1979 Legislative Session: ist 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 11, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

41 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978, Vols 1 to 6. Hon. Mr. Curtis ––

B.C. Cellulose Co. annual report. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 41

Oral questions.

Attitudes of human rights commissioners. Ms. Sanford –– 41

Availability of Crown land to realtors. Mr. Lea –– 43

Diversion of traffic from Second Narrows Bridge. Mr. Macdonald –– 43

Cowichan estuary. Mrs. Wallace –– 44

Medical services to outlying areas. Mr. Hall –– 44

Sale of Panco facilities. Mr. Stupich –– 44

Budget debate.

Mr. Passarell –– 44

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 45

Mr. Lockstead –– 48

Mr. Kempf –– 50

Mrs. Wallace –– 52

Mr. Segarty –– 55

Mr. Leggatt –– 57

Mr. Ritchie –– 60

Mr. Levi –– 62

Presenting reports.

Milk Board annual report at December 31, 1978. Hon. Mr. Hewitt ––

MONDAY, JUNE 11, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, members, before we proceed with any business, even of an informal nature, I would like you to hear this.

CLERK ASSISTANT:

Office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, B.C.

June 11, 1979

Mr. Ian M. Home,

QC Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

RE: General Election, May 10, 1979.

Enclosed herewith is a letter dated June 8,

1979, in duplicate from the chief electoral officer and registrar-general of

voters, setting forth the name of the member who has been elected in the general

election for the Atlin electoral district.

Yours very truly

Gerald H. Cross

Deputy Provincial Secretary

Province of British Columbia

Ministry of

Provincial Secretary and

Travel Industry

Chief electoral officer and

Registrar-general of voters

Mr. Gerald H. Cross, QC

Deputy Provincial Secretary

Deputy Minister of Government Services

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

RE: General Election, May 10, 1979

Pursuant to my certificate of June 6, 1979, I now present

my certificate for the Atlin electoral district.

This certificate was delayed due to a judicial recount before

the county court of Prince Rupert, followed by an appeal to the British Columbia

Court of Appeal.

I now certify that Alan Lawrence Passarell has been elected

to represent the electoral district of Atlin.

Yours truly

K.L. Morton

Chief electoral officer and

Registrar-general of voters

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would be so kind, sir, on behalf of

members of this House, to convey our deep sympathy to the family of

Fred "Cyclone" Taylor, who passed away this weekend. Others more

eloquent than I have spoken on the weekend of his death at a fine age;

but British Columbia, Canada and sport in general are poorer as a

result of his death.

I would like the House to welcome a

group of students from Stelly's Senior Secondary School in the Saanich

Peninsula portion of my constituency, Saanich and the Islands. They are

accompanied by Mr. Rees.

MR. SKELLY: I ask the members to welcome two hard-working constituents from Alberni, Gerard Jansen and Mark Deseur.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Some people who have worked very hard during these last several months

are the returning officers throughout the province. I would

particularly like to welcome a very hard-working returning officer in a

difficult area, Mrs. Lois Gendron, the returning officer for Surrey,

and Mrs. Hilda Felton, the election clerk, who is visiting today with

her. I ask the House to extend them a welcome.

MR. BARNES:

I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming Merryan Townsend

and Russell Uren, two visitors from Rotorua, down under in New Zealand.

They are touring the United States and Canada. I ran across them by

accident. I liked their accent; it made me feel like we had something

in common. I had them out for dinner and we had a good time. They are

now in the gallery. I hope everyone will wish them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN:

I ask this House and its members to join me in welcoming two

constituents from Prince George: Mr. Ken Vance, a graduate of Prince

George's College of New Caledonia and of late a legislative intern; and

Mr. Don Morberg, a reporter for the Prince George Citizen , one of B.C.'s outstanding newspapers.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm very pleased today to have in the gallery my sister-in-law, Mrs.

Elizabeth Gildea, who has recently returned to Victoria. She is

accompanied by a more frequent visitor to this gallery, my husband

Robert. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Today we have two guests from Merritt, in the heart of the Nicola Valley. I ask the House to welcome Jim and Joyce Mynott.

MR. PASSARELL:

I would like to welcome my mother, who has flown in from Windsor,

Ontario. This is a special day for her for a number of reasons; today

is her birthday too.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented volumes 1 to 6 of the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Cellulose Company.

Oral Questions

ATTITUDES OF

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONERS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker,

my question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister has stated that

no members of the Human Rights Commission will be fired. How can he

justify keeping on commissioners who have violated, through their

actions and through their statements, the principles and aims of the

Human Rights Code? I wonder, in view of the fact that the attitude of

some of those

[ Page 42 ]

commissioners

on human rights issues is very clear, and in view of the fact that

telling them to keep their mouths shut is not going to alter their

attitude, if the minister will reconsider his position not to fire some

of those commissioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, Beauchesne provides that we should not be anticipating

future performance of a minister. If you need the reference for that it

section 171(c)(c).

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm

wondering if the minister will at this time — not in the future —

reconsider his actions not to fire some of those commissioners.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary. In view of his public

statements calling for dismissal of some members of the commission, I

am wondering if he is satisfied that the present commissioners, who are

anything but advocates for human rights, will not be removed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the hon. member would know that the matter lies within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.

MS. SANFORD:

I do recognize that the decision rests with the Minister of Labour as

to whether or not he is going to retain the present commissioners. But

the Provincial Secretary has stated publicly that he would call in

cabinet for the dismissal of some of the human rights commissioners,

and I'm wondering if the Provincial Secretary is satisfied at this

stage that no human rights commissioners will be dismissed. Is he

satisfied?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've already answered your question, Karen.

MR. BARRETT:

A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Would it be fair to

assume that the Minister of Labour's silence on this matter indicates

his full approval of the statements of the members of the commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It wouldn't be fair.

MR. BARRETT:

On a supplementary, if it is not fair to assume that the minister

supports the statements, can the minister indicate that he is opposed

to the statements made by the members of the Human Rights Commission?

AN HON. MEMBER: That wouldn't be fair either.

MR. BARRETT:

On a supplementary question, is the minister aware of the statements in

question that have brought public criticism on the members of the Human

Rights Commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm aware of the press reports that have been issued with respect to the statements made at a Human Rights Commission meeting.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, is the minister satisfied that the press

reports were accurate?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot ask about the accuracy of press reports in question period.

MR. BARRETT:

Is the minister satisfied that the statements attributed to the members

of the Human Rights Commission were indeed made by the members of the

Human Rights Commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT:

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister, who now acknowledges

that he is aware of the statements, satisfied that the members of the

Human Rights Commission did, indeed, make those statements? Can the

minister offer an explanation to this House as to why he did not fire

the members of the Human Rights Commission, in light of the negative,

anti-people statements made by those members?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The question is argumentative, Mr. Speaker, and therefore not in order, as the member well knows.

MR. BARRETT:

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to use

parliamentary devices to avoid his responsibility in detailing why he

is keeping this Human Rights Commission on? And would the minister tell

us what method of personnel selection he used to pick these particular

members of the Human Rights Commission?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I think, hon. members — and this is particularly for the

benefit of new members — in question period we can ask questions, we

can expect answers, but we cannot insist on answers. Therefore you

would have to leave it to the discretion of the Chair to determine how

long we can continue questioning and seeking the same answer.

Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Labour if he approves or

disapproves of the statements attributed to the members of the Human

Rights Commission.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question.

MR. BARRETT: You disapprove or you approve?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Have you a further question?

MR. BARRETT:

I asked the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he approves or disapproves of the

statements made by the members of the Human Rights Commission. Yes or

no.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no. Do you approve or disapprove?

[ Page 43 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Let the record show, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is avoiding his responsibility on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Let the record also show, Mr. Speaker, that I've already answered the question.

MR. BARRETT: You're not kidding anyone. Shame!

AVAILABILITY OF

CROWN LAND TO REALTORS

MR. LEA: This is a question,

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Now that the

minister has admitted that land is being sold to realtors to resell on

speculation, I wonder if the minister would let us know how long this

government policy has been in effect.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a matter of public record?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I'll be bringing a full response to the question, which

the member is asking again — he asked it last Thursday — back to the

House in a day or two.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I did

not ask this question the other day. I asked the minister whether or

not that was policy. He said he didn't know. Now he's admitted it's

policy. How long has this new government policy been in effect? Has it

been, for instance, as long as six months?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there is no new government policy.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, is the minister then saying that there is no policy within

the government to sell land to realtors for speculative purposes, for

resale?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker. there is no such policy.

MR. LEA: Could the minister tell me then why he is going against government policy and selling land to the realtors for resale?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious the member for Prince Rupert is twisting facts.

MR. LEA:

It's much more fun twisting necks. Will the minister tell the House

whether this non-policy of the government, of selling land to realtors

for resale, has been going on in the Vancouver region for over six

months?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated

to the member last Thursday, I will be bringing a full answer to the

questions that he posed last Thursday, which he is repeating today.

MR. LEA:

I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister now tell us what

the percentage of commission is that is being paid to real estate firms

for selling Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, as I said before, a full statement will be coming.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister gives assurance that the question is taken on notice and he will reply to the House at a future date.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I asked the other day to have information brought back

here. He said he would and then he gave the answers on a television

show. Is that where we have to go as members of this House to get

answers to questions? Now that the minister's memory is refreshed,

could the minister now let us know at what date he or his ministry

spoke to the B.C. Real Estate Association about paying commissions to

them and allowing them to buy Crown land for resale?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There was no such discussion by the minister.

MR. LEA:

I didn't ask that, Mr. Speaker. I asked him whether it was he or his

ministry. Or did it happen by osmosis? Who actually went to see the

real estate people and made the deal and when?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The member for Prince Rupert is suggesting there is a deal. I indicated

last Thursday there is no deal, and there is no deal today.

MR. LEA:

If there is no deal, then can the minister assure this House that the

lots that have already been sold to the real estate firms will not be

sold?

DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC

FROM SECOND NARROWS BRIDGE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation, Communications and

Highways. There is a proposal for a cloverleaf on Cassiar Street at

Cambridge in Vancouver which would allow the diversion of traffic from

the Second Narrows Bridge into residential areas, and I understand an

agreement was signed by the minister; I'm asking the minister now if

the government will reconsider that proposition in view of the imminent

destruction of neighbourhoods both in north Burnaby and Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, to the second member for Vancouver East: that is a city

project that our ministry is definitely involved in. They initiated it.

I believe they've had public hearings on it, and I don't know where it

is at the present time, but I want to emphasize it's city initiative in

the project.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary to the

minister. Did the provincial government, through your ministry, sign an

agreement with the PNE and the city with respect to that cloverleaf?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm not sure they signed an agreement, but we've certainly been in on

all the negotiations and discussions with the various bodies. We said

we'd financially support the city when they got their proposition

resolved.

[ Page 44 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

Will the minister then reconsider the financial support and check as to

whether or not an agreement has been signed, so that the provincial

government can make its position clear that it is not pushing for this

particular cloverleaf?

HON. MR. FRASER: Here again,

as I said, it's a city initiative in the first place that we've gone

along with cooperatively, and we will certainly look at your question

of withdrawing financial support.

MR. MACDONALD: A

final supplementary. Would the minister mind reporting back to the

House? Because it's a matter of great concern to the residents in that

area.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think this has already happened, as a matter of fact.

COWICHAN ESTUARY

MRS. WALLACE:

To the Minister of the Environment about what else is in the Cowichan

estuary. Can the minister tell me whether or not his ministry has

engaged the services of a consultant to look at the needs of industry

within the estuary?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MEDICAL SERVICES

TO OUTLYING AREAS

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in view of

the widespread public concern about the quality and the quantity of

medical services in outlying areas, can the Minister of Health tell the

House whether the report on this subject which was commissioned by the

government to be prepared by the former Social Credit cabinet minister

Wesley Black has been delivered to the minister yet?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL: Would the minister then table the report so it can be discussed at this session?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, the report will be tabled. The report will be released. There's no requirement to table it in the House.

MR. HALL: When, Mr. Speaker? I asked if it would be done at this session.

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

SALE OF PANCO FACILITIES

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the

minister tell us how many bids were received for the Panco facilities

that were sold to Cargill — the processing plant and hatchery?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Four.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I would like to yield to the member for Atlin, if that is agreeable to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The member defers, and loses his position in the debate.

MR. PASSARELL:

It is with great pleasure that I rise to take my place in the debate. I

would like first of all to extend my congratulations to you, Mr.

Speaker, on your appointment as Speaker of the House. I know you will

fulfill the obligations of your position with the able help of the

Deputy Speaker. It is indeed an honour to be seated in the Legislature

as the member for Atlin and it is my intention to work diligently to

represent the concerns of my constituents.

I would like to

take a moment to pay tribute to the former MLA for Atlin, Mr. Frank

Calder, who represented that constituency ably for over 20 years. The

closeness of the final vote in Atlin is testimony to the personal

popularity that he enjoyed. I feel that during his years as MLA he made

a significant contribution and I wish him well. His one mistake, I

believe, was to run under the banner of Social Credit, a party which

lost the respect and trust of the native people in British Columbia

when it failed, during its three-year term in office, to place any

importance on the needs and concerns of the native people.

Mr.

Speaker, I am here in this House today because of the native people of

Atlin, who felt that they have been betrayed by the Minister of Labour,

and the Socreds who promised them in 1975 that they would sit down with

them and negotiate issues which were of concern to native people. The

Nishga Tribal Council members had not been unreasonable in their

position regarding land claims, and it is apparent now that their

decision to support the New Democratic Party was based on our

willingness to sit down and talk to them and to understand their

concerns. Mr. Speaker, the Indian people of British Columbia, both

status and non-status, must have restored and protected their economic

base and their cultural and educational self determination. Their

aboriginal heritage must, once again, become their own, and they must

be supported in their attempt to achieve social equality and economic

justice.

I would like now to address the House on a number

of issues which are of concern to my constituents in Atlin. Atlin, as

you may know, is a vast northern territory and suffers many problems

which are unfamiliar to the urban constituents. I note that in this

budget there is reference to substantial expansion of funding for

employment opportunities for the young people. I am pleased that this

matter is being given some attention, but it is my concern that it will

not be significant to alleviate the serious problem of unemployment in

the northern part of this province.

In my constituency I am

deeply concerned about the high level of unemployment, which last month

stood at 10 percent. This figure, of course, does not include the many

native people who have no opportunity for unemployment, and therefore

are not included in the unemployment statistics of those actively

seeking employment.

[ Page 45 ]

This

budget talks of a new transportation policy which will make a maximum

contribution to the economic development of all parts of British

Columbia. I would like the opportunity to remind the Minister of

Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), that the

only highway which services my riding, Highway 37 which winds northward

from Terrace, is a mess. I hope that he will see fit to make the

upgrading of this highway a priority. Bridges and roadbeds are caving

in due to the increased freight loads hauled on this road. While the

large transport trucks can negotiate the perilous section, it is

certainly not passable to ordinary traffic. We have heard so many

promises in our area about the tourist potential that exists, but let

me say that tourists are being driven out of the area because of the

extremely poor condition of the road system.

Mr. Speaker, we

have heard in the press about the increased cost of living, but nowhere

in the province do the people suffer from the high costs like the

people of the Atlin constituency. Food costs are extremely high — $1.25

for a loaf of bread and $2.50 for a dozen eggs are standard. Fresh milk

and fresh fruit are unavailable at times. This, to me, is unacceptable,

and I hope that some consideration will be made to alleviate this

situation.

Atlin, as you know, is a large and poorly

accessible riding. We need a ferry system which will link Prince Rupert

and Stewart, British Columbia's most northern ice-free port. This would

help significantly with our transportation problems.

I would

like to touch briefly on one other problem which is of enormous concern

to the residents of my riding. That is the lack of adequate medical

facilities. There is one hospital in my constituency; it is located in

Stewart, which is in the southern part of the riding. The next general

hospital is some 500 miles away in the Yukon. In between there are only

first-aid stations. The main one is in Cassiar, which serves a majority

of the constituency. Dease Lake, with a population of 300, does not

even have a first-aid station to provide medical aid. The only medical

services available are weekly visits from a public health nurse, who

provides services from a teacher's desk in the school. The children of

Dease Lake may not appreciate my raising this matter because at the

present time the school closes down whenever the public health nurse

comes to Dease Lake to provide medical services. The store in Dease

Lake, which dispenses minor medical items such as aspirin, is closed

when the owner goes fishing, and the local residents must rely on each

other for help if an emergency arises.

This is a totally

unacceptable situation and I will be working to see that it is

alleviated, Mr. Speaker, so the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) can expect to be hearing from me about this.

There

are some other issues which are of concern to me and the people who

live in Atlin. I look forward to representing my constituency

diligently, and I thank you for the opportunity to raise some of these

issues, which are of importance to me and to my constituency.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to support this

great budget that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) reintroduced

last week.

Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you and the member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) on your appointment to the office of Speaker. I

can say, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of this House who has served one term

now, your guidance, your humour and your understanding are most appreciated

by the members of this House.

Mr.

Speaker, before I proceed, the previous speaker mentioned Frank Calder,

the former member for Atlin, and I would also like to mention Frank.

Frank Calder was MLA for Atlin for some 25 years. During that time he

was a member for the opposition party, the NDP, and then he became a

member of the Social Credit caucus. That gentleman from Atlin, the

former member for Atlin, was, in my opinion, a very great spokesman for

the Indian community of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. that in the Social Credit caucus Frank

Calder — or as he was affectionately known to all members of this

House, "The Little Chief" — often spoke out, and spoke out well, on

behalf of his brothers not just in Atlin but in all areas of this

province, and for all Indians across Canada and, I would hazard a

guess, across all nations of the world. He spoke out for those races

that sometimes are not given proper consideration and not given the

opportunities that others are.

I would like to say that I,

as a member of this House, look back on my association with the former

member for Atlin as a very rewarding experience. He was of great

assistance to new members of this House, myself included. Because of

his term of office he had an understanding of some of the problems that

we face in here. Sometimes the debate gets heated, but Frank Calder

often had the sense and the ability to give you a little bit of insight

into the real reason why we are here.

I would just like to say. Mr. Speaker. that I wish Frank Calder and his lovely wife, Tami, all the best in the coming years.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to compliment the mover of the throne speech

and the seconder — the members for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich)

and North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) — on giving their first speech in

this House. They gave excellent speeches when moving the throne speech.

would like to congratulate those of us who were re-elected. We've made

it again. Sometimes we wonder why, but here we are. And I'd like to

congratulate those who have been elected for the first time. You know,

in 1975, I came into this House as a new member. The new member for

Atlin (Mr. Passarell) arrived today and I'm sure he sits in his chair

and looks up and wonders just what it is all about, and I'm sure

sometimes he'll question what it's all about. It comes as quite a

shock. We get carried away, and we have debates in this House that get

heated, and we have remarks thrown across the floor. and the people in

the gallery say: "Isn't it terrible, the way they are acting down

there."

But, Mr. Speaker, we are here for a purpose: we are

duly elected by the people of our constituencies, and we are here to

try and do a job for the public good. There is a real world outside, a

world of laughter and a world of sadness, a world of suffering, a world

of unemployment, but a world of opportunities. There are needs for our

youth and our aged, and our purpose here is to try and develop good,

[ Page 46 ]

sound

debate so that government can bring in proper legislation, policies and

programs that are in the public good, not to restrict individuals in

this province but to provide more freedom and opportunity for all.

The

budget talks about such policies and programs, but I think they

indicate that this government is committed to providing opportunities

for all British Columbians. They are committed to the protection and

the assistance for those who are not as fortunate as others, and we're

committed as a government, and have been committed since 1975, to

responsibility and accountability of government. I'd just like to read

a few items from the budget highlights to give you an indication of

some of those commitments. We have a provincial budget of $4.5 billion

this year, a lot of money. But it is a balanced budget, balanced by

revenues; and when we came into office in 1975 the Minister of Finance

stood up and said: "We will operate within balanced budgets." We have

for the last three years, and we will continue to do so. That is a

commitment of this government.

We have limited provincial

spending to only 5 percent over the previous year — leadership of a

government to try to hold down the cost of inflation, the price of

inflation in this province. And then we look at some of the things

we've been able to do. The economy of this province is — if I can use

the probably overworked phrase — "moving again." We have reduced the

sales tax to 4 percent, and all through the election campaign the

opposition candidates kept coming out and saying: "You increased it to

7." That was the bad thing, because three years ago the people of the

province recognized that we increased it to 7 percent only because we

didn't have the revenues coming out of the economy of this province.

But now that they are, it's not gone down to 5; it's gone down to 4

percent.

As former Minister of Agriculture who has now been

appointed as Minister of Agriculture again, I am very pleased with that

statement in the budget where the school assessment on farm and

agricultural and reserve lands have been reduced by 50 percent,

effective December 31, 1979; and that's to reduce the school taxes on

farms. The agricultural land reserve is there to save the farmland.

That reduction of the assessment on agricultural land will give some

relief and assist the farmer in this province. I'm very pleased to see

that.

The Corporation Capital Tax Act is

an act that taxes

the capital of a corporation and the borrowings of a corporation. That

exemption has been increased from $500,000 to $1 million. In my riding,

Boundary-Similkameen, in the tourist mecca of this province —

Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Keremeos, Greenwood, Grand Forks, Christina

Lake — I have a lot of motel operators and tourist operators who have a

limited company. Their investment is well above the half-million

dollars, and they were attacked with this corporation tax. Now that

we've raised that exemption limit to $1 million, that has given relief

to a lot of the constituents in my riding.

There are a

number of other things in the budget; other speakers will be talking

about them, but the permanent increase of $100 for an annual homeowner

grant to all homeowners in British Columbia raises the homeowner grant

to a basic grant of $380 to those under age 65, and $580 for those over

age 65. I'm not sure — maybe the Minister of Finance could tell me —

what percentage of the senior citizens in their own homes by getting

that $580 homeowner grant would actually be relieved of property

taxation on the property they own. But I an suggest to you that it's

come a long way since we were first elected. It's now up to $580, and

that would relieve them of a good portion of their total tax bill, if

not all; and it's an excellent move.

Those are some of the

items in the budget; there are many more. It does give an indication

that we've reduced the sales tax; we've provided assistance to

homeowners; we've reduced the personal income tax effective July 1 by 2

percent — for the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not sure

whether it's1 percent or 2 percent, or six months or a year. He's an

accountant, and he knows as well as I do that it's 2 percent effective

July 1, 1979; and that is only because the economy in British Columbia

is sound and is growing.

The programs, the policies, the

legislation that are being put into place and will be put into place by

this party are to stimulate that economy, that private sector — to

assist them. The difference in philosophies is that the opposition

party believes in direction and control of the private sector, holding

down initiative and opportunity. This government believes in

encouragement and support of the private sector; and that's why the

economy is moving in this province. If you want to see some statistics,

in the Ministry of Mines since 1975 we know there's been a substantial

turnaround, because in the previous administration, when they were in

office, they brought in legislation that literally curtailed the mining

and gas and oil exploration in this province. Since that time there has

been a considerable amount of activity, and it's going on with

announcements being made almost daily.

Let me give you some

examples: Placer Development Ltd. and the Sam Goosly copper-silver

property near Houston in that great constituency of Omineca — there is

now $85 million under capital development, with projected employment of

200 people at that mine; Esso Minerals are reopening the Granduc Mine

at Stewart with $20 million in capital development, and a projected

employment of 330; Teck Corp. just recently announced Highmont Copper

in the Highland Valley with $110 million in capital development and

projected employment of 200 people; Newmont Mines Ltd. at the

Similkameen mine in Princeton in Yale-Lillooet — $50 million to employ

another 100 people in additional expansion in that area.

Those

are the announcements that are being made. More are going to come.

Since this party has been re-elected to office, they have further

confidence in the fact that they can plan, develop and spend the

capital to explore the mining industry and the oil and natural gas

industry in this province to create employment and to create revenue in

order that government can provide the people with services.

Yesterday I received the Trade and Commerce

magazine. I'd like to quote from it. It's a magazine that deals with

Fort St. John, the City of the Year. I'm going to read a few paragraphs:

"The

city languished in a state of mild depression in the early 1970s as the

provincial NDP government policy sharply reduced exploration activities

in the northeast. The impact of this decision was felt throughout the

Fort St. John economy as jobs were lost and payrolls shrank. But a

change in government in late 1975 brought renewed hope and a promise of

new policy stimulants to get the oil industry rolling again. The

beneficial effects of this accelerated effort

[ Page

47 ]

were felt almost immediately, as oil companies once again shifted

into high gear. Drilling programs were stepped up dramatically, and oil service

and supply firms were hard-pressed to keep up with the demand.

"More

than three years have gone by since this sharp about-face. And this

black gold of northeastern British Columbia continues to lubricate the

wheels of the Fort St. John economy, this time at a record pace.

"'Fort

St. John is really now in a sort of catch-up state,' said regional

economic development director Bill Anderson. 'When the NDP government

controlled the investment dollars, the majority of exploration

companies withdrew from the area, and there was little or no growth or

development in the service sector. The return of the oil rigs, however,

changed all that. There is a constantly increasing demand for goods and

services,' he added, and he confidently predicts a record year in all

sectors for the local economy in 1979."

This is a magazine,

not a party brochure or pamphlet. It's a statement of fact that's

coming from the economic regional coordinator or director of that area

to indicate the growth in Fort St. John in our northeast, again

resulting from government policies in programs and legislation that do

not interfere with the private sector but give it support, that do not

bring in regressive taxation on the private sector but give it

legislation where it can see that it has an opportunity to expand and

grow and create jobs. These are not programs or policies of uncertainty

for that sector where you have withdrawal of capital, but programs that

encourage the private sector and the investment dollars to come into

the province.

During the election, the question was, and has

been for years: is it government direction and control, as that party

advocates, or encouragement and support, as this party advocates? I

think the mining announcements, and the oil and natural gas activity,

and the growth of Fort St. John and other communities in the

northeastern part of British Columbia indicate that encouragement and

support are what is needed. Governments are elected to govern, not to

compete in the private sector.

I want to touch on another

matter which comes under my jurisdiction — the energy policy. I spoke

on this during the throne speech debate before the election. I'm not

going to repeat it all at the present time, but will just say, however,

I'm hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we'I be able to present

the energy policy that we are working on to the people of British

Columbia. It will be a comprehensive energy policy. The main thrust of

it, of course, is the concern for an adequate supply of energy in this

province, and the security of supply of that energy.

have, as you know, hydroelectric power; natural gas reserves are being

discovered all the time; there are some oil reserves, but the future is

not too bright. We have adequate coal supplies in this province. We are

doing exploration work on geothermal energy. We are doing research on

solar energy. One of the main thrusts of that energy policy will be, of

course, conservation of energy. In my opinion, the cheapest source of

energy is conservation, because you are saving 100 percent.

We just signed, a month ago, a $27 million federal-provincial agreement on

energy conservation, a joint effort by the federal and provincial governments

to assist in the research and development of those alternative sources of energy

and energy conservation. These are programs that will save not only energy but

dollars for the consumer.

hope to have the opportunity to meet with my federal counterpart, the

new Minister of Energy, in Ottawa in the not-too-distant future. Again,

we are somewhat curtailed through the House, but after we recess, I

hope to have the opportunity to go down and visit with him. Because I

really feel very strongly that you cannot have an energy policy for a

province.... If you have an energy policy from British Columbia, one

from Alberta, one from Saskatchewan, et cetera, but each one different,

and then you try to attempt to have an energy policy for Canada, it

won't work. You must have a coordinated energy policy — coordinated

throughout the provinces of Canada, coordinated with the federal

government — and that's what I hope to discuss with my federal

counterpart in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Speaker, I've

been honoured with another portfolio since the election, the Ministry

of Agriculture. I just want to make a few comments about agriculture,

dealing with one thing in particular, because the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall), who was in the House — he's not here now — raised

the issue of Panco Poultry. My good friend the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), asked a question today about bids on Panco Poultry, and other

people have raised that question. But every time I get up to speak the

press gallery is all gone and the members are all gone. I have really

wanted to tell this story; I have wanted to tell it for many, many

months. So maybe if they could bring their members back, I could start

and tell it.

Nevertheless, I'm going to tell it anyway. Panco Poultry — "Pinko

Panco," the chicken-plucking plant, whatever you want to call it — has

great history. But the interesting thing, of course — and I'll try and describe

it so that the opposition members will fully understand what we attempted to

do.... First of all, Panco Poultry was a vertically integrated company. The

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) knows what a vertically integrated

company is. It had land; it had farms; it had a hatchery; it had a feed mill;

it had a processing plant. From the time that little egg was laid to the time

it hit the store, it was Panco Poultry 100 percent wrapped up and put on the

shelf — Panco Poultry. They purchased it in 1974 or thereabouts. The reason,

I believe, at that time was to save jobs. That was the reason. Now I think it

went a little beyond that. However, here's the story.

Mr.

Speaker, before I proceed, I'd like to know how much time I've got

because I don't want to lose out on this debate. Could you tell me how

much time I've got?

MR. SPEAKER: We'I try to get the information to you while you're in flight. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have eight minutes.

took that company and we put the farms up for sale. The interesting

thing about the farms is that the Minister of Agriculture has the

responsibility for the Natural Products Marketing Act, which controls

quota. The farmers, the broiler producers and the turkey producers in

this province have opted for the quota system. A farmer can only have,

I believe, some 40,000-odd pounds of broilers and some 500,000-odd

pounds of turkey. I think that works out to about 18,000 birds. The

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is going to correct me on

the figures because I just pulled this out today. I'I use the figure of

40,000

[ Page 48 ]

broilers

or thereabouts, and about 18,000 turkeys. If I'm wrong in those figures

I apologize, but that's all they can produce. I'll use those same

figures to give you the comparison.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Panco

Poultry had four broiler farms. That's four times 40,000 birds; that's

160,000 birds. They had seven turkey farms — seven times the 18,000

birds. The Minister of Agriculture had the responsibility of saying to

the producers through the marketing scheme that they could produce only

so many birds. However, the company that he was in control of, the

company owned by the government, could produce four times as many

broilers and seven times as many turkeys. That is a conflict of

interests, and as Minister of Agriculture, there was one thing I found

out very quickly: how the rules changed for government as opposed to

the private sector.

So we sold those farms to four broiler

producers and seven turkey producers. We took the feed mill, and

instead of it being a vertically integrated feed mill in a vertically

integrated company, we sold that feed mill. There were two bids on it,

Mr. Member — one from Cargill and one from Heppell Brothers. For your

information, although you should have read it in the paper, Cargill was

the highest bidder on that one. And we sold it to Heppell Bros. of

British Columbia because the attempt was to keep it in British

Columbia, and there it is and there it stays to date.

Then

we took the famous processing plant that the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) is all concerned about — and I guess the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall) is all concerned about because he raised it — and we

sold the processing plant to Cargill. Shame, shame, shame, the

opposition said, we sold it to Cargill. But let me tell you one thing

which has never been raised by the opposition, although they must know

it: the broiler producers and the turkey producers endorsed the sale to

Cargill. And it's interesting to know that if Cargill is so bad, the

NDP government in Saskatchewan sure likes them, because there are a lot

of elevators out there owned by Cargill. They're there; they don't mind

that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, don't they? That isn't what I read in Hansard from Ottawa, Mr. Member.

Nevertheless,

let me give you the reasoning behind the Cargill purchase. Cargill is

reinvesting Panco's earnings back into the Panco operation. They're

initiating a three-year plant-improvement program for expansion and

modernization amounting to approximately $3 million, primarily

equipment, labour and materials, to stabilize the long-term future of

350 jobs — the jobs that you were all so concerned about over there

when it was purchased in 1974 — and that's one of the things that maybe

you weren't aware of. They're retaining the existing Panco management

and introducing advanced technology and marketing programs into Panco's

development plans to optimize existing expertise and experience

available in the Cargill organization. They're cooperating fully with

the broiler and turkey boards to increase the utilization of turkey and

fowl meat produced in British Columbia. They're initiating aggressive

marketing programs to permit the production of new products at the

Panco plant, while straining to increase production from the current

75-percent capacity to full capacity, and perhaps adding a second

shift. That is the background of the Cargill purchase endorsed by the

broiler boards, endorsed by the turkey association, because they wanted

to see an improvement of that industry in the Fraser Valley which is

represented by both members for Surrey, but represented much better on

this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, that's the short story

on Panco Poultry. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I acquired the

responsibility for it. First of all I quickly identified a conflict of

interest. Then I turned it back to the private sector to create an

environment out there where it's not owned by government. It is now

working with the producers and it's going to bring in further processed

turkey meat and chicken meat, and I think it's a bright spot in the

Surrey area.

In closing I'd just like to say that I support

this budget. It's been called the "sunshine budget," but I'd like to

call it a building budget, and I'll tell you why. I think that in the

last three and a half years this party in government has built a

foundation out of the ruins that we inherited in 1975. We've got the

economy on a sound footing today. The people endorsed the policies of

this government on May 10, 1979, and now we can help the private

sector, we can help the individual, we can provide more opportunities

to further expand the economy in this province in order that we can

generate revenues, not by taxation of people, but by revenues generated

out of an expanding economy, a growing economy, a sound economy. We can

generate those revenues to place British Columbia in a leadership

position in Canada.

This will ensure that we can provide the

best health programs in Canada, in the world, and the best education

programs. Our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has, I think,

taken it far beyond his core curriculum in developing new programs, new

opportunities for those who are blessed with learning abilities. And

for those who have difficulty with learning, he's developed the

programs to give them assistance.

And we can also look at

social services in this province, Mr. Speaker. A dental care program

cannot be provided out of an economy that is not growing, that can't

create the revenues to pay the cost. Home care programs and hospital

construction, to name a number of them, come from a growing economy as

opposed to further taxation of people. And we've proved it, because we

were able this year to reduce sales tax, to reduce personal income tax,

to increase homeowner grants and at the same time provide those

people's services to the people who are less fortunate than we are.

"sunshine budget," "building budget," whatever its name is, indicates a

sound economy; it indicates encouragement by a government for the

individual, for his opportunities in this province, for the private

sector. It indicates that British Columbia is in a sound position and

is ready and able to expand in the decade we're going to call the 1980s.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I too would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member

for Chilliwack on his election as Speaker of this assembly and to

congratulate yourself as the member for Vancouver South as Deputy

Speaker. You might be interested to know that I voted for

[ Page 49 ]

you

although I didn't have any lawn signs out or anything like that. I also

would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the members

who were re-elected and particularly the new members who were elected

for the first time to this assembly. I can promise them it will be a

fine and rewarding experience.

Mr. Speaker, you know the

overwhelming impression given by this budget is one of a cynical

government that is patting itself on the back for giving back to B.C.

residents a small part of the huge tax increases they slapped on the

people in 1976 when they were elected on a platform of freezing taxes

to alleviate inflation. I refer to an

article very briefly in the Vancouver Express of April 4, 1979:

"The

truth is, of course, that the Socreds are able to offer all this relief

only because they have collected too much money in the first three

years in office. They have deliberately and cynically distorted the

financial economic realities for political gain. When they should have

been reducing taxes or spending more to alleviate hardships, the

unemployment, the soaring education and medical care costs, they were

socking the money away for an election bribe."

I might point

out, Mr. Speaker, some of those increases: ferry rates increased 100

percent and more in some cases — they came back with a 20 percent

reduction some time later but it didn't help a great deal; increased

ICBC rates — 100 to 300 percent; a 650 percent increase in

extended-care hospital rates; a 650 percent increase in the

intermediate care hospital rates; a 50 percent increase in Medicare

premiums. The list goes on and on. And while I'm on that subject....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How much?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have the ear of the Minister of Health. I was going to discuss this

later, but I would like to just mention one item from my local

community of Powell River. The minister keeps insisting that there were

no cutbacks in hospitals and staff in British Columbia. I have before

me an

article and correspondence from the Powell River hospital. The

hospital is considering an overall reduction of five beds, a reduction

in the extended care unit by 10½ hours daily and asking relatives to

come in and work with people in the hospital. They're also suggesting

an end or reduction in the activation of the physiotherapy program for

elderly patients, one small program. I will be discussing this further

under estimates.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

No, we're not proud of that. No, I don't think that's a record to be

proud of. That's a very, very cynical budget, Mr. Speaker. I see

nothing in the budget that will alleviate inflation or provide jobs for

the 120,000 people unemployed in this province. In my riding of

Mackenzie the jobless rate is about 10.8 percent, but the real figure

is probably between 14 percent and 15 percent. This includes people

looking for work but not registered, people who have given up looking

for work, native Indian people and young people. It may be interesting,

Mr. Speaker, that the Canada Employment and Immigration department

indicates that 42 percent of those seeking employment in my riding are

under 25 years of age.

I wish to pursue for a few moments,

Mr. Speaker, another topic of great concern to me. This is the matter

of Ocean Falls and the future of that community. The thoughts I am

about to express are shared by most people in that community. We have

heard from press reports that the corporation is considering a

transaction with an eastern based pulp company to sell Ocean Falls

Corporation out of the province. I would like to know, when the

minister has the chance to reply in this debate, if these reports are

correct. If so, what is the bait? What's attracting Kruger to Ocean

Falls? What is of great interest in that area?

I'm

concerned, Mr. Speaker, that what is attracting that eastern-based

company to our coast of British Columbia is the possibility of

obtaining some huge blocks of uncommitted timber that is now available

in the central coast area. Is that the bait? I don't know. I haven't

seen the terms of agreement. But I understand the Kruger Corporation is

presently negotiating with the Ocean Falls Corporation for the sale of

that community. Or is it possibly the four million acres that have been

removed from tree farm licence No. 1, from the Can-Cel operation? Is

that part of the bait? I don't know. I hope the minister will answer

these very important questions during the course of this debate or in

estimates.

The morale in that community, Mr. Speaker, has

never been so low. I visited that area recently, and in spite of Mr.

Williston's protestations that he is interested in keeping that

community alive, he places full responsibility for the decision of the

future of that community squarely on the cabinet and on the government.

And that government has been unwilling to make a decision with regard

to Ocean Falls in spite of recommendations that were made by the Symons

report and presented to this government in 1976. The government should,

in my view, if nothing else, be considering a joint venture in that

community. But what the government should be doing right now is

assuring the people in that community that that community will not be

allowed to die and that those people living there will have a future in

that community. Ocean Falls, as you well know, affects the well-being

of other central coast communities such as Bella Bella and Bella Coola

as well.

Another topic that is of great interest in the Sunshine

Coast area. particularly of my riding, is the proposed 500-kilovolt

transmission line. This has been in the works now, Mr. Speaker, for

some 18 months that I am aware of, and Hydro has been doing a number of

studies and has sent people into the area, and there have been large

community meetings of people protesting that fact that Hydro is

contemplating building this transmission line through one of the most

beautiful parts of British Columbia.

I want to make it very

clear at the onset that we do not wish to deny the residents of

Vancouver Island their much-needed energy needs for the foreseeable

future. But the fact is that we have asked for a two-year moratorium to

be placed on construction of that 500-kilovolt proposed transmission

line until a public inquiry. We'd like to see a public inquiry into the

whole thing, because we question Hydro's figures. We question the

projections which were given us by Hydro, as they are at variance with

the figures given to us by the B.C. Energy Commission. I think that

while that moratorium is in place we should be looking at energy

alternatives such as the use of waste woods, as the minister mentioned

a short time ago in this House, the use of thermal coal, but, more

importantly, the possibility of constructing a natural gas line from

the Interior of British

[ Page 50 ]

Columbia

across the Georgia Strait over to Vancouver Island, which would be a

very viable alternative to the proposed transmission line.

Not

long ago the B.C. Energy Commission was asked to compile a study on a

proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. That study was completed

some time late last winter and forwarded to the office of the minister

about two or three months ago. But that study has not been made public,

and I don't know why. What has the government got to hide, Mr. Speaker?

Why couldn't the minister make that study public? I've asked him for

it. Why should we hide the contents of that study from the people of

Vancouver Island or theSunshine Coast? Are they recommending a southern

route for that pipeline? A northern route? Is the pipeline feasible at

all? The B.C. Hydro study of the case thought the pipeline is feasible,

and it may be a viable alternative to that 500-kilovolt transmission

line.

I was going to delve into my annual speech about B.C.

Hydro, Mr. Speaker, but I think I will forgo that for the moment. The

minister shakes his head; he is very familiar with that speech. Let it

suffice to say that everyone in this Legislature is aware that Hydro is

out of control. It really has no control by the government any more,

obviously. Every once in a while the Premier gets up and says: "Well,

we'll put another member on the board of directors of Hydro, and that

will solve the problem." Well, it won't solve the problem, Mr. Speaker.

Hydro is far too big and it should be broken up and brought to heel by

this Legislature.

I was a bit concerned, too, over the

Premier's announcement about getting in touch with the Prime Minister

of this country and asking him to dismantle PetroCan. I'm not going to

go into that in detail. But quite frankly, I think it would be one of

the biggest mistakes that could be made in Canada today, to dismantle

PetroCan at this time or any other time. It is the only Crown agency in

the whole nation which gives us, as Canadians, at least a smidgen, a

mite of control over our energy and future energy requirements of the

province, and at least gives us some input into what the huge

multinational oil companies are doing in this nation — or to this

nation, whichever way you want to put it.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, on a topic dear to my heart, I'd like

to discuss for a few minutes the problems of coast transportation. I think all

members who live on the coast of British Columbia are very much aware that rational

economic growth is directly linked to proper transportation, particularly water

transportation links to the central and north coast of the province — there's

no question about it. I tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that in some areas

of the central and north coast of this province the transportation has never

been worse. I hope to have further discussions with the Minister of Transportation,

Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) on these matters during his estimates.

But the fact is that at the present time prices for delivering goods to the

communities that have any kind of services at all have doubled and tripled and

quadrupled over the last couple of years, since British Columbia signed that

terrible deal with the federal government, assuming full responsibility for

transportation on this coast. I've tried to talk to the government many

times before about the type of service that people up there are asking for and

is required. The government has made no moves, no commitments. It has said:

"Well, perhaps we'll stick a ferry in here — perhaps we won't. Perhaps

we'll build a terminal somewhere — perhaps we won't." And no

clear transportation policy has come out of that government in the last three

and a half to four years.

Last

but not least, I think I would like to just mention two or three words

about the B.C. Ferry Corporation, not so much on what they've been

doing, but a little bit about what they haven't been doing. Had the New

Democratic Party been elected in the last election, there are a few

things we would have done immediately to make that a better service. We

would have had free service for people who have to use that system for

medical reasons, and for handicapped people. We would have had a free

service, or at least reduced rates, for the many, many groups that

depend directly on the ferry system to travel from one area to another

in the coastal areas. There's nothing wrong with that. For five months

of the year and for at least 30 percent of the day the ferries are

underutilized in any event. We would have had reduced or free fares for

youth groups: scouts, guides, school bands, you name it. Right now —

and I've got correspondence along this line — there are some groups in

this province, and on this coast, who simply cannot afford to pay the

exorbitant rates. It's more than a matter of just travelling back and

forth for these people. It's a matter of communication for school bands

from Powell River to Sunshine Coast, or theSunshine Coast to Courtenay

and these areas, and particularly during the winter months. There's no

reason why a policy like that couldn't be implemented.

Last

but not least, Mr. Speaker, on one route serving Powell River and

Courtenay we have a reasonably good vessel, very old but trustworthy.

I've written to the minister about this, and I'm sure I shall receive a

reply in due course. On all areas of theSunshine Coast we have what are

called resident commuter cards. In other words, if you are a registered

voter in the area, during certain days of the week you can receive a

reduction on your ferry fares. But this resident commuter card is not

recognized on that particular route, on the Sechelt Queen

serving Powell River to Comox, and the minister by his own

order-in-council has said that route is comparable to the three other

major routes in British Columbia. The fact is that all it would take

from the minister is a single memo right now, down through the

ministry, authorizing the use of those resident commuter cards by

Sunshine Coast residents on that vessel. That's all it would take, and

I ask the minister again now to send that memo. Send it tomorrow, write

me back and say you've done it, and I'I give you full credit for it,

Mr. Minister, up in my riding. It would be much appreciated and it

would be good politics on your part as well.

Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, I think I've spent enough time up here talking about this

stuff. I hope to get further into it in estimates.

Once

again, let me congratulate the new members over there, and tell you

right now I have no intention of supporting this budget, because the

government has not provided the means of providing employment for our

people in this province, or any way to combat inflation.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, just prior to getting into debate on this budget, I would

like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and the member for

Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) for having been selected as Speaker and

Deputy Speaker in this House, for this session of the thirty-second

parliament. Let me say that in both cases it is

[ Page 51 ]

my profound belief that the choice could not have been a better one.

Mr.

Speaker, I say again that it is good to be back, to stand once again in

my place, to speak on behalf of those whom I represent, the people of

Omineca, and in so speaking, speak in favour and in support of this

budget. But before I do, Mr. Speaker, I would say just a few words to

those people who once again have elected me — with a comfortable

majority, I might add — and have sent me here to speak on their behalf.

It is indeed an honour and a privilege to represent such people, and I

pledge myself once again to them in their service.

Mr.

Speaker, to the budget. I've listened with interest for some two days

now to the members opposite — I'm going to talk about you for a while —

speaking in debate not on or to this budget but all around this budget.

I'm astonished, because they sure had a lot to say about this budget

during the election campaign.

They went around this province

telling everyone that it was purely an election budget and that if

re-elected we would withdraw this budget, that it would not be

introduced. You know perfectly well, hon. members, who said that. And

that's not all. They went around this province leading the people to

believe.... I wouldn't say "lies," Mr. Speaker. Never would I say that,

because it is unparliamentary. I wouldn't say they went around this

province telling lies, but they went around this province spreading

their fear tactics and, among other things, telling British Columbians

that this "sunshine budget" would never see the light of day.

Well,

it has now been reintroduced into this House, and here it is, a budget

for all of our citizens. And it is not the last of its kind. Mr.

Speaker, I believe it is only the beginning of the kind of budget put

out by a responsible government, and it is the kind of budget that you

will see for this province many times in the future.

Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite went around this province saying that it

would not be done, that it could not be done, for those members

opposite knew full well that if we were re-elected, with this

administration's record of fiscal responsibility, it would be done.

They went around this province saying that it would not be done, and

some people, misguidedly, even believed them. I'm sure many of their

new candidates did. I'm positive that those of their new candidates who

are now new members in this House did believe them, because if they did

not why was it that they said what they did during that campaign?

Surely they would not have lied, especially those who are now new

northern members. I can almost see it of someone from the south, but

surely not someone representing a northern constituency.

I'd

like to ask those new members now: what will you now tell your

constituents about this budget? What will you now tell them, and how

will you vote on this budget in this House on behalf of those people

whom you now represent? Will you vote against a budget which balances

expenditures by revenues? Will you vote against a budget which has

increased spending only 5 percent from the last fiscal year? Will you

vote against a cut in the provincial sales tax from 5 percent to 4

percent? Will many of you, as rural members in this House, vote against

the assessment reduction on agricultural land for school tax assessment

purposes to 50 percent? Will you vote against a reduction in the

corporation capital tax; a reduction in personal income tax; a

reduction in the parimutual betting tax; a reduction in the British

Columbia income tax to low-income people? Will you vote against an

increase of $100 in the homeowner's grant, an increase in the renter's

tax credit? It would be interesting to see just how these members, new

and old, do vote on this budget and on these issues that are so very

vital to so many of their new constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I

can forgive the old members opposite, and even some of those we

categorize as old-new members that we now see over there — that we

again see over there — for not understanding this budget, and for

voting against it. I can forgive them because, as you know, a good deal

of this "sunshine budget" is devoted to, and made up of, surpluses.

That is an area — and the members sigh — that they have absolutely no

understanding of. They certainly didn't when they were government. They

didn't know what a surplus was when they were government, and they

still don't.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

venture to say they never will know. They will vote against this budget

which, from surpluses, will provide British Columbians with, besides

the increase in the homeowner grant, much-needed facilities and

programs. I read from the budget highlights: $10 million for the

proposed Vancouver trade and convention centre; $2.5 million for the

proposed Victoria convention centre; $25 million for a sports stadium

on the lower mainland; $5 million for a low-interest loan program to

help small- and medium-sized businesses in the metropolitan area in

British Columbia; $5 million for industrial research; $7.5 million for

the purchase of additional British Columbia Development Corporation

shares; $26.1 million as a first of ten payments to reduce the debt.

The debt incurred when? The debt incurred from 1972 to 1975 on the

backs of British Columbians.

There's $25.3 million for an

accelerated highway construction program. I saw the new member for

Shuswap (Mr. King) over talking to the minister. Surely he wishes money

for roads in his constituency, or why would he be talking to the

Minister of Highways? Yes, $25.3 million for an accelerated highway

construction program — and I'm sure you're interested in that, Mr.

Member. Fourteen million dollars for reconstruction of the Fort Nelson

extension of the British Columbia Railway. Ten million extra dollars —

and I heard the members opposite debating this just last Friday — for

an intensified reforestation program in the province of British

Columbia. Five million dollars for a job-experience program to prepare

our young people in this province for work. Twenty-five million dollars

— and again I hear the members opposite debating this question — for

the stabilization of health and hospital operating costs in our

province. This is money you've been talking about, hon. members. Five

million dollars for new recreation facilities in British Columbia

communities.

Mr. Speaker, the surplus fund project will meet

another need that I hear emanating from that side of the floor, the

need for more job creation, because the surplus fund projects will

create more than 8,000 new jobs in this province in 1979.

The

members opposite went around this province during an election campaign

spreading their doom and gloom, and I hear them here again in this

session spreading their doom and gloom, instilling their fear tactics

into the hearts of our

[ Page 52 ]

citizens

in an attempt to satisfy their hunger for power. It didn't work during

an election campaign and it will not work now. Their rhetoric, the

innuendo about this budget, a budget that has forgotten no one in this

province, did not gain them the so-badly-sought-after power that they

wish, and it will not. And they find themselves once again where they

will always remain — on the opposition side of this floor.

such, Mr. Speaker, I call upon them as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition,

and I call upon the new members in particular, for I fear what their

constituents will think should they vote against this budget. I would

direct this particularly to the new member for Skeena (Mr. Howard),

should he be in the House. His chair is once again empty, as it was 66

percent of the time in the 20 years that he represented Skeena in the

federal House in Ottawa — 66 percent of the time. It's again empty in

the provincial House. I'd like to direct this to that member, should he

be here, to think when voting on this budget what his new constituents

will think. I call upon that loyal official opposition on behalf of all

British Columbians to bring swift passage and to stand and vote in

favour of this budget.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker,

first I would like to add my congratulations to you the same as the

other members have extended — not just on your election as Speaker, but

on your return to this House. You bring a certain quality to this

Legislature that would be sadly missed if you weren't here and I'm very

glad to see you back; also the Deputy Speaker, who is not in the House

at the moment. Again, he is a valuable asset to this House and performs

his duties very well, and I'm very pleased to see him returned.

think rather than congratulating those of us who are returned to the

House, I would like to do something just a little different. I would

like to congratulate those who were unsuccessful in this recent

election campaign. Democracy can only operate when we have two opposing

parties where the voters have a choice. They have played a very

important role in the democratic process of this province by letting

their names go forward and standing for election. I would like to

extend my congratulations to all those people who were not successful

but fought a good fight in the recent election.

I have a

couple of major topics I want to deal with today. Just before I turn to

those, I'd like to make a couple of comments about some of the things

that have been said this afternoon. One of them has to do with the 50

percent tax on agricultural land. You look up, Mr. Minister of

Agriculture and everything else, but I'm not going to talk about

Cargill or Panco; I'm going to leave that to my colleague. We're having

a little division of labour here. That is going to be brought up, but

I'm not going to discuss it.

I want to talk about the 50 percent assessment. I wonder if you realize, Mr.

Minister, how unfair that is to the agricultural community. I was talking to

a dairyman and his wife last night. Their land is peanuts, as far as their assessment

goes. It's quite different from your fruit grower, Mr. Minister. It means

absolutely nothing on their tax bill — just a very infinitesimal bit — to have

the agricultural land portion reduced, because their tax load is on their improvements.

That is true of many of the agricultural industries. Every agricultural industry

is different. That 50 percent of land assessment is not a fair solution to the

tax situation as far as farmers are concerned.

You

spoke also, Mr. Minister, about the homeowner grant. There again we

have an inequity. The homeowner grant is a $100 increase across the

board. Of course, it's more than that if you happen to be a senior

citizen. It doesn't matter what your income is; it doesn't matter what

your assets are. But it's a different story when it comes to renter's

grants. The maximum you can get there is a $50 increase, and only if

you have a very, very small income. That is an injustice in the tax

area of this particular budget.

We've heard a lot of talk

this afternoon, particularly from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

and on Friday we heard a great speech from that very loud speaker from

the Peace River about the fiscal responsibility of this government,

about their good business management and about their sound economic

concepts. I think it very worthwhile to read into the record today some

of the things that that government has been doing, some of the things

that they have undertaken in the name of good, sound business

management.

It's very important that we have an

auditor-general in this province. It's very important that we have this

person here. She is doing her job as an independent watchdog on the

government. She brought down her report just before the election was

called. I think it is important for the citizens of British Columbia to

be completely aware of what the auditor-general has had to say about

this good business-minded government that we have here in British

Columbia. How well are they doing their job? How well are they doing it

now?

It's interesting to note that since April 1 they have

been in a position of having to pass special warrants for moneys that

are not included in the great 5 percent "sunshine budget." What they

can't get by 5 percent, they get by special warrant. That's a great way

to go — a great way to mislead the people. That's what this budget

seems to be doing: indicating that we're maintaining our....

AN HON. MEMBER: The new members are confused.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, they are. They don't realize that. But this so-called "sunshine

budget...." And yellow is indicative of something else. Maybe it's a

budget that doesn't have the courage to face the facts; maybe that's

why it's yellow. Be that as it may, I think it should be recognized

that they are already in the position of going for special warrants for

funds that are not included in this budget. They are already over

expended.

That's the government that has the greatest

overruns on record. That's the government that has continued to embark,

in this current year, on a policy of special warrants for moneys that

are not in the budget. Is it any wonder then that the auditor-general

has seen fit in her report to say: "Based on the findings, I'm of the

opinion that the system of internal control over the disbursement of

provincial funds fails to meet generally recognized standards. I

recommend that corrective action bring controls to adequate levels"?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, there's a lot more than that, Mr. Member; it goes on. It says:

"The function of the voucher-processing

section of the

comptroller-general's

[ Page 53 ]

office

is to evaluate propriety of transactions," and so on. "For the year

under review the voucher-processing

section had no systematic and

reliable method of ensuring that signatures on vouchers were those of

persons to whom the approval authority had been delegated." In other

words, Mr. Speaker, vouchers were being paid without proper approval.

That is what the auditor-general says.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Between 1972 and 1975 too.

MRS. WALLACE: Just a minute. I'm coming to that, Mr. Member.

goes on to say: "Segregation of duties is a method of control employed

to reduce risk of fraud and to detect errors. A purchase payable

payment should be designated so that the same individuals do not

participate in both purchasing and receiving of goods." They purchase

the goods, they receive them, and then they account for them. There are

no checks whatsoever.

An internal audit. "During the period

of our review this division performed no audits on expenditures due to

commitments of revenues, statutory and other matters. I consider that

internal audit of expenditure is essential for adequate internal

control." There are no internal audits being done. This is the good

business government; this is the sound business management.

of March 31, 1978, the payroll bank account had not been reconciled

beyond August 31, 1977. That is not good business management. That

payroll account is a very large account, Mr. Speaker, and there have

been no controls over it.

The auditor-general says — and I

hope that the Minister of Agriculture and everything else is listening:

"In order to properly manage their ministries, senior officials need

adequate financial information. The necessary additional information

was recognized some time ago, and a financial management reporting

system was introduced in 1975." The problem was pinpointed and a

reporting system was introduced in 1975, Mr. Minister. It goes on to

explain what that is, and then it says: "Few of the ministries are

using the financial management reporting system effectively." And you

are the good business managers.

The Revenue Act, Mr.

Speaker, sets out very specifically how funds are to be handled and how

they are to be accounted for. It says that "all public moneys shall be

paid to the credit of the Minister of Finance, through such banks or

persons as the Minister of Finance may direct and authorized bank

accounts." This list of authorities so authorized has not been updated.

It is incomplete, and there are various government bank accounts which

are not even listed. That's not a very impressive record for good

business managers, Mr. Speaker.

The Queen's Printer, for

example, is governed by the Public Printing Act. Now that Public

Printing Act is a law. It is a piece of legislation passed by this

Legislature. Ordinary citizens, if they break the law, find themselves

in trouble. The Act says: "The Queen's Printer shall prepare a

statement of account, made up to the 31st day of March in each year,

and at such other times as the minister may direct, and shall submit

the same to the comptroller-general for his certification." That

statement was prepared, Mr. Speaker, but according to the

auditor-general the comptroller-general refused to sign it because it

was not adequate. That is the record of this government.

MR. LEA: Don't tell the new members. They don't believe it.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, I'm quoting from the auditor-general's report. Certainly she was

the unanimous choice of this Legislature. She is trying to do her job,

and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the job is being made very difficult

by this government.

There is just one more thing that I want

to mention and that relates to the lottery fund. The lottery fund,

again according to legislation, is to be a separate account. Now all

other accounts of that size are kept separate. They have their own

separate account. The lottery fund has simply been paid into general

revenue. Books have been kept, that's true — the amount of money in,

the amount of money out — and those records show that the average

balance for the year in the lottery fund was $10 million. Where did the

proceeds of the interest on that fund go? Back into general revenue. I

suggest, as the auditor-general does, that that is most unfair to the

people who are buying lottery tickets, to have that money returned to

general revenue. The interest should be credited to that account, using

the money that is designated for cultural and sports activities, using

the money that is provided by the purchasers of those tickets, using

that money to add to general revenue rather than to add to the lottery

fund.

Those are the kinds of things that have been going on,

Mr. Speaker. And I suggest that that does not speak well for this

government or for what we can expect the future to hold for this coming

year. And certainly the very fact that we have warrants issued already

— one as large as $1.5 million, a special warrant not included in that

budget — indicates that the financial minds of that government are not

doing the job, that they are not providing to this Legislature the kind

of information that should be provided.

We've heard from the

other side of the House — and we certainly heard it during the

election, and we heard it this afternoon — that government must keep

out of the business of the province, that to paraphrase, business is

business and government is government and that never the two shall mix.

Well, just what is happening in this province as a result of that

attitude? You know, we're faced with tremendous unemployment; I think

everyone agrees with that. We all know people who are looking for work

and can't get it. We all see those figures rising to double-digit

figures and we're all concerned. And I don't think that concern is only

on this side of the House. I think the people over there are concerned

too. But what are they doing about it, Mr. Speaker? They are suggesting

that they will make the climate right for industry to come in and

invest and that will solve the problem of unemployment.

Certainly

the biggest industry in our province is the forest industry. That's the

industry that is the big employer; that's the industry that brings the

big returns to this province. I have some very interesting figures here

about industry and employment. These figures are taken from the

financial reports of some of the larger forest companies in British

Columbia.

Weldwood, for example, had net earnings in 1977 of

$31.1 million. They had 5,285 employees. They increased their earnings

to $74.2 million, an increase of 119 percent. They increased their

employees by 332, or an increase of 6.2 percent. Now that's an employer

that employs between 5,000 and 6,000 employees in this province. And

while

[ Page 54 ]

their

profits went up sizably, the number of employees increased very

slightly. And do you know that was the best performer in all of British

Columbia? Crown Zellerbach came next. They increased their employees by

200, or 3 percent — they employ some 6,700 employees. And at the same

time they increased their profits nearly 50 percent, by 47 percent.

B.C.

Forest Products have had a tremendous increase in profits, 96.6

percent. They employed 7,888 employees in British Columbia in 1977. In

1978 they increased that by the total sum of seven employees and yet

they doubled their profits. That's where we're going to leave the

job-making, in the hands of the big forest companies. And that's what

they're doing. And I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

scowling. I'm taking this from their own report, Mr. Minister — an

increase of seven employees, that's all.

As far as that

goes, it's even worse than that because B.C. Forest Products in Youbou

are now in the process of installing an automatic green chain, and why

not? Who wants to work on the green chain? But it's deleting 35

employees. They're going to be down to a minus situation.

The

problem is that there is no involvement by this government to ensure

that when those things happen, jobs are stabilized or increased, that

subsidiary manufacturing goes in. Believe me, those companies want our

trees and they would be quite prepared to listen.

But the

record gets even worse. MacMillan Bloedel — their employees went down

by 83, and they're the largest employer of all. They went from 23,948

down to 23,865. Their profits increased 162 percent. I know there were

problems there. They were low in '77, and that increase is perhaps a

bit dramatic. But the fact remains that they are not creating jobs;

they're reducing jobs.

Then I get to one very close to home,

Doman Industries. They went from $5.96 million to $11.08 million — an

86 percent increase in their profits. Their employees dropped from 835

to 742 — a decrease of over 11 percent.

We're leaving our

employment programs in the hands of companies, and they're only doing

the thing that one would expect them to do — trying to maximize

profits. We had promise of great construction projects going ahead.

There was a little attempt at blackmail during the election to indicate

that those wouldn't go ahead if there was a change of government, but

certainly they were already going ahead. In Alberni the project was

half finished. The same is true of Fraser Mills. The Rayonier

improvements up the coast are going in because the Pollution Control

Board says they must go in. You know, that was a question of ethics

that I would like to raise. I think it's something we should consider —

that those kinds of facts were tossed around with far more than a tacit

suggestion that they would only go ahead if the Social Credit

government was returned, when they were already well in progress or

else demanded by the Pollution Control Board.

So we have a

government that is leaving our job creation program in the hands of the

industry, and I have read into the record what industry is doing about

job creation. They're reducing the jobs. That will continue because

these programs that are in effect now are going to result in more

automation; they're going to result in fewer employees rather than more.

I was reading in B.C. Market News just the other day: "Fibreboard Plant

for the Philippines." That's going in, and it's being handled by

a firm from Vancouver, Norman Springate and Associates International Ltd., a

Canadian-owned, Vancouver-based, consulting engineering firm. It's going

in the Philippines but it should be going in here in British Columbia. It's

going in the Philippines because the project is considered one of the forerunners

of fully utilizing the forest resources, and is an integral part of the Philippines'

Minister of Forests' policy. It's complete utilization and a job-creating

program. But this minister and this government say: "Hands off. Leave it

to industry." So we're exporting jobs along with our logs and our raw

materials. And our logs are getting scarcer. We're all concerned on both

sides of the House about the shortage of timber. We're reaching a point

where one mill that employs some 320 people in the Cowichan Valley may be facing

a closure. I'm pleased that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

has agreed to meet with me to discuss some possible alternatives there.

But

these are the problems, and if we let that mill close and don't come up

with further processing, don't come up with lumber and timber-related

projects that will absorb that slack a little better to make up for

some of the young people who are coming on stream, and for the great 10

or 11 percent that are sitting there unemployed, looking for work; and

if governments do not get involved in ensuring that industry creates

the climate that will provide those jobs, we are going to continue in a

very stagnant economy and in an area of very high unemployment.

We've

heard a lot of talk about help for the small businessman. We're setting

up the high-risk loan corporation with venture capital to help small

businessmen. If we get this going I am afraid that what it's going to

accomplish is increase the bankruptcy rate, because it's simply going

to put more people into business with no opportunities for market.

The

Ministry of Economic Development puts out a little bulletin once a

month and it lists all the export opportunities and the import

opportunities. The last one, in June — that's this year, this month —

has five export opportunities, five items which you can export. And do

you know how many imports it has? Seventy-seven. And that's going to

stimulate our B.C. economy? Unless we have a government that is

prepared to take some steps to ensure that we have more processing,

more manufacturing here in B.C., we are going to continue in this.

situation of no opportunities for our young people when they graduate.

We are going to continue with high unemployment; we are going to

continue in economic stagnation.

I was talking about small

businesses, and as a final remark I want to read into the record parts

of a letter that I had from a small logging operator up in the

Interior. This relates to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland),

of course, but I think it also relates to the whole attitude of this

government. This chap says:

"We have elected

to stay small, and have been operating in this area for 28 years. Our

reasons for remaining a small operation are...to conserve timber and to

employ local workers. We hope we will be able to continue our

operations and to continue to use the close-utilization methods we have

practiced before the Forestry thought about or felt they needed to

practice close utilization. By staying small we have been able to

diversify our operation and have built a market for siding, paneling,

special orders, et cetera.

[ Page 55 ]

"We

find that it has been a mistake to remain small, as the new Forest Act

lumps us in with large operations cutting upwards of 80 million board

feet. Apparently we could surrender our cutting licence, but we feel

that we cannot do that."

What they are protesting about is

the small business program, because that small business program will

not make money available to them. It will only make money available to

new operators. They say further on:

"We are not opposed to small businesses in the sense of

the word, but we've been trying to conserve timber from the time we began

operating in this area. We have logged blowdown, bug-kill areas, beetle infestations,

et cetera, and we would like to be able to continue to bid on this type of timber.

These sales have allowed us to keep our operation viable for ourselves and for

our employees. We employ ten men, with eight or nine being native people.

"We now find that if this legislation is passed we will be at a disadvantage, and will not be able to bid on this type of sale."

He's speaking of the Forest Act.

"This is discrimination against small, established operators

now in business. They should have the right to bid on salvage-type sales if

they are close to, or in, their timber-cutting areas.

"We

are also concerned that this Act will be an ideal opportunity for

people who once held quotas and timber-cutting rights to get back into

the lumber business. Many of these people elected to sell their quotas,

timber sales, et cetera, to larger companies when the going was a

little tough, and now they would like to go back into the lumber

industry on an equal footing with the companies that have worked to

keep their operation going."

I suggest that those kinds of

moves, Mr. Speaker, are not in the best interests or are not about to

encourage small businesses to struggle to exist, and believe me, they

do have to struggle. The government has its sights set on the large

corporate sector. They are prepared to turn our heritage of the forest

over to that sector and to let them move ahead with the development of

it.

That, Mr. Speaker, is no answer for our employment

situation here in British Columbia. It's going to worsen; it's going to

simply mean that we have lost complete control of that forest resource.

The budget should be prepared to recognize the tremendous gap that

exists in the forest industry; we just do not have enough wood to keep

our operators going, and we just do not have an economic base that is

going to continue as it is now constituted. It's the responsibility of

government to ensure that that resource is utilized, not in the best

interests of the major corporations, but in the best interests of the

people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I

notice that some of the speeches being made are various members' first

speeches. Let us give them all the courtesies of the House.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise for the first time and

take

part in a debate in this assembly. I am proud to be part of the

Social Credit government team, under the capable leadership of Premier

Bill Bennett.

May I also extend, Mr. Speaker, my

congratulations to you on your election to the position of Speaker of

this parliament. I would also like to congratulate the first member for

Vancouver South, Mr. Rogers, on his election as Deputy Speaker. We are

indeed fortunate to have two such dedicated and capable members in a

position of authority and trust in this parliament.

I would

also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the people

of the Kootenay constituency for electing me as their representative in

this Legislative Assembly. This is the second time in the history of

our party that the Kootenay constituency has elected a member on the

Social Credit government team. The first member, George Haddad, was

elected by the constituents of Kootenay in 1975. I would like to

commend George Haddad for his hard work on behalf of the people of the

Kootenay constituency. George served his constituency well for the past

three and a half years.

Not only did we elect a Social

Credit member from the Kootenay constituency in December 1975; we

elected a government that for the first time responded to the people

and the needs of the Kootenay constituency. In Sparwood we have the new

$2.7 million hospital built, and it's providing a good level of health

care services to the people of Sparwood. It is a credit to the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), to the board of trustees, and the

administrator who planned its construction from the start. In Elkford a

new diagnostic treatment centre was built, and an estimated $2.1

million expansion to the Cranbrook hospital is scheduled to start this

spring. The Minister of Health opened a new alcohol and drug centre in

Cranbrook last fall, and earlier that spring the minister opened a

hearing and speech centre in Cranbrook.

January 1, 1978, saw

a new era in health care services in British Columbia. The long-term

care program offers universal subsidization of health care services at

virtually all levels outside the acute general hospital. The new

program was aimed at three main sectors in our society: the

handicapped; the elderly people who need some help to enable them to

stay in their own homes; and the mentally disabled. Coverage includes

care in an institution and use of homemaker service at a daily direct

charge of $6.50. The provincial government continues to pay other costs

as well as providing a comfort allowance to those who cannot afford it,

and children in extended care continue to pay $1 a day.

individual receives care back upon needs as assessed by long-term care

assessors in each health unit throughout British Columbia. Long-term

care administrators have been appointed in 17 health units throughout

the province, together with nursing and support staff. The program has

created more effective utilization of our tax dollars by enabling the

province to reduce the ratio of acute-care beds. However, the emphasis

on the program is to keep individuals in their own homes and

communities as long as reasonably possible for the provision of

homemaker service.

In the field of education, although we

still have a lot of catching up to do in upgrading facilities in the

Kootenay constituency, I am pleased with the response of the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). A new elementary school was opened at

Wasa, and Highlands Elementary School was opened in Cranbrook, and the

Steeples Elementary School is currently under construction and is due

to open this year.

[ Page 56 ]

Fernie the Max Turyk Elementary School was opened last year and the

Fernie Secondary School has been renovated at a cost of approximately

$3 million. A school for those with impaired hearing was located at the

Highlands Elementary School in Cranbrook. No longer do these children

have to travel long distances to receive the special education they

need.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has done

much to improve the quality of our neglected roads. A new bridge has

been built across the Kootenay River at Wasa. This 574-foot, two-lane

bridge will cost approximately $2.4 million, and is scheduled to open

in August 1979. In Cranbrook, a new Cranbrook-Kimberley airport access

road is scheduled to start construction this spring at a cost of $6

million, including a $2-million bridge across the St. Mary River. The

Ministry of Highways will pay 75 percent of the cost of the Brewery

Bridge situate on a municipal street in Fernie, the Corbin Bridge

situate on Crowsnest Highway just east of Sparwood, and the Boivin

Bridge situate on a municipal street in Elkford for a total estimated

cost of $400,000. Last year the Elko-Wardner paving project cost $1.7

million for 27 miles of road, and the Elk Valley paving project cost

$1.5 million for 37 miles.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) announced last spring a 20-unit expansion to

the Cranbrook Lions senior citizens' housing project. When completed,

this complex will provide 22 double units and 43 single self-care

units; and plans are underway for 10 in the community of Jaffray and 15

in Fernie, being the first phase of a 30-unit complex.

The Ministry of the Provincial Secretary announced that the 1980 Winter Games will be held in Kimberley.

Mr.

Speaker, great challenges face the Kootenay constituency in the 1980s

with the increasing world market for coal. I have listened to Mayor

Rick Grieve and the Elkford municipal council discuss the challenges

facing that community with the construction of a new mine north of

Elkford. This mine will create approximately 2,000 new jobs. The

company has suggested the construction of an instant town at Forsyth

Creek, 22 miles north of Elkford. Believe me, if there's one thing the

Kootenays don't need it's another instant town. A feasibility study is

currently underway on the diversion of Forsyth Creek and the townsite.

I trust that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

will make a wise decision, a decision that will have the support of the

people at Elkford, Elkford city council and the regional district of

the East Kootenays.

Fording Coal Co. are expanding their

operation to create 400 new jobs in the community of Elkford as well.

Kaiser Resources are also expanding their operations to create an

additional 400 new jobs in the community of Sparwood.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to commend Kaiser Resources in Sparwood for their

wonderful reclamation program that they have currently underway. It's

really marvelous.

This government has created investor

confidence in the province. It is true that there are more people

moving into British Columbia, and particularly the Kootenays. This was

evident during the recent provincial election when I was on a

door-to-door canvass of our constituency. I found people in our

constituency from Newfoundland, from Quebec, from Prince Edward Island

and from Ontario. The majority of those people who were working in the

mines in southeastern British Columbia lived in our neighbouring

province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians should

welcome orderly and responsible development of our natural resources.

We must preserve our clean air, clear water, natural beauty and

wildlife habitat. The East Kootenays has an abundance of wildlife, but

we must move with caution and avoid disrupting the delicate ecological

balance of this region.

I support the East Kootenay Wildlife

Association and their president, Carmen Purdy, in their bid to

establish a heritage fund for the preservation of our wildlife

resource, because I believe it will cut down on some of the conflicts

that currently exist between different users of the land base.

Mr.

Speaker, the new Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), although

he has only served for such a short period of time in his new

portfolio, has made a concentrated effort to familiarize himself with

the problems facing the environment.

I believe in the

preservation of agricultural land, Mr. Speaker. I further believe that

land that has no agricultural potential should be removed from the

freeze so the individual citizen is not burdened with the trouble and

cost of removing non-agricultural land from the land reserve.

would like to commend our Premier for taking the leadership in Canada

in establishing the first Ministry of Deregulation to oversee the

removal of red tape from government services. The individual citizen

has the right to expect fair, just and reasonable treatment at the

hands of the bureaucracy within a reasonable time, and government

agencies should coordinate their activities and give a clear statement

for their reason for any regulation in plain language.

Mr.

Speaker, the Social Credit commitment is to ownership for all the

people on an individual basis, as opposed to big government. We want

people to own and feel their ownership in the form of tangible share

certificates. This share ownership will bring home to everyone, and

particularly to those who have never owned shares before, the value of

ownership — particularly that which pays rich personal dividends.

The

Social Credit government has made a commitment to home ownership as a

priority by the development of a First Family Home Assistance Act. A

$2,500 grant is available upon the purchase of a first family home.

Recognizing the high cost of land, I was pleased when the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) announced his intention of

releasing for sale Crown land for residential and recreational purposes.

was pleased when the minister responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

made a commitment to end discrimination in auto insurance, particularly

that aimed at younger drivers, by basing auto insurance strictly on the

driver's record with no penalty because of age, sex, marital status or

geographic location.

The Social Credit government is the

only government in Canada that has been able to provide a major health

initiative in the Seventies in the form of a long-term care program. I

was pleased when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced

in the budget that we are getting ready for another first in Canada —

to provide a dental care program for British Columbians not presently

covered under the existing plan.

[ Page 57 ]

The

people of the Kootenay constituency welcomed the announcement by the

Minister of Finance which came into effect on April 2, 1979. The social

services tax was reduced by 1 percentage point to 4 percent. This will

come as a welcome reduction to merchants who are competing with their

counterparts on the other side of the Alberta border.

The

increase in the homeowner grant by $100 to $380, and for senior

citizens to $580, will be welcomed by all British Columbians. This is

part of the Social Credit government promise to continue a policy of

reduction of taxes on property.

The reduction of the 50

percent assessment on agricultural reserve land, to reduce school taxes

on farms effective December 31, 1979, will be an incentive to all

farmers and ranchers in British Columbia.

I was pleased with

the proposal to provide developers or building owners to adapt

buildings to the needs of the handicapped with an accelerated write-off

or income tax credit.

The residents of the Kootenay

constituency will also welcome the announcement that the operating

costs of regional colleges will be taken off the shoulders of the local

taxpayers.

At a time when working people in British Columbia

need all the help they can get, I was pleased when the Minister of

Finance in his budget reduced the personal income tax from 46 percent

to 44 percent, the second lowest in Canada.

I am pleased

with the proposals in the budget put forward by the Minister of

Finance, with tax cuts amounting to $205 million that will benefit

British Columbians in all regions of this province. I urge all members

of this assembly to support the budget.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to do the usual thing first, and congratulate you

on your election to that exalted office. I might say that the

reputation of this place across the country is a reputation of a very

robust forum for debate. You, Mr. Speaker, have a very fine reputation

elsewhere in this country for keeping that debate under reasonable

limits and making very fair rulings. I must say I'd like to associate

myself with those who have congratulated you. Also, of course, I'd like

to congratulate your Deputy Speaker on his election to that office.

MR. SPEAKER: You're very kind.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like to also say a word of congratulation to the member for

Kootenay, who gave his maiden address today in a legislative forum. I

think it was a first-class and fine effort. I can see that a long and

successful career in the world of politics awaits that gentleman.

would like, however, to point something out to him. In the course of

his remarks he spent a good deal of time talking about the money that

had been allocated in this budget with regard to health services — this

$25 million figure, for example, which is going to be sort of allocated

from the government down. But when you are talking about money for

health services, you have to also talk about people in health services

and what the impact of that money is and what purposes you are going to

use it for.

To try to illustrate that, I'd like to read into the record the report

of the inquest into the death of Jenny Aleda Cherry held at the Vancouver coroner's

court before Coroner Glen McDonald on March 1 and 2, 1979. I don't know

how much of that allocated funding is going for staffing, but I think it would

be wise if we in this Legislature listened pretty carefully to the decision

of the coroner in that particular case.

"Testimony

was given by nurses Grant and Raine that on the day of Mrs. Cherry's

fall, they were understaffed. Testimony was given that extended-care

facilities are inadequate. Mrs. Helen Raine, assistant supervisor,

nursing staff, said: 'There are 33 patients on that ward C1 and C2.

They are patients that are within the hospital, and they are old and

what we call acute-bed or a placement problem. They don't have anywhere

to go. There isn't a place in the community for enough of these

patients. If there were adequate staffing, restraining jackets might

not be needed.'"

I just want to explain to you that in that

particular case this lady was under restraint. Because there was no

staff in the area to remove those restraints she died in a very

unfortunate fall.

We can sit in this place, and we can talk

in this place about money, but it is time we talked about people and

the people who have really been suffering, the people who have been

suffering excruciatingly under those health services. I am not going to

deal with the Alert Bay case. but I know that the medical services

throughout the north need a very serious examination. It is not an

isolated question, Mr. Speaker, that this unfortunate incident occurred.

listened with some care, I think, to the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who gave a very long

justification in this House for the sale of Panco Poultry. The

justification he gave was that his ministry was concerned about the

problem of vertical integration — in other words, ownership all the way

down the line, from the farm through the processor right up to the

retail level. Therefore the justification for selling it was to break

up what appeared to be a monopolistic situation. How did they go about

doing that? Well they took the key part of that operation, the

processing, and they sold it to a firm called Cargill Grain. Now

Cargill Grain isn't just your average grain company. Cargill Grain is a

larger food processing company than Kraft. It is just about the largest

food processing company in the world. When someone tells me that

they're concerned about vertical integration, I listen, and I think,

oh, you must be concerned about the consumer, you are concerned about

the price of the product. The integration is too internal, if it's

totally vertical. Correct. There is a problem in getting some

competition into that particular product.

Well, let's have a

look at this new operation, run by Cargill Grain, and how much the

consumer is going to get protection from that particular multinational

corporation. First of all, Cargill has to date been fined $66,000 by

the Canadian Wheat Board, with more than 100 violations of the Wheat

Board by that operation. I heard someone over there say they liked that

particular operation in Saskatchewan. I can tell you that the Members

of Parliament from Saskatchewan whom I sat with know Cargill Grain,

know about Cargill Grain enough to wish they would get out of this

country and stay out.

Let's have another look at Cargill

Grain. Concern for the consumer? Worried about vertical integration?

That company has been taken to court by 12 U.S. states. Now

[ Page 58 ]

why

did they bother taking Cargill to court? The charge is conspiracy to

keep poultry prices high — not low, but high. That is exactly what we

can expect in the province of British Columbia when that multinational

starts moving its tentacles out and gets control of the farms, and gets

control of the product. That is exactly why Cargill came into the

market, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to listen

to someone justify that sale on the basis of vertical integration.

Another

item is short-weighting grain to India. They've been accused of taking

grain sales, that were gifts to the children of India, and

short-weighting those particular gifted grain sales. Some government,

to take Panco Poultry and put it into the tender hands of that

particular multinational.

I want to say a few words about

foreign ownership. I happen to have some people involved in the poultry

business in my own constituency. They run a very successful operation

called Pan Ready Poultry Limited. They wanted the opportunity to obtain

that particular processing plant. They tried to get all the information

they could to put in a bid, but they found they just couldn't get

enough information. And admittedly their bid was just slightly under

the bid that was presented by Cargill. And Cargill winds up in the

chicken business; a local B.C. operation winds up with nothing. Now,

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, through you, to give some

consideration, when sales take place, that those sales should go to

B.C. firms. Those B.C. firms have to be given some special advantage.

Otherwise all the rhetoric and the talk about B.C. not being for sale

is just so much rhetoric, just a joke.

I listened, also with

some interest, to the member for Boundary-Similkameen tell us about

this terrible record of the NDP in mines and minerals, how the industry

is now booming, how there is obviously going to be processing taking

place. Not once did he mention metal prices in his remarks. How dumb do

you think the people of the province of British Columbia really are?

They know that metal prices are the basic determination of the industry

of mining, no matter which government you have. And I can tell you that

the mining industry itself understands that. The mining industry itself

is no longer conned by this particular government.

Now the

member for Omineca said: "Come on, speak on the budget. You new fellows

will obviously want to vote for this budget." People in my constituency

recognize this budget for what it was. They recognized that they paid

for it. They paid for it; they were overtaxed. I won't go through the

long litany of taxation that was imposed by this government. But they

were overtaxed and naturally expected that somewhere down the line they

might get a couple of bucks back. That's what this budget is all about.

It's got nothing to do with supposedly good government, good business

management. It's a case of overtaxing at the beginning, and all the way

down the line the plan was in, the plot was there: the sunshine budget

would come at the end. Then we'd run an election.

This

sunshine budget, for example.... If you want to look at education, in

1975 when the NDP government was there, the province paid 48 per cent

of the cost of education. The local taxpayers paid 52 per cent. Now

with the sunshine budget, 1979, the province's share has dropped to 39

per cent; the local share is now up to 61 per cent. What kind of a

sunshine budget is that? It's that transfer of responsibility onto the

local taxpayer. At the same time, we hear the Minister of Municipal

Affairs talking about the county system. It's another word. It's

another word for saying: "Let's give all the taxes to the local

taxpayers in the municipalities but let's take away their

responsibility and don't let them have any decision-making." That's

what the process has been with this government.

But it's not

all bad news, Mr. Speaker. There are some things, I'm sure. We in our

party have welcomed the references to handicapped in the throne speech;

the idea of improving access to public buildings is worthwhile. I wish

there was enough imagination shown in terms of the other areas of

handicapped that really need help as well as that, other areas that are

important.

Do you know that in this province there are many

many handicapped people who cannot get life insurance because the risk

is too high? Now put yourself in the position of a handicapped person

who has dependents and would like to see some protection in the future

for them. There is no way the private system will ensure, for example,

serious epileptics and other people seriously handicapped. It's time

for the government — I know that's not a very popular thing across the

aisle — to have a look at guaranteeing handicapped people the right to

life insurance in the province of British Columbia.

We have

some recognition of senior citizens in terms of the homeowner grant.

They have an additional fund in the homeowner grant. I can see no

reason, Mr. Speaker, why we can't also apply that same principle to

handicapped homeowners in the province of British Columbia so they too

can have the same opportunity.

Certainly we welcome the

moves on ICBC concerning rates, to have some fairness built into the

rates. I notice the principle, however, of government car insurance

remains intact. In fact this government seems to want to run around all

principle that you can't get rid of. All this talk about free

enterprise, you know, becomes a bit rhetorical when you will find if

you examine the things that the New Democratic Party did while they

were in office, they're still in place. They're still in place and they

will remain in place and there will be more of them. You want to get

rid of car insurance? Just tell us. Go ahead, tell us you want to get

rid of government car insurance.

I'd like to also welcome

the mention concerning nuclear energy. During an election campaign this

government seems to have a much faster response to issues than it does

outside an election campaign. I think they should be in a permanent

election campaign, perhaps, because then they will be sensitive about

things like nuclear energy. To say you're concerned, however, doesn't

say it all. I'd like to hear this government's policy as being opposed

once and for all to nuclear energy in the province of British Columbia.

You haven't said that yet. You have said you are concerned.

You

know, the Sedro-Woolley nuclear reactor: there have been hearings going

on in the United States and the U.S. nuclear regulatory agency since

1975. It's 1979 this year. They've been going on four years. Just

during an election campaign the Premier suddenly found out that there

are nuclear hearings in the United States, that there is some risk to

the people of the province of British Columbia as a result of that

nuclear station. That doesn't sound to me, Mr. Speaker, like good

management of the province, and it

[ Page 59 ]

doesn't sound to me like a government that is aware of what is going on in regard to its borders.

The

Eckardt report will be tabled. But it is not any mystery that people

have been disfranchised all over the province of British Columbia

because of an archaic Elections Act, one which doesn't see voting as a

right but as a privilege — if you are lucky enough to be around at the

time in order to get on that list. Now I'm hopeful — and I see the

Premier is somewhat sympathetic — that we can agree on some very severe

changes to that particular legislation. I can tell you that all over

this province people were receiving cards...their neighbour would

receive a card to say they were on the list — you were too late to get

on the list. There is no court of revision, no way of reopening the

list. I can't see any reason why a person can't come into the poll and

swear that he is entitled to vote, and also vote as a result of that

declaration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was really bad in '75, and it was even worse in this one.

MR. LEGGATT:

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, there is any point in arguing about how bad

it was before and how bad it was last time. I just know that the number

disfranchised in the last provincial election was the highest on

record. That speaks for itself. We did have the opportunity to examine

the federal Elections Act and the provincial Act, and we found that the

federal legislation is, in fact, much more effective in making sure

that people are enfranchised. So some consideration, perhaps, should be

given. We may have to expand the time of the election to make sure we

have an enumeration, or else we are going to have to reopen that

section 80 provision so that it makes some sense. Right now

section 80

is similarly a way of stopping riots at the polls. It's for people who

get in there and find they're not on the list. Then they think they've

got a vote, but very few of those

section 80 ballots are ever counted,

as you probably know.

I wanted, though, to deal in a little

more detail with the subject of foreign ownership which, in a sense,

was inspired somewhat by the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), and also by the member for I think North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis). I hope I have the hon. member's riding correct.

listened with some interest last week to what sounded dangerously close

to a continental energy policy and a continental resource policy. If

we're going to do something in this country in terms of foreign

ownership, in terms of contributing something unique in the Canadian

experience, then we're goin