1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 (Bill 5). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2057

Mr. Stupich –– 2060

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2066

Mr. Lockstead –– 2069

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2071

Mrs. Wallace –– 2073

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

This morning during his prayer, Reverend Moon mentioned a family which

has just arrived in Canada, the Chun family from Laos, who have come

via Thailand. They are a mother, father and three children: a boy, 15,

a girl, 12, and a girl, 5. I would ask the House to join me in

welcoming this family to Canada and wishing them a very prosperous

future here.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery at 11

o'clock this morning will be a group of 22 young adults from the

Cowichan Valley Alternate School. This school, as you may know, has

provided an alternative system of education in the valley for some

years now with a very great deal of success. They will be accompanied

by their teacher, Mr. Barry Blow. I think it might interest the House

to know that Mr. Blow, before living in the Cowichan Valley, lived in

the Chilliwack area and at one time was, I believe, campaign manager to

the Speaker of the House. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Blow and

the young adults who will be attending later.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the members' attention to a visitor

in the gallery today. He is one of my three sons, not the oldest, but

the tallest. He's a 6 foot 5 inch basketball player — I can't convert

it into metric. He's in his fourth year at UBC, and, following Hansard ,

he decided to come over and see and hear for himself. So I hope that we

will all behave in a proper manner this morning. Would the House please

welcome Stewart Ritchie.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL PURPOSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure this morning to speak in second

reading of Bill 5. I have a number of notes — copious notes, I would

point out — which will assist all hon. members, I think, in

understanding what the government is attempting to do in this

particular piece of legislation.

Bill 5, Special Purpose

Appropriation Act, 1980, proposes the allocation of a total of $168.65

million of the 1979-80 fiscal year revenue surplus for a variety of

purposes and activities. It will be necessary, Mr. Speaker, to identify

what might be considered clauses of the bill in second reading. I trust

that is acceptable to the Chair.

Item 1 is provincial public debt retirement in the amount of $26.1 million.

This amount will be applied on May 1, 1980, as the second instalment toward

the retirement of the provincial debt that arose as a result of budget performance

in fiscal year 1975-76, resulting in an overall deficit in the province's

accounts of $261,447,790. The interest cost on this debt in fiscal year 1980-81

is estimated to be $45.6 million which, you would note, Mr. Speaker, is provided

for in the main estimates to be voted by the House at some point.

Item

2 — of interest to members in virtually every part of the province, I

would suggest — is an accelerated highway construction program in the

amount of $100 million. The allocation of this very substantial sum for

an accelerated highway construction program this year allows for the

following: the paving of approximately 200 miles of highway,

construction of new roads or major reconstruction in the amount of 25

miles, work on 500 miles of collector and secondary roads in the minor

road system and, perhaps even more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the

provision of 1,500 man years of direct employment and 5,000 to 6,000

man-years of subsidiary employment, along with the employment of about

750 pieces of equipment. This appropriation, incidentally, supplements

the $208 million provided in the main estimates for highway

construction.

Items 3 and 4 may be described as

(1) low-interest loan assistance to small businesses in metropolitan areas,

$5 million, and (2) the Small Manufacturers Assistance Program in

metropolitan areas, $5 million.

In recognition of the fact

that approximately 80 percent of British Columbia's manufacturers have

less than 50 employees, the Social Credit provincial government, when

negotiating the five-year $70 million Industrial Development Subsidiary

Agreement with Ottawa, included a jointly funded Assistance to Small

Enterprise Program, designed to provide up to $10 million in

interest-free forgivable loans to small manufacturers, and a $20

million Low Interest Loans Assistance Program to provide loans at half

the usual rate to small- and medium-sized industries. This latter

program is funded entirely by the people of British Columbia through

their government. The ongoing programs focus on the manufacturing and

processing sectors. Public investment in this critical sector of the

economy, we believe, will provide the greatest benefits to the province

in terms of job creation and economic spinoffs.

In these

days of very high interest rates and the clearly indicated worldwide

economic slowdown, our government has noted a growing need in major

urban areas for the type of assistance and economic stimulus that the

IDSA programs provide in less developed areas of the province.

Provision for these low-interest and forgivable loan programs will help

maintain the viability and dynamics of our major urban industrial bases.

Last

year $5 million in low-interest loan assistance was made available in

urban areas. This program has been an unqualified success. Continued

extension of these programs is also in line with the long-standing

provincial position that all British Columbia businesses, no matter

where they are located, should have equal opportunity to benefit from

such proven, effective economic development programs. However, this was

not the mandate of our federal cost-sharing partners in the Industrial

Development Subsidiary Agreement. Until now, the province has been

unable to offer these programs in all areas of the province. To date,

the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program has committed almost $7.2

million to projects with total capital costs of $17.5 million, not

including land.

From this, Mr. Speaker, 349 firms were able to com-

[ Page 2058 ]

mence

or expand their operations and about 1,700 jobs will be created. The

average capital cost per job of $4,300 shows that a truly

cost-effective job-creation mechanism is inherent in this program. For

larger and more sophisticated industrial developments the Low Interest

Loans Assistance Program delivered by the British Columbia Development

Corporation has approved about $19.1 million towards projects with

total financed costs of almost $100 million. In fact, the exact figure

is $97.8 million. This program, which does not only generate large

amounts of investment, has also created jobs to the extent of 2,343,

still at a very low cost per job of $8,167.

Now with this

exceptional industrial development track record as proof of the

efficiency of programs such as this, the government has moved to use

surplus funds to help businesses grow. These programs ensure continued

growth and job creation in the industries of British Columbia.

The

Small Manufacturers Assistance Program is a facsimile program to the

Assistance to Small Enterprise Program which will provide forgivable

loans of up to $30,000 for the establishment, expansion or

modernization of manufacturing and processing facilities where the

total capital cost is no more than $100,000. To qualify, existing

businesses can have annual average sales of not more than $500,000 per

year for the last two years. The Low Interest Loans Assistance Program

delivered by the British Columbia Development Corporation will provide

loans ranging from $18,000 to $250,000 at about one-half the usual

interest rate.

Item 5 in this bill: The Science Council of

B.C. applied research grants, $3.5 million; the British Columbia

Research Council applied research, $1 million; and university

scientific research equipment, $2 million.

The British

Columbia government proposes to allocate a total of $6.5 million for

scientific research in this year. The Science Council of B.C. has

received requests for applied research projects worthy of support

totalling in excess of $10 million. The provision of these additional

funds to the Science Council will permit the funding of a larger number

of projects offering high potential benefits to the future development

of our province.

The additional $1 million for British

Columbia Research Council is in response to a recommendation of the

Lapp report. These funds will allow the expansion of the in-house

research programs of B.C. Research Council to better serve industry in

British Columbia.

Thirdly in this group, $2 million is

allocated to universities for the purchase of scientific equipment.

These additional funds will allow universities to maintain their

already high standard of scientific performance for which our

universities are known. These actions by the provincial government

should demonstrate to the private sector the importance we place upon

research for the fuller development of the province's resources and for

our greater industrial diversification.

Next I would like to

touch briefly on the accelerated Recreation Facilities Assistance

Program in the amount of $5 million. Recreational facilities throughout

British Columbia will benefit from the $5 million which has been set

aside for an accelerated program. These funds will supplement $7

million budgeted in the 1980-81 main estimates for the entire

recreational facilities program, or RFAP. This is a program through

which the province assists communities in developing public

recreational facilities in all areas of the province.

Recreation

has long been recognized as an important factor in the physical and

economic well-being of our communities. If I was not completely

convinced of that a few years ago, my time in the office of Provincial

Secretary and as Minister of Government Services convinced me that the

program is indeed well worthwhile. Provincial assistance offsetting

one-third of the capital construction cost of facilities reduces

long-term debt; that in itself is desirable these days. As well, it

permits local funds to be diverted to operational costs and, of course,

it generates jobs in both the construction and operation phases. The

program also provides incentive grants to assist British Columbia

communities to improve their recreational services through the

development of recreational master plans.

The next item I

would wish to speak to members about, through you, sir, deals with

local airport facilities. Provincial government financial assistance to

the development of airport facilities in the smaller provincial

communities was initiated by this government in 1978. It is perhaps an

understatement to say that community interest in this program remains

at a very high level. It is for this reason that the government

proposes to increase the allocation of funds. The objectives of the

program will be known to all members. The objectives are to assist in

projects which will contribute to improved scheduled air services by

sub-regional carriers, which improve access to the more isolated areas

of the province, and serve other requirements such as fire protection,

emergency air ambulance, and resource and other industrial development.

This past year funds were allocated to 17 community airport projects.

There

is allocated also in this bill a sum of $2.65 million under our Refugee

Settlement Program. The plight of refugees, particularly those from

southeast Asia, has stirred, I believe, public and government response

in a number of countries. British Columbia has undertaken to accept

over 4,000 individuals for settlement but not without cost. The amount

here: $2.65 million is allocated for special education, health and

employment services. Just as so many other immigrants from around the

world have settled in British Columbia, have become Canadians and are

now in the first or second or third generation and making significant

contribution to the development and growth of the province, I am sure

these new settlers will respond equally to the opportunities available

to them. I feel very comfortable about all of the items contained in

Bill 5, but I think the Refugee Settlement Program is one which gives

me very great satisfaction.

The next item, in spite of the

rather unusual name, is the Sierra-Yoyo access road construction

program in an amount of $1.8 million. This access road, when completed,

will extend 31 miles, connecting the Clarke Lake gas field and Sierra

gas field road systems. Seven miles have already been completed.

The

initial target for this fiscal year, 1980-81, was the completion of a

further eight miles at a cost of approximately $600,000. Completion of

the remaining 24 miles of this all-weather road would mean year-round

access into this major gas producing area and would provide the means

to deal with any well head or other type of accident, as well as

obviously extending the exploration season in that part of the

province. This, naturally, will increase employment. It will also

assist development in the lumber and agricultural industries. At

present, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, these gas producing areas can

only be reached by road during the winter months.

Item 12 is distance education support in an amount of

[ Page

2059 ]

$1.2 million. This amount will be used to develop an educational telecommunications

network in British Columbia. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Universities,

Science and Communications have planned the new delivery system as the next

step in the government's program to ensure that all residents of British

Columbia have full access to educational programming. Among previous steps are

the creation of the Open Learning Institute and a request to the Canadian Radio-Television

and Telecommunications Commission that educational channels be reserved by all

cable operators in British Columbia. So, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that the

$1.2 million in this bill is the first capital contribution of the British Columbia

government to a system which will result in educational programming being delivered

throughout the province by cable, microwave and satellite.

The

new educational network will allow for the future expansion of the

present Anik B distance education project, which sees programming

transmitted from Burnaby to ten provincial centres, as well as to

Whitehorse in the Yukon. It is hoped that the first elements of the new

system will be in place in the fall of 1980. Programming for the new

delivery system will be developed by the universities themselves,

community colleges, provincial institutes and related government

agencies, as part of their continuing activities. The educational

institutions presently spend more than $5 million on distance education

programming. The development of a new telecommunication distribution

system will clearly — and it's about time — allow a greater utilization

of existing and future program materials, as well as ensuring that

programs will be available in all regions of the province.

Next

is the Accelerated Park Development Program in an amount of $6.5

million. To assist the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in

implementing a three-year Accelerated Park Development Program, $6.5

million is provided under this special appropriation bill for the first

year's cost of this expanded employment-creating program. This funding

level, Mr. Speaker, will allow for the construction of approximately

800 campsites, 1,900 day-use parking stalls, 8 boat-launching

facilities and 80 kilometres of trail. In addition, it is proposed to

bring electric power to Manning Provincial Park. Also, miscellaneous

marine park improvements will be undertaken, and these include:

installation of additional mooring buoys, adding to camping spots and

constructing wharves.

The need for this accelerated

expenditure is clearly evident in the rapidly growing public use of our

provincial park network. Day use demand on the park system has almost

doubled through the 1970s, from about 4.8 million visits in 1970 to 9.4

million visits in 1979. Camping use demand has similarly increased from

1.2 million in 1970 to 1.9 million in 1979. This expanded program will

provide for the recreational needs of all the people of British

Columbia as well as visitors to our province, Madam Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan), and in addition will improve the distribution of

recreational opportunities throughout British Columbia. Again, this

special appropriation for park development is in addition to a

significant sum — $3 million — provided in the main estimates now under

consideration. Park development projects are highly labour-intensive,

with the result that the substantially higher total spending level for

this fiscal year will obviously provide an increased number of

employment opportunities, particularly for our younger people.

That takes me to the next item on a very long list. Under youth employment

and training, $4.5 million is provided in this legislation for expanded employment

opportunities for young people in British Columbia and it will be applied as

follows: $2.2 million for private sector incentives, to be used to augment the

$7 million contained in the ministry estimates for job opportunities in the

private sector, resulting in the creation of approximately 2,250 additional

employment and training opportunities; $1.5 million for WIG — the Work in Government

program. These additional funds on top of just over $4 million in estimates

will allow the ministry to provide job creation funds to government ministries

about equivalent to funding levels provided in past years. The funds will result

in the creation of an additional 350 job and training opportunities within ministries

of government for the youth of the province.

The

next element in this

section deals with $640,000 for the Critical Skill

Shortage Training Allowance Program. Over the past year the Ministry of

Labour has been confronting a growing number of problems arising from

critical skill shortages in many trades in the province. I understand

it is the ministry's intention to develop a program in which these

funds will be applied, along with other ministry resources. Clearly,

the details of this program will be dealt with by the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) at the appropriate time.

The

fourth item in this

section is $150,000 for tourism incentive. About

$300,000 already exists in the regular estimates for that ministry to

support tourist promotion and related programs. The additional $150,000

will strengthen this component of the Youth Employment Program and is

expected to create an additional 100 jobs.

Under this

special purpose appropriation a further $1 million is allocated to

senior citizens' housing, supplementing the $5.25 million provided in

the main estimates. In communities where there is an absence of

appropriate private rental units and the need for such units has been

documented, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing will, with these

additional funds, be able to assist non-profit societies in building

more senior citizens' housing projects. The objective of the program,

obviously, is to provide all senior citizens in need of housing units,

or who are living in substandard accommodation and are unable to

upgrade their accommodation in the private sector, to have access to

purpose-designed units at an affordable price.

Mr. Speaker,

I have attempted to summarize, as briefly as possible, a number of

areas where this legislation will supplement ministry estimates already

before the House. In

summary I would want to say that the projects, the

programs, the activities in this program — whether in job creation,

highways expansion, or recreational facilities activity in the

northeastern part of the province, indeed all over the province — are

designed to provide wide-ranging benefits throughout British Columbia.

A large number of direct jobs will be created providing employment for

many young workers just entering the labour force, providing them with

valuable work experience which will be of assistance in obtaining

permanent entry into the workforce. Business activity will be expanded

and new businesses will clearly be established. Transportation services

will be extended and improved to the benefit of industry and our

visitors. There is extra investment in housing for seniors. There is

extra investment in recreational facilities projects. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, there will be not one constitutuency in British Columbia

untouched by the many benefits which will flow from this bill.

[ Page 2060 ]

Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I move second reading to Bill 5.

MR. STUPICH:

Certainly if we needed any reason to vote against this particular bill

it's the reasons advanced by the Minister of Finance in moving second

reading. To tell us that this bill is supplementing the estimates which

were presented earlier in this Legislature is an admission that they

erred in presenting the estimates in the first place. Rather than call

it a bill dealing with surplus, what they really should be doing is

calling it a bill dealing with sloppy administration and poor

accounting.

Mr. Speaker, we were not rushed into this

session. You'll recall that the 1979 session adjourned on July 31 and

that was the end of it, except for a day when we came back to correct

one of the mistakes of the administration. But really the session ended

on July 31 and we were not called back into session until the end of

February. That's a period of seven months. Yet, apparently, during that

seven months the government was quite incapable of coming to any kind

of conclusion as to just how much money it had in the bank and how it

wanted to spend that money.

We're dealing with a bill now —

and the minister has spent some time detailing it — which describes 15

different programs. In moving second reading, the minister went into

even further detail with respect to some of these individual items — 15

different ways of spending money which the government either forgot

about, didn't know it had, or didn't know what to do with, so it is now

presenting this bill. There are 15 different items under 11 different

ministries. Yet the bill is presented by one minister while ten other

ministers sit back there and let the Minister of Finance tell us what

is going to be done in these various programs to account for the

spending of this money, give us the details as to how this money is

going to be spent, answer questions about what his ministry has done

with similar funds in the past, and give us details as to how he

expects to spend the various amounts of money allocated to him for

special programs in the legislation before us now.

The fact

that it is supplemental to estimates is, as I said, reason enough to

turn this back to the government and tell them: "If you aren't ready

for the session after the long delay — all the time you had to get

ready — why not adjourn, start all over and bring in a new budget which

will tell us in one form — in estimates properly presented to the

Legislature and available for proper debate in this Legislature — just

how you intend to run the affairs of this province in the year ahead?"

You're obviously not ready.

Mr. Speaker, they're not ready.

After the long delay and all the time they had to plan, the government,

apparently, has been so busy trying to cover up the dirty tricks

perpetrated upon the people of this province that they just haven't had

time to deal with the administration of government and are not ready

for this session. The estimates prove that. Bill 7, which we've

discussed already but are not finished with, proves it. Bill 5, now

before us, is further proof that the government just isn't ready after

the long delay. That's one reason.

The second reason is the

first expenditure mentioned in this legislation, which I intend to deal

with at some length, because this is another fiction perpetrated upon

the people of this province by this administration and, unfortunately,

it's one which seems to have been accepted by some of the people in the

province. I suspect that there are even some of the opportunists on the

other side of the House who joined this Legislature after the 1975

election and the most recent election who believe the stories they were

told — the myths which were told about the debt created by the NDP

administration. I think there are some of them over there who really

believe it. I know there are people in the province who do believe it

in spite of the explanations that have been given. In spite of the

evidence that has been presented, there are still, unfortunately, some

people in the province who believe the debt was created by the NDP

administration rather than — as you know, Mr. Speaker — by the incoming

Social Credit administration. The evidence is before us.

Deliberately,

for political purposes, a debt in the neighbourhood of $261 million was

created by the Social Credit administration. The proof is there.

Unfortunately, we in the NDP have not been as successful in exhibiting

that proof and explaining it to people as has been the Social Credit

administration in perpetrating this falsehood, distributing it among

the voters of the province, and making some of them really believe that

the NDP administration created a debt.

Mr. Speaker, if

you'll recall when the Clarkson, Gordon report was first announced, you

may recall the Premier-elect — he was not yet Premier — saying he

promised a full and independent review of the province's financial

affairs. The first thing that happened.... He wasn't Premier then but

he made the promise that there would be a full, independent review.

Very soon after that it became public that the person who was going to

work on this full, independent review was a Mr. Ian Smith.

was well known that he was the bagman for the Premier before he ever

became Premier. But from the time he became leader of the party, this

same Ian Smith was the Premier elect's bagman, and still acts in that

capacity, Mr. Speaker. He's still the co-signer for the funds that were

under the direct control, supervision and management of the Premier in

the 1979 election. He's still one of the co-signers on the cheques that

were being controlled out of the Premier's office — still acting in

that capacity. Yet the people of the province were promised a full

independent review to be conducted by a man who was that closely tied

politically, and in every other way, to the Premier-elect.

I'm

not suggesting for one moment that a partner in the firm of an

international chartered accounting firm, Clarkson, Gordon and Co.,

would put his name, or that the firm would put its name, to a false

report. But I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think the Premier

was aware of that. I think that in picking that person to do the job,

he knew the kind of job he wanted to do and he felt that in picking a

friend, that closely tied to him, he could get exactly the kind of

report he wanted. I think that was deliberately done as the first step

in creating the falsehood that has been so well created in the

province. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

When

this became public there was so much concern in the community about

that particular person being put on the job that that person was

relieved of those responsibilities, and the review, such as it was,

went ahead under the name of Clarkson, Gordon and Co. But what kind of

review was it?

Reading further from the Premier's remarks on

February 20, 1976: "In line with our pledge, we moved first on

research...." He calls it research; Clarkson, Gordon didn't call it

research. "One of the first acts of the Minister of Finance was to

appoint Clarkson, Gordon and Co. to conduct an independent and full

review of the province's financial affairs, including those of

government agencies and Crown corporations."

[ Page 2061 ]

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance in the Social Credit

administration is suggesting that I didn't accept the Clarkson, Gordon

report. I do accept it. I accept it in exactly the terms in which

Clarkson, Gordon presented it. But I do not accept it in the terms in

which the Social Credit administration has presented it so well in this

province. I'm going to quote extensively from the Clarkson, Gordon

report to show the difference between the

interpretation placed upon it

by the Social Credit administration and that placed upon it by the

authors of the report.

What I'm reading from right now is

the Premier's introduction. It is the Premier who promised the

independent and full review of the government accounts, and of all the

government agencies and Crown corporations. That was commissioned on

December 22. Less than two months later came this full, independent

review of all government accounts, all government agencies, and all

Crown corporations. Mr. Speaker, it would be nothing short of

miraculous to do that kind of full, independent review in less than two

months. Obviously it was not a full and independent review. Clarkson,

Gordon take some pains to explain to the readers of their report that

it was never intended that it would be a full or an independent review

of all government accounts, all government agencies and all Crown

corporations, in spite of the fact that the Premier, in presenting this

report to the people of British Columbia on February 20, 1976, tried to

make everyone hearing him believe that, indeed, a full and independent

review had been conducted by an internationally known firm of chartered

accountants.

What did Clarkson, Gordon have to say about it?

Their very opening paragraph: "On December 22, 1975, you requested us

to coordinate the production of certain unaudited financial

information...." Mr. Speaker, in auditing circles a review is an audit.

The Premier, in using the word "review," intended to convince the

people of the province that an audit was being asked for and that an

audit was being done. He knew that most of the people hearing his

remarks wouldn't realize that you can't do that kind of job within a

period of two months. He did it deliberately, as he has tried to

perpetrate so many myths in this province. "You requested us to

coordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information

for the year ending March 31, 1976, which you had requested...." This

is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance had

requested "from the Deputy Minister of Finance" — so right away, it's

gone through several hands. Clarkson, Gordon says the Minister of

Finance asked them to "coordinate the production of certain unaudited

financial statements" that the Minister of Finance had asked for "from

the Deputy Minister of Finance, the comptroller-general, and the

management of all Crown corporations" — what, 20 of them? — "boards and

agencies, and to produce a

summary report on the overall financial

position of the province."

It was a

summary report based

upon information that the Minister of Finance had received from the

Deputy Minister of Finance. They were simply asked to add up the

figures. There is nothing wrong with doing that. I'm just saying that,

in presenting it to the people of this province as a full and

independent review, the Premier was telling us something less than the

truth about this document, and intending it to be misunderstood.

The

fact that Clarkson, Gordon really couldn't take responsibility for the

figures is borne out by the figures themselves, because on page 2 of

their report, they arrive at their conclusion — and that's a good place

to put it, right in front where people read it — and their estimate of

the deficit for the year was $541 million. There was a cash surplus on

hand from the year before, but they said that the year under review

itself would result in a deficit of some $400 million. Mr. Speaker, had

the deficit actually amounted to that figure, then there would have

been more credence in the administration's argument that we created a

deficit of that amount. But, in fact, it didn't; it was substantially

less than that. The deficit actually, as the bill before us indicates,

was in the neighbourhood of $261 million, $140 million short of the

amount that Clarkson, Gordon said it would be on the basis of figures

given to them by the Minister of Finance who had asked for these

figures from the Deputy Minister of Finance and from those in control

of all of the Crown corporations and Crown agencies. It was fiction

from beginning to end. Not in the Clarkson, Gordon report; I accept the

Clarkson, Gordon report. The fiction was in the description of this

report, in the description of the work and in the presentation of this

report by the Premier of this province, from whom the people of this

province have a right to expect something better, but from whom, on the

basis of experience since then, the people of the province know better

than to expect something better.

Clarkson, Gordon deals with

government accounting, the vagaries of it, how different it is from

other types of accounting. It says "cash basis" — cash received in one

year is counted as revenue of that year. I think this is pointed out in

the auditor-general's report, where billings in the Ministry of Forests

were some $140 million behind. The money should have been paid in one

fiscal year. It was earned in the sense that the trees were cut in that

fiscal year, but because the money had not actually arrived in the

offices of the Ministry of Finance by March 31, that money is counted

as revenue in the following year, and the same thing with respect to

expenditures. So it's very easy for governments to influence surpluses

and deficits. They may simply delay receiving revenue until after March

31, if they choose to, and thereby reduce the revenue of a particular

year — and there is nothing illegal about this; that's the way it's

handled — or they may, indeed, Mr. Speaker, pay amounts out by March

31, show them as expenditures of that particular year rather of the

following year and thereby, again, reduce the surplus of the first

year. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you know that was done. You know that

hospital boards around this province in 1976 received cheques dated

March 31, 1976, and they didn't know what they were for. They had to

make inquiries as to what these funds were for; they found out that

they were advance payments on accounts of moneys that they would

normally receive in the summer of the year following. But the

government, in an attempt to create a deficit by March 31, 1976, was

paying out amounts to hospitals, was paying out amounts in Farm Income

Assurance Programs — to name two that were identified — in advance of

what they would normally have done, in an attempt to increase the

deficit by March 31, 1976, so they could continue with the kind of

political falsehood that results in the first expenditure detailed in

the bill before us now.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 2062 ]

How

did they manage to achieve a deficit? Clarkson, Gordon tells about any

number of ways in which the government could. It said, for example,

that if a Crown corporation needed money, that Crown corporation might

go out and borrow it. From time to time we have known B.C. Hydro to

borrow money; we've known B.C. Railway to borrow money; we've known

B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Buildings Corporation.... I'm not

talking about a bill that's coming up in this session, a bill on the

order paper. We've known these Crown corporations to borrow money, and

that's quite legal, quite appropriate. From time to time Crown

corporations may go out and borrow money, in which case it doesn't

affect the surplus or deficit of the province. Another alternative is

for the government to give money to those Crown corporations, as has

certainly happened in the past. The government gives money to B.C.

Hydro every year for special programs, but nevertheless it's money

that's being given to B.C. Hydro, that comes out of public accounts and

does increase the expenditures of B.C. Hydro for the year under review.

From

time to time the government has made grants to B.C. Railway Co., and

again this increased the expenditures in that particular year. While it

may not create a deficit — depending on how much is given —

nevertheless it does increase expenditures in that particular year.

B.C. Ferry Corporation gets grants; many Crown corporations get grants.

If the government chooses to make these grants out of public accounts,

then it is added to the expenditures of the year in which those grants

are made.

The government, precisely on March 31, 1976, in

order to increase the expenditures of the 1976 fiscal period ending

March 31, did indeed choose the second alternative — that is, it chose

to pay out grants on March 31, 1976, in order to get those expenditures

into that particular fiscal year. As Clarkson, Gordon points out, that

is quite appropriate. There is nothing illegal or really wrong about

it. But for the Social Credit administration and the Social Credit

Party to go around the province telling people that we created a debt

when indeed it was their administration that chose on March 31 — right

at the very last minute, on the last day, the 365th day of the year —

to pay out grants totalling $245 million, and to then go around saying

that the NDP administration, which had gone out of office three and a

half months earlier, had created a debt of $261 million, is treating

the truth very lightly.

Mr. Speaker, I placed a question on

the order paper. It was answered on June 10, 1976. I asked whether the

province was indeed broke — out of cash — when the Social Credit

administration arrived in office on the morning of December 23. It was

question 24. It was answered.... As I say, those opportunists who have

joined this group since that date may not be aware of these things.

That is why I am taking some pains to explain to them that it was a

Social Credit–created debt rather than an NDP-created debt. In Votes and Proceedings ,

June 10, 1976, question 24 was answered by the Minister of Finance to

the effect that on December 23, 1975, the province was not in debt,

didn't owe money to anybody and, indeed, had $69,965,292 cash on hand.

One

might say, that is all very well; they just didn't pay the bills so

they would have cash on hand. I followed the question up by asking

about other dates. On January 31 the government had been in office for

over five weeks and they'd had a chance to see just how many bills were

owing. There was still cash in the bank: $72,745,745. Of course,

January is a very good month for revenue. Sales tax for the December

sales come in; it's the best month of all for sales tax revenue. They

had had a chance to look at the bills. If there were any bills that

should be paid, they had an opportunity to pay them. Money had come in.

There was still $72.7 million sitting in the bank. To give them another

month to catch up, if they needed it, on February 29 — 1976 was a leap

year — there was still over $70 million sitting in the bank. Mr.

Speaker, we didn't leave the province broke.

If you ask

about March 31, that is a different matter. But that is because on

March 31 the government rushed to pay out moneys in advance of when the

recipients expected it, and transferred some $245 million to various

Crown corporations. The government, in 1976, in a discussion of this

program of paying out these funds, said: "We had to; ICBC needed it."

Mr. Speaker, you weren't here then, but the minister responsible for

ICBC at that time was the Minister of Education, now the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He said:

"We had to pay that $175 million to ICBC because they didn't have any

money to pay wages. The employees needed their salaries and there was

no cash to pay them. There was no money to pay the repair companies

that were doing car repairs. ICBC was just flat broke and it needed

this $175 million."

There are two ways of dealing with that,

as Clarkson, Gordon point out. When a Crown corporation needs money, it

can get a grant from the government or, alternatively, it can go out

and borrow, if it has the legal authority to borrow. It can borrow,

generally, at a very good rate because it has a government guarantee —

if the legislation provides for that. The ICBC legislation did indeed

state that ICBC had the right to borrow. It did indeed give it a limit,

as is the case with all borrowing on the part of Crown corporations;

there are limits prescribed by legislation. The limit set for ICBC was

$100 million.

The Minister of Education talked about ICBC's

need to have money in the form of a grant in order to pay wages. If he

was telling the truth that day in the Legislature, what he was really

telling us was that ICBC had borrowed up to the limit; it had no

further credit; it had exhausted its borrowing limit of $100 million.

Again,

what are the facts? I do want you to hear this, Mr. Speaker, because

you are one of the new people. What are the facts as evidenced by an

answer to a question on the order paper? This one, question 19, was

answered April 1, 1976. ICBC started borrowing — after Social Credit

was elected — on December 29, 1975. They borrowed $225,000 that day.

They had borrowed several times, something like 30 times, by February

4. But they borrowed because the government couldn't make up its mind

as to what extent it would use political interference in adjusting the

rates of ICBC.

The rates had been set for the year 1976, but

this government, which professed not to want to interfere politically

in the management of Crown corporations, nevertheless had long

discussions certainly within cabinet and possibly within caucus —

although not likely — as to what they were going to do to exert their

political influence to get ICBC to change its rates. Because it took

them so long to make up their minds, the cash wasn't coming in, so ICBC

had to continue borrowing. Finally, early in February, they made up

their mind. The last borrowing was on February 4, because once they had

established what the rates were, the money started coming in. But they

hadn't exhausted their borrowing power

[ Page 2063 ]

March 31. The last day on which ICBC borrowed was February 4, almost

two months prior to March 31. The total accumulated borrowing at that

particular point in time was not $100 million; it was $28,471,000. The

former Minister of Education was treating the truth very lightly — not

surprising coming from that particular minister — when he told us that

ICBC needed a grant from the taxpayers of this province to be able to

pay wages to its employees, at a time when ICBC had an outstanding

credit of $71,529,000. But that's the case; they didn't need the money.

Further

evidence of the fact that they didn't need the money was that the day

after they received this money the government went out and borrowed

funds to make up for all these grants they had made to Crown

corporations on March 31, and ICBC was one of the places they went to

borrow that money. They borrowed back the $175 million, which they had

given to ICBC the day before, because ICBC didn't need the money which

the former Minister of Education told us they so desperately needed on

that date. The evidence is there. It is evidence that this particular

clause should not be presented to the Legislature in this form.

There's

something else about this $261 million debt and the way in which it's

being handled. Do you know where the funds are being borrowed — the

$232 million which is still owing? They were borrowed from pension

funds. These are pension funds on which this government is paying

approximately 9 percent interest at the same time as it is earning

approximately 14 percent interest on the money it has sitting in the

bank. In perpetrating this falsehood, the government is actually

stealing money from those pension funds in the amount of the difference

in those rates of interest. They are borrowing money at 9 percent from

pension funds, and turning around and investing that money in the bank

at 14 percent, pocketing the difference, and saying: "What great

managers we are. We found a way of getting more money out of pension

funds. Aren't we great? Aren't we wonderful?" They aren't wonderful.

get on with the other sections of the legislation before us.... I've

dealt with one item in one ministry, because I believe that is the only

one which actually comes under the Minister of Finance. There are 14

other items which are not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Finance, yet all are included in this one bill which is trying to make

up for the deficiencies in the administration, the sloppy bookkeeping,

They didn't know how much money they had and they didn't know what they

wanted to do with it. The ministers weren't ready to come forth with

programs, or the Treasury Board wasn't ready to either approve or

disapprove of these various programs.

There are 14 other programs that should have been included in the estimates

of the various ministries. Let's take a look at some of them: for example,

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell

me that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) didn't

know in December or January, when the budget was being worked on, that he could

have used another $100 million to do the kind of work he wants to do in the

province? Or is it that the Treasury Board couldn't reach a conclusion as

to whether or not to give him this $100 million? Or is it that the government

didn't know at that point in time whether or not they had $100 million to

give him? The total of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates

before us is not a small one; it's in excess of half a billion dollars —

$514 million. Sooner or later, the Minister of Transportation and Highways will

be standing up in this House and telling us what he did with his money last

year and what he intends to do this year with $514 million. He will be answering

various questions from the members about the highways in their own particular

constituencies. That is as it should be — but not this $100 million. The Minister

of Transportation and Highways won't be talking about this $100 million

unless he takes

part in the debate on Bill 5, because this $100 million is going

to be talked about by the Minister of Finance, because they didn't trust

the Minister of Highways with it.

would like to assume that he asked for it. I would like to assume that

this hasn't been suddenly presented to us as an afterthought; that the

Minister of Transportation and Highways didn't really know about it

until he saw it in this bill and doesn't know how he's going to spend

it, except now he may be working on some program. I'd like to think

that is not the case. I'd like to think that the Minister of

Transportation and Highways really wanted it but he couldn't get the

Minister of Finance to release it. So now the Minister of Finance is

going to stand up and tell us.... Certainly in discussion of that

section of the legislation the members of this Legislature — on both

sides of the House, every one of us — might very well get into the

debate and ask for some of the money to be spent in their

constituencies and to expect the Minister of Finance to give us the

answers as to just how he was going to allocate that $100 million among

the various road problems in the province of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, is that any way to deal with estimates? As the Minister of

Finance said himself, these are supplemental estimates. They should be

presented as supplemental estimates. They should be presented, perhaps,

as a supplement to estimates and considered when we are discussing

estimates, rather than being considered as a bill in the form before us

now. I'm not opposed to spending $100 million on highways. I might like

to look at some of the other programs and say some of this money should

go into other programs, or more should go into highways, but that's

part of the budget speech. The Minister of Finance, in presenting Bill

5 in this form is inviting us to start the budget speech debate all

over again, because we're talking about the spending in 11 different

ministries. He's inviting us to range through all of these and suggest

that the figure for highways should be higher or lower, and the figure

for science, communications etc. should be higher or lower. That's what

second reading of this bill could very well be, Mr. Speaker. I don't

know how anyone could be called to order in getting into the general

budget debate all over again when we have Bill 5 in the form that is

before us.

B.C. Development Corporation: low-interest

lending, $5 million. Who would be against that? What I'm against, Mr.

Speaker, is expecting the Minister of Finance to tell us the details of

how he's going to use that money. BCDC is becoming a fairly large

organization. It is important in many areas of the province, and $5

million is not all that large in terms of their budget. They have

borrowing of I think $200 million, so $5 million is certainly going to

assist them, but it should be the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) talking about that particular

program. If indeed the government wants to put $5 million into the

development corporation.... I think last year they put $25 million into

it; that was a separate bill presented by the Minister of Economic

Development, with a whole range of debate on second reading and then

detailed discus-

[ Page 2064 ]

sion

of that amount of money in presentation of that particular piece of

legislation, which proposed to add a certain amount of money to BCDC.

It was not one item out of 15 presented to us by the Minister of

Finance.

Does the Minister of Finance not trust the other

ministers to present their own estimates? Does he not trust the other

ministers to explain their own programs and to answer questions about

them?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you?

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I am invited to answer a question as to whether or not I

would. I would if they were ministers on my side of the House.

Certainly I can understand some concern on the part of the present

Minister of Finance with respect to some of the ministers who might

have been presenting some of these programs.

Funds will go

to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to support

applied research in industry and universities. This minister has a

budget of $293 million that he will be discussing with us when we get

to his estimates. It's almost an insult, it would seem to me, for that

minister to have presented to the House a bill, and included in that

bill an item that gives him another million dollars for the B.C.

Research Council. Do we not trust the Minister of Finance to support

the B.C. Research Council? Is the Minister of Finance afraid that if he

simply added a million dollars to the estimates of that particular

ministry that ministry would deny support to the B.C. Research Council?

Is that why the members of this House are being asked to direct that $1

million of government money be allocated to the B.C. Research Council,

through the hands of the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications? It has to go through him because that comes under him;

but we're not going to let him make the decision as to whether it

should be half a million, a million or two million. We're going to tell

him in this legislation, because apparently we don't trust him:

"Whatever else you might want to do for the B.C. Research Council, this

bill is going to obligate you to spend $1 million on that council."

That

isn't the only direction we're giving him. To support applied research

in industry and universities: $3.5 million. The question might well be

asked: would we trust that minister to support this kind of program? I

would not have thought that it would have been necessary for us on both

sides of the House to instruct this particular minister, knowing his

ideas on the subject — to vote in support of legislation instructing

him to spend $3.5 million on this kind of applied research. I thought

he liked research. I thought we could trust him to do that. It would

appear, in presenting this legislation, that the Minister of Finance

has some grave doubts as to whether that particular minister would

spend $3.5 million on this kind of research. So he brings in a special

bill, one of the sections of which requires the Minister of Education

to receive $3.5 million, which he, in turn, will pass on for applied

research in universities.

We're not finished with that particular minister. We're giving him

all kinds of instructions. Once again the universities need equipment. That's

logical. If they're going to do more research they need more equipment.

But having instructed the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

to give the universities another $3.5 million for applied research, we don't

even trust him to give them the equipment that they need to do this research.

We're going to tell that same minister: "Look, this bill provides you

with $1 million. It's going to come into your ministry. When you get it,

you in turn are going to give it to the universities so that they can follow

through on the program that we've already told you to follow through on.

That is, we're going to give you $3.5 million for research that you're

to give to the universities. Once you've done that we're going to give

you a further $1 million that the universities are going to have to spend on

equipment to make sure you don't forestall their attempts to do this kind

of research."

How

ridiculous can you be? If that minister needs that kind of detailed

instruction by separate legislation, then that minister should not be

in that job — I don't think he should be anyway. Certainly the

government, in telling us in this legislation that they don't trust the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to spend by way of

research $6.5 million in addition to his $293 million budget, is

certainly itself voting want of confidence in that particular minister.

People supporting this legislation are indeed saying: "We have no

confidence in the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

because we can't give him $6.5 million to proceed with research. We

don't trust him. We're going to tell him exactly what we want done with

it."

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has the

Accelerated Recreational Facilities Program. This is not a new program;

it's a program that was brought into being by the NDP administration in

1972. It's for recognizing the need for recreational facilities

throughout the province, encouraging local communities to develop their

own plans by saying to them that if they're prepared to put up

two-thirds of the money the government will put up one-third to produce

the kind of recreational facilities they need in the province. We put a

total of, I believe, $40 million into that program in a short period of

two and a half years. Not much has been done about it since. It's

certainly past time that more money was put into that program. Now

we're giving $5 million to the Provincial Secretary. The program is

woefully behind. It's been terribly neglected by this administration.

There is need; there is pressure from all over the province. Instead of

the Provincial Secretary coming to this Legislature and saying that in

his ministry he wants an extra $5 million to support this program, we

have separate legislation before us. It's not separate legislation at

all, Mr. Speaker, but included as one of 15 items in this particular

bill. There is certainly no commitment to carry on the program. Is it

an afterthought, possibly, because they happened to find out they had

some money left over? There was no time to include it in the budget; it

was just an afterthought.

There's certainly no commitment to

continue this kind of program beyond the $5 million put into it by this

legislation — this instruction to the Provincial Secretary and, once

again, lack of confidence in the Provincial Secretary to proceed with

that program unless this Legislature tells him that he's going to get

$5 million and he is to do thus and so with it. They don't trust him to

do it unless they bring in a bill explicitly telling him that he is to

spend that $5 million on that program. I too wouldn't trust that

Provincial Secretary without giving him detailed instructions. But if I

had that kind of a minister, I think I would be looking for somebody to

replace him, somebody that would want to do the kinds of programs that

should be done in this province and the kinds of programs envisioned in

presenting the estimates in a more general form.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 2065 ]

Fraser)

isn't finished. We're going to give him some more money. He has a total

already in estimates of $514 million. We trust him to spend the $514

million without getting into the detailed instructions presented in

this bill. We're going to give him another $100 million to do specific

work. That is quite a chunk of money; it might warrant separate

legislation even when it's that large. It should have been an estimate.

But we're going to give him another $3.4 million because apparently,

Mr. Speaker, the government found out, after being in recess for some

seven months, that there are some airports in the province that need

some special assistance. It was too late to put it in estimates. That's

one possibility, or possibly they didn't trust the Minister of

Transportation and Highways to do it. So we're bringing in, by special

legislation, an amount of $3.4 million that's to go to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways with that caveat on it: "You are to use

this for one purpose and one purpose only, or not use it" — because

there's no instruction that he really has to use it. "We're going to

make available to you and your ministry $3.4 million, but if you spend

it you’re to spend it on airports." It's not something that we would

quarrel with. The money should be spent. But it should be presented to

us in estimates, not as an afterthought and not as a specific

instruction to a minister who the Minister of Finance feels cannot be

trusted to spend that $3.4 million without a specific instruction from

this Legislature.

I'm not going to deal with the Sierra-Yoyo

Access Road. I don't think the Minister of Finance knows a great deal

more about that than I do. I think somebody else should be talking

about it; I don't know who.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance tells me knows a lot about it. If

he knows a lot about it, I'm quite prepared to admit that I know very

little about it. I look forward to hearing more about it, and I look

forward to the Minister of Finance getting into a detailed discussion

of the need for the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road improvement, the reasons

why the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road is getting the amount of money that it

is. I can't pick it out right now in my notes. What's the amount?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's your speech, not mine.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance didn't rise to my challenge

to tell me exactly what the amount is for the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road.

In any case, once again apparently we don't trust the ministry to spend

this money on that particular Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources program. If it's that important to energy development, can we

not trust that minister to spend it if we simply put it in his

estimates? I wouldn't like to ask that question. But certainly the

Minister of Finance, in telling us that the Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources has $21 million in estimates.... The Minister

of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will be talking to us about that —

we'll be answering questions about it — but to say to us that it's all

very well to give him $21 million to spend, but there's another job

that has to be done, and if we don't put it in the form of separate

legislation, the Minister of Energy may not use it for that purpose....

So we're going to allocate, out of this total of $168.5 million, $1.8

million with the specific instruction that he spend it on the

Sierra-Yoyo Access Road work or not spend it at all. He can't use it

for anything else; he has to spend it for that particular purpose.

It's

a new form of budgeting. I wonder where this might lead us eventually.

I wonder whether, instead of presenting estimates in the form that they

are presented before us now, we might simply have one long bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus vote 1.

MR. STUPICH: As my colleague says, apart from vote 1.

...that would give each ministry, all in one bill, specific

instructions as to how it might spend amounts as low — and I think the

lowest figure in this bill is $1 million — as $1 million, when they are

dealing with a budget of almost $6 billion. Rather than have estimates,

rather than have a budget speech that we debate generally, we wrap it

all up in one bill, and that will be the debate in the House. Are we

getting to that? Is this the beginning of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Then it could be contracted out.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague here is making a better speech than I am, and

I think you should have the benefit of his remark. He suggested: "Then

it could be contracted out," and there'd be no need for any of us.

The

Ministry of Labour, youth employment and training — who can argue with

the need for youth employment and training? You will recall, Mr.

Speaker, that during the course of my remarks on the budget debate I

held up an official report from the Ministry of Labour, dated February

1980, pointing out that B.C.'s unemployment had reached record levels.

Certainly it's worst among the youth. There is need for youth

employment training and youth employment opportunities. But to say to

the minister responsible for that program: "We have, out of the $5.8

billion budget, been able to find another $4.5 million for youth

employment and training, but we're not going to put it in your

estimates because you might not spend it on that. You might blow it on

something else. We're going to bring in a separate bill, and we're

going to add another $4.5 million to your budget of $57 million, with

strings on it...." We're going to say to you: "Here's another $4.5

million on top of your $57 million, but you are specifically instructed

to spend this on youth employment and training." Lack of confidence in

the Ministry of Labour? I wonder how the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) feels about this. I wonder how he feels about being told, by

way of this legislation, that the government doesn't trust him to spend

an extra 6 percent on top of his budget on youth employment and

training, and is therefore bringing in legislation that will

specifically provide him with another $4.5 million with the specific

instruction that he may use it for one purpose and one purpose only.

Accelerated

senior citizens' housing — again, Mr. Speaker, how can anyone challenge

the need for accelerated senior citizens' housing? We're setting our

sights very low, it would seem to me. One million dollars is not going

to provide very much assistance for one project, let alone for all the

work that has to be done. The minister, in presenting this, said that

there is already $5.25 million in the budget. I think that even $5.25

million isn't nearly as much as there should be for this particular

program. However, that particular ministry — Lands, Parks and Housing

is where it comes — has a budget of S69 million. We're saying to this

minister:

[ Page 2066 ]

"We're going to increase your budget by something like 1.3 percent — we're going to give you another $1 million."

There's

a lot of pressure from all over the province for senior citizens'

housing. Volunteer organizations are trying to increase the amount of

senior citizens' housing available. It's good politics to put more

money into senior citizens' housing. We believe it is. We're not going

to give you a million dollars without strings on it, because you might

not do that with it; you might do something else with it, or you might

not do anything. But we're going to give you another million dollars by

way of a special bill with the string on it that you're going to use it

for senior citizens' housing. We don't trust you to use it for that

purpose otherwise, so we're going to specifically instruct you.

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance told us that these are supplemental

estimates. As supplemental estimates, they should not be presented in

this form; they should be presented in the regular estimates. It would

appear, as I said, that the Minister of Finance was not aware of the

need for all of these programs before, or simply couldn't get to

dealing with these programs because the administration was so busy

trying to cover up its tracks — cover up the dirty tricks. Or, remember

the financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1979, were very

much delayed this year.

Whereas normally they would come out in August

or September of 1979, we didn't see them until February or March this

year. Possibly the government, in doing this this way, is admitting

that they had no idea at all where they stood financially.

Whatever

the reason, the reasons advanced by the Minister of Finance himself for

opposing this particular way of spending taxpayers' money, or the

possibilities I have suggested, this is not appropriate legislation to

be debating in this House at this point in time, and I certainly intend

to vote against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm certainly

honoured and privileged to stand in this Legislature this morning and

give my whole-hearted support to Bill 5, because as I've said before,

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be part of a team which has been able to

build such a strong economy in the province of British Columbia at a

time when other provinces in Canada, states in the union, and other

countries in the world are suffering economic setbacks. I'm proud to

speak on this bill this morning because it has been a joint effort of

this government. Time and effort expended and hours and hours of

planning and work which we have put into running this province have

made this day and this bill possible. It's taken a lot of hard work, a

lot of planning, and some tough decisions, but those decisions have

been good for the province and good for the people of the province.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that our last speaker spent 90

percent of his time trying to tell us that there was no deficit when we

became government in 1976. I want to remind you that in the dying

months of that government when the last speaker was forced to try to

come in and rescue the ship of financial state from sinking entirely

because it had been under the control of the now Leader of the

Opposition as Minister of Finance for some....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, it hadn't been in control, but he had been trying to control it.

Anyway, he was Minister of Finance, and he did a very poor job of it;

six months before they tried to go to the people and hide all the

financial ills under the table. He had to desert the sinking ship and

pass it on to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I want to remind

the people of this province that in the last year of the NDP government

in the province of British Columbia they spent more money than they

took in, which means they ended up with a deficit — and a huge deficit.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's as simple as that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

It's as simple as that. Make no mistake about it. It was attested to by

themselves; they knew they were in trouble. Because the last six months

they were government, what did they do? They stopped spending and

curtailed programs, because they knew they were in trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: They froze staff.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, there was a freeze on hiring staff, and money was withdrawn from

health, social programs and the highways department. Now I ask you:

does that, in itself, attest to the fact that they were in financial

trouble and they knew it? For that member for Nanaimo to stand up here

this morning and try to paint any other picture is ludicrous. All we

have to do is go to the library, pick out the papers of those last six

months that they were government and we'll find they said they were in

trouble. They had to stop spending. So I think we can take with a grain

of salt, really, what the member for Nanaimo has said this morning in

trying to paint a picture that that government did not have financial

difficulties in its last year in office.

Now I want to

contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the record of this government in their

first year in office — again, when the world was not experiencing a

great surge in the economy. This government, in its first year in

office, turned the economy around and managed the finances in such a

manner that we came up with a modest surplus. It was a complete

turnaround. That is why I'm proud to stand here this morning and

support Bill 5.

In Bill 5, Mr. Speaker, there are 17 new

initiatives to assist the economy of this province and 17 new

initiatives to put money back into the economy. Sometimes we have short

memories in this province, but I recall when we had our first surplus

in this province. It was a modest surplus, somewhere around $80

million. But what did the NDP say? The said: "Oh, you're hoarding

money; you're overtaxing the people and you're not putting it back into

the economy." Now we are taking our surpluses and we're putting them

back into the economy. What do they say? They're condemning us again.

So I don't know how in heaven's name this government will ever be able

to satisfy the opposition, because no matter what we do, they stand up

and give us carping, negative criticism. I don't know how we could ever

satisfy them, but that's the nature of the beast. But the criticism is

not even constructive. It's just negative, harping, carping criticism

against a government that they know has done a fantastic job in running

the province. I think, Mr. Speaker — and I say this without malice in

my heart — that they are envious of the record of this great government

and what we have done for the people of British Columbia and what we

have done for the economy. They are envious of the fact that this great

province of British Columbia under this government is looked on with

envy by all the provinces in Canada and, indeed, the rest of the free

world. That is a great record and I'm proud to be part of the team that

put that great record together.

[ Page 2067 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk for just a few moments about some of the bill

initiatives in this great bill with regard to my own ministry. We have

in this bill provision to carry on two initiatives created by this

government. I refer to the LILA program, which is the Low Interest Loan

Assistance Program and an extension of the Assistance to Small

Enterprise Program. The LILA program was created in the province of

British Columbia as an initiative of this government, recognizing that

small manufacturing plants and small businessmen had to have some

access to low-interest money. That was an initiative of this government

in cooperation with the federal government. As we designed the new

initiatives under the General Development Agreement and we signed the

Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement, this new initiative of low

interest loans assistance was part of the package that the province of

British Columbia put together.

We had a little bit of

difficulty selling it to the federal government — I don't mind saying

that — but we showed them that that was what is needed in the province

of British Columbia. Rather than going around with a cheque book and

making grants here and there, we would loan this money to the small

businessman and help him by having interest at half of the prime. That

was an initiative of this government, and we were able to sell that to

the federal government. It's been a great deal of assistance. As a

matter of fact I'll have all the statistics about the number of jobs

created and the number of loans made under this program in its first

and second year when my estimates come up. But it has been of great

assistance to numerous small manufacturing firms and small business

people in this province. It's something new — not the old status quo,

because we didn't want that.

We looked at what had been

happening under the DREE agreement in Quebec, the Maritimes and in

Manitoba. We weren't satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that that was good enough

for British Columbia. We wanted something new, something with

initiative, something innovative, something to help the small

businessman without going around and passing out a cheque, because the

small businessmen in British Columbia, being the type of persons they

are — rugged individualists like our mountains — wanted something new,

and they didn't want the cheques, Mr. Speaker. So that's why we've come

up with this innovative program to give them a little help and just

help them pay these high interest rates.

There is the

opposition day after day standing in this Legislature, telling us that

we're not doing anything to help the small businessman, telling us that

we must do something about interest rates. Mr. Speaker, we have been

doing something about interest rates, and we have been doing something

about helping the small businessman for three-odd years now since we've

been government. What hurts them over there is the very fact that,

indeed, these programs are working, they are helping the small

businessman, and they are creating jobs. They're just a little part of

our overall blueprint for the great economy of this great and dynamic

province of ours.

When we saw that this great program was

working out in the hinterlands, because that's the only place the

federal government would cooperate with us, what did we do last year?

We took $5 million and we put it into the same LILA program and we

applied it to the lower mainland, because those small business people

in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area required assistance to

help them with their interest rates. In other words, this is a B.C.

initiative — not being helped by the federal government — a B.C. plan.

We extended it to cover the whole province. Our idea was so great,

worked so well, that we extended it over the whole province, and it has

been a success over the whole province. That's just the LILA program.

We're helping with interest; helping the small businessman; helping the

guy who wants to help himself. That's what free enterprise is all

about. We're preserving the initiative of the individual, giving him a

little encouragement — that's what governments are for. Just give them

a little encouragement. Don't write them a cheque. Don't give them a

grant. Give them a little encouragement. Give him a little help along

the way and he'll help himself. That's what it's all about.

had another great program called the Assistance to Small Enterprise

Program, with a small amount of money — up to $35,000 — a new program

in British Columbia. Again, we were working with the federal

government. It's something new, not the same old programs that they've

had, the same old deal, shovelling money out. No, it's a program

designed to help the small individual who has an idea, but his banker

won't listen to him. Because we take so much money from the individual

entrepreneur in our country, there isn't much left over like there is

in the United States. He couldn't go to his friend and say: "Hey, loan

me $30,000. I've got an idea." They don't have any risk money left. So

we have to go to our banking system. The banking system doesn't work.

No, it sure doesn't. And here's the small individual — he's got a great

idea, wants to employ people; wants to manufacture a product. Where did

he go for his money? He couldn't go anywhere. That's why we brought in

the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program — to help that individual;

to preserve that entrepreneurship, because that individual's feeling

was that there was no place in Canada he could go for help. That was

part of the great initiative of this government to help and preserve

that entrepreneurship and to help our small manufacturers. It's been a

great and thriving success.

Last year, to the end of January

1980, there were 363 authorized loans in the amount of $6,962,361. I

remember the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) standing in this

Legislature for the first two years saying: "You birds are doing

nothing over there to help the small individual businessman." I want to

tell you that the initiatives that we brought in through the LILA

program and through the ASEP program are new, innovative programs and

they, indeed, have been a great help to many....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Did I hear correctly? The member for Prince Rupert says they're good

programs. I'll bet you if I did a study — talked individually to all

the members — they'd say privately it's a good program. But part of

their attack has been to stand in this House and be negative, be

carping in their criticism.

AN HON MEMBER: Be positive.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm being positive. I'll tell you these are two great programs.

So what have we done again this year? We've taken our ASEP....

MR. LEA: You're being negative now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No! I'm always positive, my

[ Page 2068 ]

friend,

because I have great faith in this province, and I have great faith in

this government, and I have great faith in this country. I'll tell you,

the sooner the rest of Canada and the rest of the provinces get some

faith in this great country and forget about that negative carping

criticism and that gloom and doom that you guys are spreading all over

the province the better off we will be. I want to tell you, my friends,

we make our own future, and to do it we must have faith in ourselves.

That's why this government is leading, that's why this government is

giving faith to the people of British Columbia, and that's why the

economy is going forward, my friends, I want to tell you — not because

of negativism.

I want to get back to talk about this great

program. It was called the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, and

it was outside of the lower mainland, outside of the lower end of

Vancouver Island. But it worked. It's been a great program. It helped

many small individual companies, many small individual entrepreneurs.

What

we are doing this year is changing the name a bit so we don't confuse

it with the joint federal program and calling it SMAP. [Laughter.] It

is really no wonder that we all chuckle, because as I go through these

programs of IDSA and TIDSA and DREE, I have to have a special

dictionary to look up the letters to find out what the words mean. But

we call it SMAP because it's short for Small Manufacturers' Assistance

Program. It is going to have a "snap" to it because it's going to help

many small individuals and manufacturers in the lower mainland. Why

shouldn't they have it?

The significant thing about all of

these programs is that they're possible because the economy is strong

and because we have some surplus funds, and we can do this. It's all

part of our strategy to improve the economy of this great province of

ours. Why do we have these surplus funds? How is this bill possible?

It's possible because of the initiatives and the legislative changes

that we brought in to our natural resources industries, legislative

changes that would ensure that the labourers in our natural resource

industries got their fair share that would ensure that the people of

British Columbia got their fair share, and that certainly would ensure

that those who put their money into the natural resource industries got

their fair share. That is the basis of our resource industry policies,

and it has worked, and that is why our natural resource industries have

responded in kind. That's why we have a surplus.

You, Mr.

Speaker, know full well, as I know full well, that last year in this

Legislature, when we brought in our budget, we reduced taxes to people.

After reducing taxes to people we proved a great theory: if you reduce

taxes to people and if you reduce taxes to industry, they respond. And

what happens when they respond? The economy grows and inflation goes

down. Instead of using your theory, where you tax everybody to death

and run everything yourselves, and bring on inflation.... That's what's

happened everywhere in the world. You people stand up over there and

talk about the great socialist theory. Tell me one area in the world

where your theories have ever worked. What they're interested in doing,

Mr. Speaker, is trying a socialist experiment here in British Columbia.

They tried the socialist experiment in Manitoba and it didn't work. You

want to get back into government again so that you can play with your

little pet theories...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You be quiet! I'm speaking.

...

in British Columbia. A little jiggery here, a little pokery there; work

in a theory here and try and take over this and that. They want to try

and experiment here in British Columbia. They tried their experiment

once. They had three years to try it, and what happened? It didn't

work. Now they tell us and the people of British Columbia: "We didn't

have enough time. Let us back in again and we won't be as socialist as

we were the last time."

Let me give you an instance. There's

an argument going on between the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) as to whether Alcan should be

nationalized or not. They've kept it out of the press headlines, but

they have their meetings. The member for Prince Rupert says: "No way."

The member for Skeena says: "Yes, we should." Then for advice they go

to the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to moderate the argument. They

have great arguments about this. They're fighting among themselves.

"Should we nationalize Alcan or should we not? If we nationalize Alcan

should we go ahead, and if we don't should we let them go ahead?"

They're fighting among themselves. If they were in government they'd

still be fighting among themselves, because they haven't told us what

they would do. They haven't told us what their philosophies are.

want to let you in on a little secret, Mr. Speaker. I know what they

want to do when they become government again, and it frightens me. The

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) doesn't agree with the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), because the member for

Coquitlam-Moody is pretty far left, but only half as far left as the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. The point I'm trying to make is

that they're all left, but they're just left in degrees of left.

They're trying to paint us a great picture.... We've painted all the

red stripes over and now we're a moderate government.

To get

back to the bill, it's interesting to me that we are able to — out of

the surplus funds which come from our natural resource industries — put

additional moneys into our highway program. I know that years ago when

we were building up this great pioneering province and building one of

the finest highway networks to be seen anywhere in the free world....

Those birds over there were in opposition then. And what did they say?

Oh, they called us a blacktop government; oh, we're paving the whole

province. I'll tell you that during that time the great highway network

that we built up was one of the great parts of our economic

development, our tourist industry. If we had not had it, Mr. Speaker,

we wouldn't be where we are today with our tourist industry, we

wouldn't be able to move our goods and services, and we wouldn't be

able to allow those great people from the north country to drive on a

straight superhighway to visit the lower mainland. And they tried to

call us a blacktop government.

What did they do when they

were government? They followed through with their policy that we were a

blacktop government. The then Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) said to

the people who were visiting our great province and leaving behind

millions and millions of dollars of foreign capital: "Go back home; we

don't want you. No way are we going to build highways for you guys just

to come in here and drive on. Go back home; we don't want you. We

haven't got enough money to build highways for our own residents, let

alone for you visitors."

That was their attitude; that's why they failed. One of

[ Page 2069 ]

their

pet socialist philosophies because the leader then.... The member who

is now the Leader of the Opposition was then Premier and I remember a

speech that he made in this House. He said people should do away with

their automobiles; it's just a pet love. They should do away with them.

Nobody seems to realize that this province is still a pioneering

province and we have people in the north and east of this province that

need highways. You tell them to do away with their automobiles and go

back to the horse and buggy. Those people out there pioneering this

great province — putting up with ice and mud and snow so that the

people of the lower mainland can live here in the lap of luxury —

deserve highways, my friend. They deserve highways and I'm proud to be

here in this Legislature and see that $100 million extra is going into

our highway program. Because it's part of our economic development and

a lot of that money will be going into highways to help those great

people in the hinterland, the north, the east, the Kootenays, the great

Peace River country, the great ridings of Skeena, Omineca and North

Island. Who had to come in and finish the road to North Island? We did.

This

is a great bill. I'm not going to take time this morning to speak of

all the great initiatives in this bill, because they're all equally

good. The significant part of this bill is that the money is there. We

are not going to the bank to borrow the money, which would be an impost

on future generations. It would be an impost on the kids who are in

school today if we went out and borrowed the money. That's why this

government is successful. We run a good financial ship. We are not

borrowing on behalf of our future generations, because we pay as we go.

That's why I'm a Social Crediter. That's why I'm proud of this great

team. I want to tell you that we're the envy of every province in

Canada and every state in the union because we are good financial

managers and we are able to bring in these great programs. We are able

to give people faith in the future of their great country, and that's

what it's all about.

MR. LEVI: I rise under standing

order 42 to correct a statement made by the minister, Mr. Speaker. He's

quite right when he says that there was a meeting in which we discussed

the question of nationalization. Don't go, because I want to tell you

what it was. We did discuss the question of nationalization. We were

looking at how we could nationalize the minister's mouth as an

alternate energy resource.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've always

enjoyed listening to that minister. It's comic relief. I really regret

that the debates of this House aren't televised, because I'm sure we

could sell commercials like crazy after a speech if we put the minister

on comedy hour.

In any event, I think it's appropriate that

I follow that particular minister, because I wish to discuss this

afternoon, quite briefly, a very serious situation that we have in

British Columbia today. I think it's appropriate to discuss that

situation under this bill; in fact, it has been referred to several

times by previous speakers. Part of that deals with transportation into

and out of Ocean Falls at the present time. We have $100 million

appropriated in this bill, if the bill passes, for highway construction

and other highway and transportation links.

Just to give you

a brief history, Mr. Speaker, starting last Sunday 114 people were laid

off in Ocean Falls. Just a week prior to that layoff, they took the

only water transportation link into that community away from that town.

In other words, there is no transportation by water for these people,

who were laid off just five days ago, to get out of that particular

community.

This bill is more properly, I suppose, discussed

in committee, because it deals with at least 12 different ministries.

This bill should have been included in the budget as our previous

speaker from Nanaimo has pointed out. But I want to discuss the

situation in Ocean Falls just for a moment. I'm giving the House just a

bit of history of what has happened here.

Some time ago — in

fact on a number of occasions, but more specifically on October 26 last

year, after a visit to Ocean Falls — I wrote to the Premier and

expressed to him the very serious concerns people in that community are

having about the future of that operation. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I

received no reply, not even the courtesy of an answer from the Premier

of this province or from the chairman of the B.C. Cellulose Company,

Mr. Williston, on that particular topic.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Yes, this is in order, Mr. Speaker. This has been a wide-ranging

debate. We're discussing the 114 employees and their families who are

stuck in Ocean Falls at the present time. I'm just anticipating your

ruling.

While we're discussing the 114-person layoff, I

might remind the government that we have a vessel that could be placed

on the Seattle-Victoria route, and that is the Marguerite . Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the sister ship to the Marguerite , the Princess Patricia ,

owned and operated by Canadian Pacific, is sailing this year to Alaska?

It has been given a clean bill of health by the Canadian Coast Guard,

the American Coast Guard and CSI.

MR. BARBER: It has five times the miles on it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, and not only that, but that ship was cleared and refitted at the same drydock, Burrard Yarrows in Vancouver, as was the Princess Marguerite . That ship could sail, which would mean that the Queen of Prince Rupert should now be sailing on the north coast route, and those people in Ocean Falls wouldn't be stranded.

But

we have a far more serious situation in Ocean Falls right now, because

there is going to be a further layoff of approximately 300 people,

taking place on June 1 this year. Every day I'm receiving telephone

calls and letters from that community about the concerns expressed.

I've been pretty patient; I have raised the issue in this House on a

number of occasions, but I haven't come down hard on this government.

But time is running out, and I want a commitment today from the

appropriate ministers of this government — the Premier, the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — that these

people will not be stranded and that assistance will be forthcoming for

them.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

People up

there who are fortunate enough to be members of the union, Mr. Speaker,

are getting some moving allowances and other benefits through the

corporation. But we

[ Page 2070 ]

have

across the aisle from me a government that expounds its belief that

they are of great aid and help to, and have the support of, the small

business community. I doubt that last statement, by the way, but that's

what they tell us. Just as I was coming into the House this morning, I

got another phone call from a small business person who tells me that

they have no assistance and no way to get out of the Falls. He has to

be out by April 24 to meet other commitments, and has no way to do it.

There is no assistance from this government, in spite of the fact that

I was assured by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development that assistance for these people would be forthcoming. But

then, we've learned not to believe everything they tell us, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

look at January 16 this year, when the Premier met with the Canadian

Paperworkers International Union representatives and told them: "We

will not put a foreclosed sign on the door of the Ocean Falls

Corporation, and when the future of that community is decided, the

people up there would be the first to know." As a matter of fact, what

happened was that we, the rest of us in this province, read about it in

the newspaper first. They didn't even have the courtesy to first

discuss the future of that community with the people directly affected.

It's

hard for me to describe what is happening in that community right now.

There is despair and uncertainty. There have been committees formed by

wives of employees and/or former employees in some cases. They are

deeply concerned. It's hard for me to express in this House what is

happening there today. I would certainly invite the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development or any other minister to go and

visit that community as soon as possible — or perhaps he shouldn't, I

don't know. But as I've said, it's very difficult for me to put it into

words. It concerns me that commitments that are not honoured have been

made by members of this government.

You know, Mr. Speaker,

this government made a decision right off the top of its head again in

spite of the fact that they had four years to make a decision. I don't

know how they reached these decisions. For example, I have

correspondence here dated April 2 of this year from a former resident.

Obviously local management wasn't aware that the government was going

to make a political decision to close down that community. I'll give

you a list of what was in progress while the government was considering

this without telling local management or the local people about what

they were doing. There are 14 items. I think I'll read them all,

because I think they're well worth reading. This is a government that

prides itself on its administrative capabilities, yet the millions of

dollars of wasted funds involved.... If they knew they were going to

close down that corporation.... Just listen. This is a short list but

the list is much longer. I'm going to get into that later on in this

session during the debate of the estimates. But I'll give you this

short list.

Firstly, a new ferry ramp to accommodate the Queen of Prince Rupert . That's a joke. I wonder if any of this $100 million is going into that project.

Secondly,

repaired all dam gates for the huge dam. This is one of the things

they've done which wouldn't have been done and wouldn't have been

necessary had the government decided to keep that community in

operation.

Thirdly, all the trestle roads were filled in and hardtopped. Is some of that $100 million going into that project?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The Chair is having some difficulty in

relating your comments to the bill presently before us, which is the

Special Purpose Appropriation Act. Reference of the material would be

in order but not the in-depth debate of articles which are not in any

way related to Bill 5, particularly when that opportunity will present

itself, for example, in estimates, when it would be very much in order.

I would caution the member accordingly.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your observation, so I will

attempt to clarify two points. Firstly, time is running out and has run

out for some people in Ocean Falls. Secondly, I can't think of another

opportunity before the next major layoff to discuss this item. I really

can't. The minister responsible to this Legislature for that

corporation is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development,

who just spoke. He has two large appropriations of funds under this

act. They are funds that should be used to assist those people at the

present time, and I'm wondering if some of these funds are going in

that direction.

When the Minister of Finance gets up to

close debate on this bill sometime next August — or whenever it may be

that he will answer these questions.... Check with the minister. I

can't question the minister directly, but I can question the Minister

of Finance on this bill. I would like to know....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, again, I appreciate the concern you're expressing for the

time factor that you have expressed. Nevertheless, the House is bound

by the rules, and the rule of relevance, certainly in second reading of

this particular bill, must be observed. Notwithstanding the member's

concern for urgency or opportunity, the Chair has no alternative but to

refer again to the relevancy factor of Bill 5. I would caution the

member accordingly and ask him at this time to proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD . All right, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

think it's important to bring in part of the history of a community

without water transportation, although there are $100 million in this

bill under highways estimates, over and above.... What the ministry has

done here is calculated their overruns before the overruns. There will

be overruns over the overruns, I guarantee you, next year. But that's

next year's debate, not this year's debate.

In any event, we

have to ask if any of these funds are for transportation to that part

of the coast. I won't continue with this list of many, many items,

except for one. Two new turbines, plus new materials, were ordered —

and are now in transit — to drive the paper machines in Ocean Falls. If

the government knew what it was doing, why did it allow the corporation

to spend many millions of dollars on these items? The fact is, the

government has not been candid. They do not know what they are doing,

and they are in complete disarray.

To illustrate the concern

shown by some people in that community.... The government stated some

time ago that they would look at the proposal for a new flitch and chip

mill for that community. Here's the problem: they have no wood. This is

a company that is supposed to be interested in starting up and

operating the so-called flitch and chip mill in Ocean Falls, but they

have no wood. Can you believe it? To date, no wood has been allocated

to the corporation and/or to the Impact Lumber, the company which is

going to operate this proposed new mill. As a result, people in that

community

[ Page 2071 ]

who

wish to stay and attempt to get a job with this so-called "new concept

company" have no choice. Eventually they will have to leave whether

they like it or not. A lot of people will be staying just on spec, but

in due course their funds will run out. I should tell you that as of

this morning the corporation has located only 59 new jobs for the 420

employees in that community. We now have 103,000 people unemployed in

this province. How are they supposed to live when their benefits run

out? Many people in that community don't even have benefits; they're

not covered by UIC. At this point, people in the small-business

community, particularly, are receiving no assistance whatsoever to

alleviate their situation. What the heck are they supposed to do?

The

residents of the community have formed the Ocean Falls Residents'

Council. They tell us that neither has a date been set for the

completion of the study of this new flitch and chip mill, nor has a

decision been made about the new mill. The uncertainty is causing

really serious problems.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member,

again I must ask the member to return to Bill 5. While his concern on

the item may be of one nature, to discuss what is not in the bill is

certainly stretching the point to some considerable degree. I would

again ask the member to narrow his discussion relative to what is in

fact on Bill 5.

The member for Skeena, on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD:

On the point you have raised, I think the Chair should probably take

into consideration, in examining the bill and the principle of it, that

it basically has no principle except the expenditure of funds. As has

been pointed out before, there are 15 separate subject matters involved

in the bill. It's a very wide-ranging and encompassing avenue of

expenditure. The member for Mackenzie is trying to examine three of

them specifically, I think, and he's trying to apply them to a

particular situation. I'm not transgressing the rules in doing this,

but I need to refer to the content of the bill: one is in subparagraph

(b), where there is a proposed $100 million for an accelerated highway

building program. He advanced the argument that that encompasses, and

can easily encompass, the B.C. Ferry operation because it is considered

to be an extended highway program.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

I suggest that the Minister of Transportation and Highways wants to

engage in examining this point of order. You might well do that in the

proper way, Mr. Speaker.

Point (

h) refers to $1 million to

improve the economic advancement of the province. That is what the

member for Mackenzie is arguing — to improve the economic advancement

of the province through a specific situation insofar as it is facing

his community. Regarding the transport question of people from that

community who are faced with layoffs and are being denied adequate

opportunity to move out if they so desire, there's an item under (

k) of

$3.4 million for improving airport facilities, which could easily be

encompassed in the context of Ocean Falls. If Your Honour would take

those points into consideration, you might not be too severe in your

suggestions as to the way the member for Mackenzie should approach the

bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I

appreciate the points raised by the member. Nonetheless, again I must

relate to my original comment that to discuss what is not in the bill

would certainly be straining the principle of discussion of any bill,

particularly when there will be other opportunities to discuss it in

detail,

section by section, or in future estimates. The member for

Mackenzie continues.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate your advice. I have made every attempt, in view

of the wide-ranging debate that preceded my gaining the floor, to stay

in order. I have made every attempt to tie this matter into coastal

transportation problems, relating to Ocean Falls and the central coast

particularly. Since these ferries are our highways and are heavily

subsidized by the people of British Columbia and that ministry, there

is no question in my mind that that part of the debate was in order.

However, I'll let you decide; you are the Speaker, so far.

have just about finished, but I have one last point I wish to make.

Some time ago the government commissioned a wood evaluation study of

uncommitted wood supplies on the central coast. Although I have asked

for it on numerous occasions, that study has never been made public.

This directly affects the future of the community of Ocean Falls at the

present time. I would ask the minister to make that study available to

the public, and to at least commit some of that uncommitted timber on

the central coast to the Ocean Falls Corporation for this proposed

flitch and chip mill. It's of vital importance at the present time.

Those people up there who are going to take their chances and stay are

asking me every day: "Have you seen the study? What's happening? Have

we got any wood?"

I would suggest to the government, in

conclusion, that transportation for the people of that community is a

vital top priority. As I said, only 59 of 410 employees have found jobs

as of this morning. Jobs for these people must be found in other parts

of the province if possible.

There must be assistance for

these people to purchase homes when they move to other parts of the

province. Housing was very cheap, as a matter of fact, in Ocean Falls,

because of the tie-in with the corporation. The fact is that nobody is

going to lose any money on his investment on his home in Ocean Falls.

But a home equivalent to one purchased for $20,000 in Ocean Falls

couldn't be purchased for $80,000 in the lower mainland. Like most

people today, people working in that community lived up to their

incomes and they don't have that kind of money and can't afford to

purchase a home at the high interest rates we have today.

see the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) is back in the House. The people of that community would

appreciate a clear statement from that government and that minister as

to the future of the soon-to-be-unemployed residents of that community.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I haven't spoken too often in debate during this session

of the Legislature. It's nice that one or two of the opposition are

still hanging in there, late on a Friday morning. I must say that in

the 17 years I have sat in the House there has never been less content

in debate, never less purpose and never less in the way of constructive

opposition and argument than we have had this year.

MR. BARBER: You said that in 1976.

HON. MR. McGEER: It has deteriorated significantly

[ Page 2072 ]

since

then. I can only attribute this.... If it needed any proof, witness the

benches here today. The irrelevancy of the debate is reflected in the

attendance of members on the opposition side themselves. The five that

are left indicate their particular interest in this debate. While it

might be said that the treasury benches have important business to

conduct outside the chamber, one would have thought if the NDP

attendance was to be so poor, at least they'd be spending their time

researching speeches so we would have a little more content in the

House itself.

We're talking about Bill 5, which appropriates

sums of money for a wide variety of purposes. I certainly don't intend

to take the time of the House to go through that list, but the

important thing for members and for the public to realize is that the

possibility of a bill of this kind appearing before the House is a

result of this government and the fact that we are not following

socialist principles in British Columbia.

What we were

dealing with when that group opposite was in power was not with

surpluses but deficits. That government took power when the treasury

was full. It only took them three years to piffle away all the money

that had been left for them, to run the economy of the province down.

Not just that there was nothing left from the past, but there was

insufficient money coming in to look after the day-to-day obligations.

It didn't just extend into the estimates that the member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich) wants all of our budgets to be compressed into; it

extended into the Crown corporations such as ICBC, where it was felt it

wasn't necessary to bring money to pay for the insurance. It wasn't

necessary to bring money in to pay for the ferries. It wasn't

necessary, Mr. Member — and I'm glad to see you over here where we can

give you a little bit of close attention — for transit or the electric

company. So quite aside from the deficits that were built up in our

estimates on a day-to-day basis, there was this enormous amount of

money that still had to be found to look after the Crown corporations.

Then, when we were through with that, Mr. Speaker, it was fulfilling

all the expectations in unpaid bills that came in for years afterwards,

One

of the features that should give the members opposite some comfort from

this particular bill, aside from the fact that it's possible at all, is

that we're gradually working off that deficit that the NDP left us —

$26 million more. If this government remains in office and continues to

give good management in the future, we'll be able to pay it all off.

The

members opposite are voting against — as we understand their debate —

money going into the kinds of things that I would like to praise the

Minister of Finance for providing. We're attempting, for example, to

bring educational opportunities into the home of every British

Columbian by using the modern technology of television, which can be

done with a modest appropriation of funds for the necessary equipment

to link our educational institutions directly to the network which does

exist in British Columbia and which can provide that service into the

home. But they're against it. Why? Is it because they're jealous of the

fact that the present government, through its wise management, has the

funds to finance this sort of thing? Are they against it because they

don't want television to go into the homes of British Columbians; they

don't want those educational opportunities? Or is it just that they

don't understand the nature of the economics of British Columbia, the

responsibilities of high office — which include among them sound

management of the economy — and the way in which benefits, if and when

they accrue, can be appropriately distributed to bring the maximum

benefit, but without raising expectations beyond the ability of a

government to deliver at some future time?

I would say that

of all of the problems which this government inherited from that very

brief three years that the NDP was in office, the major one was not the

deficit in the day-to-day financing that we found, the shortage of $400

million. It was not the enormous losses in the Crown corporations which

we somehow had to cope with.

It was the unrealistic

expectations that had been created out there in the community that

somehow government was a bottomless pit of money; that this was all

automatic; that there was no need for sound management; that somehow

people could forget fiscal responsibility and the money would roll in;

that we didn't have to worry about the resource industries of British

Columbia; we didn't have to be competitive in the world and produce; we

didn't have to worry about what other nations were doing; we didn't

have to be careful in our relationships with the federal government to

see that we got a fair share of the British Columbia taxes paid to the

federal government — that all those things were unnecessary. All that

had to be there was a group of people with good hearts and fine

intentions and everything would be lovely.

It just doesn't

work that way in government. It never has and it never will. It does

take careful and responsible management, and when that's done, just

occasionally there is a surplus. There is a possibility to give

benefits, to undertake once-only projects — the building of airports,

special appropriations for scientific equipment, providing the capital

facilities for an educational television network around the province,

and so on. One would hope that that opportunity would be repeated next

year, the year after, and the year after that. But it would be folly to

suspect that a combination of wise management, confidence in the

economy, and buoyant world markets would make that happen every year.

Indeed, we can already see storm signals on the British Columbia

economy now, as a result of softening markets in the lumber industry.

to include these amounts of money in the estimates, as suggested by the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), would be to perpetuate and repeat the

errors that were so disastrous when that member and his party held

office. Let us remember that the NDP, when they were in office, stood

for fiscal irresponsibility. During the latter days of their

government, when the member for Nanaimo was the Finance minister, he

can tell you better than anybody that he didn't have any surpluses to

look after. He didn't have any opportunity to build airports, to build

roads, to look after ferries, or to do anything for any of the

constituencies that were represented by the NDP members. Indeed, we

were given to believe by one of those members — a former cabinet

minister who crossed the floor to this side of the House — that there

was outright panic in the NDP when they realized they were coming up to

an election, that the cupboard was bare and all the plans that the

individual members of the NDP had put forward to their constituencies

could not be fulfilled.

But I can tell you that because of

the wise fiscal management on this side of the House, because of the

leadership of the Premier of British Columbia, and because of the

imaginative budgets of our Minister of Finance, that isn't going to

happen — not only to government constituencies but to opposition

constituencies. As the Minister of Finance has said, the benefits that

have flowed from this wise management are going to find their way into

every single constituency of British Columbia, including all of yours,

despite the

[ Page 2073 ]

fact

that you are against it. That's the difference between the management

that is coming to British Columbia today and the management which

characterized your years in office.

I don't like standing up

again and again to remind the NDP of what differed between the way they

managed the economy versus what we have been able to do since we've

been in office. It's been an uphill struggle for us. But if the NDP

insist upon coming into the House and failing to provide any

constructive debate at all and, at the same time, opposing bills which

benefit them and the people of British Columbia, then surely members on

this side of the House are entitled — obliged — to stand up and explain

to the House and to the public precisely why it is that the attitudes

are so different. They couldn't learn in government, and they can't

learn in opposition.

I believe that people who are

concerned, for example, with education, and particularly with

television education, will be interested in the fact that the NDP are

against their having this opportunity to benefit the people of British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they really against that?

That's

what they said. They're against $3.4 million to improve the airports

around British Columbia. They're against that and I think the small

communities of British Columbia should know.

They're against

spending money for refugee settlement in British Columbia. I can

remember when we had appealing resolutions from the other side about

what we should be doing in Vietnam. Now they're against refugee

settlement.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's the saddest part of all.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's the saddest part of all, as the Minister of Finance said, because you can tell where his heart is in this particular bill.

Similarly

they're against the money that we're spending to improve scientific

equipment at our universities, something which has sadly been allowed

to deteriorate. The Science Council, I can tell you, will know that the

NDP are opposed to funding $3.5 million out of the $11.7 million of

requests for sound scientific projects to benefit the people of British

Columbia. They're against that.

You're even against spending

money for highways — $100 million. And can you believe it, Mr. Speaker,

they're against paying off the debts that they themselves accumulated.

It's

another said and sorry day for the opposition in British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker, and the only thing that I could wish upon them is that they do

one of two things: either come and listen to some of the debates and

hope to learn from them; or at least, when they are not in the House —

as most of them are absent today; I don't know whether it's because

it's Friday afternoon — they should be trying to improve their own

speeches so the calibre of debate in this House can be brought back to

its traditional level.

HON. MR. MAIR: Almost immediately you'll get an example of what you were talking about.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly thank the Minister of Health for his very kind remark.

The

last speaker has indicated that he feels that the opposition is against

everything. Well, I'll tell you what the opposition is against, Mr.

Speaker. We're against having to vote for and discuss three separate

budgets, because that, in fact, is what this bill does. This is, in

essence, a third budget being brought into this House. We discussed at

some length the supposed budget; we have been discussing for some time

another bill that deals with surplus revenue which, in effect, is an

extension of the budget; and now we are here again today discussing a

third supplement to the budget, because that is what this is all about.

This is simply allocating bits and pieces of money that should have

been included under the estimates of the various ministers — and we are

certainly against that kind of strange and inadequate financing in this

province.

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker talked very

glowingly about the things that this government has done; he talked

very glowingly about what this bill was going to do. I'm wondering,

when he stands in this House and talks about the great financial

position that this province was in in 1972 when the New Democrats took

over, if he recalls some of the things he said about the financial

position of this province just prior to 1972 when he sat in a slightly

different position than he sits now. He seems to have changed his tune

a bit. As I recall, at the time the New Democratic Party took office in

this province, the current assets of this province were not

sufficiently great to cover the current liabilities.

MR. LEA: Parity bonds.

MRS. WALLACE:

That's right — the current outstanding liabilities. I think if you

checked the public accounts for those years, Mr. Speaker, just as we

took over in 1972, you will find that that information is there, for

all those who would see, to see.

The Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) stood up in the

House and made glowing remarks about the future generations of this

province never having to face any debts because this province was debt

free. I would just like to refer to