1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7513 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

ICBC legal work and political fund-raising. Mr. Lauk ––

Pension funds. Mr. Lea –– 7514

Price of gasoline. Ms. Sanford –– 7514

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7515

Expo 86. Hon. Mr. Richmond replies –– 7515

Tabling Documents –– 7516

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Davis –– 7516

Mr. Cocke –– 7518

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7520

Mr. Skelly –– 7523

Mr. Reynolds –– 7526

Mr. Howard –– 7529

Hon. Mr. Kempf –– 7531

Ms. Brown. –– 7534

Division –– 7538

On the main motion

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7538

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to standing order 12,

which was just recently stated, it is my sad duty to inform members of

the Legislative Assembly that Speaker Davidson's father passed away

this morning. If it is your wish, the appropriate condolences will be

sent to Mrs. Davidson senior and the family.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to

introduce the interns who have been working with the New Democratic

Party caucus in the Legislature. Their names are Colin Hanson,

Christine Hutchinson, Dale Jackson and Chris Katliff. It's my honour to

say that we very much appreciate the work of the interns and the

internship program that has been developed in the Legislature in

cooperation with all parties.

I would also like to have members of the Legislature join me in

acknowledging the fact that it's the Greek national day today. March

25, 1821, marked the beginning of the Greek war of independence, which

freed the cradle of democracy, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of all

members in congratulating the Greek community in British Columbia and

wishing them all the best on their national day.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to introduce a number of Social Credit youth members visiting

the precinct today: Doug Home from Vancouver South; Dave Tompkins from

Vancouver–Little Mountain; Darin Nielsen from Richmond-South Delta;

Scott Leaf from Maple Ridge; Mike Sporer from Burnaby South; John Lind

from Oak Bay–Gordon Head; Scott Andrews from Oak Bay–Gordon Head; and

Leon Skender from Saanich and the Islands. Would the House join me in

making them welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Legislature to join

with me in welcoming a neighbour. Visiting with us today in the

Legislature from Lethbridge, Alberta, is Maurice Cloutier. He's here

visiting relations — I won't tell you who because it's someone in the

press gallery — and I want this person to be cordially invited and

welcomed to British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like the House to welcome Sandra and Gerry

Lutz from Victoria. Gerry is vice-president and general manager of

Westcan Stevedoring and general manager of Westcan Terminals, the

company that will be welcoming the over 60 cruise ships that will be

visiting Victoria during 1986.

Oral Questions

ICBC LEGAL WORK AND

POLITICAL FUND-RAISING

MR. LAUK: Prior to August 8, 1985, the Attorney-General,

pursuant to amendments to legislation, seized control of the

distribution of something like $20 million worth of legal work carried

out by lawyers on behalf of ICBC. Since that time a Vancouver lawyer by

the name of Michael Warren has sent a personally addressed, private and

confidential letter — a copy of which I have — seeking a tithe on

behalf of the Social Credit Party from the law firms affected. In light

of the suggestion of patronage in these two events, has the

Attorney-General decided to make public the guidelines, if any, for the

awarding of ICBC legal work?

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to congratulate the member for being

so current on information, and being up to date on communications

travelling around the province. There is absolutely no doubt that

fund-raising letters are written on behalf of all parties to lawyers,

doctors, accountants....

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, not teachers. There'd never be any

politicking there.

I know that we have the same sort of campaigns as the gentlemen

opposite. But I can assure the member that absolutely no lists or names

were transmitted by me or anyone under my authority to anyone who may

have been raising money for any political party. That is not done. You

will find, I think, that that letter you speak of did not just canvass

lawyers who were doing ICBC work; it canvassed a broad spectrum of

lawyers. Hundreds of firms received that letter and perhaps others. So

the answer is that the criterion for doing ICBC is competent legal

service at a very reasonable fee.

MR. LAUK: To further impress the Attorney-General with the

currentness of my research, I have a second letter from Michael Warren.

The second letter, dated December 10, 1985, was sent to those firms

that were taken off the ICBC list and who had not yet replied to Mr.

Michael Warren's letter asking them for a tithe.

Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate the persistent

harassment of law firms for contributions to the Social Credit Party?

When these letters go to firms who have refused to contribute to Social

Credit and who have remained off the list or are still having trouble

getting back on the list to do ICBC work, there is the smell of

blackmail on the part of the Social Credit Party. I know that the

Attorney-General would not tend his good name and office to such

blackmail. Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate this and

confirm that these contributions are not being hoisted from law firms

on the basis that they would get legal work from ICBC or any other

Crown corporation, agency or the government itself?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: In the event that Mr. Warren sent a letter to

the law firm of the member opposite, I certainly will have Mr. Warren's

case referred to the patients' review board.

On a more serious note, no one was taken off the ICBC list. A number

of firms that did very large megabucks of ICBC work were on August I of

last year not given additional ICBC files for a period of six months

while all the work was reviewed and while a redistribution of ICBC work

around the province was made.

Before we took these steps, 79 percent of the ICBC work across the

whole province was done by about 15 or 20 law firms in the lower

mainland. Now it is being distributed so that where there are accidents

in the Kootenays or Kamloops or Prince George, wherever possible those

are being done by

[ Page 7514 ]

local law firms. Nobody came off that list because of their

political stripe.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, they didn't. In fact, the first one that

came off was somebody who occupied the office I had under our

government many years ago. Nobody came off because of their political

stripe and nobody got back on because of it. They were taken off

because they were the major producers of ICBC bills, and it was done on

the basis of review. The distribution took place, and all ten of those

firms are now doing work, but they're not doing it at the level they

were before.

So whatever communications may be floating around from fundraisers

have nothing to do with taking people off or putting them on.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney-General assure the

House...? Let me ask this question a different way. Can the

Attorney-General indicate — if he knows — how many firms that were put

back on ICBC work contributed to the Social Credit party between the

time they were taken off and the time they were reinstated?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I can't answer that. I wouldn't know the

answer to that question. But I can tell you that everybody of that

original ten that were taken off were reinstated after each of the

firms was interviewed — not by party fundraisers but by people charged

with the responsibility of examining how the work was done, looking at

the systems in the offices. They went in and interviewed every one of

those firms, went over their systems and evaluated all the ICBC work,

and we restored all those firms that were originally suspended from new

work.

So they were taken off holus-bolus, they were put on holus-bolus. I

have no doubt that they may have been canvassed by your party too, but

it had no bearing on their coming off or their going on.

MR. LAUK: Last supplementary. Surely the Attorney-General, in

light of the appearance of blackmail and patronage, can make public

those firms which contribute to the Social Credit Party, receiving

legal work from the government. The NDP or any other political party

does not have that kind of public patronage to dish out. So when we

canvass lawyers, we canvass them all. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that

the Attorney-General, if he would.... Has he decided to make public

those law firms that have contributed to the Social Credit Party, that

receive legal work from the province of British Columbia, its Crown

corporations or its agencies?

HON. MR. SMITH: I was just looking at a list here of Victoria

firms. The firm that received a fair amount of legal work from the

government this last month is a firm.... Brewin and company, I believe

it is. It's probably because of their political contributions that

they've received that work, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre has

indicated that that was his final question, so I will recognize the

member for Prince Rupert.

PENSION FUNDS

MR. LEA: In regard to the Attorney-General's last answer, I

wouldn't doubt it.

I'd like to ask a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations. During the last year or so there has been a phenomenon

happening in our country — in fact, in North America — that I think

should cause us all concern, and that is employers who are stealing

pension funds from employees. It's going on in a widespread way right

across Canada. As I understand it, there is some movement between the

federal government and the provinces to try to stem the tide; in other

words, to stop companies from taking money from pension funds for

corporate use.

As an example, we have one right here in Victoria. It's Canadian

Newspapers Co. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Thomson Newspapers

Ltd. They own the Times-Colonist . Now to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker,

so that the minister can answer more succinctly, the market value of

pension funds at December 31, 1983, was $72,844,742. The next day the

market value of the pension fund of January 1, 1984, was $26,050 877.

What is happening, as with this company, is that companies are going

in and taking the pension funds, including the contributions by the

employees, and stealing that money and using it for corporate use. I

know that it's a concern of governments across Canada. I'd like to ask

the minister whether or not his government has decided to take

legislative action to stop this stealing of employees' money. It's

stealing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment, upon the

authenticity or otherwise of your premise. You've used exceptionally

strong words indicating stealing, which I presume means theft, which

means an offence under the Criminal Code. I'm happy to take the

question as notice. If you have something specific, you might direct it

to the Attorney-General.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the companies are doing

anything illegal. It is legal theft, and that's what I'm asking the

government to deal with. Someone from the other side said: "Gee, I

thought he was a Conservative now." Does being a Conservative to them

mean that employers can steal from the employees? Is that what it's all

about? What we have here is legalized theft of employee pension funds,

and it's sanctioned by the governments of Canada and the governments of

most provinces by legislation or by not taking legislative action.

What I'm asking is: has the government decided whether or not

they're going to take some action so that employees' pension funds are

not used for corporate use and disappear on the employees?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, my answer stands. I'm quite

happy to look into the matter.

PRICE OF GASOLINE

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week the minister indicated

that he would get back to the House regarding government action on the

failure of the oil companies to pass on the savings in the wellhead

price, and I'm wondering if the minister is ready to report to the

House now.

[ Page 7515 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member was

here during the reading of the budget and noted some of the provisions

in the budget and that the provincial government has capped — from a

tax point of view — the cost of tax increases. As for the other part of

it, I am researching it and will get back to you shortly.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Tourism. The minister no doubt learned when he returned from his

recent vacation that the Kamloops and Region Expo 86 Committee is now

bankrupt. I'd ask the minister why the government did not fund regional

Expo tours and promotions from the outset rather than to launch belated

bail-outs and rescue operations for societies after they get into

trouble.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct

the member's opening remark, which I'm sure was meant in a political

sense: I was not on a vacation, contrary to what the member might think.

I'm very much aware, Mr. Speaker, of the problems that two or three

of the local Expo community committees have run into, specifically

Islands 86, the Kamloops committee, and possibly the Cariboo committee.

To date, we have some 96 local Expo community committees in the

province. Most of them are functioning very well. A couple of them

tackled projects that may have been just a little too ambitious and

consequently got themselves into a bit of financial difficulty; in

fact, considerable financial difficulty in two cases.

This is not to fault anyone. The intent was there, and hard work was

put into their project. But for one reason or another, their

money-making schemes did not pay off. We have offered these committees,

through the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, financial assistance on a

two-for-one basis, which I think is more than fair. No committees were

promised, or even was it indicated, that they would have any financial

help at the outset of their activities. We have offered financial help

on a two-for-one basis; that is, through the lottery fund, the

Provincial Secretary will put up $2 for every $1 that the local

committee raises to offset their financial difficulties.

At the moment, Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right: the committee

in Kamloops is in considerable difficulty. But with the help of some

very eager volunteers, and one paid person in region E, I'm sure that

by the end of this week they will have overcome those difficulties and

will be well on the way to planning Expo festivities for the coming six

months.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. The

Minister of Tourism rises.

EXPO 86

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer

questions taken on my behalf yesterday by the Provincial Secretary.

They were asked by the same member, the member for Okanagan North (Mr.

MacWilliam), wherein he questioned the specialized periods at Expo. He

was questioning why they are now being brushed aside and Expo officials

have shelved the promotional events which were promised to the

international participants, etc. I wish to to clear up any

misconceptions that this House or the people of British Columbia might

have regarding the specialized periods at Expo, and perhaps caution the

member to do a little more research in the future before he makes such

statements.

In fact, Expo is paying particular attention to the specialized

periods because of their importance to the exposition. In the last six

weeks we have increased the budget to the specialized periods by $1.2

million. We are continuing to strengthen our commitment to those

periods. The additional revenue has been generated through corporate

sponsors and in areas where revenues are charged for such periods, such

as admission to SteamExpo and the selling of display space at the

Abbotsford air show.

To date, over 20 countries are participating in the specialized

periods, and there are over 1,000 activities taking place in

conjunction with these periods. Not one event has been cancelled or

reduced, Mr. Speaker, but in fact they're all growing in stature.

I wish to give you a list of the specialized periods that are going

to take place at Expo, and you will see the significance. The tall

ships exposition is one that has had to be changed in nomenclature more

than anything, just simply because we could not compete with the

attraction of the refurbishing of the Statue of Liberty. But this has

allowed us to stage an event with a much broader meaning to the ships

of Canada and British Columbia. They will have a much higher profile

than before.

The search and rescue specialized period is a one-week period with

over 200 activities at False Creek. Taking part are such countries as

the U.S.A., Australia, Britain, France, Switzerland, Canada, Japan and

the U.S.S.R. It's the largest gathering of its kind ever held in North

America; in fact it is the first time that it has not been held in

Europe.

Air Fair '86 is becoming stronger than ever, providing an

opportunity of making the Abbotsford air show a truly viable

international air show that guarantees its success for many years to

come.

The Flight into History has grown out of 40 participants. The arctic

and bush plane fly-past has grown to 30 planes, with more confirmations

expected daily. The DC3 fly-past will reach its target of 30 airplanes,

Mr. Speaker. In fact there's every indication that this number will be

surpassed.

[2:30]

In the innovative-vehicle design, 12 participants and countries

have indicated that they will be participating. In the human-powered

vehicle competition, 154 international participants are demonstrating

on a competitive basis. The U.S.A., Canada, the Federal Republic of

Germany, Norway, Britain, Australia and the U.S.S.R. will be

participating in the polar transportation and communication special

period. In the trucks and intercity buses special period, again, many

countries are participating. It is the same with the urban

transportation specialized period, and the automobile

section in

display and demonstration. It is the same with communication and

mobility for elderly and disabled people; the conference design and

demonstration will be attended by the U.S.A., Canada, Japan, Britain

and Italy. It is the same with the marine communication specialized

period, and the aviation design and demonstration, which will be

attended by the U.S.A., Canada, Britain, Norway, Spain, Australia and

the U.S.S.R. It is the same with the alternative fuel and power systems

and transportation for recreation displays and demonstrations, the

human power transportation and the underwater and offshore resources

demonstrations. It's the same with the modern rail conference, which

will be attended by

[ Page 7516 ]

France, Britain, Czechoslovakia, Canada, the U.S.A., Australia,

Switzerland, Spain, Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany. I didn't

want that member to leave the wrong impression with this House or with

the people of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I wish to raise with Your

Honour relates to standing order 47A, especially that one about answers

being brief and precise, and point out to Your Honour that the

so-called answer just given by the minister is an abuse of the rules.

It did not deal with the question that was asked, but dealt with

everything else but. I think that minister should be brought to task

for abusing the rules of this House. He should not be permitted to

defend his inadequacy as a minister by that kind of tripe.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is straying from the point of

order. There is no point of order.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Just to be brief and concise, I would like

to table responses to questions that were asked of me recently in

question period.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Forests for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, and the report of

the five-year forest and range resource program, 1986-1991, submitted

in accordance with

section 9 of the Ministry of Forests Act.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie tabled the annual report and financial statement

for the British Columbia Cellulose Company for the fiscal year ending

December 31, 1985.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, oh, for the good old days when

budgets were small, when budgets were balanced and when five cents

bought a good cigar. Probably one of the most serious changes over the

years has been the result of inflation. Five cents bought a good cigar

as recently as the late 1930s. Today, I gather, a good cigar costs

several dollars and maybe more like five dollars. In other words,

inflation has increased the cost of most things by as much as ten

times, and in some instances 30 or 40 times. Inflation has been a

problem.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

One of the reasons for inflation, of course, has been the increased

role, particularly the increased spending, of governments. In the late

1920s, for example, provincial governments spent something of the order

of 3 percent of the gross product of the country; 3 percent of income

was spent by the provinces. Altogether, the private sector accounted

for close to 90 percent of all expenditure, government was more like 10

or 12 percent, and the provinces 3 percent.

Now the provinces by and large spend somewhere between 16 and 20

percent of the gross provincial product. In British Columbia's case,

evidently, the figure is 17 percent. It was of the order of 12 percent

in the late 1960s. It rose to 18 percent in 1975 after the NDP era; it

dropped back to around 15 percent in 1979.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) refers to deficits. He

refers to his concern about the large federal deficit, and I agree with

his concern. He said that the federal deficit had been increasing over

the last 15 years. My recollection really is that since 1975 our

federal budget has been in deficit and has been increasingly in

deficit. Our provincial budget has been in deficit since 1979. So we've

had a mounting federal deficit over the last decade. We've had a

substantial provincial deficit over the last six years, and it's

currently running of the order of $1 billion a year in a budget of the

order of $9 billion.

There are various views as to deficits, whether they're desirable or

not. The basic Keynesian idea was that governments ran deficits during

periods of recession in order to maintain and hopefully increase

employment, at least in the government sector and government-related

sectors. The converse, the other side of the coin in Keynesian

philosophy, was that in good times governments taxed more than they

paid out and ran substantial surpluses, and that over the long pull

their deficits in poor times were offset by their surpluses in good

times.

I look carefully at the provincial deficit currently running on the

order of $900 million or, let's say, in round numbers, $1 billion a

year. There are those who would say that that's not a deficit, or it's

not a substantial deficit. They're looking at a different kind of

accounting. That accounting separates current operating expenses from

capital expenditures. I believe that we should move — we should have

moved, the federal government should have moved, although they moved a

little bit — towards a two-tier budget which has operating expenses,

current expenses in the sense of salaries, wages, maintenance and

supplies, all included as one tier in the budget. The second tier would

have capital items, capital expenditures, outlays on major projects

with a life of more than a few years — a highway, a bridge, a railway,

light rapid transit, major construction projects with a long life. The

capital budgets should balance project by project over the life, at

least the accounting life but more likely the physical life, of that

project. Now those who take the two-tier budget approach and separate

capital from operating costs don't see our budget as a billion dollar

deficit budget. I'd like to refer to a study which was done two years

ago and is often quoted by members opposite. It's entitled "B.C.'s

Budget and the Need for Restraint," and its authors — members of the

B.C. Economic Policy Institute, Mr. Rosenbluth and Mr. Schworm

concluded several things, and I'm quoting: "In fact, Mr. Curtis has

distinguished between cyclical and structural segments of the

deficit...." They go on, however, to draw the conclusions which I would

draw,

developing a two-tier budget instead of a single budget. They say:

"While the B.C. Public Accounts shows a deficit

beginning in 1980 and reaching an all-time high in 1983, Statistics

Canada's financial management system shows a deficit only in 1983, and

Statistics Canada's national income accounts show a cumulative surplus

from 1975 in every year through 1984.

"Transfers of funds to Crown corporations are included

in the Statistics Canada analyses. This turns deficits into surpluses

by taking an overall view of things.

[ Page 7517 ]

"Thus it is reasonable to expect the corrected deficit

for 1984-85 is not significantly different from zero. Thus there is no

evidence of a structural deficit. When one compares B.C.'s record with

that of other provinces on a national income account basis, only

Alberta and Saskatchewan have comparable records of surplus. Ontario,

Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have a consistent record of deficits.

The statistical record thus shows that British Columbia is in a better

position than any other province except Alberta to counter the severity

of the 1983 depression by expansionary fiscal policy."

Now if I'm dealing purely with the mechanics of things, I'm saying

that if you had a two-tier budget and you separated capital from

operating accounts, you would arrive at a conclusion that we had, at

least up until the last 18 months, a more or less balanced budget.

Items such as the payment to B.C. Rail effectively paying off its

historic debt would be an item in the capital account and since it ran

to $400 million or $500 million it would substantially have wiped out

by itself the operating deficit which the government reported.

I know members opposite agree essentially with what I'm saying,

because they often quote this study, but they draw a further conclusion

and the conclusion is that because we don't really have a deficit we

should be spending more. The province should indeed be spending more —

spending more to employ people. I think fundamentally then their

argument is that they would run a much higher deficit. Indeed they

would probably run an operating deficit. I know that they are critical

of the nature of the capital items — the capital projects — the

so-called mega and other projects, because they say there isn't

anything like as high an employment content in those projects as they

would obtain by launching much larger numbers of smaller local

development. That's a matter of argument. I think in one sense they're

right, but in the longer term a number of the megaprojects will have a

substantial impact on the ability of the province to generate more

income overall to allow the private sector to operate more freely and

more effectively. But they are saying essentially: "We don't have much

of a deficit. We would run a much larger deficit. We would put more

people to work employing provincial government funds."

I'm critical of that argument for another reason. I prefer balanced

budgets. I would prefer a smaller budget overall in the province, but I

am critical of the approach which really says that the provincial

government, by spending more, can pull the provincial economy up by its

bootstraps. Fortunately, or unfortunately, Canada is a substantial

trading country; certainly British Columbia is a substantial trader.

For every additional dollar spent in the province, much of the effect

is felt outside. It's felt in the citrus fruit growing areas of

California; it's felt in the automobile factories of Detroit; it's felt

in the textile mills in England; it's felt in the transistor battery,

etc., receivers of Tokyo, and so on.

[2:45]

The leakage out of our economy is substantial. So by spending tax

dollars and spending them wholesale, they do not generate anything like

the numbers of jobs one might expect in a self-contained economy. So

simply to throw money at the economy and expect to generate a lot more

jobs is, I believe, fallacious.

We've had problems balancing our budget, at least if you use the

conventional old-style current accounting. In fact, we're roughly $1

billion short this year. We have been for several years of balancing.

The main reason for this is that we've continued to spend a very large

proportion — something like 70 percent of the budget — on people

programs like health, education and welfare. We've maintained those

expenditures at an annually increased rate in line with the growth of

the economy or even more so. So on the expenditures side we've had a

very large requirement, which continued to mount. On the income side

we've had a disappointing result from our resource industries. That

disappointing result comes partly as a result of price declines in

international trade, and partly in decreased volumes of sales abroad of

timber products, minerals and, latterly, of energy minerals as well.

Just to give you an indication, Mr. Speaker, back in 1978, when we

had a balanced budget — balanced both on operating and capital accounts

— income from the resource industries was $704 million. Running right

through to the present time that figure has remained roughly constant.

It was of the order of $700 million in 1985. In the interval the real

purchasing value of $700 million has fallen roughly in half. So we have

roughly half the real income from the resource industries now that we

had six years ago. That is the principal disappointment.

There are those who are critical of the forecast for this year, as

contained in the budget of income. I'd point to the fact, for example,

that lumber prices right now are at or close to an all-time high.

That's a good indication, hopefully, of a substantial revival in income

from that very important sector. Nevertheless, we have in the interval

lost a large chunk of income which otherwise could have been used to

finance the major people programs.

Now the big ticket items — the big capital items — the items of the

kind that I say should be in our capital budget. We have the Coquihalla

Highway and its extensions from Merritt to Kamloops and later from

Merritt to Kelowna. I believe that that should be fully documented. It

should be described for all to see, not only in terms of its costs year

by year — its capital costs and its operating costs — but also the

income side. That should be in our capital budget.

SkyTrain. I think I understand the finances of SkyTrain, but they're

very difficult to discover from our own accounts. I think that our

accounts, if they were properly displayed, would be thoroughly

defensible. While I realize that some of the interest is being

capitalized, I think that too can be defended as a proper approach to

capitalization of an important transportation link.

Northeast coal. It is virtually impossible to discover what the

accounting of northeast coal is. I think that the principal argument

for the northeast coal development, i.e., another major transportation

artery across the province, is a valid argument. I believe, though,

that it would be much more helpful all around — not only to understand

what's happening, but even to defend the project — if it were possible

to clearly identify what the expenditure items are, how that

expenditure is being capitalized, and how the government proposes to

finance it over time.

Site C. I'm for hydroelectric developments as long as they can be

built on a total cost-recovery basis. I know that one has to allow for

inflation as well, but I would like to be sure that a large part, if

not all, of the costs of each new hydro development, especially if some

part of it is to be exported,

[ Page 7518 ]

will be covered by export contracts. Again, a proper accounting

would show (

a) the operating costs, but (

b) more important in that

case, the capital costs — the flows over time; whether they in fact

balance on a present-value or other basis.

I think that hospital and school construction — all major capital

items — should be in a separate budget, and each identified by location

and each paid off over time, not in one lump sum in one year, as we

endeavour to do now and have always done, in our accounting. We should

not charge them off in the year in which they are completed, or

endeavour to do so. That invites all kinds of manipulation in respect

to report. I think that contradicts the basic role of this Legislature:

that is, to understand what's going on and to criticize, hopefully to

make recommendations to improve the whole process of government in this

province.

On the operation side, health is the biggest item. Health is nearly

three billion dollars a year. Health expenditure in British Columbia is

of the order of 6 percent of the gross provincial product. I don't find

that disturbing. The main reason I find that laudable is that in the

United Kingdom, for example, health as one of the major items of cost

runs more like 8 percent. I continue to read in the American press that

health overall costs more like 10 percent of the United States gross

national product. I really can't understand the differences — why we

are down around 6 percent with a very comprehensive scheme, essentially

universal, and why the costs are higher proportionately in other

jurisdictions. Nevertheless, our health expenditure as a proportion of

our provincial income looks good compared to others, in fact looks

manageable.

Education: more like 4 percent. Comparable to other jurisdictions,

perhaps higher than in some. Our welfare expenditure is now around 3

percent of gross provincial product, hopefully declining as

unemployment drops; but that depends very much on the job outlook in

the province.

The opposition has an amendment before the House which relates

to.... I'll call it special funds. These are funds over and above the

items — principally health and education — which are voted on

regularly, or at least annually, by this Legislature. The special funds

are additional amounts. I understand that the principal reason for the

special funds is that they can be spent without automatically involving

increased expenditures on wages and salaries. I agree with that

argument. Because most people — certainly most people in the private

sector — have to live on roughly the same incomes as they have received

for some years, I believe it's only fair that our public servants

receive similar treatment; that for one reason or another the local

administrations, particularly of the school districts and so on, not

have the opportunity through increased budgets to pay more money to

people individually, but maintain their payrolls. These special funds

then go exclusively to such items as more and better textbooks, better

computer equipment and so on. That's the argument for special funds, as

I understand it.

Taxation. Basically, the tax cuts announced this year are a

continuation of those announced last year. I have long believed that we

shouldn't impose property taxes on machinery and equipment. Very few

other jurisdictions do, in industry and commerce. That is being removed

progressively over a three-year interval.

In the case of the capital tax, I would remove it entirely. I know

it's popular to talk about taxing banks, but I can't really understand

why we continue to levy a capital tax on banks which don't have their

headquarters here, and indeed now give preferential treatment companies

that have insurance headquarters here, if we're taking seriously the

initiative announced in the federal budget, which sees Vancouver, along

with Montreal, as a special international financial centre. We

shouldn't have discriminatory taxation on outsiders, whether they be

headquartered in the rest of Canada or abroad. I am critical of both

those measures: failing to remove the remnants of the capital tax —

that which applies to banks — and imposing a preferential tax on

insurance premiums.

Recovery. We're obviously in a modest recovery mode. Expo 86 looks

like it will not sell only 14 million visits; it may sell upwards of 16

million and probably more like 20 million visits. If that's so, we've

picked up another couple of hundred million — at least, the treasury

has — and we'll go that distance towards balancing our budget.

We have some other indications of recovery. Unemployment is down

modestly; lumber prices, as I mentioned earlier, are at an all-time

high — suddenly, hopefully for a period of months. But if that happens

again, income from the forest sector will be up. So perhaps the deficit

won't be a billion dollars.

One other item, finally. I hope that the Minister of Finance will

look very carefully at the idea of a value-added tax or a special

business tax of the kind that is now being seriously studied by the

federal government. I don't know enough about the subject to declare

whether I am in favour of it or not, but I know that the federal

government is holding hearings across the country on this subject, and

that there is some expectation that the provinces will fall in line and

use the same tax base on which to levy their sales tax. Whether we like

that tax idea or not, whether the value-added tax or some variation of

it appeals to us, it's nevertheless something being given very serious

study in Ottawa, and I believe that the province must respond in one

way or another.

MR. COCKE: I guess maybe I've been here too long and I've

already indicated that. I listened to the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour, who was in the House of Commons and has been here

for a number

of years, speaking to a resolution. Mr. Speaker, I thought every second

that you'd be calling him to order. He spoke on the budget debate.

We've got a resolution before us that is very, very precise, and the

House Leader knows it's very precise.

I'd like to speak on that for a second. When the House Leader goes,

"Aaah," what he is saying is that he is spitting in the eye of the

rules of this House. The problem with this chamber is the fact that we

do not, oftentimes, live by our own rules. Mr. Speaker, we have a

motion before us. It's a motion of confidence, and it says: "But this

House regrets that in the opinion of the House the hon. Minister of

Finance, by setting up special funds which can be allocated on a

political basis rather than assuring adequate operating budget for

ministries, is jeopardizing the management of our natural resources,

the provision of quality services and undermining the employment and

income security of ordinary British Columbians." Now maybe somebody's

going to tell me you can drive a truck through it, but I'll tell you:

that was one awful big lorry that I heard coming from the other end of

this chamber.

[3:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 7519 ]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to that particular amendment, what the

opposition is criticizing here, number one, is discretionary funds.

We're saying that you don't take a half-billion dollars and put that

half-billion dollars in the hands of three ministers to use at their

discretion, to divvy out that money on a political basis, on a kinship

basis, or any other basis.

The reason we have a Legislature, committees and this whole process

is so that the opposition can go down the list. vote by vote, approve

or disapprove, and the government can do the same thing. But instead of

that, we have to vote in one solid block a discretionary fund that is

outrageous. We know that Mr. Bennett Sr. set up some programs, and they

were permanent funds that were set aside. We had the First Citizens'

Fund and we had different funds and, as a matter of fact, the NDP when

they were in government had special funds set up for employment for

youth and so on. I'm not suggesting that those kinds of funds should be

written off. I am saying, however, that to substitute special funds

like this for voted money.... For instance, in health care, have

you ever seen anything so absolutely diabolical as a cut in medicare of

$30 million? Doctors who charge $111 for a diagnostic procedure etc.

are not going to be charging $100 or $90 this year, and there are not

going to be fewer people sick this year. The reason they're doing that

is that they've got those slush funds rolling around. They've cut

ambulance by $4.5 million. I have some real concerns over that one,

because that was my baby, among others.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, there is not going to be a substantial

cut in those services. Instead, we have the minister peeling out of his

billfold $120 million for health care. We say that's ridiculous. Health

care money should be voted in this Legislature. Where that money goes

should be voted in this Legislature, and not given to a minister to put

wherever he thinks it might be appropriate. By that, are we saying that

we don't trust him? It can't be me. But the people don't trust him, and

they've had good reason not to trust him. They've had good reason not

to trust this government. As far as I'm concerned, it's the most absurd

way of doing business that I have ever heard of. When other

jurisdictions see our budget, those people who are sufficiently

sophisticated to understand what they're reading will gasp and say:

"That could only happen in British Columbia."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those discretionary funds will come to

haunt this government. Sooner or later people are going to understand

that you don't give ministers a blank cheque. If that were the case,

why didn't we come in here in the first place, vote on a budget of $9

billion, and go home? The reason you don't do that is because people

say: "We want some kind of control on the way that money is spent." You

say I'm carrying it to an illogical conclusion. No, I'm not. Urn

carrying it to an absolutely logical conclusion. The reason we vote,

vote by vote, is so that there is some kind of control, so that we can

see the policies; so at least we can let people know before the fact,

rather than after the fact. It's going to be great, when we come back

here a year from now — or less; a few months from now, or whatever —

and we see how these discretionary funds are being spent; and we stand

up and say: "Isn't this terrible!" Now's the time to say that this is

not the proper way to fund our ministries. Everybody in this chamber

knows it. Even those who are doing it know it's not proper. I think

it's a shocking situation. Absolutely shocking.

Let me show you where some of our taxpayers' money is being spent.

The minute we had a budget, there was that blue advertising on

television. You all saw it. The minute that budget was out, those few

lines on our boob tube said to us: "What a great budget we've got!

There are 50,000 more people employed. We are the second-lowest taxed

people in the country." Do you believe that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: He believes an absolute falsehood.

Let me give you one little figure, Mr. Speaker. In this beautiful

British Columbia of ours we spend out of our pockets, in premiums for

medicare, $367,475,285. Do you hear that" Virtually three hundred and

fifty million for our medicare premiums. That's a tax, and I'll tell

you why I call it a tax. In every jurisdiction except the three most

conservative territories in this country medicare is paid out of income

tax. Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia are the only jurisdictions

left with premiums. So you say: "Well, we want to go on charging

premiums." Go ahead and charge your premiums as long as you're in power

— hopefully that won't be long — but don't lie on television. Don't

tell us that we are the second-lowest taxed people in the country,

because we're not. It's comparing apples and oranges. It's an

absolutely outrageous statement to make. And it's a statement that is

not only being made by this government, but is being paid for out of

the poor old taxpayers' pockets. Every one of those ads on television,

on the radio, is being paid for by our poor old taxpayers — and I'm of

them. And I'll tell you something: I'm insulted to know that a

dishonest government can go out and peddle their wares, using my money.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You can see, Mr. Speaker, by the way the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is reacting that he is quite

happy to go along with the government doing this sort of thing. So much

for your ethics, Mr. Member.

I Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

The member for Seymour indicated that unemployment in this province

is modestly down. Yes, it's modestly down in the city of Vancouver and

its environs, but when in the Kootenays you have an unemployment rate

as high as Newfoundland, when all through the interior you have

unemployment rates outrageously high, and when on Vancouver Island you

have an unemployment rate that is completely unacceptable....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're so negative. Always negative.

MR. COCKE: The minister says I'm negative. I am pointing out

to the government.... I don't happen to be on a government bench or

in a position where I can make the arrangements that are necessary in

this province. He is. Now what is an opposition for? An opposition is

to criticize a government, and this government is so easy to criticize.

I find my job so absolutely easy that it's not even funny. This

government is outrageously bad and should resign this minute.

Mr. Speaker.... Madam Speaker. I keep looking away from you.

Interjections.

[ Page 7520 ]

MR. COCKE: What's that? Is that...? Call a doctor.

Something's wrong over there.

Madam Speaker, let's get back to the slush funds for a minute. I

only want to deal with one particular slush fund. That's the health

one. Let's take a look at the kind of precise budgeting that we've got

going this year. Now I have been here for 17 years, and for 17 years I

have watched budgets increasing, sometimes a great deal more in one

year than another, but incrementally increasing. We have here a cut of

$30 million, as I mentioned, for the Medical Services Commission, a $5

million cut for long-term care facilities, and $100,000 cut from home

nursing and $277,000 from community physiotherapy; we've got no

increase for homemakers, adult day-care or group homes for handicapped.

We've got a $4.6 million decrease for ambulance service, a 9.3 percent

cut in forensic psychiatric services, and a $1.3 million cut for mental

health. What kind of sense at all does that make?

If they have $120 million to slush around, then fit it into the

scheme of things. We know, for example, that there will not be a $30

million cut in medicare. We know that there will be a marginal increase

in medicare. Knowing that, then that slush fund should be cut by a

minimum of, say, $40 million right there. So you've got $80 million

left.

On and on it goes. You can go right through this whole budget and

find that there isn't going to be the kind of leeway that the ministers

would like. But can you imagine the political clout that that minister

has when he talks to a hospital board, to the medical association,

etc.? He has clout, because they fear that they won't get their share —

and sometimes rightfully.

Madam Speaker, I hope against hope that there will be some kind of

change of heart in this government. But no matter how much they change,

I have only one thing to say here, as a person who is retiring at the

next election: I just implore the people in our province to get rid of

this group who have nothing more to do than bilk them. I ask the people

of British Columbia, as I've asked the people in New Westminster over

and over again: don't vote Socred. You vote Socred at your own personal

sacrifice, and at the sacrifice of the future of your province. They

have proven it over and over again.

[3:15]

Madam Speaker, I feel that it's time for me to do what is proper,

and that is to move over and let someone else — new blood — get into

this chamber. I don't think that I have to make any excuses for the way

I have served New Westminster. I've never been asked for any excuses.

Madam Speaker, the minister says I'm leaving a sinking ship. The

only sinking ship in this place is the Titanic , and it's over there —

it's the Socred sinking ship. I want to do everything I can possibly do

to make the people in this province understand that the days of the

Socreds should be absolutely numbered. You have not done the right

thing by the people in this fair province. In 1983 you brought in a

restraint process that has hurt every living soul in our province. The

kids in our province are suffering terribly. The unemployment rate of

people under 25 is at an all-time high. That's nothing for us to be

proud of, particularly for a government that's supposed to be

participating in making the economy work.

Why is it that other jurisdictions have done well? Why is it that

there has been an improvement in virtually every other jurisdiction in

this country but ours and Newfoundland — the book-ends of Canada? Who

made us a book-end? When I first came into this Legislature it was a

province that was rich in potential and rich in jobs — a first-class

place to be. In ten years they've managed to run us into the ground. I

absolutely implore the people in this province to.... For heaven's

sake, the next time you get an opportunity, dump the Socreds, and it

will be the best thing that ever happened to B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, first, in re-welcoming you to

the chair and the responsibilities afforded you on opening day, I'm

just delighted to see that you're aboard, sir.

Speaking to this very fine budget and against this solely

politically motivated amendment, I'd like to say this, Mr. Speaker. I

know some of the opposition quite well, and I would assure you that in

their heart of hearts they all welcome and are exceptionally thankful

for the excellent and great things that this little government has done

for the people of this province. But I'm afraid that this afternoon

time is a little short for accolades.

I would really like to address many topics, and certainly some of

those contained in the amendment before us. I would very much like to

be discussing free trade, tax simplification in our country, and the

continuing curse which my friend from Vancouver East is so interested

in — marketing boards. I'd like to be talking about the roles of the

Canadian broadcasting system, one of which is surely not to be a forum

for libel. I'd like to talk about the function of Canada Post — and we

all remember when it used to be to deliver mail. I'd like to talk about

accountability in the use of public funds at every level, plus reform

of the Senate, the appointment of the judiciary and the ever-increasing

burdens that middle-income people in our country are being beset with

every day. But this afternoon, in the very short time afforded me, I

wish to deal, for the record, with an enormous issue which, if accepted

in its totality, would burden British Columbia with burdens that it has

never experienced since Confederation.

I wish to talk about the issue of aboriginal title in the province

of British Columbia. The native Indian population is about 60,000 —

under 2 percent of the citizens of our province; some 195 bands and

some 1650 reserves, totalling about 900,000 acres. Anthropologists

tell us that these first citizens of what is now our province and,

indeed, much of North America immigrated to this continent across the

Bering Strait about 35,000 years ago. On the whole, it is the position

of British Columbia Indian leaders, who are also leading

representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, which is the senior

Canadian organization of status Indians, that, by virtue of their

inherent aboriginal title, they claim ownership of and jurisdiction

over all land and resources within the traditional territories of each

first nation, plus the inherent right of each of them to

self-government.

According to the recently released Nielsen task force report, under

the 1981 Canadian census there are 350,000 status Indians in Canada,

some 577 bands, 75,000 non-status Indians,100,000 Metis and 27,000

Inuit. The total Canadian aboriginal population is approximately 552,000 people.

Essentially the premise of the Assembly of First Nations, the status

Indians, is this. The guiding principle for first nations' governments

arises from their view of their spiritual relationship to the universe.

Land is at the root of their sovereignty. In their view the earth is

incapable of being owned. They categorically state that the traditional

lands of

[ Page 7521 ]

the first nations' governments encompassed all of what is now known

as Canada, save territory recognized as the traditional lands of the

Inuit. They are the first nations. They have been here since time

immemorial, and they conclude that their underlying title to the land

can never be extinguished. From the land, from its spiritual

relationship to them, from their definition of aboriginal title, flows

all of their aboriginal rights, one of which is for a sovereign order

of aboriginal self-government.

Now it's clear that their claims for title and rights go beyond

usufructuary rights; those are the rights to hunt, to fish, to trap, to

gather. Their rights extend, in their

interpretation, to ownership and

to jurisdiction over the land, over the resources, over the waters,

fresh and salt and everything above and below each. They assert that

their title claim and their inherent right to self-government do not

emanate from parliamentary or provincial or even, for that matter,

Crown powers of delegation, but stem from their notion of sovereignty,

their notion of sovereign title from time immemorial. In referring to

self-government, it also has to be noted that self-government, even

from their concept, is an empty vessel without a land base.

These status Indians also claim that the inherent right of North

American Indians to sovereignty was first recognized, but not

determined by, the Two-Row Wampum in 1650 and later by the royal

proclamation, which you've heard about in this assembly, of George III

of 1763 which followed the Treaty of Paris under which the French

surrendered to the British all of the rights they previously had in

what was then considered to be Canada. The 1763 proclamation guaranteed

protection of Indian possessions and recognized Indian rights to use

lands, unless such lands were surrendered by treaty. I emphasize the

word "use," but as I shall mention later on, Mr. Speaker, Indian

claims to rights to lands under British and Canadian law and policy can

be dealt with not only by treaty but also by Crown prerogative, act,

ordinance and statute. Like it or not, that is and always has been the

law.

Jurisprudence has also affirmed that this royal proclamation has no

application in British Columbia because in 1763, 13 years before the

Declaration of Independence in the United States, British Columbia was

then unknown and undiscovered by the British and the royal proclamation

did not extend to B.C.

Now moving upwards in time to the middle of the nineteenth century,

before B.C. entered Confederation, British colonial governors acting

under the laws of England, as adopted by the colony of B.C. In 1858,

utilized various colonial laws and ordinances to exercise sovereign

domain and establish rules over land use and disposition. It has also

been judicially determined that in B.C. these colonial laws and

ordinances effectively extinguished native claims to aboriginal title.

This was the position taken by the judge in the supreme court of our

province, by three judges of the court of appeal of our province —

whose decision prevails by virtue of the split in the Supreme Court of

Canada — and also by three of the six judges who formed an opinion on

this point in the Supreme Court of Canada. Hence, Mr. Speaker, out of

the 11 adjudicators in the Calder case, one of whom did not deal with

the issue at all.... Seven of those ten adjudicators found that

these colonial actions of B.C. governors and the Parliament of the

United Kingdom extinguished these claims. The capacity of the British

Crown and the British Parliament to extinguish aboriginal title to

lands under their dominion was a rule of British law. It was also

provided for in the 1763 proclamation. Hence this Crown prorogative and

the legal capacity to extinguish native title, either by treaty or by

act or by ordinance, has long been a principle of British and Canadian

law and policy and has been supported by an abundance of judicial

of our own land.

I want to state the historic position of every government elected in

British Columbia, conceivably all reflecting the mandate of their

electors since British Columbia entered Confederation on July 20, 1871.

First, B.C. was unknown to Britain in 1763 and the royal proclamation

and its recognition capacity did not extend here. Second, assuming that

the royal proclamation, it was extinguished by the colonial acts and

ordinances of Governor Douglas and subsequent governors. Thirdly,

however, if it did exist and it was not so extinguished, then by virtue

of the Terms of Union — I'm going to say more about this afternoon —

Canada assumed both debts and liabilities of the colony existing at the

time of union and constitutional jurisdiction over the Indians.

Section

1 of the Terms of Union clearly and specifically reads: "Canada shall

be liable for the debts and liabilities of British Columbia existing at

the time of union."

Next,

section 10 provides that the BNA act should be applicable to

British Columbia — i.e., this

section applies

section 91 (24) of the

Constitution Act, where the Parliament of Canada has responsibility for

Indians and lands reserved for Indians. The third

section is

section

13, which dealt with reserve establishment, and that has been

effectively and properly fulfilled.

So if native title still exists, Parliament has sole and full

compensatory responsibility and also is the only authority to

extinguish or deal with aboriginal title either by treaty or by

statute. If there is any liability, it is that of Canada and of all

Canadian taxpayers, not just those from the province of British

Columbia. The recent Coolican report, which was published in December

and released in March — we just got a copy last week — indicates that

before the 1982 new constitution, the Crown "could extinguish

aboriginal rights legislatively without the consent of the aboriginal

peoples." But the Coolican report also suggests that these rights now

could only be altered with the consent of the aboriginal peoples, and

it not being their current desire to consent.... Or, secondly, it

could be altered only by constitutional amendment.

So from the federal perspective, if there are valid unextinguished

dollars plus the issue of finality in the event of settlement. Over and

above that, it has to be observed that where there are treaties, the

renegotiate those treaties with the first nations concerned, as well as

resources and proprietary rights and appropriate jurisdictional

relationships — and with appropriate fiscal mechanisms.

It's easy to see that this aboriginal title claim and concept is far

from unique to British Columbia, but is clearly Canada wide. Here I

must also make reference to the claim of the Metis, who themselves

claim to be larger in number than the status Indians, and who, on the

whole, are without a land base. They are also claiming such a land

base, plus self government and everything that flows from that. In

addition, they're claiming that they receive federal recognition under

section 91 (24) of the BNA Act.

[3:30]

[ Page 7522 ]

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

This all has tremendous ramifications, extending in the eyes of many

of our aboriginal leaders to sovereignty and self-determination in the

international sense. I have to say, is this what all of the Indian

people in our country want? Is this what Canadian people want? Do we

wish to have these kinds of sovereign enclaves? Do we wish to have

these types of sovereign tax havens? Do we wish, really and truly, at

this point in our time, to perpetuate an enlarged reserve system in our

country. I say God help us if we do that.

Some of the native Indian community don't go quite that far. Some

say: "Well, share." But share on what basis, share how, share when, and

share to what extent? Would the sharing of rights, Madam Speaker,

include the sharing of responsibilities? Nonetheless, it is the harder

line that is being taken in these position papers, in these position

statements and certainly in the lawsuits.

At a constitutional meeting in Ottawa in 1984, Mr. Billy Two Rivers

of the Mohawk nation, one of the six nations of the Iroquois

Confederacy, stated:

"Our people are citizens of our nations and do not

seek citizenship within the nation of Canada. Any effort to subjugate

our people under Canada is a violation of our right to

self-determination under international law. We are separate and

independent national entities. We have always held we are not citizens

of either Canada or the United States."

In the British Columbia Gitksan case, not yet heard by our courts —

and I'm not going to offend upon the rule of sub judice — there's a

claim for some 20,000 square miles in northern B.C., but also for

British Columbia and Canada to recognize and confirm their right to the

ownership and jurisdiction over their territory and the right of

self-determination in accordance with international law, i.e., total

and absolute immunity from the laws of Canada, the province, the

division of powers and certainly sovereignty in the international

sense. That is now going to be heard by the courts and determined by

the courts.

These are very strong positions. They're very fervently articulated.

If accepted, they would result in a rewrite of history and a rewrite of

existing governmental order in the Canadian sense.

This government does not agree with this sovereignty beyond-Canada

concept. Some Indians may say this is an extreme position on their

part, and many others may disagree with them. If they say it's an

extreme position, I certainly agree with that. But that is what is

being articulated, and we do not agree with the

sovereignty-beyond-Canada concept.

At the first ministers' meeting last April in Ottawa, attended by

the Premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister, British Columbia

said, and filed its position paper to this effect, that the aboriginal

peoples of Canada are entitled to the rights of self-government within

the context of the sovereign authority of the Parliament of Canada and

the legislatures of our provinces, but not another sovereign order of

government in Canada, not a government beyond the parameters and powers

of the federal government and provincial governments, and not a

government in the international sense. We're fully in favour of greater

capacities for them to organize, to develop, to deal with their own

economic, social and cultural affairs if they wish to — and that's

their right — but all within the context of the federation of Canada.

The approach that I'm suggesting would be very parallel to directions

taken in the United States, where the power of Congress to legislate in

respect to the Indians does not appear to be under any constitutional

limitation. In the United States they have Indian self-government;

however, not as sovereign entities beyond the authority of Congress.

Well, headway has been made in our country along the lines that I'm

speaking of. Sechelt is a prime example — and I'm going to say more

about that at a later date.

But apart from what Canada will intend to do with the land claims,

apart from what Canada will intend to do concerning constitutional

amendment, and remembering that there is no proposal for constitutional

change in our country, it can't go anywhere whatsoever without the

initiative and 100 percent support of the federal government. They've

got all the cards. Although constitutional change is not a panacea unto

itself, they do have the primary responsibility for constitutional

change — if they reach the conclusion that that is the way to go. What

we need is a reshaping of attitude, a reshaping of government policies

and of legislative initiatives, which would prove to be far more

important, in my view, in addressing realistic native aspirations.

A primary parliamentary initiative that could be dealt with right

away is relieving our Indian communities, if they choose, of the

shackles of the federal Indian Act and the federal bureaucracy

thousands of miles away. This is a federal statute, a government of

Canada statute. It's not an Indian law; it's not an Indian custom. It's

not a provincial custom or provincial law. It's a federal statute, and

one that is totally racist. It's discriminatory. It has proven to be a

litany of failure. It is unclear and unfair, and clearly, I'd say, the

statutory shame of our country at this point in our history. I indeed

wish that every parliamentarian and every legislative member throughout

the whole of our country, and certainly all of those in the aboriginal

community, would read it. I tell you, the Charter could just run

through the thing like a runaway freight. But why should anyone have to

be put to that kind of trouble or expense? Could it not be scrapped,

renovated and car-washed, or — what have you — and then get on with what

could be a monumental first step in the interests of every Canadian and

every member of the aboriginal community? In the years that I have been

working in and interested in Indian matters, I have never had one

native Indian come to me and say: "Thank God for the federal Indian

Act." Madam Speaker, the ball here is surely in the court of the Prime

Minister of Canada.

I'd like to make a couple of observations about the correspondence

from the Hon. David Crombie to my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith). It came under cover of March 6 of this year. Mr. Crombie

title likely exists in various areas of British Columbia." We have to

ask: Mr. Crombie, how does it exist in the view of the government of

Canada — from the perspective of Indian law, Indian custom, common law,

royal proclamation, colonial British law, statutory law, federal

policy, or on the basis of non-extinguishment? Further, Mr. Crombie,

it usufructuary, or is it total ownership over the land, the resources,

the water, salt and fresh, and, as I said earlier, everything above and

below. Furthermore, does this go to sovereignty? Next, Mr. Crombie,

what are the ramifications that you conclude will flow from all of that

which you suggest, and which of those

[ Page 7523 ]

talks about "various areas of B.C." Which areas specifically? I say,

contrary to some advice we earlier received from Mr. Crombie, that B.C.

has never received particulars of these claims. I'm informed that just

over the last day they have been delivered to officials. We're all

looking forward to seeing what they say. Whether those claims consist

of all the claims remains to be seen. Maybe, indeed, Mr. Crombie could

advise us of that as well. Will they come from the concept of Chief

James Gosnell that it's British Columbia lock, stock and barrel; or as

he more recently stated, "most of B.C."; or as certain academics have

indicated, "only" — and that's my word — "70 percent of our province"?

Are those known claims, as of today, or does that include anticipated

ones?

It was really only by way of newspaper report that we read in

February that the chiefs of the Burrard, Musqueam and Squamish Indian

bands indicated their claim to their traditional lands included Stanley

Park. Mr. Crombie in his correspondence also say this: "The federal

government will always live up to its obligations." Good stuff! But

nowhere in his letter did he refer to

article I of the Terms of Union,

which I say again with every respect is a very selective assessment of

Canada's responsibility and obligation. He indicated that the federal

government does not interpret

section 98 (l) (24) of the Constitution

Act of 1867 or

article 13 of the B.C. Terms of Union as placing on it

the responsibility for compensation costs involving and settling Indian

land claims in British Columbia.

This position is totally and completely unacceptable to the people

and all of the taxpayers in this province, and this government of

British Columbia is not prepared to see these taxpayers and these

citizens go over Niagara Falls with or without a federal barrel to

support this kind of constitutional impertinence — the net result of

which amounts to a suggested unilateral negation of the Terms of Union

and a complete abandonment of federal constitutional and legal

responsibility. As my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

informed the Hon. Mr. Crombie: "B.C. has carried out its obligations to

set aside reserve lands, the acknowledgement of which was made by the

aboriginal title exists in B.C., if there is any liability or charge

upon the colonial government, Canada is fully responsible for that, and

not B.C.

My colleague the Attorney-General suggested that Mr. Crombie and his

colleagues reconsider the matter. I endorse that, and as strongly as I

can. I would suggest also that the Prime Minister and the Premier meet

as soon as they can. All this was first requested by the Premier in

December of last year, and the Prime Minister appears to concur,

because the current situation is doing a disservice to all of the

people of British Columbia, definitely including the aboriginal

community. They're all entitled to something better than that.

[3:45]

MR. SKELLY: Madam Speaker, it's always a pleasure to listen

to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in the Legislature, and

through subsequent weeks to try to find out exactly what he was saying.

It would be good if the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, rather

than stating these positions in the Legislature, would get down to the

process of negotiating with the people involved. One of the problems we

have here in British Columbia with this government is that they do not

seem to be capable of negotiating in order to resolve conflicts. Rather

they present their positions in the headlines. Rather they misrepresent

the positions of other people involved in the negotiations.

The minister himself selected comments by various people at the

conference on aboriginal rights and cases which he indicated were the

most extreme cases taken. It does not serve anybody's interests to

represent the extreme cases as the positions which will be taken by

Indian people in British Columbia or by the federal government. The

problem with this government is that they do not seem to be able to sit

down in good faith and negotiate with the people involved in a dispute

and seek a resolution of that dispute.

In addition, this government, in my opinion, is attempting to

generate fear among the people of British Columbia, to divide the

people of British Columbia along racial lines, to divide the people of

British Columbia in such a way as to leave a residuum of bitterness

that will destroy this province and keep people at each other's throats

for years and years and years.

Madam Speaker, this is a government that refuses to sit at the table

with the people involved, and I'm convinced, as has happened elsewhere

in North America and in other countries around the world where there

was a problem with aboriginal ownership, where there was a need to

resolve issues around aboriginal title and aboriginal claims to land,

that reasonable people making reasonable demands can sit at the table

and achieve reasonable solutions.

The problem here in British Columbia is not the fact that people are

making unreasonable demands. This minister himself over the last weeks

and months, in spite of all the advice he has received, claims to be

ignorant of the issue of aboriginal title and what the Indian people

are asking for in this province. He feigns ignorance, he claims

ignorance, and yet he refuses....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Can you define it? Can you define it? No.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I can tell you the process by which it could be

defined, and that process is the process of negotiation in good faith.

The member shouts across the floor: "What's your position? What's their

position? What's his position?" I'll tell you how to achieve a common

position, and that is by sitting down, through the process of

negotiating in good faith, rather than misrepresenting the positions of

others in this debate, rather than exaggerating the positions of

others, rather than exploiting the statements made by some of the

people involved in this debate. The resolution comes from sitting down

at the table with the parties involved and negotiating in good faith.

I'll tell you, I believe this government is incapable of negotiating

with anybody in good faith.

As long as there is a political opportunity here, this government,

advised by the most cynical and manipulative advisers they could hire

in Ontario, will use that opportunity to exploit those divisions for

their own political benefit. Rotten politics. It doesn't matter whether

they're negotiating or whether they're discussing issues relating to

Indian land claims; it doesn't matter whether they're discussing

negotiations with their own employees. It seems that these people in

government today will use every ruse, every trick, every

[ Page 7524 ]

manipulation open and available to them to exploit people at the

lowest common denominator.

It's no wonder that people in politics in British Columbia, people

who have dedicated their lives to public life in this province, somehow

feel that you end up a bit unclean after going through this kind of a

political debate. This is a government that tends to exploit every

issue at the lowest common denominator. It makes you ashamed of this

government and ashamed of some of the people involved in it. I'll tell

you how you can approach the resolution of this issue. I can't give you

my solution because the process is more important than a solution that

I would impose on the process.

The solution comes out of the process, and that's the key here. The

solution will come out of the process. This government says that

they're going to leave the issue of determination as to whether

aboriginal title to the province exists or not up to the courts. I feel

that the people of British Columbia should feel more threatened by

leaving this issue up to the courts than they would if the issue was

negotiated in good faith with the parties involved.

I think that the decisions of the court would probably be a roll of

the dice in which people in British Columbia stand to lose and lose

heavily. This government is prepared to gamble with the issue and to

exploit the issue for its own political benefit. We're here in the

Legislature today to discuss the budget, and it was my understanding

that the minister, whose statement as far as I can see was totally out

of order, did not relate in any manner whatsoever to the resolution on

the order paper.... The minister did not even mention the budget in

any substantive way.

I would like to talk a little bit about the budget and a little bit

about the resolution that is before us now. I've heard the reports

about the budget on the radio and the television and read a few of the

responses to the budget in the newspaper. I've also heard the

government line on this budget, Madam Speaker, the government line —

1-i-n-e.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. SKELLY: I'm not at this point saying that the government

is lying; I'm saying....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm talking about the government's line on this

issue. In its ads the government says that 50,000 new jobs have been

created in this province, and yet when you look at these statistics

that appear in the budget, the government's line is absolutely false

and absolutely misrepresents the number of people employed in the

province.

MR. PARKS: What are your statistics?

MR. SKELLY: Madam Speaker, I'll use the government's

statistics. In 1981, by the government's own statistics, 1,270,000

people were employed in the province. In 1985, according to the

government's statistics, 1,228,000 were employed in the province of

British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: What does that sound like to you?

MR. SKELLY: It sounds like, using the government's own

figures, 42,000 fewer people are working in British Columbia today

than were working in 1981.

The government in its advertising program around this budget is

totally misrepresenting the economy of British Columbia and the

problems with employment in British Columbia. It's a complete and total

fabrication of the facts.

Madam Speaker, the government says in its ads that there is no tax

increase in the current budget. That statement is totally and

absolutely and completely false, using the government's own figures.

I can understand the concern from the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). This member says that the

opposition doesn't know anything about economics. But I'll tell you one

thing we know, and that is that you can't be a director of a company

you hold in a blind trust.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: When you look at the figures provided by the

government itself, the personal income tax increase for every household

in this province is $221.31 this year over last year. Every household

in the province of British Columbia will be paying $221 more in income

tax this year over last year. I challenge that member to provide the

figures.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Alberni has the floor. Could

the Chair please ask for cooperation from the other hon. members in the

House?

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I said, the increase in income tax per household this year over

last year is $221.31 per household. It's the highest increase in

personal income tax per household in the last five years. And this

government is representing to the people of this province that there is

no tax increase in the budget. Totally false. Complete

misrepresentation.

The government in its budget doesn't even mention the property tax

for school purposes, and yet it has given the information to school

boards around the province that if they're going to provide the same

level and the same standard of service as last year, even with the

so-called fund for Excellence in Education, it's going to require an

additional school tax levy of $153 million on property. Where is that

money going to come from? It's going to come from the individual

residential homeowners of the province of B.C., those very same

households that have received a $221 increase in their income tax. In

spite of this so-called fund for excellence in education, the people of

the province of British Columbia, the residential property-owners, are

going to be forced to pay an additional $153 million this year over

last year just to maintain services in school districts and the public

school system at the same level as last year. This government is saying

on its television and radio ads that there's no increase in tax for

individuals in the province of B.C. — a complete and utter fabrication,

totally false.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Nobody believes this government anymore. Nobody in the province of

B.C. believes what this government is saying. If this budget could be

believed on the face of it, why are they advertising? Why are they

advertising on radio and on television, to try to tell people what this

budget isn't? Nobody believes them anymore.

[ Page 7525 ]

The budget says that taxes on people are going to be increased and

taxes on corporations are going to be cut back. That's where you can

believe them. It says here in the

summary of revenue measures that

taxes, mainly on corporations, mainly on businesses, are going to be

cut by $362.9 million. Some people are getting a tax reduction.

A number of sources tell us that this is contrary to the best

interests of job creation in the province of B.C. I want to refer to a

few documents that have come our way recently from the federal

government, from Canada Employment and Immigration, that discuss the

effectiveness in job creation of various expenditure and revenue

measures. This study that I'm quoting from compares the effectiveness

in job creation of certain measures.

General government expenditure, of $1 billion in this case, to

create employment results in the creation of 60,000 jobs over a

five-year period, according to this study, at a net cost of $13,000

per job. Corporate tax cuts can create 11,000 jobs over the same

five-year period through a tax expenditure of a billion dollars, and

the cost per job created through corporate tax cuts is $77,000. The

most job-effective way of creating employment in any economy is through

direct expenditures for job creation, not through corporate tax cuts.

That's the least effective. What this government is doing with the

taxpayers' money is the least effective way, giving tax money to

corporations.

Now I'm not saying that corporate tax reductions are ineffective in

all cases. There are some cases where you should be cutting corporate

taxes. I'm not convinced that this government is doing it in the right

areas.

MR. LEA: Name one.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I'll tell the member for Prince Rupert

which area — the water tax. The punitive water tax that this government

has imposed on energy industries and on the mining industry and on the

pulp and paper in the province of British Columbia has imposed huge new

costs on these industries. That's one, This method is the least

effective method of creating jobs, and the province right now has a

serious problem with job creation. There are 198,000 people out of

work.

Another problem with the corporate tax cut method is that it's very

difficult to evaluate the results. Our federal leader, Ed Broadbent,

and the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons have suggested

that we shouldn't oppose corporate tax cuts when they are effective,

but we should demand some job creation performance from those who

benefit. That's the difference in the position we take: if you give a

corporate tax break you should be demanding some requirement from the

corporations who benefit from those tax cuts in terms of their job

creation performance. This government hasn't made any demands along

those lines at all. Even the Nielsen report by the federal Tories has

suggested that the corporate tax break method is least effective and

can't be monitored effectively, and therefore it's very difficult to

ensure that jobs are going to be created through that route.

[4:00]

Those free-enterprisers believe that the economy of British Columbia

is dominated by the marketplace — that it's a marketplace. If they were

real free-enterprisers, rather than using the corporate tax cut method,

they would be taking measures which increase the disposable income of

individual consumers in the marketplace. That's what they'd do if they

were real free enterprisers, so that our citizens could make the

decisions in the marketplace, could determine which entrepreneurs

offering which goods and services were the ones to reward through the

expenditure of their consumer dollars.

But that's not what this so-called free enterprise government is

doing. What they're giving is corporate tax breaks which reward some

and penalize the others. At the same time they're increasing the tax on

consumers so that they don't have the disposable income to patronize

businesses doing a good job in developing, innovating and providing new

goods and services — the kind of new goods and services that create

employment here in British Columbia. This so-called free enterprise

government is turning its back on the market theory. That's one of the

reasons we're not getting the kind of job-creation effectiveness that

this kind of expenditure should create in B.C. Crazy!

People no longer believe this government. They no longer believe the

wild ideological positions that this government is taking. This

government reminds me very much of the Trudeau Liberals before their

final collapse in terms of the patronage it's absolutely riddled with,

in terms of the way it operates totally in isolation from the people of

the country or the jurisdiction that it purports to serve. This

government is living in absolute isolation from the people of British

Columbia. That's one of the concerns we have with this budget which

prompted us to move this motion of non-confidence in the government to

begin with. I think the last battle we saw between the Trudeau Liberals

and the British Columbia Socreds was over who should paint the flags on

SkyTrain and which flags should go on SkyTrain — both governments

jockeying to take credit for expenditures out of political slush funds

in order to benefit their own political positions. Rather than any

concern whatsoever for the needs and aspirations and requirements of

the people of Canada, both governments were simply jockeying for

political credit and political position.

That's why we're concerned about the funds for health care,

education and silviculture. Mr. Speaker, this government is robbing the

line ministries of government: those ministries committed to providing

high quality education, the ministry committed to providing high

quality health care and the ministry committed to providing a high

quality of natural resource and forest management in British Columbia.

This government is stealing money from the line ministries and putting

it into political slush funds so that they can take credit for

everything that comes out of those funds.

I was interested in the statement made by the member for Richmond,

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), in which he

indicated that some school boards in the province are not going to

apply for grants out of the Excellence in Education fund. He said: "We

know that those school boards are NDP-dominated school boards." It

seems to me that what that minister said absolutely confirms the view

we have taken that this is going to be a political slush fund. How does

the minister go about finding out how an individual school trustee

votes in a provincial or federal election? How is it that the minister

knows how those members voted, and how is he aware that they're on

school boards as well? Is that not going to affect the minister's view

when it comes time to approve a project applied for by that school

board? Is the minister not going to take a look at the members of that

school board and say: "Oh, they're all NDP or they're all Liberals or

they're all Tories. We're not going to give that

[ Page 7526 ]

school board any money regardless of the merits of their

application."

Mr. Speaker, these slush funds create a very dangerous precedent.

The minister's statement indicates that this government is willing to

review the political persuasion of people on school boards — and on

hospital boards, I'm convinced, and other boards throughout the

province — and if they're not consistent with the politics that the

minister likes, then those boards aren't going to get the funds they

applied for from these political slush funds. I think this is an

extremely dangerous way to go. Funds for education should be allocated

to the ministry, and the funds should be sufficient to provide the

highest standard of education that we are capable of providing for our

young people in this province. They shouldn't be split off into two

separate forms of funding, whereby

part can be allocated to the school

boards on a formula basis and the rest can be allocated on a political

basis. That constitutes a threat to the education we're providing to

our children and young people in this province.

The same is true of the allocations under the new fund for health

care. The way that that budget is separated now constitutes a threat to

the quality of health care that's going to be made available to our

citizens.

Silviculture. I cannot believe the number of funds that this

government has set up in order to provide an independent silviculture

or tree-planting fund in order to maintain the forests of the province

of British Columbia and to maintain sustainability in the forests.

Every time they set up a new fund, within a few years it's eliminated.

This fund was set up with a $20 million contribution from the

provincial government, and they said that they were going to expect

contributions from corporations, from trade unions and municipalities.

I was interested when the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

stood up and spoke. He said: "We may levy these funds." Does that mean

that he's going to be forcing municipalities to pay money out of their

tax revenues? Is he going to be forcing municipalities to pay into this

fund? Is there going to be no choice on the part of municipalities to

pay money into these funds?

I talked to trade union leaders this morning who say that they

haven't even been approached by the government with respect to their

contribution to the fund. Neither have municipalities. This government

is springing the fund on the people of this province without any

consultation whatsoever, and as a result, people don't know what is

happening with this fund.

They do have the suspicion, and a justified suspicion at that, that

this fund is going to be used for political purposes. This government

doesn't care about reforestation. This government doesn't care about

silviculture. This money is going to be used for political purposes so

that the government can take credit for any of the expenditures out of

this fund.

I was talking to some people involved in the silvicultural industry.

As I travel around the province, I meet a number of people who are

involved in that industry. This government allocates funds for

silvicultural projects on a low-bid basis. The lowest bid gets the

project. That's the way they allocate the money. As a result, there are

a lot of people who see this as a bit of a gold mine. Restaurateurs who

decide to go into the tree planting business since they don't have

experience in the business hire people at the very lowest wages or

piece rates and don't give them any useful training at all, and as a

result these people beat out the experienced tree planters and the

experienced silvicultural organizations, and they go out and plant

trees. In most of the cases, in the audit by the Forest Service, those

plantations are rejected, the people who do the work aren't paid, and

the business person ends up losing his initial investment because he

simply cannot plant trees on that basis.

The other result of that, Mr. Speaker, is that experienced

silviculturalists, experienced tree planters, people who provide decent

wages and working conditions for their employees, end up losing out on

the contracts, and as a result they go out of business and we lose

those experienced tree planters and those experienced silviculturalists

who could be doing good service to this province in maintaining the

sustainability of our forests.

This is a dangerous method of budgeting, because it creates

political slush funds that aren't used for the best benefit of

education, for the best benefit of health care or for the best benefit

in maintaining the forests of this province. The people of British

Columbia are going to lose as a result of this budget, rather than see

any progress being made.

I would encourage every member in this Legislature to vote against

this budget and to support this resolution.

[4:15]

MR. REYNOLDS: Before I get into the reasons why I'm going to

vote against this resolution, I would like the House to welcome a

number of young people from the Dordt College Choir who are on a

concert tour of the Pacific Northwest from Sioux Center, Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to sit here today and listen to the

minister in charge of Intergovernmental Affairs outline the government

position on Indian land claims, and then to listen to the Leader of the

Opposition get up and do his number on this issue. I can only relate,

in listening to the Leader of the Opposition and what he had to say....

I happened to watch the Academy Awards last night, and I think he

would have won the best actor award in a leader's role. Because I go

back and read the Hansard from when the NDP were in government, Mr.

Speaker....

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier won't like that. The Premier was the

runner-up. He lost out.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not an actor. The

Premier is a leader. The Premier is a man who has done active things

for the province of British Columbia; that's why he's won the last

three elections and the New Democrats have lost. And that's why the

Premier will win the next election, and we'll be back here watching the

Leader of the Opposition fighting with the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams), the mayor of Vancouver and all those others for

the job of leader of the New Democratic Party, with eight or ten people

back here.

MR. BLENCOE: No wonder you don't get in cabinet.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, these people say: "No wonder you

don't get in the cabinet." That's the only thing they've got in their

minds. They're greedy. All these guys sitting here.... Half of them

are leaving because they know they can't win, and the other half,

including the member for Victoria, is dreaming about the day he can be

in the cabinet — dreaming of the day he can make some of those

decisions.

[ Page 7527 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the debate, if these

members would let me talk about it.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor. I'm sure he will relate his

comments to the amendment.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the

Vancouver Sun of 1974.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REYNOLDS: This is better research than the NDP They can't

go back that far; they don't want to go back that far. They want to go

back the last ten years, but that's all. Let me just quote what was

said on that day by the Premier of the province about Indian land

claims:

"Premier Dave Barrett rebuffed repeated requests

Tuesday to involve his government in Indian land claims. 'There is no

way we can go out and say we're going to settle land claims in this

province, ' he told an audience of 100 here. 'It is impossible for us.

The only one who can settle them, ' he told the questioners, 'is the

federal government.' He added he sees no sign the federal government is

interested.

"He said, 'We are prepared. We will sit and play the

part we must play, but the initiation must come from the federal

government. All the province needs, ' Barrett said, 'is for the federal

government to put in writing that Ottawa is responsible for settling

Indian land claims and outlining the terms."'

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's certainly not the position of the present

Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Correct.

MR. REYNOLDS: He says correct, but they change positions, Mr.

Speaker. They have one when they're in opposition and one when they're

in power. I go back to....

MR. SKELLY: What did the Socreds promise in the '75 election?

MR. REYNOLDS: See, now he wants to know what we promised, but

you see they're afraid to talk about what they promised. It's a nice

position to be in the opposition. You don't have to have any

responsibility. Let me just tell you what the New Democrats said....

MR. LAUK: How does it feel to be in the back bench?

MR. REYNOLDS: It's fun.

Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you what the NDP said when they were

in power. They've got one story now as you just heard what they did

when they were in power. You know what the Leader of the Opposition

says now: "My position is different. I take a different approach than

Mr. Barrett took. Our party policy has changed." He's shaking his head

and saying yes. Let me quote what one of their members said when they

were in power....

MR. MacWILLIAM: Name names.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Levi.

This was a question from Mr. Gibson, one of the Liberals in the

House at the time.

To the Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, I think the late

June meeting he was discussing earlier on relates particularly to

cutoff lands, but I'd ask him a question on the more general case of

the so-called B.C. land question. Since the B.C. NDP convention adopted

a resolution for the immediate joining of the provincial government to

the negotiations between the Indian people and Ottawa, is this now

government policy? And Mr. Levi's reply:

No, it's NDP policy

Mr. Speaker, I've always understood that whatever the NDP policy is

would be their government policy if they were the government, but it

certainly wasn't in that day. I might suggest to the Leader of the

Opposition that he should outline to the people of British Columbia

that his policy is totally opposed to what they've been saying in the

past — outline and tell us exactly what he would do if he was the

leader of this province. Also he should maybe talk to the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and ask him if his policy now is in

line with the Leader of the Opposition's policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the second member for Vancouver East.

When he was a minister in that NDP government in this province for a

short period of time, he said: "The B.C. Indian leaders are harassing

the majority of the population in order to achieve their objectives.

The government will not accept that. We will not be harassed."

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver East.

Mr. Speaker, he said: "We will not accept that. We will not be

harassed by the Indians in this province."

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: This is certainly part of the budget. This is

money that could be expended in this province. We want to know what the

position of the New Democrats is. The Leader of the Opposition talked

about Indian claims. He talks about them all over this province but

does not tell us what his policy is.

Mr. Speaker, you've got the second member for Vancouver East, who

wants to be in the government, who tries to say he's part of that

government, but he's not there. He'll never get there, and he opposes

what the leader of his party wants to do right now. His policy was: do

minority groups have the right to harass the majority to the extent

these people suggest? He said: "I think not." You won't find me

agreeing with the second member for Vancouver East too often, but on

that issue I agree with him and our government agrees with him. But his

policy doesn't agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I think we

should know that when that party is going into an election: are they

all together on this issue? Are they going to have a different policy

after this election is over?

Levi was opposed to aboriginal rights, and he said: "For in

socialism everyone is equal. We can't have one group gain more than

another group." That's what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do.

He wants to have one group gain more than another group. So I think he

certainly deserves the award for best actor in a leader's role, because

he doesn't have

[ Page 7528 ]

the support of his party on this issue. His members differ with him

on this issue.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would normally take the second member for

Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Lauk'

s) comments.... But since he's

retiring, I guess we just have to ignore him now and hope he gets on

the ICBC list and makes a few bucks next year.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He always says things in jest. He says he can

be bribed, but not with that one. But I don't even believe that,

because I think he's too honourable a gentleman. He has served this

House well over the years and has a great sense of humour. I'm sure

that when he sees the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm talking about the second member for

Vancouver Centre, who has been well respected — obviously respected in

his constituency, where he has been elected for a number of years. I

think all members of this House respect his wit in debate, and there

has to be opposition at all times.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: You've got to speak to Mikey about that if you

want to run again. I'm sure — just to finish that off — that he's

probably happy he's not running next time, because he knows he doesn't

want to be in opposition for another four years. He wants to get back

into business and enjoy the prosperity that this province is going to

have in the next few years because of the decisions taken by the

Premier of this province and by the Minister of Finance in his budget.

In his budget speech the Leader of the Opposition talked about some

areas. I'd like to quote some of the things he said, and tell you what

the real facts are. He said: "British Columbians work longer to pay

their taxes than people of any other province except Quebec." The

Leader of the Opposition said that's what the Fraser Institute says.

"British Columbia has the second highest tax rate of any province in

Canada." That was in Hansard for March 13, 1986. Well, I checked with

the Fraser Institute.

MR. LAUK: You did?

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, I did.

MR. LAUK: Are you a member?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, I'm not, but I have a lot of respect for

Michael Walker and the good work he does, and a number of credit unions

in this province also happen to think he does a good job.

The facts of that matter are not as quoted by the Leader of the

Opposition. The B.C. tax freedom day ranks fourth from the bottom,

according to the Fraser Institute — and that is their policy. Quebec,

Alberta and Saskatchewan are all more heavily taxed than British

Columbia, according to the Fraser Institute.

I bring that up because the Leader of the Opposition has a function

in this province, but one of them is not to state facts that are

untrue. It wouldn't take very much. I'm sure that if the Leader of the

Opposition had phoned up Mr. Walker at the Fraser Institute, he would

have told him what the facts are. He probably picked it up out of some

socialist newspaper somewhere that misinterpreted the facts and then

read it into the record of this House. And some people would read it

and believe it. But those aren't the facts.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: You always like to pick that one.

The Leader of the Opposition said in his speech: "When you see the

Conference Board of Canada say that retail sales after Expo are going

to collapse to one of the lowest levels in years...." That was in

Hansard for March 17, 1986. Again, I think his research department has

not got the true facts. The Conference Board of Canada, in its February

1986 report, projected retail sales to increase 4.4 percent, the real

domestic product to increase 1.3 percent, and the gross domestic

product to increase 4.9 percent. That's the good news.

The doom-and-gloom boys don't like to give you the good news. They

pick one little statement out of an

article and make their whole speech

around it. They are desperate to try to get a story across that is not

telling the facts about what's happening in British Columbia right now.

Third point. The Leader of the Opposition also said in his speech in

this House that during the first half of 1985 the B.C. population

showed a net loss of 1,400 residents. If they checked the figures,

they would find that during that period of time there was actually an

increase of 11,192, not a loss as they try to say. They just take part

of the figures to make their point; they don't take them all.

I think the people of this province are so used to the NDP using

this tactic.... That's why they never form the government in this

province — only once for a very short period of time — and with those

types of attitudes they will never form the government in this province

again. There are so many other reasons that we could talk about, but....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's nice to get up and talk here. They really

pay attention. That's part of their problem. When somebody is telling

them some facts, they want to be talking instead of listening. They get

their mouths working before they get their brains in gear.

MR. LAUK: Your trouble is that you haven't done anything

wrong yet; that's why you're not in cabinet.

MR. BLENCOE: Nothing they can prove, anyway.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I stand up here to oppose this

motion.

They're all laughing, Mr. Speaker, but it's not a laughing matter.

What we've done in this province — the great things, like Expo — and

they still think it's a joke.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 7529 ]

The second member for Victoria wants to call Expo a joke. His leader

wanted to call it a circus. They say "shift gears." We've got so many

good things to talk about over here we could stand up for hours.

MR. BLENCOE: You've been going in reverse for ten years.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria always likes to

do his yapping, but I haven't heard him say one constructive thing

since he came to this House three years ago. He hasn't done one

constructive thing to help Victoria in this House. He goes into

Vancouver and tries to find his way around once in a while and causes

some problems. He tries to take his party to power on the backs of the

handicapped and the poor. Not one positive thing has come from that

member since he's been here for three years. I would defy him to read

Hansard and find one. If he did, I'd take him out and buy him dinner.

MR. BLENCOE: I wouldn't eat with you anyway.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I probably sat up with some of your

friends who were having a good meal for a change.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: This member.... You see, they want to knock

all the good things.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: It would be more than a pleasure.

I want to close by saying that I oppose this amendment. I'm going to

vote in favour of the budget.

The Leader of the Opposition should get his act in order and start

telling the facts as they are to the people of British Columbia, not as

they come from his research department. I think it was the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who stood up one day and said: "

Oh, I've got my notes here from the research department, and there is

nothing on them." I said it was the best job they'd done in years.

They need improvement, because in a democracy, we have to have a

strong opposition. An opposition should be an opposition that the

people of this province or the people of Canada can look upon as an

alternative government. They don't see it that way in this province.

They see this group as an opposition, a noisy opposition, but they

don't see them as the government of British Columbia. That's their

problem. I hope that they can sit down and work together and give the

people of this province what they deserve, which is a good, strong

opposition that spells things out the way they really are.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can always tell when the Leader of

the Opposition is effective: he gets attacked by that member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound all the time. It's the best indication. I'm sorry

that the member has scuttled out and left the premises, because I want

to make a comment or two about it.

Apart from the fact that it was highly amusing, entertaining,

laughable and puts on a good kind of show, but not with any substance

to it....

I do want to make a comment. I had planned to do it and will

proceed. If the members feels that he wants to say something about it

afterwards, he certainly can. But he made a reference to an actor, to

people seeking to be in the cabinet, and that that was their only

attraction for being here, and that sort of thing. And I think the

House is entitled to know why he, the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound, wasn't chosen to be in the current cabinet. That was because the

Premier obviously knows the unsavoury reason behind that member leaving

federal politics in the first place.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! The House will come to

order and the member will withdraw that last remark. It is

unparliamentary and reflects on another hon. member of this House.

MR. HOWARD: "Unsavoury" is unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference to the other hon. member is

unparliamentary, and I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw that

comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even though it was true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it wasn't heard what I said.

Without the use of the word "unsavoury," let me say it again. Then if

Your Honour says that it is unparliamentary, I certainly will withdraw

it. I'm saying that the Premier knows about the circumstances

surrounding the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound having left

federal politics, That's why he, the member for Howe Sound, is not in

cabinet. I left that one word out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. Then the member has withdrawn

the offensive reference.

MR. HOWARD: Word. If there is a word, that's what I was

trying to get.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And it is withdrawn?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I didn't use it the second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But it was used the first time and was not

withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD: Well, that's just what I said, Mr. Speaker: that

if saying it again without the use of that word in there.... I

think it's implicit that it has been.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That still does not resolve the original

problem, which is the use of the word which the Chair finds offensive.

MR. HOWARD: I think it's implicit that I have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has withdrawn?

[ Page 7530 ]

MR. HOWARD: Yes. That's why I had to repeat it in the

different way.

If other hon. members knew those facts too, they might pay less

attention to what the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound says.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few remarks about one subject

matter. Earlier, Mr. Speaker, during question period there was some

reference, by way of questions and the like, as to whether a certain

action constituted legal theft. I had the same view that the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) had: that is, that

theft is theft. Stealing is stealing. You can't have a legal form of

theft — the question was raised within that context — except when

you're dealing with public money, and using it for political

advertising. Then you can have a legal form of theft. And that seems to

be what's going on with this government. Because it is diverting funds

which taxpayers pay involuntarily, diverting funds which taxpayers pay

for what taxpayers think is to the advantage of the taxpayer, diverting

those funds into a political partisan advertising campaign to increase

the image and the stature of the Social Credit government. That's

what's happening. That's what's happened in 1982-83; that's what

happened in subsequent years between then and now. And that's what's

happening right now in an intensified way. Taxes taken for one purpose

are used for another. Taxes taken from people for programs are used for

propaganda. Now the taxpayer has no choice. He coughs up what this

Legislature says shall be the taxes payable, given that there are, as

far as income tax is concerned certain deductions and the like that one

can make. Taxpayers have no choice.

I submit that when this government — and this is the government that

is doing it — takes that tax money and diverts its use to propagandize

people, advancing through television advertising that Social Credit is

the way to go, it is using public money for partisan political

purposes. That is legalized theft. That's legalized stealing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Theft?

MR. HOWARD: Yes, theft and stealing, and those who do it,

those who engage in it, should be classified accordingly.

I don't want to get into again and repeat what the Leader of the

Opposition put forward on the record during the remarks he made a few

moments ago, that apart from the fact that the advertising is false and

is telling things which are not correct, is propagandizing, is

distorting facts and figures in its advertising — apart from that, Mr.

Speaker, I want to put to you that that activity on the part of this

government is mean and deceitful and dishonest. There's no difference,

in my view, between the Bennetts and the Kinsellas and the Lucanias of

this world, when it comes to things of that nature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: If I should not have used that person's name, I

won't.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) will come to order. Again I remind all

members that temperance and moderation in debate are always a hallmark

of parliamentary courtesy.

MR. HOWARD: When it comes to using public funds for

advertising for political purposes, that same ruling should prevail. I

wish there were a mechanism by which you, Mr. Speaker, were able to put

that into effect. Temperance and moderation indeed! There's no

temperance or moderation on the part of this government, abusing the

taxpayers of this province; no prudence, no responsibility, no

respectable activity at all.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You speak of respect!

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps whatever respect that minister had

earlier was lost not too long ago, and not by my doings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: No respectability at all. No respect for the

taxpayers of this province, in the minds of anybody on that side of the

House, particularly one that I might be looking at the moment. There's

no difference between the Kinsellas of this world and the Lucanias of

this world, none whatever.

One may approach dealing with matters by manipulation, another may

approach dealing with matters by distorting the truth, another may

approach it by conning people or coercing them. But the purpose is

identical between those groups and those types of people. The purpose

is to try to convince people to do something that is not in their best

interests. The purpose is to try to get people to do something that

they would not ordinarily do. Read Patrick Kinsella, or whatever his

first name is. Read Kinsella's comments about that. He gloated over the

fact that it was possible — and they used taxpayers' money to do it —

to move people from one position to another by advertising techniques,

seeking to get people to do something that they would not ordinarily do.

The $20 million a year that this government spends on that

advertising program is disgraceful — not only disgraceful, Mr. Speaker,

it's frightening, because it indicates both the activity itself and the

response that one gets from members when it's raised, when it's talked

about.... It indicates that in the doing, in the action and in the

response, the government does not know the difference between what is

right and what is wrong in this regard. They may know where right is in

the political sense, but in a moral and ethical sense of right or

wrong, they don't know.

That one member who just spoke across the floor may have some

inkling about it. He's fresh into the cabinet. But the government in a

total sense does not. It has a political psychosis about it, and that's

the dangerous part. If there is a derangement of personality or a loss

of contact with reality, then damaging things may be done to the body

politic, if a person doesn't have that assessment of what is ethically

and morally correct and what is incorrect.

I submit to you that the budget does not recognize that reality. It

does not recognize that the people of this province don't trust this

government, because it's broken faith with them so many times before.

It doesn't recognize that ordinary citizens in this province are saying

time and time again that they, as ordinary citizens, have the belief

that this is a government that doesn't care for them one whit. The

advertising program of this government using taxpayers' money merely

[ Page 7531 ]

substantiates the fact that it is a government out of touch with

reality and a government that can't be trusted.

[4:45]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Needless to say, I stand to speak against

this amendment and in favour of the budget brought down a few short

days ago in this House. But before I get into my debate on that topic,

I would just like to place on the record the feeling that I have for

the type of personal attack that we just heard in this House from the

member for Skeena. Mr. Speaker, it is a disgraceful example of what

that member is all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That will be withdrawn.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'll withdraw that, and I'll let the people

of British Columbia and of Skeena, after reading Hansard of the

proceedings that go on in this House, make up their minds for

themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years toiling very hard in this province

to come to this place, this place that I thought was where the work of

the people of British Columbia was done. If ever....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You're wet behind the ears yet. Maybe you'll

live long enough to learn a little bit about this province.

I have never heard anything more disgraceful than the member for

Skeena's speeches in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Again those are personal references,

hon. member, and must be withdrawn.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I mean no personal disrespect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the comment is withdrawn.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I just allude to the personal disrespect that

is shown by those kinds of speeches in this House for the people of

British Columbia,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I withdraw.

Time after time his