investment."

Mr.

Speaker, I would invite some ten members of the cabinet who have been

named as people who know more of the detail of this legislation than

the Minister of Finance to

[ Page 1754 ]

get

up in second reading and tell us about their share in this legislation.

I have some real concerns about supporting this legislation. I think

there will be a discussion about it. I'll hear the discussion, but at

the moment I have some very real concerns about taking all this money

out of the community, using it to earn interest in the banks while

people are suffering, and not doing the kind of long-term projects that

we should be doing to improve the economy of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Except for a very few short moments, I listened with a great deal of

interest to the comments of the hon. member for Nanaimo. I was trying

to determine from his remarks whether he was going to support the bill

or not support it. One moment he was telling us that we should put more

money into the bill that wouldn't be spent, and the next moment he was

criticizing us in the way we're spending this money. So, as the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says, it's

like their usual procedure of running away from the issue — like

independent schools, but I won't mention that.

In this

Legislature — at least those on the opposite side of the House — we

seem to equate transit with a road network. Both are necessary, because

it would be very difficult for the bakery to deliver its bread in a

basket sitting on the bus of a transit system. You must have a road

network to supplement the transit system that we are working on. I

don't care if you've got a bus running every second and it's going 60

miles an hour and you're moving people — you still must have a road

network and bridges to move goods and services. Can you imagine, Mr.

Speaker, the fellow who retreads tires jumping on the bus with a tire

under each arm, going to deliver them to his customer? Or is the fellow

who has the towing service going to put that on the transit system? No.

You must have a network. As the lower mainland grows, we're going to

have to expand that network. We're going to have to build some more

roads. But I have never been anywhere in the world where there wasn't a

road network as well as a transit system.

Mr. Speaker, it

was under their jurisdiction that Tilbury Island was purchased for an

industrial park. All they did was purchase it; they didn't do anything

else because no one would locate there, because people were moving out

of the province, not coming in. Under this administration Tilbury

Island Industrial Park has been developed. We have phase 1 almost

complete, with commitments for industry to go in there.

So I

won't dwell at length on the Annacis Island crossing, other than to

say, once again, that it is absolutely necessary that you have a

highway network, with bridges, in the lower mainland. We do have a

river there, and we have to get over the water. We have to have either

a bridge or a tunnel.

We must also have a transit system.

Under this government, we've come to grips with the tremendous problems

of transit, instead of.... We're planning for the future. I can see

down the road where it will be properly run, under good administration,

with the responsibility out there in the community, instead of being

run by Hydro. I think that's a great thing. But there again, they say

we never have any planning. In the last four years we have come to

grips with more of the problems than any previous administration. And I

want to tell you that we were left with lots of problems. In this bill,

Mr. Speaker, I see where we are planning for the future, as well as

providing some social services, as with the library fund.

There

was some criticism of the B.C. Place Fund. B.C. Place, to me, is one of

the greatest visions that any government has ever had for downtown

Vancouver. But it's not only downtown Vancouver, because Vancouver

really belongs to all of the people of the province, and all of the

people of the province are going to be proud of it, and all of the

people of the province are going to use it. It's also going to be good

for the people of Canada, because Vancouver, on the west coast of

British Columbia, is Canada's open door, window, what have you, to the

Pacific; and the Pacific Rim has the greatest potential for growth of

any area in the world.

You know, Mr. Speaker — and the

Premier mentioned it this morning — we've been criticized for

travelling. I want to tell you that everybody thinks that all the

Japanese do is export goods and services. Do you know that of their

gross national product they only export 10 percent of it? The United

States exports about 6 percent of its gross national product. We in

British Columbia and Canada, to survive, to maintain our economy,

export about 50 percent of our production. So what I'm trying to say is

that to survive, we have to export. I want to tell you, as the Premier

said, they're not beating a path to our door, because they can buy the

same goods and services elsewhere in the world that they can buy in

British Columbia. We have to be aggressive, and the government must

travel and explain the policy, because, as the Premier mentioned this

morning, British Columbia had a very bad image with our trading

partners when we became government.

The member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich) said that we were not planning for the future, and he had

some reservations about whether we were going to spend this money or

not. We have in the northeastern

section of our province one of the

largest reserves of the best metallurgical coal to be found anywhere in

the world. If putting some money into developing that great natural

resource is not planning for the future and planning for the economy, I

don't know what it is. So how can he criticize the bill and say we are

doing nothing with regard to planning for the future?

I want

to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. In 1972 northeastern coal was ready

to be developed. Then the government changed and northeastern coal went

on the back burner. Had it been developed in 1972 the cost would have

been about 30 percent of what it is today, because of inflation and so

forth. We would have been exporting coal from the northeast

section of

the province. We would have been earning those very coveted offshore

dollars to balance our trade payments — that's what the economy is all

about — and we would have been exporting.

Talk about a

diminishing natural resource in northeastern coal! There is sufficient

coal — discovered there now, without further discoveries — in implied

reserves of northeastern coal to run the steel industries, as they

exist today in the world, for over 200 years. We talk about a depleting

natural resource!

My theory on this is that maybe some day

there will be a breakthrough in technology to use metallurgical coal

for energy. At the present time there is none. Yes, we can use thermal

coal and convert it to another form of energy, and we're working on

that. The Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, and the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and this ministry

are working together on that — to bring in technology and get some

pilot plants going. There again, there is money in this to assist in

[ Page 1755 ]

that. But some day there may be a breakthrough in technology where we need northeastern coal.

Maybe

I'm not very good in business, but my theory is that if you export

coal, allow the mines to develop and basically pay for it through the

export, then when we need it ourselves it will be in place. The

workforce will be there, the mines will be developed and the

infrastructure will be there so that we can use it. If not, we will

still be exporting it. Because we're not really in the ball game when

it comes to exporting coal with our vast reserves when you think of the

amount Australia exports. I haven't got the figures with me this

morning, but you're talking about hundreds of millions of tons from the

United States and Australia.

We really haven't gotten into

the business of exporting coal. That's why we're putting this money....

We're going to be spending this money because, as I said before in this

Legislature — and I want to remind the members opposite — during the

period that they were government the Japanese steel industrialists were

out making long-term commitments to purchase coal. They didn't come to

British Columbia because the attitude of the then government was:

"Leave it in the ground. We don't need to sell it." We lost contracts

to Australia and the United States. They stand up and talk about

employment — jobs could have been provided had that development gone

ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure of all that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm very sure of all that.

Not

only are we very rich in coal reserves in that area. That is the area

that, at the present time, is supplying the natural gas and the oil in

British Columbia. I remember — when we start talking about jobs and the

future — when the government wanted the private sector to build a

pipeline in the Grizzly Valley area.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, that was stock-market boondoogle, though!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes. And the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

said: "There's no gas down there. There's no sense in building a

pipeline because there is no gas down there." I said: "If there's no

gas down there, tell me how much more we have to prove up. I'll go to

the private sector and say, 'Look, if you prove it up, we'll build the

pipeline.'"

Anyway, shortly after the pipeline was

announced, what happened? The drilling rigs started moving in and

before the pipeline came on stream they had proven up four times as

many reserves as they had there before. It just so happens that that

Grizzly Valley area is right next to what could be one of the largest

gas fields in the world — the extension of the Elmsworth field into

British Columbia. That's what the economy is all about.

want to say that when we became government the steel industry in the

world did take a dive; it levelled off. I have the chart to show

predictions for production. When you were government the predictions

were for the use of many, many millions of tons more than when we were.

Anyway, as I said in this Legislature the other day, we didn't say the

world was going to come to an end. We knew that the steel industry

would revive and we made it, through our effort and our selling, that

when that happened we wanted to be first in line for contract.

don't want to be overly optimistic, but I feel that time has arrived.

From the sources I have available to me, there are available for

letting of contracts in Japan at the present time approximately five to

ten million tons. Some of that is going to come to Canada. The Japanese

have said in their wisdom — and I agree with them — that new coal

contracts to Canada must assist the development of a new coal port and

a new infrastructure. The Japanese, as you know, spread their business

around the world and they spread it around Australia. They don't buy it

all from one port or one mine or one railway system.

What

I'm saying is that the Japanese would also like to see a separate coal

mining area developed, a second railway and, indeed, as the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) knows full well, the port of Prince Rupert. We

have been working with them. And I predict, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we're going to spend this money.

The

measured reserve of metallurgical coal in the northeast of British

Columbia is 286 million tons, and of thermal coal 50 million tons, for

a total of 336 million tons — that's proven reserves. Inferred coal

reserves in the northeast of British Columbia are: 6,877,000,000 tons

of the best metallurgical coal to be found anywhere in the world, and

1,214,000,000 tons of thermal coal, for a total in the northeast part

of the province alone of 8,091,000,000 tons. Now I say that if we

develop this resource it will do two things: it will put people to

work, it will develop a new area of the province, which will help our

policy of creating economic development throughout the province; and in

the eighties it will bring us those much needed offshore dollars, so

that we can balance our trade payments in Canada.

We're not

dealing in the northeast with just one mine. We're dealing with the

Sukunka mine, which has a production potential of 3 million tons of

metallurgical coal; we're dealing with the Bullmoose mine, which has

the potential of 1.5 million tons of metallurgical coal; we're dealing

with the Quintette mine, which has the production capacity of over 4

million tons per annum of metallurgical coal and 1 million tons of

thermal coal; we're dealing with the Monkman mine, which has 3 million

tons of metallurgical coal and 2 million tons of thermal coal; we're

dealing with the Mount Spieker mine, which has the potential to ship 1

million tons of thermal coal; we're dealing with Carbon Creek, which

has the potential of 2.5 million tons of metallurgical coal and 1

million tons of thermal coal; we're dealing with the Belcourt mine,

which has the potential of 4 million tons of metallurgical coal; we're

dealing with the Saxon property, which has the potential of 4 million

tons of metallurgical coal; we're dealing with the Cinnabar mine, which

has the potential of 1 million tons of coal; we're dealing with Bow

River, which has the potential of half a million tons of coal — these

are all per year — Hasler Creek, another half million tons of coal;

Burnt Creek, 1 million tons of thermal coal. I was advised this morning

that another company has just found a potential new thermal coal mine.

With some work, they think they can prove up another 170 million tons

of reserve thermal coal.

Now that to me has great potential.

But if we're going to develop the country, we're going to have to build

a railroad and some roads, because that's the way this nation of ours

was put together. I sometimes think, Mr. Speaker — nothing against my

staff people, and nothing against the federal

[ Page 1756 ]

government's

staff people — that we study these things to death. If we had studied

the building of the railway across Canada and put it on the same basis

that we study some of the things we're studying today, we would not

have a nation. To me it's just common sense that we go ahead and

develop this province of ours for future generations.

I've

already proven to you that there is sufficient coal there that you

could be mining coal at the rate of 25 million tons a year — which is

almost twice what we're selling out of British Columbia today — and

still be mining it 200 years from now. I just happen to have enough

faith in this human race that within 50 years we will find a new source

of energy. We will be able to develop a miniature sun on earth — many

miniature suns that don't burn themselves out — which will be supplying

energy. So I can't get too excited about the gloom and doom boys and

the new breed of scientists — they call themselves futurists — who are

always coming up and saying that the world is coming to an end, because

I have a great deal of faith in the human race.

If you look

back at what the human race has done just in the last 40 years, things

that.... I remember as a kid reading comic books, and there was a guy

sitting there watching a television set. I thought: "Impossible!" Even

to get a radio, we had to have one of these copper wires strung out in

the back yard. And then there were guys who were taking off in rockets.

And I said: "No way!" As a matter of fact, I can remember the first

time I got on a jet plane, I said: "It'll never fly; you've got to have

those propellers out there." What I'm trying to point out to you, Mr.

Speaker, is that there is nothing new under the sun; it's just that man

has not yet discovered it. I feel that within 50 years....

I've

visited the laboratories in Livermore, California, where they are

working on this project. We will have a new source of energy, and it

will completely change world economics. We've had a change in world

economics in the last seven years, when the price of oil went up. When

the socialists were in power the price of oil went up. We will overcome

these difficulties, Mr. Speaker. What I'm trying to point out to you is

that we must build today for tomorrow because we have a great economy

and we have a great province.

The greatest resource that we

have in this province and the greatest resource any country has is its

people. That is why this government relies heavily on people, on the

entrepreneurship and the individuality of British Columbians. We relied

on them in 1976, and they have not let us down. That is why the economy

of this province is so great today.

The markets for

metallurgical coal are indeed turning around. Japan is now looking for

coal contracts in the vicinity of 5 million to 10 million tonnes by

1985, and I think it will be sooner than that; I think it will be 1983.

We're talking mainly about the Japanese market, but I want to tell you

that the coal companies have been out marketing thermal coal not only

in Japan but in European countries — France, even England, Germany,

Spain and Rumania — and in the Pacific Rim. We've been marketing our

coal in Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan and Korea. Mr. Speaker, there are

tremendously growing markets for thermal coal, of which we again have

an abundant supply.

So I have no difficulty whatsoever in

supporting this bill and the $20 million, because it is an investment

in the future of this province, and if we're ever going to tap that

great resource we must build that infrastructure and we must build it

now. The answer is now. The export potential in the Atlantic market is

growing, because not only have we brought in policies to facilitate the

development of this great natural resource but the individual companies

have responded by aggressively going out there and seeking new markets.

look forward to the day when British Columbia, instead of supplying

only 10 percent or 12 percent of the world market for metallurgical

coal, will be in there with the biggies like Australia and supplying a

third of the world market. We have the potential to do it, we have the

reserves, we have the ingenuity and we have the entrepreneurship. All

the government has to do is to do the same as they've always done:

provide a road network, transportation facilities. Private enterprise

will do the rest.

The markets I've mentioned for thermal

coal are growing by leaps and bounds. There is a potential right away.

Within the next five years we could be producing 25 million tonnes of

metallurgical coal and 5 million tonnes of thermal coal per year out of

the northeast without any problem whatsoever.

MR. LEA: That's not true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe we'll have a few problems dealing with our federal government, but they are coming onside.

MR. LEA: What do you mean? What did they just do in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The value of potential metallurgical coal production could exceed $1.6

billion per year, taking an average of $65 per tonne, if the potential

mines were developed.

Now I want you to look into the

future, to 1985, as our export of petroleum products declines and we

lose those offshore dollars. Here we have a potential of bringing in

1.6 billion foreign dollars into Canada every year. That in itself will

have a tremendous impact on the future economy and indeed on the

taxpayers of this province, because as I said, Mr. Speaker, Canada must

export if we are going to survive.

I'll talk about how we're

building up our secondary and manufacturing industries; right now I'm

trying to be a good boy and just talk to the bill. But I don't want to

leave the impression with the House that all we're talking about is the

export of our natural resources. We're building on all fronts and doing

a good job at it. The value of thermal coal production could exceed

$200 million per year. That was just metallurgical coal that I talked

about when I talked about $1.6 billion. The production of 5 million

tonnes of thermal coal could exceed $200 million per year, at $40 per

tonne, if the potential mines were developed.

Mr. Speaker, I

have listened to the opposition say we haven't done anything to create

jobs in this province. Here's a project that has the potential for the

creation of 9,000 direct mining jobs plus more than 20,000 indirect

jobs in B.C. and the rest of Canada.

This is part of our

long-term planning. That's why people are rushing to British Columbia

today. That's why we have tens of thousands more people employed in our

great economy today than when they were government, and it's growing

every year. Mr. Speaker, this $20 million in this bill is to build up

the economy of the province so that by the year 1985 we can possibly

have an additional 29,000 jobs — from this one development alone. This

investment, if it goes ahead, could create 25,000 man-years of

construction employment

[ Page 1757 ]

during

the next 20 years. As I've said before, in order to realize this

development and to realize the benefits from the development of

northeast coal it is necessary to have support facilities in place. I'm

referring to roads, railroads, town sites, ports, supply of power and

the like. That's what government is all about. That's what government

has always provided: road network, railways.... I remember, it wasn't

too many years ago that the federal government built a railway up to

Pine Point to develop a mine, and after they built it they turned

around — if my facts are correct — and sold it to the CNR for a dollar.

We don't intend to do that.

MR. COCKE: They also own the CNR.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, the people of British Columbia own the great British Columbia

Railway, and I was very pleased to table those financial statements

last night and to show you that under this administration the British

Columbia Railway is being very well run. And if it were not for the

fact that the British Columbia Railway is running so well today under

good management, we would not be able to think of this.

remember my first trip to Japan, when we hadn't been government very

long. The questions were: "What are you going to do with the British

Columbia Railway? Is it reliable?" I said: "Give us a year and we'll

prove our fact. Yes, it is. "They asked questions about our labour

situation. I said: "Give this government a little time and we'll show

you that the labour situation will be much better in British Columbia."

They asked many other questions. I didn't mean to get off the subject

here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I've been speaking about the bill, Mr. Speaker, and speaking to one

portion. My colleagues will talk about others. But I'm speaking mainly

about the northeast coal development.

There is a potential

for great economic development and great exports. As I've said before,

it's not just the Japanese market. We seem to be in a sort of

chicken-and-egg situation — who makes the decision? I feel that we're

on the verge of getting some coal contracts. We must be prepared to

tell our potential customers exactly what we're going to do to get that

coal out of there. That's why this money is in this bill. Because I'll

tell you, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Minister of Finance tabled his

budget in the House the wires to our coal buyers were hot, and they

were saying British Columbia makes great steps forward for the

development of northeast coal — another positive attitude.

And

when I talk about creating a climate in British Columbia for potential

economic development and for potential investment, that's what we've

done, and that's what we're doing. Mr. Speaker, when the world looks at

British Columbia as a place to buy, and sees that this government has

run this province so well, and that our finances are in such good

order, they recognize that this would be a good place to buy, because

it is a good government, it brings stability, and they know that they

can do business with us in good faith.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, I'll be delighted to speak on Bill 7; I hope I can keep as

close to the bill as the previous speaker. I note that he was talking

about miniature suns in the future. If they generate as much heat and

as little light as that minister, then we're in trouble in the future.

One

of the first things that I'd like to talk about is the minister having

tipped the House off to something that none of us have known until this

very minute — that the finances in this province are in good order.

Here is a government that underestimates its revenues by some $900

million. And now he tells us they're in good order and assures us that

the outside world is looking upon this province with great respect:

"That's a province that you can deal with. My goodness, look at how

businesslike they are." Look, you're a bunch of incompetents over

there. You can't even budget in one year, let alone that five-year

forecast. And now what you're doing here is taking the results of this

underestimation, taking $188 million, setting it aside and asking us to

pass a bill without any accountability at all. Once we pass this piece

of legislation, we're turning over those funds to ministers who have

absolutely no obligation for accountability.

They aren't in

the estimates, where they should have been. Had that government had any

understanding of how to budget, we wouldn't be in this spot now. Those

sums could have been in the estimates where they belong. They could

have been accountable in the future for the expenditure of those funds.

The way it is now, they're telling us: "Give us carte blanche." The

thing that really disturbs me about this.... I will predict this moment

that those Liberals who are now Social Credit — heaven knows what they

might be a few years from now — particularly those in that cabinet,

will be voting for this, when under W.A.C. Bennett when he set up his

special funds over the years, the one thing that we could all

predict....

HON. MR. FRASER: You blew them all.

MR. COCKE: I'll get to you in a minute, Highways minister who doesn't really understand anything. We'll get to your situation....

HON. MR. FRASER: You threw it away.

MR. COCKE: What was thrown away? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'll get to that minister who has plenty to say from his chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member please resort to temperate language.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) still thinks he's in the Empress Hotel?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

You goofed it last night; don't try to goof it today. You didn't tell

us any more last night than you told us in the last few days.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for New Westminster please come to order. We're on Bill 7.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, it's coming close to the end of the week. The cabinet seem

to have a number of short fuses. If that's the case, then let those

short fuses blow. This is a good time for it to happen.

[ Page 1758 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll get back to my prediction. I predict that those former Liberals or whatever they might be....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Would the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) please come

to order. Would the member for New Westminster kindly take a seat for

just a moment until we have restored order.

I think we're here to do the business of the people. Please proceed.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would predict quietly that they'll be voting for this

bill, which is entirely against their principles of the past.

Never

would they get up in this House and advocate or vote for a bill

providing a government or a minister funds without accountability. We

watched them time after time, and I must confess that I feel just a

little bit irresponsible in terms of some of the ways that I voted in

those days, feeling that W.A.C. Bennett knew the way to spend the

people's money on Hydro, and I felt that a number of those things.... I

didn't always vote that way, but certainly on occasion I found myself

voting in a different way than those Liberals. This is the very kind of

thing that they stood very firmly on before they suddenly walked the

road to Damascus, saw the light, and became Socreds. Now it's quite the

custom to vote for this pattern of expenditure. Mr. Speaker, that is

one of the real problems I have with the bill. I haven't quite made up

my mind, and I don't think I can make up my mind entirely on how I can

vote on this bill in principle when it's so diverse, and before having

heard the number of ministers that are obviously going to have to speak

to it, because each of these areas is a separate responsibility. And

while we have heard from the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development on his northeastern coal situation, we certainly have to

hear from other ministers. Hopefully they're going to be a lot more

articulate than that minister was about how the expenditure is going to

be made.

I'd just like to deal with one or two things that

concern me. One thing that the previous speaker spoke on with which I

could agree was that one of the reasons for our great surpluses is our

resources. I totally agree with that. Some $1.5 billion over the last

four, five or six years has come from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation,

which we set up to get our fair share of the resources in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, since they became government the Petroleum Corporation has

continued and has produced a great resource in terms of capital for the

people of this province. We owe it to the member for Vancouver East,

who then sat as Attorney-General, and to people with the kind of

foresight and wisdom he had. We were getting 30 cents per thousand

cubic feet for our gas in those days.

MR. BRUMMET: You ran out of gas.

MR. COCKE: You'll never run out of gas, Mr. Member.

We were getting 30 cents; we are now getting some $5 per thousand cubic feet for our natural gas.

MR. BRUMMET: You did it.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, that's right, our government did it.... I hope when this minister

gets an opportunity he's going to tell us some of the ways that they

managed to do it. They voted against the B.C. Petroleum Corporation

when we set it up. We'd still be getting 30 cents for our natural gas

had this government been elected in 1972. For sure.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who s