1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7075 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate.

On the amendment.

Mr. Richmond –– 7075

Division on amendment –– 7076

Mr. Lorimer –– 7076

Mr. Ree –– 7079

Mr. Macdonald –– 7081

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7085

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. RICHMOND:

Yesterday when I left off speaking against this amendment, I couldn't

help noticing the response from the other side. When I mentioned

nationalizing the banks there was much desk-thumping from the members

opposite. In fact, I think I could almost see their pupils dilating and

their nostrils flaring at the thought of nationalizing the banks. I

think their true colours started to show through. As my learned

colleague from Point Grey has said, the three-piece suits were there

but the red underwear was showing through very vividly yesterday.

suppose that after the banks would come the sawmills, the pulp mills,

the copper mines, the smelters and so on. I think their entire debate

on the budget speech has come down to the same old socialist philosophy

of spending money they haven't got and nationalizing and promising

anything. I think we've come down to that. The taxpayers of B.C. are

still paying for those philosophies after seven years.

It is

for certain, and we realize it as well as anyone in this House, that we

have problems at this very moment in this province. We have

unemployment. I don't think we try to run and hide from that fact. But

empty promises will not help the unemployed.

The member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) mentioned that there may be further downturns

in the forest industry later this year. That is quite possible. I think

we all realize that we can't predict exactly what will happen in the

forest industry; a great deal of it is out of our hands. The Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) alluded to that in his budget speech. As

he said, if further downturns occur, then further adjustments in the

budget may be necessary.

The member for Mackenzie also said

we haven't done anything about anything. This was immediately after he

heard the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) itemize

projects that would create 40,000 jobs, yet he can stand there and say

we haven't done anything. They say to be specific, to talk about real

cases, and the Minister of Human Resources yesterday did exactly that.

She itemized cases about real people who are being helped; not

pie-in-the-sky philosophy and generalities but real flesh-and-blood

people who are being helped by her ministry. Contrary to what the

socialists say ad nauseam, the Social Credit Party is the party that

cares about people in this province.

They speak constantly

about fudging figures, etc. and about cooking the books. Yet we don't

have to look back very far, I suggest, to talk about fudging figures

and overruns and hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. I shudder, as

do a lot of people, to think what would happen if they were in

government today, how many dollars we would be in debt, and how fast.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Millions.

MR. RICHMOND:

Billions, I would suggest, sir. What alternatives do they propose? I

hear very few alternatives: only one, and that is to spend. Everything

is spend; borrow our way out of difficulty and spend. The policies they

set forth would cost this province dearly, would cost billions of

dollars, and doesn't work. Again I point to administrations across this

country where that has been tried and it doesn't work. In fact, many of

them right now are looking to us as an example of how to budget in

these difficult economic times.

We are in a time of

restraint but I really don't think they know the meaning of the word. I

really doubt that very much. They will promise anyone anything. In

short, if we were to listen to their policies we would very quickly end

up nearly bankrupt, like the province of Quebec; or like Ottawa, so

hopelessly in debt that we will never get out of it, and neither will

our children. They forget the triple-A rating that this province has

re-earned over the last seven years. That is very important to us.

There are very few jurisdictions that enjoy it.

The people

of British Columbia have confidence in this government. They can look

around and see what is happening right here in this province during

very difficult economic times. In speaking to this amendment, Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite constantly want to talk about

unemployment, but that's all they want to do. We are the party that's

doing something about unemployment. The projects that we are doing have

been listed many times here, but they seem to fall on deaf ears. I'll

list them again in a few moments.

I want to talk for just a

moment about the business policies of the New Democratic Party. This

quotation I'm going to use has been used once in this debate, but I

think it bears repeating because it shows the true economic policies of

the members opposite. It is a quotation from the Savant

college newspaper, speaking to young people. The first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was asked how corporations could pay for

some vocational and technical programs. His answer was: "I prefer

taxing the bleep out of them." He said — expletive deleted, a

four-letter word — etc. "I prefer taxing the bleep out of them," which

I think sums up their business policy, Mr. Speaker. They would do to

business as they did to the mining industry from 1972 to 1975:

virtually tax it out of existence.

Then they come to small

business — that was talking about big business — for which they have

some other policies. Sure, small business is in trouble in this

province. We all know that and they know it. Their interest rates are

high, their costs are high and their markets are shrinking. They don't

need to be told that, but they also don't need false promises. They

don't need promises such as "buy up all the sawmills," etc. Why stop at

the sawmills? If small businesses are in trouble, why not buy them up,

too? If someone's in trouble, you can bet the NDP will be there to

promise them something to help them out of trouble. False, empty

promises. Promise them something to get their vote. The businessmen of

this province are not that short-sighted, and they have pretty good

memories. They can remember back seven or eight years.

I've

spoken recently with many people in education. I've had meetings with

teachers and school boards talking at length about education, the

problems in it, and the lack of money. Certainly we all wish there was

more money to spend on education. It always seems that there is never

enough. But when faced with the economic times we're in and the

restraint program that we have put forward, the majority of those in

the teaching profession and on school boards agree with our

[ Page 7076 ]

position.

They can remember who built the educational facilities in this

province. The educational facilities in this province, especially in

post-secondary education, were built by this party, not by the member

opposite, Mr. Speaker.

The people also remember who built

the highways and transportation system in this province, the ferry

fleet, etc. — not them. They remember too, Mr. Speaker, who put the

mining industry back on its feet in this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, occasional interjections perhaps can be permitted, even

though they are disorderly, but continuous interruptions must not

continue. Please proceed.

MR. RICHMOND: The mining

industry in this province is once again in tough times, but I can't

imagine how tough it would be if the policies of the former government

were still in place in this province. It would not be able to survive

for five minutes.

The people remember who does and who has

done positive things in this province. They know who will develop the

projects that have been referred to here many times in the budget

speech by many of my colleagues. But I think they bear repeating,

because they don't seem to sink in across the way, however many times

we mention them.

The people know who will develop B.C. Place

and Pier B-C; who will make Expo 86 happen; who is developing the ALRT

and who will develop northeast coal — all of these projects to provide

thousands of jobs for the people of British Columbia. They also

remember who wants to just talk and make promises, Mr. Speaker, and who

would bring many of these things to a halt, were they in power. They

know from listening who is totally devoid of policy in this debate and,

as I said, who bring everything down to the same common denominator.

They know who would spend us into bankruptcy in very short order, Mr.

Speaker.

In conclusion, I'm speaking in favour of the budget

and against this amendment because the majority of the people, as I

said, are very much in favour of this budget and against this

amendment. Unfortunately, the majority of the people are the silent

majority — those who don't get the headlines and the access to the

media that some of the radical few do. But the silent majority will

have their day when and where it counts, and that's on polling day at

the ballot-box. They don't forget that quickly, Mr. Speaker, what has

happened in this province in the last ten years.

So I submit

to you, the members opposite, and the people of this province that it

is the correct budget for the times that we're in. I will be supporting

it fully and, of course, voting against the amendment from the member

opposite.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Dailly

NAYS — 30

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

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

Interjections.

On the main motion.

MR. LORIMER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I had any brains I'd quit while I was ahead. But no one has ever accused me of that.

I'm

sorry the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has disappeared. I

had a message for him. I spent this last weekend in Hope, and I might

say that he's got a few problems in Hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't drink the water.

MR. LORIMER:

The water is one of the problems. The other problem is the minister.

Although they certainly think he's a fine gentleman personally, as a

minister they think something is lacking.

They're also very

upset with you, Mr. Speaker. They tell me that their forestry offices

were moved from the minister's town of Hope and into the Speaker's

riding. They can't understand why a Minister of Forests would allow

such a happening at Hope. They feel that somehow or other the

government is trying to make up to the Speaker by moving that fine

installation into the Chilliwack district. They think the minister has

very little muscle in cabinet, and no muscle at all with the civil

service. As I mentioned, I hope someone will take that message to the

minister, because I don't want him to be taken by surprise when he

visits Hope next time.

We've been provided with a budget.

It's a pretty thing, but it doesn't have much in it. What it is, is an

estimate of a number of expenditures that have to be made and the

corresponding figures of revenue in order to balance the expected

expenditures. But the trouble is that the revenue side is not in any

way realistic and is merely figures put in the document in order to

balance an otherwise unbalanced budget. It is presumed that the forest

industry is going to improve. It's presumed that the economics of the

province are going to improve, and I hope the minister is right when he

estimates that this is going to happen. However, I can see no sign of

any improvement in the economy of British Columbia. It seems to me that

present indicators are all in the opposite direction. As a result, I

suggest there is very little chance that this budget is realistic in

any way. It's merely a minister's fantasy.

Now at a time of

recession, or depression, it is certainly the responsibility and the

duty of a government to use its initiative in providing plans for the

creation of employment for its citizens. What is required is a

government with pol-

[ Page 7077 ]

icies,

and positive measures to get our people back to work. At the present

time we read about cutbacks in almost every area of the province. The

forest industry is almost at a standstill. In the Peace River country

you have to be careful not to be run over by the rigs moving to other

areas. The mining industry is in the worst shape it has been since the

thirties. Cominco is closing down for a period of five or six weeks and

probably longer. The Sullivan mine at Kimberley is likewise closing

down. This is probably the first time since 1890 that there have been

closures in these areas. Even during the thirties that smelter and

those mines were operating — operating at full shift. The mining

industry is receiving no help from this government. Even the grants for

prospectors have been watered down to such an extent that prospecting

in this province will be basically non-existent this summer.

Efforts

should not be made solely in getting rid of our natural resources. Our

thrust should be in spending our time creating secondary industry —

creation of jobs throughout the province. We should have a balanced

workforce, both in the primary sector and in the secondary sector.

Efforts should be made for job-creation in projects within the limits

of expenditure that will provide employment. The megaprojects provide

some employment, but the amount of money being spent on the number of

jobs provided makes each job a very expensive operation. There are very

few jobs in comparison with the money spent on most of these

megaprojects. People who are employed add to the economy and bring

revenue to the province to carry the costs of our social and economic

programs.

As an example, a concerted housing program could

be initiated. This would not only resolve the social problems in the

shortage of affordable housing, but it would also create jobs, which in

itself would bring back revenue to the province.

A proposal

was made a month ago by the leader of this party. He set out in some

detail suggestions for consideration by the government as to what might

be done for an economic recovery. I trust that the government is taking

a close look at these suggestions which might assist in alleviating

some of the suffering and the problems faced by our unemployed people.

Many small projects could be undertaken by government, but the

government has to have the gumption to act and provide leadership in a

period of recession. The government has been working in the opposite

direction.

An example of this is the Railwest plant that was

building boxcars in Squamish. This plant provided hundreds of jobs,

directly and indirectly. There is always a demand for railcars, and

there has been for a great number of years; there is always a shortage

of railcars. It was closed around 1967 by this government. They said

the reason for closing it was that there were no orders for cars. But

at the same time as the closure, B.C. Hydro had an order for some 400

cars, and the orders were given to Quebec and the United States for the

purchase of 400 cars. So the whole operation was a case of poor

management when this government took over in 1976. At the present time

hundreds of cars are on order, and these should be produced in our

local plants. We should be providing funds and work for the people of

this province; we should not be exporting our jobs to other

jurisdictions and exporting our money to pay for those cars that are

going to come from other jurisdictions.

Another example is the property at Dominion Street and Boundary Road in Burnaby

that was purchased for the construction of buses. In 1975 an agreement was reached

between Volvo of Sweden and the government for the construction of Volvo buses

at that plant, under licence from Volvo. The Volvo people had examined the plant

site and approved the buildings as a good location for the construction of vehicles.

However, after the election of '75, this project was killed.

the project in which Volvo had agreed to allow British Columbia to

produce all Volvo buses for the North American market had gone ahead,

there would have been hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly created

for this operation. But the project was killed and those jobs have gone.

The

bus market is increasing every year as more and more cities in North

America are looking at the transit systems as an answer to the movement

of people in the urban area. There is now a "for sale" sign on the

property, which is an indication of what is called "Social Credit

progress." This government has mismanaged so many areas of its

responsibilities that there is little wonder that the unemployment

figures have risen so high in this province. I appreciate the fact that

the province itself is not able to turn around the economy at the local

level. However, as I have mentioned, there are many options open for

our government to assist a number of people by creating jobs and

certainly lessening the blow for many of our citizens.

The

tree-planting program should be expanded rather than cut back. It's a

case that would create substantial employment at a time when we're in

trouble and also add to the provincial benefits by the restocking of

our forests.

I want to talk a little bit about the money

that is being spent at Oakalla at a very rapid rate. Since 1969 I have

been calling for the removal of the prison facility from Burnaby. This

high-security prison is located right in the urban centre and creates a

great deal of apprehension to the citizens of Burnaby.

Bob

Bonner, who was the Social Credit Attorney-General, said that the

Oakalla prison would be phased out. He said that in 1964. The

Attorney-General at that time said that it had to go because it was a

decrepit jail. It was of little value as a centre for prisoners, and he

said it would go and other jails would be built in other areas. This

was echoed by Les Peterson, who was the Attorney-General later in the

Social Credit government.

As a minister in 1975, I was able

to arrange for the transfer of control of the 160 acres of farmland

within the Oakalla fences to the district of Burnaby for park purposes,

as a 99-year lease for $1. That was the promise we had made, and that

others had made before us in the Social Credit government. I also

promised that when funds were available, buildings would be replaced

and smaller jails would be constructed in other areas throughout the

province. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was in Burnaby two

or three years ago, and he promised the city council and the people of

Burnaby that this jail facility was going to go.

What

concerns me more than anything else in this whole affair is the conduct

of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). About one year ago I asked

the Attorney-General whether or not funds had been committed for the

construction of jail facilities at Oakalla. I was advised that no

moneys had been committed for such a project. But we found out some

time later that at that time three studies were in progress as to the

construction of new facilities at Oakalla. I was able to obtain the

second copy dated January of 1981, some five months prior to my

question, and it was obvious from the

[ Page 7078 ]

report

that new construction was going to take place in Oakalla. It would have

been done in secrecy except for the fact that the Solicitor General in

Ottawa, Hon. Mr. Kaplan, made an announcement that new facilities were

going to be built in Oakalla. At that time there had to be an admission

that in fact studies were being made on the Oakalla site.

The

citizens of Burnaby, on hearing of this, were very angry at being

treated so badly after so many promises had been made over a great

number of years, and a non-partisan citizens' group calling itself the

"Oakalla Must Go" committee was quickly formed. They have done a

terrific job in organizing the universal objection to new facilities on

the Oakalla site. I told the committee that construction would have

already started except for the fact that the treasury was bare. There's

no money to build new facilities. I will give the Attorney-General full

marks in that since that time, as I understand from my conversations

with him, he has been attempting to find other sites for the Oakalla

Jail. I hope this is correct. We want a commitment in writing from the

Premier that no new facilities will be built in the centre of that

urban area. Hostages have been taken in that area, and shots being

fired at escaping prisoners have caused some concern among the

residents, and understandably so. It's regrettable that this facility

is still where it is.

Someone dropped a letter into my

constituency office. It's addressed to the Hon. Bill Bennett. I don't

know who it's from, but I can tell you what it probably says. It

probably says that they don't want Oakalla in the centre of Burnaby;

they want it removed, and they want a commitment for its removal. I'd

like to give this to one of the members across the way in order that

the Premier will receive it, but I'm not sure who is talking to the

Premier at the present time, or who sees him. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says that he will deliver it to him, but

the last I heard he wasn't allowed in the Premier's office, so I don't

know whether or not we should give it to him. But we'll gamble on that.

I would ask the Page to pass it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

for safe delivery to the Premier.

I would say that the

financial affairs of this province are in a crisis situation.

Megaprojects are bleeding the tax moneys of those lucky enough to have

jobs to pay tax, and they are bleeding money at the expense of our

educational, health and other projects. The province is going deeper

and deeper into debt. Apart from helicopter rides for the minister,

blasting of a mountain for media consumption, and the periodic repeat

announcements of the minister, there is not too much action taking

place at Tumbler Ridge. The government is in deep trouble over this

project due to their inability to handle the operation properly. They

have fumbled at every step of the way. Inability to negotiate a proper

agreement with the purchase of our resources, inability to make

agreements for the benefit of the province and inability to plan for

the economic extraction of coal from Tumbler Ridge have caused the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development many headaches and

many gray hairs. The government, although they are not admitting it,

are in deep trouble. They have found that there are far more problems

than there are solutions.

I want to talk briefly about the fiscal management of this province. I want

to discuss how the province is going deeper and deeper into debt. Since 1976

the debt put onto the Crown corporations has multiplied. In March 1976 the debt

of the Crown corporations amounted to $4.6 billion. In 1977 it was $5.7 billion.

In 1978 it was $6.8 billion. Every year it is going up. In 1979 it was $7.1

billion. In 1980 it was $8.1 billion. The latest figure that has come out for

1981 is $8.5 billion. Because of a change in bookkeeping, the $8.5 billion may

not be accurate; it may be slightly more. The true figures will show up next

year because of the making up of the figures in that particular year. It has

been estimated, through a number of government and Crown corporation documents,

that in 1982 the borrowing will be $1.9 billion, which will bring the total

debt up to $10.4 billion. In 1982-83 it will bring it up to $12.8 billion. In

1983-84 it will be $14.8 billion. In 1984-85 it will be up to $16.8 billion.

In 1985-86 it will be around $19 billion, if the estimates that are presently

provided are accurate. That is an increase in a period of ten years from $4.6

billion to $18.9 billion of deadweight debt owed by every citizen of this province:

a great record of fiscal restraint; a great record of a government that claims

to be able to handle the economy. It is a complete disaster. Never before in

the history of this province have we been so deeply in debt. This amounts to

approximately $7,600 debt for every man, woman and child in this province,

created in the last ten years. It is a very sad day for this province to realize

that in ten years a debt of only $4.6 billion has now reached the staggering

figure of $18.9 billion, and probably will still go up for this government in

power.

want to say just a few things about transit. I'll spend more time on

that particular subject when the ministry has its estimates before us.

I just want to say that I have mentioned before to the minister that

the ALRT is a bit of a gamble. Not being an engineer, I can't say

whether it will function or won't function, but I think I'm as much of

an engineer as the minister, and I don't think he can say whether it

will function properly under working conditions. We have a lot of

experts who say that it won't; others say it will.

The ALRT

system is without a doubt a more expensive system than the conventional

light rail transit system, but on top of that it's an ugly system. It

is another example of how man can destroy the beauty of a city. The

construction of cement ramps in and about the lower mainland will be

anything but beautiful. In my opinion, it will create an unsightly mess

in a lot of areas where we should be looking more to beauty than to

ugliness. Concrete bridges, concrete ramps — it will be a city of

concrete.

I noted with some interest that the reports

regarding the sod-turning for the ALRT system.... I might say that this

is the first sod-turning, and there will be many others; it will be

repeated quite frequently to make the people believe that in fact

something is being done in transit. Social Credit policy in transit is

to create the maximum number of agencies, have them duplicating their

efforts, make as many announcements as possible, but do nothing in the

transit field.

A recent report issued by the GVRD —

"Returning to Work," which came out about a month ago — has stated that

nothing has happened in transit since 1976, and the service has

declined since that time. The 200-trolley fleet ordered a year and a

half ago was a good step, and I commend the government for ordering

these vehicles to replace the old vehicles which originally came around

1946 to 1950. But it must be borne in mind that these trolleys will not

provide new service; these are replacements for the vehicles already

there which will be taken out of service. This will not result in any

increased service or any increased transportation. But the interesting

thing about this trolley order is that it was announced a great number

of times: it has been announced about two years ago, six months before

they had been or-

[ Page 7079 ]

dered;

it was announced two or three times since then, and they had a big

opening of the first vehicle as it arrived. For the casual observer,

the person who doesn't use the transit system, it may well appear that

the government has a handle on the transit needs of the province.

However, it is really a gimmick to try to make people believe that

something is being done, when in fact no action is being taken for the

providing of new services and new systems for the people of Vancouver.

The

ALRT system has been chosen by this government for the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. Experts in the field called it a turkey; I

think they were referring to the vehicle. Now this may have a very

sophisticated electrical system; it may have very fine provisions for a

good system. But I would warn the minister that BART in San Francisco

also had a great system. The costs incurred by BART in getting the

system to work, which took about two years after construction, probably

cost as much to the area of San Francisco as the original system cost

to begin with. I'm fearful that the minister is going to run against

the same problem with this so-called "turkey." However, I'm not so

concerned about the total system, because I am quite convinced that

there will be no system built in the lower mainland except for a small

circular run from B.C. Place to Pier B-C. That will be possibly a

two-mile system. I don't think the people in Burnaby, Surrey or New

Westminster should hold their breath waiting for the first ALRT to come

around. I don't think they're going to see that, and certainly if there

is a change in government, I'm sure they will never see the ALRT system.

The

only time that transit has moved in this province in the last 30 years

was for a three-year period. Everybody knows about this. They know

about it over there. For three out of 30 years, transit moved ahead.

I'll tell you something else about this minister, Mr. Speaker. He was

there trying to drive a trolley at Oakridge in the last week or two,

and he was saying: "Leave it in our hands. Look what we do; we built

the SeaBus." He was taking credit for the SeaBus, which he knows that

his government wanted to stop but because it had gone too far, it

couldn't be stopped at that time. And he was standing up there saying:

"We looked after the SeaBus; we'll do this and we'll do that." That was

reported in the newspapers.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER:

The SeaBus was designed in Esquimalt and built in local shipyards. We

made sure that the construction was done in British Columbia.

When

they extended the ferries, Mr. Speaker, where did they go to get the

engineering? Do you know where they went? They didn't put it out for

bid. No, they went to Sweden and had it designed there without bid.

They paid $200,000 for the engineering studies for the expansion of

those ferries. There are engineers in Canada that would have loved to

have had a chance to bid on this particular contract, but no tenders

were let.

What happened was that they went and got a Swedish

firm to engineer this change themselves. That's what a government does

when they say: "Put B.C. first." They go out of the country, give out

contracts without tenders and do away with jobs for British Columbians

by exporting jobs and money.

I'll have a lot more to say

about transit, Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the minister across

the way. The budget as presented to this House is merely a fantasy of

the minister in charge of budgetary matters.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to stand here today and support this

budget that has been presented in a responsible manner. It is a

pay-as-you-go budget, Mr. Speaker. There are no increases in taxes for

corporations or in income taxes for individuals, and we are managing to

pay our way as we go. This is a basic difference between the opposition

party and the government. The government is a pay-as-you-go party.

The

other day I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition on the radio.

I think it was on the "Rafe Mair Show." Mrs. Mair had driven the Leader

of the Opposition down to the station that morning, and I think Mr.

Mair asked him if he minded the ride. The Leader of the Opposition

said: "No, I don't mind a free ride.I'll take a free ride anytime, as

long as somebody else is paying for it." That is the basic philosophy

of the opposition. They are on a free ride all the time, as long as

they don't have to pay for it. This is basically what we're finding in

their program, with the suggestions they are making here. They don't

have to pay for it. They can take from somebody else — the doers of

this province, the people who create things. That is what the

opposition wishes to do.

I think it was the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who yelled across the floor yesterday: "There's

nothing we hate worse than the rich, except their lackeys." They hate

people who go out, create and do. They hate the rich and their lackeys.

They would do away with us. The member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) was

suggesting that the eventual policy of the opposition is

nationalization of all means of production — complete control of

production.

We've listened to this debate here in the last

few days. It has been most lacklustre, particularly the debate coming

from the opposition. There have been no substantive suggestions from

the opposition. We had the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi) making the comment yesterday that the role of the opposition is

to criticize and make some constructive suggestions. All we've heard is

the criticism. We haven't heard any constructive suggestions. In

particular, there was nothing constructive in the comments of the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Had he made some

constructive comments, he probably would have suggested that we go out

and build more parks today. As the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) commented on the radio the other day: "We should be creating

employment by spending money and building parks" — not by putting the

money into anything that will create a lasting job. Certainly we need

parks in this province. Parks have been built by this government during

good times, but in bad times that would not be a sensible expenditure.

No, they would build parks instead of northeast coal, which creates

lasting jobs, or Pier B-C, B.C. Place, Lonsdale Quay, or any of the

other projects this government has supported, is promoting and is doing

which create lasting jobs — not only jobs in the creation of the

project but jobs after the project has been finalized.

That's

one item the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would have suggested.

He probably would have also suggested another item: that is, as the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) suggested, that we should not

be building northeast coal at this time, but that we should be out

constructing forest roads. In other words, we should spend our money on

a product which there is not the demand for

[ Page 7080 ]

today,

and not spend it on a product for which there is a worldwide demand — a

product which could bring revenue and a return back to this province.

That

is another suggestion that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam might

have suggested. He might have also suggested, as the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) just finished saying, that we should

be spending the money on the Squamish railyard. We should be building

railcars there. That is the sort of philosophy that comes from that

whole opposition. We got it from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly)

when he was talking about failures. They wish to go out and support

failures. They would support the failure of the Squamish railyard.

They

would also support the failure of building buses. We know what they did

with the bus system in Vancouver. How many hundreds of buses did they

buy from the other NDP government in Saskatchewan? We bailed them out.

Those buses are still sitting idle, because they can't run. They also

bought some other buses that I think were split in the middle or that

ride on tracks. Well, the tracks aren't there for them to ride on.

That's the sort of transit system they would have us adopt in this

province — a failure type of transit system.

We are supposed

to worship failure, according to the member for Alberni. Our Premier

should have experienced failure. The only Premier in this country who

has experienced failure was the Premier between 1972 and 1975. He

experienced failure in 1975 and this province experienced failure as

the result of the experience of that government. The reason he is not

Premier today is because he has failures behind him; he has people who

worship being a failure. We don't want failures on this side leading

this province. We want people who are doers, people who are successful

people who know what they're doing and where they're going, and people

who can provide for this province. We don't want a failure, a

bankruptcy for the province of British Columbia.

We have

other suggestions from the opposition as to what they would do on the

creation of jobs. What was it? Borrow $200 million, or some such thing,

at current interest rates and loan it out at reduced interest rates.

They didn't mention what the total cost to the province over a period

of time would be for that. It would run to at least $60 million or $90

million for the province to subsidize that sort of a system. But we

were told that their additional projects would cost this province an

additional $300 million. A great deal of that would be by borrowing.

They also talked about taking $93 million from B.C. Petroleum

Corporation, a tax-gathering corporation which was created by them when

they were in government, a corporation that caused a loss of reserves

to this province and a downturn in drilling of wells in this province

during their three years because of their penalty systems against lack

of production. They are going to take money from that corporation. I

don't know how they will get additional money from that corporation,

because at this moment there are limited export sales of the products

of the corporation because of federal pricing. Until those sales can

increase there will be no increased revenue to the corporation.

There is an alternative method for them to raise revenue from that corporation.

They can increase the cost of the products to the public of British Columbia.

That would get them the additional money. That is the general philosophy of

the NDP: to have a free ride, take it from the people and give it away again.

They would wash that money from the people back to the people. I don't think

that would be of any advantage to this province, because one of the biggest

problems we have today in Canada — high interest rates and inflation — is a

result of governments' overspending. I believe the federal government is

now spending about 22 percent of the gross national product. It has increased

from about 14 percent when the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister

14 years ago. This large spending by governments has caused the high interest

rates and the inflation we are experiencing. The opposition would continue to

spend money in that way, continue to tax the people of this province excessively

in the hope that they might reverse what that process actually does, which is

to create high interest and high inflation. I can't see any advantage in

that sort of philosophy. We don't need them as government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The way things are formed in this province, looking at it with respect to other jurisdictions.... We are supposed to worship failure, according to the member for

Alberni. Our Premier should have experienced failure. The only Premier

in this country who has experienced failure was the Premier between

1972 and 1975. He experienced failure in 1975 and this province

experienced failure as the result of the experience of that government.

We have had many labour governments in England. Last year I had the

pleasure to travel up the B.C. rail line from North Vancouver to Fort

Nelson and had the opportunity of touring the Tumbler Ridge northeast

coal development. On that trip we had a gentleman from England. Every

day his eyes seemed to bug wide open at what was being done in this

province, the development in this province. I finally asked him why he

was so amazed at this development. He said: "If this was going on back

in socialist countries or in England under the former government of

England, it would still be in the committee stage." That is what would

happen in this province if the opposition were government today. We

would still have committee hearings on whether to go ahead with Pier

B-C. We would have committee hearings on whether to build B.C. Place,

or even acquire the land down there. We would have committee hearings

on whether we should be developing Lonsdale Quay, which is a tremendous

asset to North Vancouver and to my constituency. We would still be

going through committee hearings with respect to ALRT. I know the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon will be speaking loud and clear at that

hearing, saying that ALRT is ugly. He wouldn't say what he's going to

do; he would still be knocking it at that committee. It's going to be

an ugly thing. There are no suggestions by him on whether he would do

anything different.

We listened to the comments of the

opposition. We realize, and I think the people of this province should

realize, that there has been no change in those members' thinking or

ideals or anything else since they were defeated in 1975. They have not

learned one lesson. The people who have supported them in the past

should be happy, because they are still the same people. They still

want to do the same things; they want to bleed this province dry. The

only thing they have changed is their clothes, and I'm thankful that

they have changed that. Sometimes it is advantageous, because if they

kept the same clothes they had then, they might have the same odour

that their policies have.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, you're sick.

Interjection.

MR. REE: Yes, Mr. Member, they're still pink. They don't even need a strong brush to make them pink.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a good budget. This is a responsible budget. This is a

budget that will keep British Columbia on track. When the markets for

lumber come back, which we

[ Page 7081 ]

hope

are not too distant in the future — the end of this year or the

beginning of next year — I think that with the restrained budget that

we have in British Columbia, you're going to see the economy of British

Columbia take off. I think we'll have a prosperity that we have not

seen before. If we were to over spend today and have overruns like the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) did in his tenure, we

would be mortgaging our future; we would not be responsible. We would

be like the opposition that wants to take something for nothing. They

want it now.

I had a lady call not too long ago complaining

about the government not deficit funding on its general expenses. I

suggested to her that her children would have to pay that money back.

She said: "I don't care. I want mine now." That is the philosophy of

the opposition: they want theirs now; they want it for free. They are

not concerned about the people of the future. They want what they want

when they want it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I

promise not to raise my voice. I promise to be nice to everybody. I

promise to tell it as it really is. You won't like that so much. I

promise not to say much about the last speech or the speech by the

member for Kamloops (ML Richmond). How they love those comfortable old

lies — you know, that the NDP left debts.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that reference to an hon. member is most improper. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. MACDONALD: I said they loved the comfortable old lie that the NDP left this province in debt. Mr. Speaker, that is a lie.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the hon. member attributing to any hon. member in this House?

MR. MACDONALD:

No, not at all. I just said that he's comfortable living with that kind

of thing. Every year the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) comes into

this House and he explodes this business that we left a debt behind as

a slick con trick, but it doesn't make any difference to those people

over there.

This morning the daily Province

has an announcement about the northeast coal deal, for which we have

never received a cost-benefit analysis, although it was promised and

work has begun. It says that Quintette is going to guarantee to British

Columbia with its assets of up to $600 million what the province might

lose on the deal. At the same time Quintette and Denison are asking the

province to guarantee their investment. So I say no more. It's a matter

of the government being asked to guarantee itself. The financial

consequences of northeast coal should mean having all of the papers

tabled in the chamber for examination by all the members. For a

responsible minister of the Crown, the high-flying, high-living,

high-spending Minister of Economic Development, whose travel expenses

were $39,000 last year.... To say that he will have a cost-benefit

analysis of northeast coal in due course, when the work has already

begun and the province is committed to the extent of many millions of

dollars, is economic idiocy of the first order.

The other

day I spoke to a man who came down from the Tumbler Ridge branch line

where he had been working. He told me that in order to make a headline

in the paper, on April 1 he was asked to blow the face off the mountain

and then the company at the other end, which was Commonwealth, would do

the same on the other side of the mountain. There are two and a half

miles in between. That was on April 1 and it was a political gesture.

He said there is nothing but disorganization in terms of the government

plans. Since April 1 there has been one other powder blast, and they've

gone 20 feet. They have two and a half miles to go on that one tunnel.

What we are criticizing is not the development of northeast coal; we've

made that point perfectly plain. We're saying that you have been

out-negotiated all the way along by the companies and by the Japanese

contractors. You've been out-negotiated, and there is dreadful

mismanagement with the project.

We know mismanagement when

we see it, and that's what we're saying. We say: bring your cost

figures into this House. Don't let that Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development say he's got them and they're coming if all we get

are public relations flyers — political publicity at the expense of the

taxpayer. That's what we're talking about. Bring in the figures. Stop

hiding it. Stop making politics out of it. Don't make it another Dease

Lake extension, where the previous Social Credit government cost the

taxpayers $300 million starting a railway for political purposes that

had no freight and no future.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It was there when we came along.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

So did you. There's no choice. It was dreadful mismanagement of the

resources. Don't let that happen as it did under the previous Socred

government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say one other thing about

the budget. I think it is very sad that in the accounts of the province

we see a dividend in the sum of $7 million being paid into the

provincial treasury from the Housing Corporation of British Columbia.

This was a corporation that was started to develop land, to provide

housing units, to service land.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

This is the depth of ignorance. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) says that Dunhill, which became B.C. Housing, never

developed.... Where does this $7 million come from then, Mr. Minister?

The depth of ignorance on those benches over there, Mr. Speaker, is

absolutely staggering. In 1975 the NDP invested $5.8 million in the

shares of Dunhill. Even now, after paying dividends to the province

over a period of years, it still yields to the people of this province

$7 million, as you see on page F-188 of the Public Accounts of the province.

was an opportunity to provide employment to thousands; it was an

opportunity to provide affordable housing to many thousands of

families; and it was killed for political spite by the Social Credit

government, simply because it was a good NDP idea. Now we see it

finally winding up, and they are taking out $7 million — the last of it

— and disbanding the only public housing corporation we have, a housing

corporation that exists in all of the other provinces of Canada. They

talk of employment; is there no employment in creating

[ Page 7082 ]

shelter for people, which could have been created under that corporation?

I'm

going to talk now about a big Social Credit scam. You won't mind that,

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure. It's not so small; it's as big as what happened

before the last election when the NDP assets were put into the hands of

BCRIC. The insiders flourished then and Edgar Kaiser and his friends

walked off with millions and millions of dollars at the expense of the

shareholders of the new BCRIC and at the expense of the public. I think

what's coming along is as big a thing as the BCRIC fiasco and sellout.

I'm referring to the takeover of Inland Natural Gas by Jim Anderson and

Ben Macdonald and the Trans Mountain Pipe Line, because that is only

the first step toward a huge, private energy conglomerate in B.C. It is

like Nova, which began with Alberta Gas Trunk Line and diversified into

many, many fields. Jim Anderson is a Social Credit fund-raiser and, I

might say, Mr. Speaker, a man who talks too much; who boasts about his

friendship with the Premier and how he can be in his living-room at any

time, as he did in London not too long ago. Ben Macdonald is a very

fine British Columbian, but he too is a Social Credit fund-raiser. In

the middle of the 1979 election, when the Socreds were running a little

short of cash, Ben went down to San Francisco to Standard Oil, which

was his company, and raised oil money to help the Socreds win the last

election.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development, in his inimitable way, lets it out of the bag where this

thing is going, as Anderson has been doing. Speaking on March 18 to the

sales marketing executives at the Bayshore Inn, he made an announcement

in a fit of oratory — my informant clocked him at about 120 words a

minute, with gusts up to about 135. He dipped into the future and said:

"We will soon be announcing our natural gas company, our own PetroCan"

— or call it Nova. Just wait! My informant was very intrigued about

that in view of the takeover that was then proceeding on Inland Natural

Gas, because what we are seeing is just the first step. With the

takeover of Inland Natural Gas, the last step is the dismemberment of

B.C. Hydro and taking the publicly owned gas division of B.C. Hydro at

cost into this new private energy conglomerate that will be closely

controlled by the boys who are friends of this government. The people

who will pay the shot initially will be the consumers at the gas tip of

Inland Natural Gas, but ultimately they will also be the consumers of

the gas tip of B.C. Hydro.

In London, Anderson boasts about

the plans and how they can make some incidental diversification and

some money along the way by rolling in companies such as Sun Mask

Petroleum Corp.

The takeover plans were discussed and well

known to the government and cleared with the Utilities Commission and

the Premier's office months ago. Nobody pays $20 cash — 33 percent over

market — for the shares of a regulated B.C. public utility if that's

all there is to the transaction. They would lose their shirts. No

financier, no bank, would support them. They would not be able to raise

the funds. No sensible businessman would do that.

MR. BARNES: They must have known something the bank didn't know.

MR. MACDONALD:

The people who are involved in this takeover know something that the

other people do not know. They know that this is only the first step

and they know that they will have a compliant Utilities Commission.

They know that they can reorganize with Trans Mountain Pipe Line and

raid its treasury, which is about $20 million. They can reorganize the

capital of Inland Natural Gas, and then they can go back to the public

utilities commission and ask for an increase based upon the

recapitalization, and they will get it.

No, Mr. Speaker,

there is something very strange, something far more than meets the eye,

about a proposition where two local boys — well-known as they are in

the back rooms of Social Credit politics — do not have to put up a

single dime out of their own pockets. They get Trans Mountain Oil, of

which five multinational oil companies have control, and they put up

the $20 million. Then Trans Mountain — which has the security, of

course — guarantees the bank loans of this mysterious company in the

background: No. 108195 Canada Ltd. The registers show a Miss Duguay as

that company's....

Trans Mountain Pipe Line is guaranteeing

almost $40 million, and is putting up $10 million. Yet it is only

getting 50 percent of the equity and only 33 percent of the votes. Now

you may say that, well, that's not the real situation that is being

presented, because if they had more, then FIRA might give them

something to fear. It would look very much like the multinational oil

companies were taking over a well-regulated and well-run local public

utility in the province of British Columbia. There's something there

that does not make any sense, but it does make sense in terms of the

grand design of these promoters as I'm spelling it out today.

The

government of British Columbia gets into a bit of a tizzy. This part of

what I'm saying is kind of amusing, if I may say so, although the

subject isn't particularly amusing. On Wednesday, March 31, in the

course of my research.... Because I intended to present a brief to the

Utilities Commission, I made a search — through someone else, but it

was known to be me — at the offices of Inland Natural Gas, through the

share register, to see what trading there had been in January, prior to

the takeover offer, before it was really known publicly, that took

place in February. There on the books I saw the name of R.J. Bennett,

who had purchased 6,000 shares in the pre-takeover period. But I wasn't

intending particularly to make use of that information. A little bird

might have told him. He might have got it from street gossip. An

insider trading in the kind of capitalist economy is sort of.... You

almost take it for granted these days that whenever there's a takeover,

the rich get a little richer. Sure, we know that. Nevertheless, the

word goes back to the Premier's office that the name of R.J. is known

to be on the books and known to me, and the government of British

Columbia, which up to that time hadn't said a word about the takeover

of Inland Natural Gas, springs into action. The Premier is in touch

with Inland Natural Gas. What is all this about R.J.?

The

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

McClelland), who had been stood in a corner, cut right out of this

thing in terms of any activity whatsoever, made an announcement that

the government of British Columbia was going to intervene and ask

questions about this deal. But this was 48 hours before the hearing —

very strange, standing by itself, that such a thing could happen. Then

on Thursday night, with the hearing advertised, set for Friday morning

at 9 a.m. and the public invited to attend and make their submissions,

the hearing disappeared without a trace, like a stone thrown into a

pond — a few ripples and then it was gone.

[ Page 7083 ]

The

people who were objecting to the takeover of Inland Natural Gas said:

"We wanted to have a chance to argue as to whether you should have

adjourned that hearing, because we say that if you adjourn it until the

takeover crowd, which is TMA Western Resources, has a majority of

shares in their hands, it will be too late to stop them. We want to

make that point." But they never had an opportunity to make that point

and the thing went on with the revised offer terminating at midnight on

April 13. At midnight on April 13, in spite of questions raised in this

House, the government again did nothing until it was too late, until

the horse had bolted and the TMA crowd were in control of the majority

of Inland Natural Gas shares and had paid for them. After it was too

late they passed an order-in-council and said: "Naughty, naughty,

naughty. Don't vote those shares." But it is too late. No government

could be so capable of blunder as to first say they are going to a

hearing on April 2 without any brief or preparation and announce it 48

hours before; then, with the new deadline approaching when Anderson and

Macdonald and Trans Mountain would be able to pick up the shares in the

trust company, nothing was done until two days after these people had

their shares. Oh, it was a pretend fight. It was a make-believe fight

against their takeover Socred friends. They knew all along that this

takeover was going to take place.

There's too much of a

history in this province of the granting of public franchises to

friends of the government. I refer particularly to Delta in the course

of these remarks I'm making. I start with the question of pub licences,

and then I come back to land. I come back to land because it's all

wrapped up. The people who have taken over the majority shares in

Inland Natural Gas, of which Trans Mountain is one, have an option to

purchase the Spetifore land — a 16 percent interest. So the whole thing

is tied together. But in Delta you find the rich Socreds get

neighbourhood pub licences.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good.

MR. MACDONALD:

Who said good? Karl Frangi gets his Sawbuck's neighbourhood pub. Herb

Feichel gets the Duke of Wellington. Bill Sullivan gets his Sundowner.

Sullivan turns up, incidentally, at the Spetifore meeting in the Laurel

Point Inn that was, naturally, closed to the public. Gerry and Bob Olma

get their Kennedy Heights shopping centre pub after another applicant

by the name of Pridie had been denied the licence on the grounds that

it was in a shopping centre. Then when prominent Socred fund-raisers

and friends of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) come along — and the

member for Delta attended the political appeal.... Oh, it's kinky — the

kind of appeals they hold on neighbourhood pub and land licences.

Nobody knows it's taking place. There's no gazetting of when the

hearing is going to take place before the minister.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That was granted in your time. I know the history of the pubs fairly well.

The

member for Delta was here when they reversed the standing rule and,

having rejected another applicant, gave the Kennedy pub to friends of

the government. The hearings, as I say, are bizarre, because nobody

knows they're going to take place in the minister's office. Nobody can

protest. There was a Catholic church objecting to that particular

neighbourhood pub. They didn't know that the minister was going to

grant it. The member for Delta knew, however. He sat quietly in the

back of the room, having assisted with the application.

In the case of the Sundowner,

again the member for Delta comes over to Victoria. What the rest of the

people of Delta might have thought about the granting to Bill Sullivan

of the Sundowner pub licence doesn't matter, because they didn't know

that there was going to be a hearing held on that matter. They didn't

know that Sullivan, having been rejected by the liquor licensing

administration, would go to the top political authority, the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). They go on the

ferry to Victoria — the member for Delta and Bill Sullivan, a prominent

Socred...

Interjection.

MR.MACDONALD: ... who

contributed quite a lot, Mr. Former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom),

to the party that you've now joined, in terms of the Delta Inn.

Now

then, let me go on to the other friend — another Delta case. You have

Jim Happy Honda Anderson, who sells his car dealership. He invests in

five acres of land on Highway 17 right near the Delta Inn.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Tell us about Cottonwood Corners.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'm going to say something to you, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, if you

keep interrupting, because you are the one who encouraged Spetifore....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I've got to keep moving or my time will be up. How many minutes have I got, Mr. Speaker?

the case of the Anderson property, I give you this as an indication of

the way this government can print money for its political friends. Five

acres of good potato land, so declared by the technical planning

committee of the GVRD, overruled by the politicians, overruled by the

Land Commission, and the moment Anderson gets that land out of the

reserve he puts up a showroom and a garage. Now this is five acres. He

goes to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and gets a loan for $2

million on five acres.

MR. LAUK: Is this downtown Vancouver?

MR. MACDONALD:

No, out in Delta. He goes to the Continental Bank out in Delta and gets

$500,000. That was released, and then he goes to the Toronto Dominion

Bank and gets $1 million. The banks, which do not treat the ordinary

homeowners of the province of British Columbia so kindly in terms of

their mortgages, treat those who are able to get the ear of government

and get their land out of the land reserve very kindly.

the case of the Spetifore lands, more acres are involved. Good

industrial land, you might say, is worth about $100,000 an acre in that

area. Again there is a political appeal. On July 15, 1980, Delta, with

its Socred majority, came to Vancouver and had a quiet meeting in the

Laurel Point Inn on the night of July 15. Nobody knew about that. It

was chaired by Boyd Ferris, the lawyer. They rehearsed their

[ Page 7084 ]

lines.

The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) was there, but his constituents

didn't know that he was there assisting Spetifore in this application.

On July 16 ELUC meets from 8:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m., and in those few

minutes they release the Spetifore lands by their recommendation to

cabinet, but nothing is known until next January. Again it was a secret

hearing. Again it was known to the local member, and again it was not

known to his constituents that he was assisting in the release of those

lands. Now Spetifore is in with Anderson through Dawn Development, and

he goes to the bank too and places the following mortgages against that

land: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $17 million; Bank of Montreal

— this is again on the same date, July 17 — $9 million....

What

I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that what we see here is the government

giving the right to some people to print money on a fantastic scale at

the expense of the ordinary people without the ordinary people even

knowing anything about the hearing taking place. And then later, the

third mortgage with Spetifore and Sons is in the amount of $25.8

million — back to Spetifore and Sons when Anderson, through Dawn

Development, bought that land. The next is the Royal Trust debentures.

Bear in mind that these mortgages, if you count the last one on the

list, the unregistered mortgage to Spetifore and Sons add up to $172

million of encumbrance against that farmland. They say the first

potatoes in all of Canada were actually grown on Spetifore lands.

Interjection:

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it was very early potato land.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was in Ashcroft. Your history is all wet.

MR. MACDONALD:

Okay. I said "I think." But that land, which is still undeveloped,

which only has the promise by this government that it will become

industrial land for Anderson and his friends, has encumbrances against

it now of $172 million. It's absolutely unbelievable. Where did those

millions go? Did they go to Spetifore? When they went right to the bank

after the release by the cabinet of the Spetifore lands and they raised

$26 million, did that all go to Spetifore? As I say, when we talk about

the scam of the purchase of Inland Natural Gas by Trans Mountain,

Anderson and Macdonald, it's important to bear in mind, in terms of the

scenario, that Trans Mountain at the same time took an option to

purchase 16 percent of the equity in the Spetifore lands.

there, Mr. Speaker, you have the scenario of what Anderson was talking

about a long time ago — and he talks too much, if I may say so, from

the point of view of a promoter. He shouldn't talk quite that much. But

his scenario is unfolding on schedule. The takeover of Inland, as he

has announced to the press, has been "successfully completed." The

government is fighting it after the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) let the horse bolt the barn. Two days after they got the

shares in their hot little hands, you passed your order-in-council —

which is an illegal order-in-council anyway. How are you going to make

them divest those shares? It was a farce; it was just a feigned fight

against your Socred takeover friends.

That's step number

one. Step number two, which is referred to in the cash offer, is a

merger or another amalgamation with Trans Mountain Pipe Line with $20

million in cash reserve. Step three is diversification to include

companies the boys control like Sun Mask Petroleum. If you take Dawn

Development which owns Spetifore and which is guaranteed the collateral

obligations in the Inland takeover, you find on the board of Dawn

Development and Sun Mask Petroleum the same directors: F.J. Anderson,

R.N. McRae, Barry Ehrl and W.J. Esselmont, who does the legal work for

all these kinds of political companies.

On February 12, when

the cash offer to take over Inland was being prepared, who jumps on the

board of Sun Mask? Ben Macdonald. He shouldn't be cut out of that,

should he? He's part of the....

The member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) has 50,000 escrow shares in Sun Mask Petroleum. People do not

get escrow shares without a special deal with the promoters. That is

not what you go out and buy on the open market; that is what you get

for either nothing or services or 10 percent of the value or something

of that kind. Those shares were up to $4.50 on the market. Now, I am

sorry to say, they are down to $4 — only $200,000. But, Mr. Speaker, I

tell you this: the member for Delta is serving some people of the

constituency of Delta better than he is serving the whole of the

constituency of Delta.

I mentioned the Spetifore lands.

Inland has been issued the invitation now to put in its bid for the

pipeline to take natural gas to Vancouver Island. It could be LNG that

goes over there, and that will be the terminal.

HON MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you going to talk at all about Vancouver

East or have you forgotten them because of Williams?

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Minister, I am talking about the province of which you and I are

both citizens. I don't want to see the kind of scam that happened in

the BCRIC thing happen here. I am going to fight it every inch of the

way. I don't want to see the hundreds of thousands of gas customers of

Inland and Hydro being treated like schmuks and subjected to price

increases to pay the profiteering of the insiders. I am going to fight

it.

If you listen to some of the people talking around you,

they love that word "privatize." Did you know B.C. Hydro is going to be

"privatized" by this government if they win the next election? They

wouldn't dare do it without winning an election, but they will

privatize that and turn it over to this new Nova consortium.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they won't, Alex, because they won't get elected after that.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay. We tried to stop it.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, I've laid it out as best I can. I'm sorry that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Premier did nothing

to stop the coming into the hands of the TMA Western Resources group

majority control of Inland Natural Gas. You've made your gestures, Mr.

Attorney-General, but you made them after they got the shares. You know

that this is just a gesture. You know it's too late. You know that the

Premier wanted his boys to have that. You knew that he knew they were

going to get it a

[ Page 7085 ]

lon g

time ago. You knew he stood the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources down in the corner and barely talked to him about the whole

transaction. You put up this feigned fight that you're really fighting

it at the last minute. You're not fighting it very successfully.

You

have to take things like this to the people, because here we have a

public utility which is run by local businessmen who are not, as far as

I know, NDPers. It is reasonably well run, with 100,000 customers —

including important industrial, commercial and residential customers —

throughout the interior. These people pay $20 a share — 33 percent over

the market price — for the shares of a regulated utility, and you tell

me that they're not going to get that money back? I ask you: who are

they going to get it back from? From the consumers of the province of

British Columbia. It's as simple as that. And it ought to be stopped

dead in its tracks, because this is the kind of scam we do not need in

this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to

take my place in this debate and offer a few comments with respect to

the motion which we have before us. Perhaps that will give me an

opportunity to bring some clarification and some sanity to the matters

which the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has

dealt with. Accordingly I will move adjournment of this debate until

next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada