1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 369 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act. (Bill No. 84). Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 369

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Morrison — 369

Mr. McGeer — 376

Mr. Wallace — 383

Reports

1st Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills — 391

2nd Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills — 392

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

Members of the assembly to join me today in welcoming a group

of students from Campbell River who are here with their

teachers, Joan Bunting and Dale Kelly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I too would like

the Members to join with me to welcome a group of students from

the Langford Alternative Boy's Club in the riding of Esquimalt.

They are accompanied by their teacher, Mark Horne, who is the

son of our deputy legislative clerk, Ian Horne.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to recognize today the representatives of the

B.C. Environmental Council that are visiting us, Dr. Clark, Lois Boyce and Roger

Smith.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like the Hon. Members to welcome as well

Mr. Frank Howard, MP, who was also a Member of this assembly

some years ago. He's sitting on the floor of the House to your

right.

Introduction of bills.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

APPEALS ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

84 intituled The Administrative Tribunals Appeals

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 84 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we in the

official Opposition can only review this budget in terms of the

expectations of the new order which were so spectacularly

announced by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) on

Thursday last, and I quote: "We're not here…to fritter away

this opportunity. (We are not just going) to tinker about with

the system…tomorrow (with the reading of the budget speech)

we can see the first part of that journey unfold."

We can now describe that, Mr. Speaker, as "Hall's hollow

threat" — a threat which must have brought surges of

expectation to the hearts of the backbenchers opposite as they

waited with bated breath the things to come on the morrow. As

they were told in the language of the Provincial Secretary,

they were taking that first step on the journey down the new

road to be surveyed, constructed and paved by the NDP

Government opposite.

How shocked they must have been as a faint, fluttering

candle was presented to the people of British Columbia by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). The grand expectation

that this would be a people's budget must have struck them as

ironic.

We turn to page 16 of the Magna Carta of the new era and

find in bold print that the Minister of Finance has designed a

document which provides that 69 per cent of our total

provincial revenues will be devoted to the social improvement

of our people in the fields of education, health and social

service. Then, Mr. Speaker, we turn to page 28 of that

so-called document from the Dark Ages, 1972, and we find, Mr.

Speaker, that in the last budget 69 per cent was spent. Where

is the bright new era in that comparison?

Then we examine the total percentage of this new people's

budget for education. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, we find a

little better than 28 per cent of this budget devoted to

education as opposed to approximately 31 per cent devoted to

education last year. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the backbenchers

opposite feel that that represents a breakthrough to the bright

new era so eloquently threatened by the Provincial Secretary on

Thursday last.

No, if there's one thing that can describe this budget, it

has to be that it lacks imagination. The backbenchers opposite,

when the time comes, should rise up and vote against it. How

could they do otherwise, Mr. Speaker, when the Provincial

Secretary in such ringing terms last Thursday said that there

would be great surprises and they were not going to tinker with

the system. They were really going to change it. Mr. Speaker,

what came out of the Minister on Friday was a tinker-toy

budget.

I'm amazed at the naivety of the socialist mind. The Member

for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) made a public statement this morning

regarding the increase from 10 per cent to 12 per cent — which

is a 20 per cent

[ Page 370 ]

increase — on the corporation income tax. In his reply to

one of the largest firms in British Columbia, the British

Columbia Telephone Company, he suggested that the British

Columbia Telephone Company could absorb the increase as good

corporate citizens. This is just as much misleading hogwash as

the Minister of Finance's statement that this is a people's

budget.

Who do those NDP socialists over there think they're really

kidding? Has the small or large corporation some fairy

godmother to get the extra dollars from? Don't be so naive.

They'll pass the increase on to the people who have to pay for

cement, for building materials, for telephones.

This is the beginning of a devious method of tax collection — the burden falling heaviest on those least able to pay — the

low income and the average income people of this province. What

the NDP are really saying is that when they want to raise a

tax, the merchant or corporation gets the blame for raising the

price of the product. The blame will not fall on the

Government's shoulders where it really belongs.

Two of the most unendearing qualities of this new NDP

administration seem to be: first, its lack of realization that

it is now the Government, and not the Opposition. And because

of this obsession during the course of the previous debate, and

certainly during the presentation by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett), there seems to be an almost juvenile

attempt to discredit the budgetary systems inherited from the

previous government. Yet, if one examines the presentation by

the Minister of Finance on Friday, one could almost say that he

prepared a Xerox copy of the procedures used heretofore.

The second unendearing quality is by gratuitous and

unfounded assertions about previous bookkeeping practices. The

Minister of Finance seems deliberately set on a course which

seeks to undermine confidence in the community at large. I'll

have more to say shortly about this in terms of the hang-up the

hang-up which certainly represents a political carry-over from

his days in Opposition, and not as the custodian of the

financial destiny of this province.

However, the calculated attempt by the Minister of Finance

to throw doubt and suspicion on the real credit position of

this province is not more clearly evident than on page 7 of the

1973 budget — where, while representing the net contingent

liability of the province to be $2,740,565,944, he made the

point that the previous government in its budget presentations

had never laid that net contingent liability figure before this

House.

If the Members have handy a copy of the 1972 budget, they will clearly find

indicated on table E, page 39 the self-liquidating guaranteed investments, net,

of the province to be at that time $2,695,721,649. But, Mr. Speaker, the real

criticism of this Government is to be found in the general way in which they

unsettled the communities of British Columbia by statements such as this, which

can only erode confidence.

In the five months that the NDP have been Government, if

there's a single charge which we can hang on them, it is their

most studied and off-hand method of undermining the confidence

that anyone can really have in the business stability of

British Columbia — which came about because of 20 years of

sound, fiscal management.

We are told that the Minister of Finance is to go abroad

carrying the banner of British Columbia into the market places

of Europe. I would hope that the Minister of Finance, when he

is there, would also take along the other side of the balance

sheet in terms of contingent liabilities — and to stop

indulging himself in gratuitous insults about the supposedly

undercover bookkeeping kept by the previous Government on

finance. The Members opposite have been in office five months

now. After two decades of bouncing around British Columbia

indicating there were two, three, four and five sets of books,

they have not been able to substantiate that charge to this

date and they know they never will. However, to run around

Europe, with those silly financial asides ringing around this

Legislature, does nothing to inspire confidence.

But let's examine just one portion of the idea that there is

dead-weight debt on the people of the Province of British

Columbia resulting from improper accounting practices on the

part of the previous government — which, clearly, the Minister

of Finance tried to imply on Friday.

The British Columbia Hydro Account, which makes up by far

the largest portion of the guaranteed debt of this province,

shows the following true picture of what the asset position of

that organization happens to be. Physical assets represented by

dams, trolley coaches, railway stock, et cetera, are

represented at a net value of $1,960,321,290 in the 1972

accounts of British Columbia Hydro. Surely the Minister of

Finance is not suggesting that these assets have no

relationship to the liability total he seeks to display as

dead-weight debt on the people of the Province of British

Columbia — suggesting it amounts to over $1,300 per person in

this province.

But along with the physical assets we find the following, on

finished construction, amounting to approximately $364 million.

We also find cash materials on inventory, accounts receivable,

and other liquid assets in bonds, and mortgages, et cetera

amounting to approximately $26 million. All of these figures

have been readily obtainable for years in the annual reports

presented by the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

When the Minister of Finance is going abroad to represent

British Columbia, surely it is time for him

[ Page 371 ]

to restrain himself in trying to paint the picture of hidden

accounts, irresponsible budgeting, secret documents, et cetera

as representing the financial picture in British Columbia.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, a very large portion of the

contingent liabilities are wrapped up in the public school

system and the hospital system in this province. These amount

to nearly $500 million. The point is, Mr. Speaker, no matter

how the Members opposite tried, the facts were presented to the

public.

More particularly, Mr. Speaker, when one understands that

the good portion of the total of self liquidating liabilities

are held by many British Columbians in the form of guaranteed

parity bonds, it is inexcusable for the Minister of Finance to

suggest in this House that the contingent liabilities of

British Columbia really represent dead-weight debt on the

people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Minister of Finance, when on

page 26, table A of the budget, he presents a picture of the

asset portion of the province itself, he has no hesitation in

listing the values attributed to the fixed assets of the

province. It's simply irresponsible — to carry on this former

position about contingent liabilities, and their true

relationship to financing the financial picture of the province

now — that he has chosen to retain his portfolio as Minister of

Finance.

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that if he keeps up this foolishness

he will have difficulty in maintaining his credibility in the

financial markets of the world where, certainly, he will need

more than a smile.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has

already indicated that he intends to invest pension accounts of

this province in enterprises such as B.C. Hydro and,

presumably, school and hospital construction. And to paint the

picture he did Friday, about the true meaning of contingent

liabilities, is irresponsible on that score also. Pension

holders should not listen to this Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker. They were well protected and well served by the former

Minister.

The Social Credit administration followed a number of very

important basic principles in achieving for British Columbia

the most outstanding record of fiscal management anywhere.

Those principles are important to review now, as we perceive

the directions for the future outlined on Friday, February

By 1960, British Columbia formalized the retirement of all

direct debt, by passing in this legislation the Loan

Authorization Cancellation Act , 1960. We serve notice now,

that the lights will burn all night in this Assembly if the

Government seeks to wipe that Act from the books of this

province. It is the cornerstone of the "pay as you go"

philosophy of Social Credit Members here. And, Mr. Speaker, we

say now that the real name for deficit financing is dishonest

financing.

By 1971, one of the severest critics of the former

administration was able to say in the June 9, 1971 issue of the

Vancouver Province : "Only British Columbia in the

black." — by Bob McConnell. To the uninitiated that might not

sound like much of an achievement. But it is something no — and

I repeat, no other government in Canada has been able to do — no

matter how great the need.

Mr. Speaker, even today as we move along the perils and

uncertainty of 1973, generated in large measure by the NDP

opposite, we in the Socred group here sound the warning. We

will fight any movement away from sound credit financing in

every way. Here in this House and out of this House.

By August, 1967, the Province of British Columbia was totally

removed from the vagaries of international finance — we had

been good Canadian citizens. Our financing was internal. We had

done what no other government in Canada was able to do — we

resisted the inflow of foreign capital to Canada, here in

British Columbia. We were indeed a financial lighthouse, Mr.

Speaker, and up to August 30, 1972, we still were.

Interest payments flowing out of British Columbia had been

completely halted so far as provincial accounts were concerned.

By 1970 the last phase of resisting any requirement to borrow

outside the province had been launched with the municipal

financing authority and by 1978, just five years from now, the

entire capital required for all public requirements in British

Columbia would have been found in British Columbia.

Remarkable you say, Mr. Speaker? No, simply sound planning.

Step by step reaching the goalposts which were recognized from

day one by the former Minister of Finance. Remarkable indeed it

was, Mr. Speaker, that by 1970, all Hydro capital, British

Columbia railway capital, school construction capital, and

hospital construction capital was being raised in this dynamic

province. And under the Municipal Sewage Treatment

Assistance Act , the road to 1978 lay straight and narrow.

Masters of our own destiny — the ship of state sailed on a sea

of credit, not debt.

We warn now, Mr. Speaker, that tampering with pension funds,

either those generated under agreements with Canada or those

produced by our people here, or tampering with the perpetual

funds or tampering with the surplus accounts in sprees of

ravaging expenditure will be met with stern resistance on the

part of the official Opposition.

The third fundamental principle of Social Credit financing

was low tax rates permitting the dynamics of an individual

enterprise economy to meet the ever-spiralling costs in the

social services field. While partisan critics labeled the

Social Credit record in social service fields disastrous, the

facts and the record are demonstratively much different: the

highest old age pensions in Canada; the most highly

developed

[ Page 372 ]

day care programme in Canada; an education system having the

lowest drop-out rate in Canada; the largest homeowners support

programme in Canada; the recognition that British Columbia's

Workmen's Compensation Act was the best in North

America: a medical care programme among the best in Canada; a

labour force enjoying the highest average wages in Canada,

depending on what monthly report of Canadian statistics one was

looking at; a child care programme that won international

recognition as the most outstanding in the North America; and

Mr. Speaker, the list could go on and on.

The point is that a dynamic individual enterprise system did

deliver the goods.

In terms of revenue creation, Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? (

a) The gross

provincial product was reaching towards 11 per cent — far outstripping the experiences

of the nation as a whole and indeed most of the western world.

(

b) By August

30, 1972, revenues were growing at the rate of 15.5 per cent over the previous

fiscal year. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia was the best managed economy

in the nation. The genius that showed how to make money work for the people

instead of being their enemy is clear for all to see.

To disrupt, to amend, to tamper with this form of fiscal

management would be infamous. The most serious concern the

Social Credit group in this House can express here, however,

Mr. Speaker, is the way in which social governments everywhere

have moved in the direction of diminishing the discretionary

incomes held in the hands of individuals and corporations.

Often done in the name of motherhood but always directed on the

idea that the state knows best, and is always to be more

trusted than the more humane idea of man seeking to fulfil his

own goals and aspirations with a maximum discretion in the

hands of individuals and minimum in the hands of the state.

We thus see the socialist provinces of Canada lined up with

British Columbia in this way. If you take the personal income

tax percentage of the federal tax: in Saskatchewan it's 40 per

cent; in Manitoba, it's 42.5; in British Columbia, it is 30.5

per cent. If you take the corporation tax in Saskatchewan — 11

per cent; in Manitoba, 13 per cent. In British Columbia it was

10 per cent. It is now 12 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, British

Columbia joins the socialist camp. How sad, because, Mr.

Speaker, the record over the past 20 years shows that we need

not be a province that operates financially like all others. We

built our financial house on solid ground not on shifting

sand.

The new Government is really saying, "we'll tax more to give them more, because

we know better than they what they want and need." The dehumanizing "them" and

"they" is not the philosophical foundation of this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

That is another reason why a socialist budget is usually so remarkably different

from the individual enterprise inspired Social Credit budgets of the past 20

years.

The fourth principle that formed the foundation for Social

Credit government financing rested on the idea that government

at all levels could be expected to fight inflation and should

be expected to fight inflation. It was of no comfort to blame

the other person, nor to blame another level of government if

within one's own jurisdiction there was no action. Inflation in

some quarters is treated as a myth — that it's not really that

bad.

The Premier and Minister of Finance in this province has

been quoted that if he were Prime Minister of Canada, he would

seek a ceiling on wages, profits, et cetera. But where was he

when the former Social Credit government tried to bring some

control here at home?

We had some jurisdiction in salaries for civil servants. We

had some control that could be exercised with respect to

teachers' salaries — and in that instance, contrary to the myth

offered the general public of British Columbia, to exceed the

ceilings set if they saw fit by way of a democratic vote. We

had some jurisdiction on spiralling health costs, medical fees

or service and the like. And I'll predict right now, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) knows the

inevitable consequences of spiralling health costs right now.

Because I can't believe he hasn't read the Economic Council of

Canada's comments on the subject of health costs.

Who gets hurt most with inflation, Mr. Speaker?

(

a) The homeowner. Spiralling assessments which the former

government tried to protect by eliminating assessment increases — particularly on residential property. Who opposed? The

NDP.

(

b) The pensioner and those on fixed incomes. Who tried to

seek a solution? The Socreds with a guaranteed annual income

plan, the first in Canada to adopt this as official policy.

(

c) The food buyer.

(

d) The saver and the investor.

And the list goes on and on until every segment of our

community feels the impact of the dread disease which has

toppled more governments and brought more tragedy in this world

than any other force.

What is inflation in real terms, Mr. Speaker? Well, the

following chart illustrates the disease in language anyone can

understand.

Five years ago, based on 1961 dollars, the dollar was worth

just 86.66 cents. Today the dollar is worth just 76.16 cents.

Twenty years ago, based on 1961 dollars, the dollar was worth

113.64 cents. But today it is worth just 76.16 cents.

Ten years ago, if a pensioner had an income of $100, today

he would have just $76.16. Ten years ago a house that sold for

$20,000 would sell for $26,000 plus today. A man earning

$10,000 today

[ Page 373 ]

would have been okay at $7,616 ten years ago. A man

earning $10,000 today will need, at current rates of inflation,

$1,364 more three years from now; $2,763 more five years from

now and $6,289 more ten years from now, just to stand

still.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, inflation is no myth. It hurts real

people.

Now I'd like to talk for a minute about rural land taxation.

We see a continued policy of discrimination towards farmers and

other rural residents. This Government started off by freezing

farmland — which took millions of dollars out of the farmers'

pockets. Now, to add insult to injury, you're going to increase

his taxes — and you won't even tell him how much.

Tell us, Mr. Premier, why are you afraid to tell us

everything about the increase in taxes to people? What is it to

be: 20 per cent, 50 per cent, 100 per cent?

These are the people who were promised tax relief from

school taxes. Where is that? Instead, they've been offered the

sop of reduced gas taxes for their family truck. This is no

more than a smokescreen for the long-range object of the

socialists to take over the land of British Columbia — not

openly and above board by paying fair market value, but

indirectly through such tools as zoning, increased assessments

and increased taxes.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where the Member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) will vote on this budget. On Thursday, while he waited

with anxious anticipation for the new era, what did he say? In

Hansard and I quote: "At the same time, assessments and

taxes are increasing to the point where rural residents are

unwilling and in many cases unable to pay." Where can he stand

when the bells ring, Mr. Speaker, and support a budget which

threatens to increase rural taxes even more?

For a second, on the land bank. Ten million allocated for a

land bank is mere tokenism. I'm told that one of the major real

estate companies would sell more land than that in a month. All

they're probably doing is taking the land off the market,

paying excessive amounts — like, for example, the 4.3 acres

from the City of Victoria at somewhere around $82,000 an acre — supposedly for low-cost housing. Certainly no independent

developer could afford to develop land at those figures. And

furthermore, this developed land, if it is ever developed, will

only return 15 mills in taxes to the city instead of their

normal mill levy.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) says that this is

a people's budget. Yes — for NDP faithful who are recipients of

excessive executive posts in this patronage-riddled Government.

For the NDP cabinet Ministers, finance Ministers and for the

Premier, the true increase amounts to 20 per cent plus on the

basis of income.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): In one year?

MR. MORRISON: However, if one takes into account the

prospect of two sessions a year, and includes the sessional

indemnity, the real increase for the Premier, for example, is

almost 60 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inflationary!

MR. MORRISON: In the public statements this past weekend on

TV, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) tried to paint

the picture that the increases were following the 6.5 per cent

guideline established and legislated by the Social Credit

administration.

Let us refer, then, to the legislation passed by this House

in

Section 73A, Subsection 2 of the Constitution

Act requires that if there is a percentage increase which

exceeds that provided and fixed under the Revenue Act ,

there is a requirement that there be a plebiscite of at least

60 per cent of the people of the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that this Government by

order-in-council removed the 6.5 per cent ceiling. But it

stretches the imagination to assume that this Legislature

intended that the sky would be the limit. It is clear that

Section 73A of the Constitution Act was passed by this

Legislature in order that inflationary increases would be

constantly under review and scrutinized by the public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate the inflationary

effects of this. For as it stands now, your own yearly salary

can be as much as — if you haven't figured it out — $46,000 a

year, compared to the previous administration of $19,000 in the

annual Speaker's salary. A cabinet Minister, Mr. Speaker, will

receive up to $48,000 annually — plus in some cases $7,000

travel expenses. The Premier could receive — if we have a full

session in the fall — $52,000.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Wow!

MR. MORRISON: Plus an additional $15,000 in travel

expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the Minister of Finance?

MR. MORRISON: Surely this is the kind of increase for which

the Legislature was committed to the people. I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, if this socialist NDP Government were to go to the

people today with those irresponsible demands, the people would

say, "No."

[ Page 374 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MORRISON: And now that the cabinet Ministers and the

Premier have looked after their salaries and their expenses, I

want to direct the attention of this House to the plight of one

person in 10 in this province who were not looked after in this

budget — the unemployed in our province.

Mr. Speaker, the real gut issue, on examining the budget

produced on Friday, can be itemized as follows;

(1) Unemployment;

(2) Unemployment;

(3) Unemployment.

The Government has literally reacted to a near 10 per cent

unemployment figure; or 95,000 unemployed, or over 30,000 more

people unemployed in the five months they have been in office,

by promising 1,000 more jobs in the civil service. I'll have

more to say about that later.

There were 1,461 added last year anyway. But the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) reduced that by nearly 500, using

the excuse that there was no room in the previous

estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hear it's 600 now.

MR. MORRISON: He must have told some tall tales to the

Treasury Board to get that 35 million bucks extra not in the

budget. But he had an unfortunate lapse of memory in this

people's budget when he forgot the men he had cast aside.

However, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) may yet come to the rescue,

because he has another $90 million to work with. The social

assistance may yet prove to be this Government's answer to the

opening of a new era but surely, Mr. Speaker, that's got to be

the most novel way yet to devise a substitute for a real work

opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: He thinks money will solve all his

problems.

MR. MORRISON: Now let's look at how the private sector is to

be encouraged to invest money and thereby create jobs in

British Columbia: a 20 per cent increase in corporation tax at

a time when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) admits

he doesn't really need the money to balance his budget. This

must be one of the few times in history, Mr. Speaker, when a

Minister of Finance levies new taxes and publicly presents

accounts which show he doesn't need any more taxation. More

peculiar, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't really reduce taxes in any

other direction. In spite of pious statements, he in fact

announces an increase for the non-municipal taxpayer.

As well, the tax on capital used is to be enforced. That,

Mr. Speaker, is like using your own hair to weave a shirt. Its

impact on the job-creating capacity of this province will be disastrous. It represents not a bow

in the direction of common sense but yet another example of

socialist hang-ups expressed in taxation, whether the revenue

is needed or not.

These two measures, taken together, will give British Columbia the most hostile business climate in

Canada, especially when the Minister of Finance shows accounts

which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the tax increase

represents political need and not fiscal need.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at this budget of the new era

in terms of specific job-creation measures. Let me take two at

this moment in job creation. (1), park development. In the 1972

Social Credit budget there was an amount of $10 million for

park development. The 1973 NDP budget has $5 million. (2),

reforestation, for job creation. In 1972 the Social Credit

budget had $10 million. The NDP budget has — you guessed it — $5 million.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance opposite is a 50

percenter or maybe — just maybe, Mr. Speaker — he does not trust

his Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources, Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) and condominiums to spend

any more. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't believe in jobs.

MR. MORRISON: Let me look at some other job-creating areas.

Job creation item 1 - highways department. In 1972 the Social

Credit budget had $179,261,429 and, apparently, we were

overspent by $35 million, which brings the total up to

$214,261,429. What do we find in the 1973 NDP budget? — $221,563,000. Big deal. The increase last year — $21 million.

To increase this year — maybe $7 million.

Let me take item 2 — park development. In the 1972 Social

Credit budget it was $2,924,000. In the 1973 NDP budget — $3

million. Big deal — $76,000 more money.

Item 3 — construction of public buildings. We find in the

1972 Social Credit budget $24,500,000. In the 1973 budget,

$20,500,000. Big deal — $4 million less.

Item 4 — new construction in post-elementary education. In

the 1972 Social Credit budget, $6,500,000. In the 1973 NDP

budget, $2,500,000. Big deal — $4 million less.

Item 5 — new construction — senior homes, recreation grants

and special care. In the 1972 budget, $6,500,000. In the 1973

budget, $6,850,000. Big deal — $350,000 more money.

Item 6 — housing and redevelopment. In the 1972 budget, $5

million. In the 1973 budget, $5, million. Big zero — no

increase.

Item 7 — mining roads. In the 1972 Social Credit budget,

$4,200,000. What do we find in the 1973 NDP budget? — $1,700,000. Big deal — $2,500,000

[ Page 375 ]

less money.

Item 8 — and these are job-creation items, every one of

these creates jobs — forest nurseries and planting. In the 1972

budget, $4,158,000. In the 1973 budget, $4,390,000. Big deal — $230,000 more money. Not much.

Item 9 — new patient care programmes. In the 1972 budget,

$1,310,000. In the 1973 budget, $1,300,000. Big deal — $10,000 less.

Item 10 — capital expenditure, technical and vocational

schools, $15 million in the 1972 budget. In the 1973 NDP

budget, $7,500,000. Big deal — $7,500,000 less money.

Item 11 — capital expenditures, universities, $14 in the

1972 budget. In the 1973 budget, $11 million. Big deal — $3

million less.

Mr. Speaker, this is a partial rundown. Big deal for the

unemployed. But we know where it's at, Mr. Speaker, and my

colleagues will have more to say about this later.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) will be doing his bit also for the 95,000

unemployed. Because according to the estimates, he will hire

eight more people at about $17,000 a year plus. Yes, Mr.

Speaker it's a big deal for the unemployed.

Sadly, it's an opportunity not grasped. That, Mr. Speaker,

is what the official Opposition say this budget debate will be

all about. Because that's where it's at.

Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the official Opposition

to develop budgetary ideas as this debate progresses. I can

tell you now that we will not support its shallow approaches. I

have pointed out the tinker-toy nature of this budget and I can

tell you that we intend to develop new proposals as this budget

debate moves along.

We have on the order paper the answer to income maintenance

in the new industrial state in which we live. A guaranteed

minimum annual income for all residents of British Columbia

could have rested upon the use of the income tax returns to

eliminate the welfare state and replace it with a universal

guaranteed income which, in terms of the allocations involved

in this budget, could have been accommodated easily and would

have meant the addition of approximately $75 million, most of

which with careful — and I underline that word "careful" — negotiation with the federal government, would have been

shareable.

Secondly, there would have been a corresponding set-off in terms of eliminating

the 15 per cent charge against the municipalities which, on this side of the

House, we say should be eliminated in favour of the guaranteed income approach,

leaving the local community responsible for the basic administration and the

case work load at the community level. This would have produced in this budget

an increase to the municipalities of better than $20 million in a single year.

Furthermore, it is quite evident that the Government could

have taken the first step towards eliminating the education tax

from the land held by both farmers and those over age 65.

Because last year, in moving on the question of adding an

additional $50 to those over 65 years in terms of the homeowner

grant, the previous government, for all practical purposes, had

eliminated the education load on the homes of thousands of

senior citizens already. By including approximately $10 million

in this budget, the Minister of Finance could have completed

the work so ably started by the Social Credit Government.

Thirdly, the Minister of Finance could easily have taken an

opportunity to lower taxation on the incomes of many thousands

of British Columbians by increasing the exemptions as

calculated for the provincial share of income tax. No need to

look to Ottawa for direction here. In the present climate of

Canada, the beacon light could have been turned on in this

province.

You will see, Mr. Speaker, that we have a bill on the order

paper which would have the effect of exempting the interest and

property taxation paid by the residents of British Columbia as

calculated exemptions for provincial income tax purposes. These

and other measures, Mr. Speaker, are what the fiscal management

of the 20 years of Social Credit were all about.

The bills we introduced at the emergency or mini-session in

October, and the ones added now, were the programme for the

future. Our Members will express our disappointment in this

budget debate in terms of what should have been, and express

the sadness which must be evident across the face of British

Columbia that the Minister of Finance produced a tinker toy

budget. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It's very nice to be able to take my place in this

debate, wearing a red carnation. We do that as a symbol of the

first victory Canada has had in the United States since the war

of 1812. Of course I refer to the success the Hon. leader of

the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) had in Washington in

stalling the pipeline, which…. It shows what imagination and

effort can accomplish despite government. In this case,

there's hope for Canada and for the west coast.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Oh yes…quite prepared to

[ Page 376 ]

lump the federal government and the provincial Government in

this, and to hail private initiative once more.

Mr. Speaker, it was the first socialist budget ever. To hear

the reports, the Premier looked just excellent on television,

but he always does. We hope that one day, the rules will be

changed so that the Opposition can have some of their debates

broadcast on television too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can't pretty you up, but we'll let you go

on TV.

MR. McGEER: I liked the way the budget was made up. Same

size as the former budget, but you turn it 90 degrees to the

left to get it open. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker, the Bloedel Conservatory.

(Laughter). Right there on the cover. All the people displayed

it. But I thought it was nice, Mr. Speaker, that for once the

beautiful pictures in the budget had some pictures of

honest-to-goodness people instead of just buildings. I want to

compliment the Premier, too, on his restraint in having the

facing picture that of all the Members of the legislative

assembly. I was getting tired of that other dated picture.

I also admired the candour of the Premier in declaring in a

forthright fashion the debt of the province. That was a

refreshing change. Looking through the pictures…I always

enjoy the pictures, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: …always enjoy the pictures…look at them

first. On Page 20, we see an NDP constituency association

enjoying themselves on Sunday afternoon playing polo — there in

the lower left hand corner. (Laughter). Now I know what the

Hon. Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) speech is about — breeding horses — a better break for the horseplaying men.

This same page also shows some struggling B.C. Federation of

Labour men. I notice them on the tug of war and, although it

isn't actually shown in the picture, I could imagine the Hon.

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) tugging on the other end.

(Laughter). Well the B.C. Federation of Labour men are grunting

hard anyway, Mr. Speaker, We're not sure just yet who's going

to win that one.

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to bring down a

fifth Liberal budget. The history of these Liberal budgets is

really straightforward, Mr. Speaker. It became evident during

the late 1960's that the full resources of government were not being used for the benefit

of the people. During that time, a number of practices were

instituted which I think all Hon. Members would now realize

were completely absurd. We had freezes during that period on

school and hospital construction. At the same time,

unemployment was rising and we had construction workers idle.

At the same time, one could never attribute this state of

affairs to the state of provincial finances.

Always it became clear that the amount of money available

far exceeded that which was being spent. What the Liberal

budgets were designed to do was to end this paradox. There's

nothing more tragic than to have, in a country like Canada,

people idle who want to work. Think about it. We have probably

the richest treasure house of resources per capita of any

nation in the world. We have a highly skilled labour force. We

have a sound educational system. We're virtually free from

hostile external forces. Surely these are the elements of the

most successful social organization in the world. Yet, despite

these obvious advantages, it's very clear that smaller nations

with not nearly the resources we have are outperforming us, in

terms of these acquisitive North American values that we're

paying no attention to while we raise our salaries.

We're now fourth, according to World Bank figures, in

standard of living. We're the worst of all developed nations in

the matter of unemployment. British Columbia has one of the

worst employment records in Canada, despite the fact that we're known as the

province that has the most resources. It's not something that

governments can be terribly proud of.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we Liberals aren't afraid

of growth. That's not to say that there haven't been dreadful

errors made in the past. But they weren't accidental errors,

nor were they the inevitable consequence of growth. They

resulted from Social Credit indifference to the environment — which persisted despite objections from this party, as a free

enterprise party, as well as the government party which is

socialist. The complaint about these mistakes was not

restricted to those who are now in power.

I say that growth is compatible with an attractive

environment. It's a question of emphasis in quality. Anyone who

doubts that, and who sits in this chamber, only has to go and

look at the pictures of what this particular area was like

before the gracious Parliament Buildings were erected and the

Empress Hotel was put on the mud flats just across the way.

We do say this: if the population grows and there is no

economic growth then it must be that there are no jobs. The

throne speech talks about profligacy and waste. The greatest

profligacy and waste that we have in British Columbia today is

that of the unemployed. Here there are 90,000 to 100,000 people

in British Columbia out of work. Never before in our history

have we had that many looking for jobs — never more than right

today.

[ Page 377 ]

In percentage terms it's the highest since the darkest days

of the depression. Do you realize what the loss in production

is of those 100,000 unemployed? It exceeds $1 billion a year.

The loss in taxes to government is greater than $150 million

per year. Add to that, Mr. Speaker, the cost to the Minister of

Social Rehabilitation because there will be an extra $50

million there. That is the unimportant side of the story.

The important side is the human misery and defeat that goes

with this. You only go round in life once. Every day counts. In

terms of misery and defeat and despair this is where the

profligacy and waste lies — with the unemployed. And the

greatest failures of a society that it is possible to have is

to subject those people to this kind of defeat. It isn't of

their making, They didn't ask to be in the seats of power. They

are only willing to do a day's work for the offer of a day's

pay.

So the cure must come from aggressive action at the top — imagination, the skilful use of the resources that we have in

our hands here in government.

What was wrong with those Social Credit budgets? I am glad

we have one representative here to hear about it. It would have

been better if these nine seats had been occupied by Liberals,

Mr. Speaker, but at least we have one of their representatives

here who wasn't a Member of the House in the days when we

complained that these budgets, with their false predictions of

revenues, their mean expenditures, their inability to get the

province moving, would lead to the mounting unemployment which

today has reached those record highs.

Our first four Liberal budgets, Mr. Speaker, differed very

sharply from those of the Social Credit government. This, our

fifth Liberal budget, will differ very sharply from that of the

NDP government.

Really, Mr. Speaker, when you analyse that budget carefully,

and I would ask the private Members to do that, you will find

that the division of funds for education, for health, for

social services and so on, is practically the same as it was in

the days of the Social Credit government.

There's been a big increase, but there was a big increase

every year under Social Credit. It may be that revenues this

year were underestimated, but they were always underestimated

in the days of Social Credit. Since this is really a Social

Credit budget brought down by an NDP Government, I don't know

what the Members opposite us here were complaining about. Mr.

Speaker, what I don't understand is why for all those years the

people who are now on the Treasury benches and were then in

Opposition voted against those budgets.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that when the Government took

over they went in and found the files empty but I think there

was one thing they came across and this was the draft of the

1973 budget (Laughter).

I want to start, Mr. Speaker, with revenue estimates. This

is really the key to it all. Estimates are only estimates but

when we first began bringing down our Liberal budgets I can

remember those who sat in the government benches — they are not

with us now I am sorry to say — howling with laughter at those

budgets. How was it possible to put forward the aggressive

spending programmes to outspend the financial wizard himself

and still have a commonsense division of moneys? Then when

public accounts began to show what the true revenue figures

were, the laughter began to die down just a little bit and I am

hoping to be spared a little laughter this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker.

It is always hard to grasp that in a budget debate we are

really discussing three different budgets. You will have

noticed, and I am saying this particularly for the benefit of

the new Members because half of the people who are sitting here

in the House are seeing their first budget and hearing their

first budget debate, that the figures, the firm figures for

revenue, the statements of assets and liabilities — read that

part — refer to a budget that was closed out on April 1, 1972.

Only now is it possible to verify the forecasts that were made

in a budget debate of two years ago. So when we talk about

revenue estimates, what we have to do is to stand on our

credibility of statements that were made two years ago.

The second budget that we talk about is the one which ends

seven weeks from now on March 31. We cannot be sure of what the

revenue figures will be for that period. If you look through

your books, though, you will see the little printed pages which

say "interim estimates". Those give the figures for the first

nine months of this year which ends on March 31 and which

allows you to make highly accurate forecasts regarding the

budget that we discussed one year ago.

And then from that point we move to the third budget year

which is contained in our blue estimate books where we try and

decide how money which we think will come in between April 1,

1973 and April 1, 1974 shall be spent.

What kept coming out with the former Minister of Finance's

(Mr. Bennett) budgets, Mr. Speaker, when we got the public

accounts two years later, was that he underestimated what he

was going to receive in revenue by about $130 million a year.

Now you say, how is it possible for a man who brought down 18

budgets to make dumb errors like that? How is it possible? He

did it every year.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the last two years, he made the

dumbest mistakes of all.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources ): He called

an election.

(Laughter).

[ Page 378 ]

MR. McGEER: Well, I agree, I agree. He called an election,

but you know, he made a mistake the final year of $179 million.

Isn't that staggeringly inept for a man who brought down 19

budgets and was hailed by the Press as a financial genius? Then

last year, as the Minister mentioned, he made his big mistake

calling that election.

But we've got the first nine months' receipts now and you

won't believe it. We're going to get $1.67 billion in by the

end of March, and the Premier, in that final, that twentieth,

that last budget, made a grand record error of $217 million. It

was his twentieth time at bat and he fooled the people so

often, Mr. Speaker, I think he was pitching to himself in the

end and, as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick) pointed out, he struck out.

Last year our budget called for an expenditure of $1,577,000 — that was $124 million larger than the one brought down by

Social Credit and $177 million greater than the Liberal budget

of the year before. I predicted then that that budget — which

drew snickers from the Opposition side — would be balanced;

that the tax increases were unnecessary even for that budget.

And so it's turning out to be true.

I mention this, Mr. Speaker, only to say that we will be

continuing to make forecasts of revenue for our Liberal

budgets. It may be that even the grand, fantastic error made by

the previous Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) in his

twentieth and last time at bat, will be less than the one the

present Premier brought down on Friday.

Certainly I make this flat prediction: the revenue estimates

that I give the House today will be at least $100 million

closer to being accurate than the ones printed in this budget.

Our liberal budget this year, Mr. Speaker, calls for an

expenditure of $1.85 billion — that's $130 million greater than

the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, and I say,

Mr. Speaker, that it will be a balanced budget and there will

be a surplus, which we can predict with a high degree of

accuracy a year from now and will be able to prove two years

from now.

Our budget last year was directed in two important ways: one

was to provide a charter of rights for the elderly and the

other was to provide jobs for the younger people who could

work.

Now our charter of rights for the elderly is far from

complete. But I want to commend the Government once more for

making a great start. We warmly applauded the moves that were

undertaken at the special session and quite agree that they

deserved top priority.

But there are still tremendous gaps. So we've set aside an

extra $25 million for chronic hospitals and homemaker

services.

I'm sorry the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) has left, as well as the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement

(Hon. Mr. Levi), because — shall I leave this part until they come back? Fine.

Because when you have exciting spending proposals for Ministers you want them

to be here to hear it.

I see that the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon, Mr. Macdonald) is gone — I'll save that; the

Premier is gone — I'll save that. Agriculture!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hooray!

MR. McGEER: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is one of the eminences

grises in this new power structure in Government. He was

one of two Members on the Opposition side who really

understood budgets. He sits on Treasury Board — which is a very

influential body, as we know.

We've had, Mr. Speaker, a vigorous debate in this House on

the subject of agriculture. Everyone's for the farmer; everyone

wants agricultural land preserved. Everyone also wants lower

food costs. These objectives are incompatible. I suggest this

is the reason why in all the years I have been listening to

agricultural debates there hasn't been a single good idea

emerge. Today I suggest that $10 million be set aside as an

increased budget for the Department of Agriculture, $10

million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you want them to do with it?

MR. McGEER: What we want them to do with it, Mr. Speaker, is

to take all property taxes off producing agricultural land — all taxes off. It can be done for between $5 million and $8

million. The advantage is a very obvious one: it makes it more

profitable to work the land. It will increase production in

agriculture. It will lower food prices. It will make it

possible for the B.C. farmer to compete, when he tries to sell

his burnper crops in the summer, abroad.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Certainly it'll give the farmer a return. And so

he deserves it, because he's the hardest working producer in

the land. He deserves that increase above everyone.

So I say this, Mr. Speaker: this may not be enough, just to

remove all his taxes. It could be — and this is why there's

more in this agricultural budget than just to remove all taxes

from agricultural land — maybe we need to have a negative tax on

the land, i.e., a bonus. Nothing wrong with that principle, Some of the agricultural taxes today actually go

[ Page 379 ]

directly into the provincial coffers. It just sets the food

prices up and puts the farmer's income down. This plan of zero

taxes on agricultural land and the granting to regional

districts of the equivalent — in the way of grants from the

agriculture department — would be an incentive to

agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): You'll leave

them the right to subdivide?

MR. McGEER: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I

don't think there'd be any desire to subdivide. I think people

would be assembling lots to turn it into agricultural

production. It would depend on the skill and vigour with which

the programme was implemented.

The Premier is in, and while he's here I want to talk about

one particular aspect of industrial development which I know is

close to his heart. In our Liberal budget, Mr. Speaker, $15

million has been set aside for a merchant marine. The Premier

was saying that we should be building ships in British

Columbia; he was complaining that there was no help from

Ottawa, The fact of the matter is that there is a 19 per cent

subsidy on shipbuilding. Therefore, if we build ships in

British Columbia, almost a fifth of the total cost is provided

by the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, here's what a Liberal government would do — and

what the Premier could do — with this $15 million that we've

set aside. He can order ships tomorrow from the shipyards of

British Columbia. Order bulk ore carriers. Own them as the

provincial government. Make as a requirement, for shipping

copper concentrates or coal to Japan, that the first refusal on

any ship must come from a British Columbia bottom. That way you

can keep it busy. You know you're going to get the

business.

Okay. So what happens? We put people to work right away in

the shipyard. We get a subsidy for doing it from the federal

government. We get all those people off unemployment insurance.

We build the ship. We own it. We start a merchant marine going.

We insist that the coal and the ore can't leave Roberts Bank — or wherever we build that other superport — until our bottom has

been filled. Then we make a profit.

Mr. Speaker, we had a free enterprise government that did

all these socialist things, because they wanted to start

government enterprises. The Premier isn't any good as a

socialist Premier unless he is an enterpriser who can start

businesses going. The merchant marine is dead easy. No one is

going to complain, Mr. Speaker, about the Premier entering the

field as captain of the high seas — because after all, he's not

competing with any other businesses that are in existence. We

sold off all our merchant marine. So he's got a clear

field.

Mr. Speaker, I said this a year ago: the first ship that should be built in this British Columbia shipyard isn't

an ore carrier — we can build one or two of those a year;

they'll make a lot of money — but the first ship should be

another ferry. I'm sorry the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

is out — but what we need, and I've said this a year ago, is a

Queen of the Coast. It's not for express trade, it just runs to

Prince Rupert. It stops at the Queen Charlotte Islands and at

Kitimat and at Bella Coola, and so on, so that we've got

another ferry for local stops to tie together the communities

of the coast.

I'm just looking through all these proposals that we have

for the various Ministers because so many of them are absent.

But, if I may, since the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) is here, I'd like to talk just for a few moments about

our education budget.

Educational spending is increased by $20 million. Most of

this, Mr. Speaker, goes to the universities. Though I'm a

little embarrassed as a university man having to stand up

demanding that something be done, I do so only because of the

very close relationship proven in every advanced country

between the finishing off through high-powered graduate work of

the capabilities and skills of our most able people and the

development of new and sophisticated industry.

It was something that we could never get across, Mr.

Speaker, to the former Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Bennett) and I'm counting on the considerable skills and

charm of the new Minister of Education to make that vital point

to the new Premier.

I'd like to suggest one particular thing — it's only a small

thing, but still I suppose it falls into education, Hon.

Members last week were entertained by some representatives of

UBC to a Museum of Man which received a very fat grant from the

federal government and will contain mostly objects of Indian

art. We're prepared to spend, it seems, millions of dollars on

a wonderful museum at our university to house Indian art that

was made with tremendous effort and skill in small communities

along our coast a hundred years ago.

I'm not wildly enthusiastic about museums because they're

places of the past. What I would like to see the provincial

government do to prove that it lives and looks to the future is

to create in British Columbia a school for Indian art. Perhaps

it might be located in the Queen Charlotte Islands, or

somewhere along the coast — remote from the city style — where

the kind of inspiration that led to the development of those

things which we now cherish can be rekindled; where the obvious

inherent talents of the Indian people could be made to live

again with great works of art for the future. It wouldn't cost

very much, but how much more valuable than spending those

millions of dollars on a museum dedicated to the past.

[ Page 380 ]

I think we're going to have to move on despite the absence

of the Ministers. We have to talk, Mr. Speaker, about

industrial development. We've set aside $20 million in our

budget for building the infra-structure of a new kind of

industry. Of course, I must refer first to the science city

that I've talked about so much. But immediately we have to have

loans, incentives, bonuses — the kind of thing that will bring

secondary industry here immediately.

I met a man on the ferry this morning who said he was an

importer. He makes his living travelling around the world

buying up sophisticated machinery for sale within the province.

He put it bluntly, cruelly. He said: "British Columbia industry

is 25 years behind eastern Canada. Eastern Canada is 25 years

behind the world."

The Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, used to

mumble occasionally about an industrial development commission.

But I never really thought his heart was in it. Well, it was

sort of a mumble. But when he really gets worked up, the

Premier can belt a speech out.

But I want to suggest ways, in addition to these incentives

that we've talked about so many times in the House, by which we

can spark the imagination for industrial development of this

kind.

I'd like to see the government give awards — two awards

annually of $25,000 each. The first should go to the British

Columbian with the best invention of the year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members have heard me make this

suggestion before, and I want to tell you what happens. There's

a little squib that usually comes in the paper; oh, about every

fifth time. Nothing ever on radio or television — a little

squib in the paper. And then I get a whole bunch of letters

from inventors. Better mousetraps, wonderful gadgets.

They always complain about one thing, those letters — every

last one. And that is: they've got the invention but they can't

get it manufactured and marketed.

So that's why I want to reintroduce the idea with a second

prize. The other $25,000 goes to the manufacturer who does the

best job of marketing and producing a British Columbia

invention. This way the inventor can appeal to the pride of the

imaginative entrepreneur.

I can think, Mr. Speaker, of a couple of obvious candidates

for a prize of this kind. We might have given one a year or two

ago to the people who produced the Pisces submarine. They

thought so much of it they didn't want the Russians to buy a

model. They didn't think quite enough in Canada or the States

to buy any themselves, but they didn't want them to be produced

for sale to the Russians.

Then this past year there's been a company, Glenayre

Electronics — I think they deserve to be mentioned — who've been dickering with the B.C. Railway — more power to the B.C. Railway — about a very sophisticated

method of identifying our own B.C. railroad cars wherever they

are in North America. They've got a little gadget on the front

and there's a way of identifying. And as I understand it, this

little British Columbia firm, with nothing but imaginative

people, is bidding against two of the great giants of the world — Philips Corporation, which I also spoke about the other day,

and General Electric — for the rights to introduce a novel

system of identification in the City of New York.

O.K., so why shouldn't we give these people a little bit of

recognition and hope that the inspiration will trigger off

future industries which will start small with a few employees,

the way the Dupont corporation that I used to work for started.

The way that Philips Electronics started, but which, if they're

successful, will lead to hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Like planting the little acorn, Mr. Premier.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) isn't in right now

but I know he's been travelling a lot. Travelling a lot,

observing conferences. He's been to London and since the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has shucked off the

responsibility for industrial development, he's going to be

travelling more.

It's one of out major industries. I'm not talking about

cabinet Ministers touring. I'm talking about other people

coming to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier made a great mistake in not

strongly backing British Columbia's bid for the 1976 Winter

Olympics. "No, no," says the Premier. Well, listen for a

moment, even if you think that the Olympic Games is a spectacle

that should be elsewhere.

I remind you that the Olympic Games is now carried on world

television. All the effort that would go into the preparation

of British Columbia for hosting the Olympic Games would be more

than rewarded by that single period of world television

coverage that would let people see for the first time how

magnificent this province really is.

The Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) doesn't want people to

discover. But I think tourism is a valuable industry, It's

clean; it provides employment; it brings wealth. Certainly,

I've never heard any of the rural Members, no matter what side

of the House that they came from, that weren't in favour of

tourism as an industry. There's scarcely an industry that is

more welcome anywhere. There are more mountains in British

Columbia than all of Europe put together.

The trouble with our tourist industry is that it's all in

the summer. Until we get proper resorts developed for the

winter and people know that this is better than Switzerland or

Colorado, we won't have a balanced tourist industry. It will

just be cold and unwelcoming here.

[ Page 381 ]

The fact that Government has some interest in it is

evidenced by the Minister of Travel Industry's (Hon. Mr. Hall)

present budget, where the Festival of Sports is advertised.

There's broomball at 100 Mile and Indian wrestling in Osoyoos

and so on. That's not going to bring people from Europe for

their month's vacation in British Columbia.

We spent something like half a million dollars on the kind

of advertising that really isn't going to bring the tourists

who will spend their money here and support our excellent

facilities if they come. So I'd set aside $5 million in the

budget for promotion of winter tourism. I say first of all we

should strongly back the bid for the 1980 Olympics. Maybe

Colorado doesn't need the publicity. They've got it made.

But I can vividly recall, Mr. Speaker, a Member from

upcountry somewhere and he sat in one of those seats down

there, standing up and thundering about the way that British

Columbia advertising was going on around the world. He'd been

in Scotland and people asked where he was from. He said "from

British Columbia." They couldn't quite place it. They weren't

sure whether it was on the east coast or the west coast of

South America. The way he got his point across — and you can

imagine how galling this was — was that he told the Scot that

British Columbia was near Vancouver. That got it properly

placed. So you see we've got a long way to go just to get British

Columbia correctly adjusted in people's minds for the

Commonwealth countries, much less places like Switzerland and

Austria. It's my hope, Mr. Premier, that you will back the

Olympics and the Minister of Travel Industry will have that

extra $5 million. I wouldn't spend it all advertising broomball

and Indian wrestling in the Festival of Sports. I'm not sure it

all should be spent on advertising because I think it more

important in the first instance that we build the roads up to

these facilities, so when the people got here they've got

something that's worth having.

I know that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) is very busy — but we've set aside

$10 million for him to be spent in three ways. Everybody is

for an improved environment but when you look through the

estimates, there just isn't that much in it which spells an

improvement of the area that we live in. So part of that $10

million just goes for increasing his field staff so that they

can go around and find out just how much pollution there is in

the province.

The second part of this grant is to provide incentive funds for pollution abatement

equipment. You want to reduce the effluent from the Port Alberni mills, for

example? Well, offer tax incentives, grants, for the installation of that equipment.

The more generous the grant, the quicker these firms will clean up. We could

do one other thing. That is, the grant could be doubled if the equipment were

bought from a British Columbia manufacturer. That way, there would be incentive

for jobs here in British Columbia to produce the pollution abatement equipment,

as well as to get rid of the pollution.

The last part of this grant is to go towards the building of

a thermal electric plant to run on wood waste from the beaches.

Just last week we read in the paper where the Haro Straits went

down after having hit a submerged log. There were a number of

deaths, but those are by no means the only deaths we have had

in British Columbia waters that are attributable to deadheads.

I think it can be proved that the greatest hazard to being on

the waters in British Columbia is not rough seas but submerged

wood and deadheads. That's the prime cause of death.

Therefore, sooner or later we've got to get to cleaning up a

century of waste. The way to do it is through the building of a

plant that will burn that waste. You can't sink it. It's just

going to collect on the beaches until somebody gets busy and

burns it. It's wasteful to burn it without generating

electricity from it. The longer we postpone building these

wood-fueled thermal generators, the longer we're just going to

have this wood stacking up on the beaches. They're getting full

now and so the extra wood just floats around in the water

sinking ships.

I want to talk briefly about the thought I had for chronic

care. This is to improve our social services while at the same

time providing employment. We've set aside $25 million in our

budget for this. The idea, Mr. Speaker, would be to take people

who are presently unemployed, particularly women workers, and

make a provincial homemaker corps out of them. We could give

them a short course at our technical and vocational schools,

give them a certificate and a badge and a cap and some training

in caring for the elderly, the mentally ill, the indigent,

those from single-parent homes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No reason why not. Governments are terrified,

Mr. Speaker, to get into this grey area of custodial care and

chronic hospitals. We've left it in private hands and turned

our backs on it. But this is where the misery index is at its

highest. Year after year we've talked about the need for chronic

hospitals but nobody has really made a start because they are

afraid. A note of optimism can be tossed into all of this

today, Mr. Speaker. It's been found in a number of trial

studies that as many as half the people who are currently in

chronic hospitals — I'm not talking about British Columbia

because something like this has never been done here — can be

discharged if supportive measures can be found for their

regular home. Maybe it's coming in and doing the laundry. Maybe

it's taking them for a week while someone else goes on

vacation. Maybe it's a hot meal

[ Page 382 ]

a day. Maybe it's bringing around medication three times a

week. People get to chronic hospitals when the one last thing

they can't cope with comes along and they're no longer

self-sufficient.

The idea of the homemaker corps is just to improve the self

sufficiency of the home.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You should have listened to my radio

broadcast at noon.

MR. McGEER: No, I didn't. I wish I had.

One could take a huge hospital like Shaughnessy, turn it

into a chronic hospital and build teams — doctors, nurses and so

on — but the backbone of it would be this provincial homemaker

corps. You don't need to go through four years of university

for this — six weeks of training and a cap and a mission.

That's the way I see our commencing to deal with this

tremendous reservoir. It's not a very courageous step but I'm

convinced the success would lead us to do much bolder things in

the future.

Mr. Speaker, this completes our main spending proposals.

What you could do with the extra $130 million, which is there,

should you choose to spend it. It's a dynamic budget, designed

to reverse the downhill course of this province which has led

to unemployment, mounting year after year.

However, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will notice I have made

no provision in this budget for the financing of the Crown

corporations. What ate they? There are four of them. There's

the B.C. Hydro, the PGE, the hospital financing authority and

the school financing authority. Never do you find in a budget

an indication of the requirements of those Crown corporations,

the extent they will encroach on the tax revenues of the

province, the amount the Minister of Finance intends to slip to

them through the back door. Never. All that happens is when you

look in public accounts, you find that that's where the money

has been spent.

There was a mention in the budget that, during 1972, $266

million of provincial funds went to these four Crown

corporations. That was what was spent last year, Mr. Speaker.

But nowhere do you find any mention of the fact that about $300

million will be slipped out of this year's budget to the Crown

corporations. Not one word. No one can tell me that we've got

frank and open declaration of the state of finances in this

province, as long as that goes on. It's the old shell game.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open it up, Dave. You're going to spend the

money. Why don't you tell us?

MR. McGEER: The budgets of this province remain a sham so

long as this practice is continued. It means that a quarter of

a million dollars of public funds are kept out of sight.

What's more, Mr. Speaker, I will move, when the Public

Accounts Committee meets, that the responsible officers of

these Crown corporations appear before the Members to outline

what their spending needs will be, and to tell us how they

think they should be met. Because that's the only way we're

going to have honest budgets in this province.

Let me say once more how I believe these Crown corporations

should be financed — first of all, schools and hospitals. The

requirements for these two Crown corporations can easily be met

by the funds from the Canada Pension Plan, with plenty of money

left over. No difficulty, as long as Canada Pension Plan money

is coming in for schools and hospitals getting adequate funds

at the lowest interest rates in Canada.

For the B.C. Hydro and the PGE the story is a different one,

because these are corporations which sell services to industry

and to the general public. Were they private corporations,

there would be no possibility of them obtaining their tax

revenues from the taxpayers of the province. Those Crown

corporations would not be on the backs of the people. What

better way, Mr. Speaker, to have private investment being put

to work for the good of the people than to have open market

borrowing for the capital needs of these Crown corporations?

There's no equity involved. They are completely owned by the

province.

What that move will do is to release enormous amounts of

capital to do the jobs that have been outlined in the Liberal

budget. If these other methods had worked, we wouldn't have

nearly 100,000 people in the province unemployed. If this

Social Credit method had been the right answer, we would never

have had freezes on hospital construction or school

construction. I do not commend them to the present Government

or the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). Our

party condemns these practices. We say that the budget has not

been imaginative. It has carried on, without exception, the

practices of the past and, because of that, it hasn't been the

dawn of a new day. It's been the continuation of practices for

which the previous administration was discredited.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the time comes, we shall be

voting that you do not leave the chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: All five of you?

MR. McGEER: Yes, and I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there's

a sixth in the galleries today who sat here and pleaded very

hard for the kind of reforms that we're advocating today. Of

course I refer to Mr. Clarke, the former Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour.

Interjection by an Hon. Member. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: Say it isn't so.

[ Page 383 ]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it comes as no surprise that we will be

voting that you do not leave the chair when this motion comes

before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not

sure that I can match the eloquence of the former Liberal

leader…

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be modest.

MR. WALLACE: …but I would echo some of his opening

remarks, Mr. Speaker, that the format of the budget and the

emphasis on people in the pictures, and the fact that the whole

of the Legislature was represented on the inside page, I think

is an indication of his philosophy and respect for this

House.

I think that every budget really is trying to explain two

things to the people of British Columbia. It tries to explain

the manner in which money should be raised, trying to make that

manner equitable in relation to all segments of society. And it

tries to explain, in an equally equitable manner, how social

services should be financed. The manner in which any government

attacks these two goals reflects its philosophy and its

political posture.

Despite some of the comments that have been made by the

Liberal leader and some of the claims that it is a "Socred"

budget, I would say, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is clearly

a "socialist" budget.

Don't get excited, my friends. (Laughter).

I think that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has

clearly vindicated the title he received earlier of "Dangerous

Dave." I think the manner in which he has chosen to increase

taxes — in fact when the figures show very clearly that there

is absolutely no need for any tax increase — the manner in

which he has done this is classical socialist philosophy. It's

namely…oh, I haven't even explained it yet, Mr. Minister.

(Laughter).

The philosophy says, Mr. Speaker, for popular consumption:

"Hit the corporations and tax our resources." While we have

social problems, the only effort is to put another $25 billion

into social welfare.

We've talked a great deal about unemployment. It's certainly the concept of

the Conservative Party that when we have a 9.9 per cent unemployment rate in

this province — and the Government has a demonstrable surplus of money — that

there should be no increase in any kind of tax, corporate or otherwise. In fact,

we should be reducing personal taxation to place more money in the hands of

the consumer, whose increased spending will create jobs.

The Minister of Finance

— I give him credit for this — has already stated…in the budget he mentions

that the government pay-out on Mincome of $200 per month to senior citizens

is largely recovered by the economy, since these payments increase the spending

potential of the senior citizens, and the spending has secondary effects through

the purchase of consumer goods and an increased demand for service. All of this

demand for goods and services means jobs.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this is the case for

the recipients of Mincome, then surely it must be true for the

citizens at large. At a time when the economy is buoyant, I

repeat, it is our firm conviction that personal income tax

should have been reduced. Surplus money which is available in

the present budget would have been used to compensate for the

decrease in income tax revenue, which is presently $300

million. If $25 million of that had been left in the hands of

the citizens, would it not be better to adopt measures to

create the economic climate whereby individuals have a greater

opportunity to obtain a job, rather than simply rely on an

ever-increasing provision of welfare payments by

government?

In passing I would say, Mr. Speaker, it's certainly our

sincere hope that the federal government when it brings down

its budget on February 19, will surely see that it can show

leadership in this regard by reducing personal income tax. It

certainly would be our hope that the 3 per cent which was

removed last year will not be reintroduced as has been

suggested.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I'm suggesting that $25 million — which is

about 8 per cent of $300 million.

I'm trying to equate the fact that if you leave $25 million

in the hands of the spenders and the people who have income,

you won't need to put $25 million into social welfare — which

was just a government handout for people who want to work and

have no job.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is on record,

when he presented the budget, as saying that he was being

cautious in calculating revenue growth on the basis of 10.5 per

cent when the actual rate of growth at the moment, to the end

of 1972 is 13.5 per cent and with simple arithmetic shows that

he is counting one-third below the present rate of revenue

growth. As I said, I don't think I can match the former Liberal

leader's eloquence and I'm not sure I can match his figures

either but I would like to submit that if you are a third above

what you are budgeting for, the surplus will be well in excess

of $100 million. I simply say this that when we have

unemployment and inflation and apprehension about business

expansion it seems unbelievably cautious in our mind.

[ Page 384 ]

It really surprised me, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) stated that if — and I know who he

had in mind when he said this "if"; it's our friend on the high

seas — he said, "If enormous surpluses begin to appear, I'll

tell the public, yes I'll tell the public." What he meant was

they would not be like the former Premier, who waited until the

next budget to tell us that he had $100 million in the kitty.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very reasonable to ask: What

good does it do a man this winter who has no job to be told

some months from now that we have over-budgeted and we have

revenues of $100 million unspent?

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't know anyway. He can't find out.

MR. WALLACE: With a buoyant economy and financial surplus,

it is our position as a party in this House that there was no

justification for any increase in any type of taxation. We feel

that the increases which have been introduced by the Minister

of Finance are explained on the basis only of political

ideology. It has been his stand as a leader of the Opposition

to expound the socialist philosophy, which has some popular

appeal, to tax companies more highly and to increase the

royalties on our natural resources.

The premise has been that this would make more money

available for social services — particularly for the poor

people or, as the Premier has often said, the "little people",

many of whom are presently unemployed. I think we should look

for a moment, Mr. Speaker, at what corporation tax means to the

little people. It is paid from company profits which in the

first place come from the consumer, and the consumer includes

the little people. So that to a degree they pay for the

increases in corporate taxes which the companies, in order to

stay in business, pass on in the form of increased consumer

prices to the consumer. Who else buys but the consumer?

In the newspaper I came across a statement the other day

which I found very revealing in this regard — that a study of

1961 tax collections showed the federal corporation tax had an

effective rate of 6.5 per cent of incomes under $2,000,

whereas

the figure was 2.7 per cent with those in income brackets

$7,000 to $10,000. The provincial corporation tax weighed even

more heavily with the poor in relative terms.

Sales tax, Mr. Speaker, hit the low income earner hardest, but at least in

this province with a sales tax there are exemptions. But corporation tax, because

it can be passed on in the price of all goods becomes a sales tax without exemptions.

In other words it can directly affect the price of food, children's clothing

and other goods which we presently exempt from sales tax. Everybody knows from

the recent newspaper disclosures that the price of food is certainly rising

rapidly and we have a federal inquiry at the present time.

On the subject of sales tax, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

just mention to the Minister of Finance an interesting letter I

received from a lady who works for the Greater Victoria

Association for the Retarded. She operates a small shop in

Victoria selling donated second-hand goods. I would just like

to read one or two paragraphs from her letter:

"I'm deeply concerned with what I feel is an injustice — to

charge a 5 per cent sales tax on second-hand goods, especially

clothing. The tax has already been paid on the new

article and

yet each time this

article is recycled a tax is charged on it

again. Some customers buy clothing at our shop and they later

donate it for the use of others. Why then must a sales tax be

charged over and over again?"

She goes on in this vein and she finishes up by saying:

"Our customers come from all walks of life. Consider the

family with several children whose father is earning the

minimum wage. It is not easy to feed and clothe a growing

family so they are willing to buy second-hand clothes and then

some little treat — a toy or a book — but they often have to

think twice before they treat themselves to a pretty dress or a

warm coat. Even toys and books are taxed over 10 cents."

In passing, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Finance will

seriously consider removing sales tax from second-hand

clothing. This is the kind of help for the little people which

I think he will consider.

The other point which I think we should look at in terms of

the increased corporation tax is the effect on companies whose

products are mainly for export. If the price becomes less

competitive in world markets the sales decrease, and there

again we have the net result of fewer jobs. I think although

the Minister of Finance may be appealing to the poor people by

hitting the companies with higher taxes, in the end result this

could well mean higher prices and more unemployment.

I think there's another thing that we should point out, Mr.

Speaker. I'm sure the Premier and Minister of Finance is very

sincere in this, but it seems to me that he is forgetful of the

small businessman. When we talk loosely about hitting the

companies, we always seem to think of MacMillan Bloedel and

Crown Zellerbach and General Motors and what have you. We seem

to forget that there are a tremendous number of small

businessmen incorporated in this province. They are already

feeling the pinch from rising costs and inflation. I feel that

if the Premier and Minister of Finance felt that corporation

tax had to be increased, there should at least have been some

exemption for the smaller corporations.

[ Page 385 ]

The Conservative Party also opposes the introduction of the

tax on utilized capital, which we feel is a further penalty on

companies which again hits hard at the small businessman.

Furthermore, when we have already expounded the idea that there

was no need for increase of existing taxes, we feel that there

is no need to introduce a new type of tax altogether. To my

understanding the iniquity of the utilized capital tax is that

it can be applied to a business even if it doesn't make a

profit, which would seem to me totally unjust.

Much has been said in this session and at other times of the

need for the judicious use of natural resources and of the

concept that they must not be extracted with disregard for the

effects on the environment. But it is certainly the

Conservative Party stand that the two concepts can be

satisfied, that we can continue to explore and develop natural

resources such as oil and gas without causing unnecessary

desecration of the environment.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, at this point I would say that two

suggestions have been made several times in this House by both

sides of the House, neither of which is correct. The first one

is that the socialists say "no growth," and the

conservatives say "growth at any price." I think we should get

it on the record right now that neither of these statements is

correct. I think that if the truth is looked for carefully the

two sides of the House are in remarkable degrees of agreement,

namely that we must make judicious use of our resources but

there must be greater insight and awareness as to the fact that

they just cannot be collected and shipped out with disregard

for the environment.

The Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), in tabling a

bill on Friday, mentioned that oil reserves in the ground

amount to a six year supply. Now, Mr. Speaker, we feel that

this is no time to be placing higher royalties on petroleum

when there is a greater need for exploration and incentives to

industry to develop new oil fields. Furthermore it seems,

again, quite logical to assume that if the oil is more

expensive to produce, it will be more expensive to the

individual consumer. I can't think of anything that is more

important these days to a consumer than to heat his house and

drive his car.

We're also concerned in this party with the uncertainty

which business and industry must feel in the face of this

budget. On page 14, the Premier states: "several tax

concessions to industry are noted under existing legislation…. It is not this Government's intention to cancel these

industrial tax incentives at this time." These last three words

suggest very clearly to me that the next time around, "Look

out, boys."

The Minister makes it clear that he is reviewing the whole range of revenue

derived from natural resources. And he makes it clear — and he has said so many

times — that the province should be getting more revenue from the forests and

the mines.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sounds like Lougheed.

MR. WALLACE: A good government there, Mr. Minister.

I think it points out also, as I said in the throne speech,

that's why we have this Legislature and that is why we have

this House. You present your philosophy and we present ours and

the people make the choice.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, I just thought that up at the moment.

(Laughter). It wasn't in my written speech, Mr. Speaker. But

whether you like our philosophy or not, I don't even care. I'm

just telling you what it is.

We feel that the uncertainty creates "disincentive," to use a word I hate. It fails to create an incentive to

orderly expansion. Many of the companies who might otherwise be

planning further expansion with the creation of jobs are likely

to look at the Minister's statement on page 14 and just wonder

very carefully what increased taxation and royalties are around

the corner.

It's also interesting to note that the Premier of the

province recently said that if he were Prime Minister of

Canada, he would immediately introduce wage, price and dividend

control. I notice that the speaker for the Socred Party this

afternoon tried to make the rather weak-kneed claim that this

was something the Socreds had tried to do. I think we should

make it very plain — and certainly will make the Conservative

stand very plain — that if there are to be restrictions, they

should be on everyone — not just the teachers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes — wage, price and dividend control, which

is justice for all concerned in the economic picture. Of

course, while these measures would have to be federal in

origin, it does surprise me that in the budget speech the

Minister of Finance has not mentioned the very serious problem

of inflation, or suggested any positive methods other than what

he would do if he were Prime Minister of Canada.

It seems from our standpoint that one of the very vital

areas in which to bring some measure of control over inflation

is to try and bring about efficient management-labour

negotiations to prevent unreasonably high wage settlements

which might be pacesetters for future negotiations.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: "How?" the Member says. That's

[ Page 386 ]

right. I'll tell you one way. The Government cannot sit back

and allow lockouts or strikes to continue when a

section of the

community is being seriously damaged or an industry held up to

ransom by unreasonable wage demands. The present Government,

which has always professed to be the workingman's friend,

should make its position clear as to its stand on the economic

implications of labour management strife.

In passing, Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat my strong

feeling that the provincial government was seriously negligent

in its attitude to the recent school strike in District 61.

We are all agreed that compulsion in a democratic society

must be used to the absolute minimum. But this is no reason to

overlook the avenue of amicable discussion and objective

advice. While our students were being denied the education

which they are guaranteed by law, the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) saw fit to adopt an entirely passive

attitude when, in fact, her primary responsibility was to do

all in her power to have formal education resumed. She did

nothing.

While I regard the Minister as a very sincere person with a

deep interest in education, and whom I like very much as a

person, I think she failed the students and their parents, the

taxpayers, miserably during the recent strike. In talking about

strikes and unemployment and some of the major problems, at

this point it is fair to say that I recognize the effort being

made in the budget in certain directions to create jobs. The

reforestation and development of parks and highways is

certainly a positive step, and it would be unfair not to give

credit to the Minister of Finance for this part of his

planning. But this will not provide jobs for highly trained

technical people or for university graduates, for whom

appropriate jobs do not exist.

One of the funds which the Minister of Finance is setting up

is called a Research and Economic Study Fund. Mr. Speaker, I

think it could go to work right now to look into the future

and try and decide the new types of jobs which will be

appearing in the years ahead and then advise the technical and

vocational schools and universities to adapt their curriculums

accordingly.

It is imperative that we train people for the jobs of the

future and stop training them for jobs which are now

obsolete.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I'm glad somebody's awake, Mr. Speaker. I was

beginning to wonder. (Laughter).

I would also, Mr. Speaker, question the Minister's statement

that if we pay teachers the best or the highest salaries, that

we'll get the best education.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: They're all waking up, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, you don't necessarily get better doctors

either because you pay them a lot of money. I never said that.

In fact, I don't think that money guarantees very much in

life. You don't get better MLA's with more money either.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we will discuss

education estimates at the appropriate time.

At present, our somewhat old-fashioned concept of the

educational process should be made more meaningful and more

useful to the student of today. The Minister of Finance

mentioned the large sums of money that go into education, and

they are indeed large. It must be galling for many citizens in

this province to look around and see the degree of unemployment

and wonder just what progress we're really making in terms of

the educational process today.

One of our honoured members of the Fourth Estate gave me an

earful the other day when he told me that school was just a

misery and a hopeless experience and that he never really

started to learn anything until he left school. I can't say

whether he's learning things in the Press gallery, but I hope

so.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words about secondary

industry. While the socialist party was in Opposition, they

talked very loudly and very long about secondary industry. As

we recall, the Minister of Finance entered into negotiations

with automobile manufacturers from Japan. Apparently this fell

through because of the high wage structure in British Columbia.

I think the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, through you,

deserves credit for the effort he made to show initiatives in

the direction of forming secondary industries in the

province.

But the experience with the Japanese automobile people only

points out not only the importance of having our products

remain competitive in world markets but also within Canada, so

that we can attract labour-intensive industry. Unreasonably

high wage settlements can quickly thwart that aim.

The Minister states, Mr. Speaker, on page 3 that: "Your

Government is presently engaged in negotiations with industry

on a major project…." Now, Mr. Speaker, this is rather

vague and indecisive information for the House after the same

party has had many years to talk about secondary industry. I

think the absence of definitive plans is a difficult omission

for

[ Page 387 ]

me to understand. While the Minister of Finance was in

Opposition, he certainly talked repeatedly the few years I've

been here, and I would have thought that something more

definitive should have emanated from the budget speech.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if the plans aren't vague, my friend,

maybe he should tell us about them. I assume the statement's

vague because the plans are vague.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, proposes

partnership arrangements between government and industry. I

would like to say a little bit about that because I think if

there is anything useful that I have said in this speech today,

this is it. When I heard of this I did some research into the

record of so-called partnerships between socialist government

and industry in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, the record of the socialist government in

participating directly in creating new industries there from

1944 to 1961 is one long miserable tale of disaster.

The socialists, well…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: …just hold on, Mr. Speaker. I have some

examples which I think will more than outweigh any potash

profits.

I am going to speak first of all about Saskatchewan. The

socialists found it difficult to attract private industry to

the province. Every province is having that problem, I don't

deny that. But I am saying that the initiatives and the efforts

can be made in certain ways. While they were trying to attract

capital they were busy espousing a philosophy which was

completely contradictory to the idea of investing money for a

fair profit. Anyway, the interesting thing was that the new

projects, Mr. Speaker, were not administered by experienced

non-political businessmen, but mainly by friends of the party.

These men were appointed because of their extra-curricular

political chores. It was this political position that got them

on to the boards of these businesses in the first place.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Newfoundland….

MR. WALLACE: I am talking about Saskatchewan — not that I would defend

the Liberals for a minute. Anyway, one writer described the experience in Saskatchewan

as a classical example of bureaucratic burnbling and "boondoggling." I would

simply ask if this is what we want in British Columbia. Someone said how wonderful

the potash business went, but let me tell you about some of the others.

There was a leather tannery that was started in 1946, a year

where there was short supply and high prices — just the ideal

kind of time to start a business. But apparently the only hides

that were tanned were the hides of the Saskatchewan taxpayers.

It went from one financial crisis to another, and it closed

down two years later with a deficit of $200,000.

Then they started a shoe factory. Tommy Douglas made great

public statements that they were going to manufacture shoes for

$2.75 a pair. Well, it closed down three years later with a

deficit of $82,000.

And the woolen mill. They started a woolen mill, Mr.

Speaker, and it closed with a deficit of $830,000 — and

outstanding payments of interest, unpaid I might say, of

$206,000. And then they had a fish board. Not only did the fish

board lose money but it did so even after compelling the

commercial fishermen to sell only to the board — when they

could have obtained better prices from other buyers. Anyway, it

finished with a deficit of $400,000 and no interest paid on the

money advanced. Then there was a lumber mill — Big Beaver — wherever that is, I don't know. The lumber mill was set up in

1951 and in 18 months there was a deficit of $97,000 and

outstanding interest unpaid of $54,000. Now this goes on and

on. There was a box factory — they were in a box alright. This

was a box factory at Prince Albert. They expropriated the

private company because it wouldn't do what was demanded by

government. They accumulated deficits of $352,000.

Now, they set up 19 Crown corporations in Saskatchewan….

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Twenty-six.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the 19 I read about were financial

disasters. If there are 26 I don't think the other 7 are any

credit to the 19 that I read about.

The important thing, Mr. Speaker, that I think we should get

through, whether it is Saskatchewan or any socialist enterprise

in partnership with private industry, is the political

patronage, and the fact that people are placed on the board who

do not have experience and knowledge of how business functions,

with the result that the business does not thrive. Worst of

all, and we have seen this in this province under a previous

administration, is the fact you can always hide deficits and

business losses by the skilful manipulation of consolidated

revenue. The fact is that — when you read some of the

experiences in Saskatchewan — that is exactly what happened.

Provincial grants were made to these businesses when they were

losing money, and they were entered in the books as

revenue.

Now, these were not revenue. These were subsidies, direct

grants or subsidies, by the Saskatche-

[ Page 388 ]

wan government to shore up the companies and try and make it

look as though they were in the black. At least if we do it

here, or if we provide subsidies to business, I think it should

be under the stringent understanding, Mr. Speaker, that this is

to help in the early years to get an industry established — which at a later stage can be self-supporting.

I'm not saying at this point that this party favours the

continuing support of private business or enterprise industry

by public money. But I am saying that, if in the early years

some assistance or incentive can be given to get the business

on its feet and be self-sustaining, in the process you are

again creating jobs, which are well worth the return.

One point in the same direction I feel is that, in trying to

create jobs, we should consider some income tax exemptions to

businesses who increase their number of employees for at least

the period of one year. Perhaps a tax exemption in the

neighbourhood of $2,000 would not be unreasonable.

We also feel strongly in this party that worker

participation in business or industry is the best incentive to

the worker to do the best work. One of the Members from the

socialist party mentioned during the throne speech, debate, Mr.

Speaker, and I couldn't agree more, that not only should a man

be given every opportunity to take pride in his work but, human

nature being what it is, a reasonable reward in the form of a

bonus, or whatever mechanism might be used, would be most

productive.

We would develop tax incentives to businesses which develop

programmes through which the employee could participate in the

profits of the company.

We are disappointed in one area of the budget speech, Mr.

Speaker, and that is the lip service that is paid to protection

of the environment. The budget speech talks quite eloquently in

some places about the fact that there is little point in

striving to achieve a high income if our physical surroundings

are rendered intolerable in the process. That's on page 6. I

agree with that and I agree with some of the other philosophies

along the same line. But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I feel that

again, as in secondary industry, the language is vague. There

is a lack of specific proposals. It was my understanding that

the Government had agreed or had decided to set up a department

of the environment. There is no mention of this or the specific

ways in which the department would function.

Some jokes were passed across the House a moment ago about Manitoba and Duff

Roblin. While that may be no joke, one wrong doesn't make another wrong any

better. I think it would be interesting for the House to hear that the leader

of the Conservative Party, Derril Warren, and myself visited Manitoba recently

to, amongst other things, look at the Government car insurance plan which, to

listen to the people around this chamber, you would think was just God's gift

to the car driver. Regardless of that, we met many people and talked about this

whole question of secondary industry in Manitoba in partnership with government.

The Manitoba Development Fund as of March 31, 1972 is in the

red to the tune of $22.8 million that it has loaned and where

the industries or the concerns have gone broke. This is on a

total advance of $145 million. They are $22.8 million out that

they are never going to see again because of the business going

into bankruptcy.

The same applies in Manitoba as applied in Saskatchewan. The

people are appointed to boards really because of their

political position and affiliation to a party and not because

of their proven competence as businessmen.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Did the Tories

do that?

MR. WALLACE: No, we wouldn't do that.

Some of the examples worth quoting, Mr. Speaker, there's a

company with the delightful name of the King Choy Co. Ltd.,

which was set up to market frozen Chinese food. A few weeks

after the government chipped in with a large sum of money, the

company went bankrupt. The government had provided $260,000

within a few weeks before the company went bankrupt.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the name of the company?

MR. WALLACE: The King Choy Company.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Manitoba?

MR. WALLACE: Manitoba.

It's also interesting that the Flyer Coach Industries Ltd.,

that has been mentioned here — we did some research into that

company, Mr. Speaker. It's a company in which the government

has 80 per cent equity, which is probably another reason why

this socialist Government went to buy the buses from another

socialist government. The record shows quite clearly that Flyer

Coach Industries Ltd. does force municipalities to purchase

their buses.

We also have the case of Saunders Aircraft Ltd., which

apparently has sold about two aircraft in two years. There

again the government has 87 per cent equity in Saunders

Aircraft and is losing money.

All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that in Opposition the

socialist party talked about secondary industry — and I agree

with the concept; we try to get industry which is clean and

minimizes pollution and is labour-intensive — but because we

are agreed that this is a desirable goal, I would like to ask

the people of British Columbia: do they want to follow the

mechanisms which have been followed in Saskatche-

[ Page 389 ]

wan and Manitoba with such unsatisfactory results? I would

agree that all such projects were not unsuccessful. I agree with

that. The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) shakes his head,

referring to potash. But the percentage of failures and the

unsatisfactory way in which these enterprises have failed so often, I would hope

most sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier will look at this

whole question of partnership very seriously.

We think that it is important to attract secondary industry,

but these projects should remain under the direction and

administration of the private industry concerned. Inevitably,

where you have a partnership between government and industry,

political influence creeps in and the fact, as I have

mentioned, of political appointments to business administration

where the people really don't know what business is all about,

only end up with the companies losing money.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative Party believe that

incentives of various kinds can be offered to assist

industries. As I say, we would make it very plain that this is

to get them established and provide perhaps decreasing

incentives over the first few years until they are

self-sustaining.

We would also want to make it very clear that any company

receiving financial incentives would be subject to detailed

scrutiny of its financing and would be totally and completely

accountable to the public and the government.

It is interesting in this regard, when we keep talking about

the different philosophies of your side of the House and this

side of the House, Mr. Speaker, that profit has been mentioned

several times in the throne speeches by Members. I was very

interested in the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent), who mentioned

that a legitimate profit was all right. I'd be very interested — perhaps later in the debate — to have the Member for Skeena

explain to me what is a legitimate profit. Is it the size of

the profit or the way it's made or any other factor that

governs that profit? It seems to me for a socialist party

frequently to rail at this side of the house about what a bad

and wicked thing it is for companies to make a profit, I would

really like to hear what he understands by a "legitimate

profit".

AN HON. MEMBER: You gave your definition last October.

MR. WALLACE: I have one or two points I'd like to mention

that seem to be omitted from the budget, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps

other Government Members can fill in the information.

We know that we are to have an automobile insurance plan and

apart from the money that is directed to industrial

development, trade, and commerce, there is no mention in the

budget of the kind of money that will be involved in setting up

the automobile insurance. When we were in Manitoba, it was very

interesting to find out some of the basic facts and figures

about the plan which was started therein November, 1971.

The first thing we found out is that they have three centres

in Winnipeg where you take your car when you have an accident,

costing $1 million apiece — so right off the bat there's $3

million for a city the size of Winnipeg. We don't have the

details of the proposed….

AN HON. MEMBER: The body shops would be closed up.

MR. WALLACE: We didn't find out. But we're talking in

principles at the moment, a general outline of the programme.

But I am just picking that as one of the general concept of

cost in an automobile insurance programme.

We were also assured by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that

although he's planning to keep the Minister of Finance's job

that he will be creating new Ministers, and at $24,000 a year,

we're wondering why the salaries or the indemnity for these

Ministers was not included in the budget.

I have already mentioned the whole question of inadequate

specifics on the matter of pollution control. It was surprising

to me to see on page 6, "a study has commenced to determine the

feasibility of levying financial charges against any group that

initiates waste problems." It seems to me that that's sort of

trying to lock the stable door after the horse has gone. I

always thought, from listening to the Government when they

were in Opposition, that they were much more interested in

prevention rather than just fining people once they've broken

the pollution laws. We feel that there should have been some

specific mention of help to municipalities to provide pollution

control. In that regard the help to municipalities in itself,

the increase in the per capita, is less than is fair in this

present inflation situation.

We also wonder why, after making it a prominent platform in

the election, that you would take the cost of education off

property, that all we're getting in this budget is a promise

that this is planned. Now I don't think the people of British

Columbia are only interested in what you said at the election

when you come back five months after election and say you're

still planning.

Mr. Speaker, the party knew very well the sums of money

involved to take it off property. I don't think that it is fair — or that the Government is meeting its obligation at this

stage — five months later — to say that it is still planning

the mechanism by which it will take education tax off

property.

Social services, I have already mentioned. I feel that the

direction that is being followed simply by putting another $25

million into social welfare fund

[ Page 390 ]

plus the $65 million to Mincome — which we voted and

approved and still feel is a good idea — but I still feel that

some reduction of personal income tax would have created jobs

which would make it less necessary to put such a large sum into

further welfare handouts.

In the area of health services — I am pleased with the

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) — I think that the additional money for health services

can certainly be put to tremendous use, provided we finally

stop saying how much we need other levels of care — other than

the acute hospital — and get down to the serious business of

providing these other levels of care.

Every study that has been done, nationally or provincially,

comes up with the same bald central fact that what we are doing

is spending a great deal of money on expensive care which could

be provided somewhere else. And the Liberal leader touched on

this.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, we hear so much about the

spiraling costs of health care. But one thought I'd like to

inject at this point is the fact that our progress in health

care now puts many people back to work who otherwise, just a

few years ago, would continue to be people who, for the sake of

illness, could not do a job and would in fact be dependent on

state support. So I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact

that although some medical and surgical methods of treatment

are expensive, they are not so expensive when you consider that

the patient can return to work.

In the area of chronic care, again we hear that something is

being planned. The Minister of Finance knows very well that for

the last several years this has also been a commitment which

his party made to the citizens of British Columbia to bring in

such coverage. Again, I think it's very disappointing that such

a major plank of the election platform has not been spelled out

in some reasonable detail.

I would like to commend the Minister of Health for putting

close to $5 million into the Department of Mental Health. I

would plead with the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) through you, Mr. Speaker, for

goodness sake, let's never have another mausoleum built like

the Eric Martin Institute. The cost of building it, the cost of

operating it, the inefficiency, the total lack of atmosphere

which is conducive to people recovering from this kind of

emotional illness, is just for the birds.

At the same time, let me return to the theme that it's all

very well to say that it is not the right kind of treatment but

let us create the facilities and find the personnel who can

give the correct atmosphere and the correct kind of facilities.

I am referring particularly to the concept of so-called halfway

homes or halfway houses, where the patient leaving the

acute facility has some intermediate level of care prior to

resuming their full activity.

It would only be right too, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the

question of agriculture, although we've covered it in an

earlier debate to some degree. I certainly was very interested

to hear the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) speak the other day.

Not only did he speak in a manner which suggests that he is an

independent individual, he reminded me a little bit of a former

Member who has stood in that same corner and talked about

agriculture and pleaded for. the farmer. I just hope, Mr.

Speaker, that the present Government will listen more

attentively to their Member than the Socreds did to Don

Marshall.

MR. LAUK: Where is he?

MR. WALLACE: The farm freeze, we feel, is a discrimination

against a segment of society where the intention may be well

placed. We all try to accept that we must not lose more and

more farmland to commercial and residential development. But we

must repeat that the Conservative Party feels the method which

has been used by this Government in some ways resembles a

method the Socreds used against the teachers. They wanted to

keep down costs so they nail one segment of society, which is

really not just. In this case, the socialist Government has

picked on the farmers.

While we're assured that formal legislation is coming in

which will correct the inequity of the farmland freeze, I still

feel that it was carried out very close to the date at which

the Legislature was sitting. This, Mr. Speaker, reflects the

kind of thinking that the Premier himself has frequently voiced

from the Opposition benches — that matters of great public

concern which particularly affect the rights and freedoms of

individuals should certainly be brought to this House, debated

and passed in this House. I remember many times how the Premier

rejected government by order-in-council. Here, very early in

the administration of the socialist Government, he is doing

exactly the kind of thing that he so bitterly criticized the

former Premier for doing.

We applaud, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's attempt to reopen for

negotiation the Columbia River Treaty. It is obvious that that

negotiation was terminated after a considerable amount of

disagreement between the federal and provincial negotiators. If

this resurrected Conservative Party can take any credit, at

least the Conservative Party pointed out at that time that a

serious mistake was being made.

Mr. Speaker, I think I'll just close now by trying to

recapitulate where the Conservative Party stands on the budget.

There are many points in the budget that need to be touched on

but no one should speak too long.

We feel in the Conservative Party that — let there

[ Page 391 ]

be no mistake — despite

the rather gentle attitude which the Minister of Finance has taken with his

first budget, he has taken that first step down the road which leads to ever-increasing

state control of business and industry, which is the hallmark of socialism.

This, despite the fact that he makes every effort to assume the posture of a

moderate and despite the fact that only 40 per cent of the voters agreed with

his philosophy in the election campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't agree with his philosophy. They

voted the other one out.

MR. WALLACE: Some of the Liberals are really eager to get in

the fray. I hope that at least the public realize that, for

whatever reason, 40 per cent of the people who voted in the

last election voted for the socialist Government. Certain

Liberal Members are so smart that they think they know every

turn of the mind of the voter. That perhaps exhibits the kind

of arrogance that they can show.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Our feeling, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the

budget is that the tax increase directed against corpo