1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1980

Night Sitting

[ Page

1407 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1407

Ms. Sanford –– 1407

Mr. Strachan –– 1411

Mr. Nicolson –– 1414

Mr. Ritchie –– 1418

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Before we adjourned for dinner I was

telling the House how, when we assumed the great role of government in

1976, we had a blueprint for the economy of this province — what is

happening today is no bonanza — and how we carried it out. I was

telling the House how our stewardship of the renewable resources would

guarantee their existence in this province forever and ever. Of course,

I referred to fish, food and forest. I was saying how our plan for the

forest industry, the mining industry and the petroleum industry —

non-renewable resources — had revitalized these industries so that they

could now go out and take advantage of the opportunities that exist;

and that we were not having a bonanza today, it was a careful plan

carried out by a great team to make British Columbia the greatest

province of all Canada, and probably of any jurisdiction in the free

world, and the envy of everyone. There's revenue coming to government

that allows us to reduce taxes to people and to business, at the same

time giving them more services.

I want to talk for just a moment — and I just have a few moments, I

understand — about another industry. I want to talk about the coal

mining industry. Yes, indeed. I want to tell you that when we became

government all was gloom and doom in the coal industry. The steel

industry was in the greatest doldrums it had been in since the Dark

Ages. But did this government sit back and say the world was coming to

an end? No, not at all. We said that the steel industry in this world

will revitalize, and in the meantime we will make sure that our

policies allow the coal mining industry of British Columbia to take

advantage of the great decade of the eighties, because the

opportunities will be there.

We went out and searched for new markets. We told those markets that

it wasn't the same place in British Columbia: "You come to British

Columbia now. We're interested in selling you coal." They told me in

Korea when I was there: "We came to British Columbia in 1974. We wanted

to buy coal." They told me the government of British Columbia was not

interested in selling coal. "Leave it in the ground for another three

billion years, because we're not interested in selling it. We're not

interested in providing jobs, and we're not interested in the revenue

for the people of British Columbia." That's what they were told by that

gang over there when they were government. However, we have changed all

of that. The great coal-mining industry of British Columbia is now

ready to take the opportunities that exist in the world. Believe me, we

will end up selling our coal in the world markets.

This government of British Columbia today — this great Social Credit

government, this great team — will see that in the decade of the

eighties British Columbia takes its rightful place as one of the great

coal-mining and shipping areas in the world. We're planning in this

budget so that the people of British Columbia can reap the benefits.

That's what this budget is all about; it's planning for the decade of

the eighties.

Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that when all of these things that I'm

talking about happen, they'll sit over there and say: "Oh, it's a

bonanza, you didn't have any plan, you didn't do anything"? We're

planning.

Oh, I wish I had more time to talk about the great plan of the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

to bring high-technology industry to British Columbia. Then they won't

sit over there and say: "Oh, you're not spending anything on research."

We have the greatest Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications of any jurisdiction. Now, I suppose, when these

high-technology industrial parks are full of high-technology

industries, employing people, creating jobs, they'll say: "Oh, that's a

bonanza, that just sort of happened."

Make no mistake about it, this government had a plan in 1976, a

well-defined blueprint. Through teamwork we have been able to put that

plan in existence. And that's why today the people of British Columbia

are the best off of any jurisdiction in the world, and our record is

the envy of every government in Canada and every state in the Union.

I suppose when we announce our ferro-alloy manufacturing plant

they'll say: "Oh, that's a bonanza." I suppose when these great new

petrochemical industries come into British Columbia they'll say: "Oh,

that's a bonanza, that didn't have anything to do with your plan." I

suppose when we create thousands and thousands of new jobs in the new

fighter offset program — we're already reaping some benefits — they'll

say: "Oh, that's a bonanza."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I have to remind you that your time has expired.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry too. I'm really sorry, because I

wanted to tell the people of this province more about our great plan.

But I shall probably seek that opportunity once again, because it fills

my heart with joy to be able to talk and get enthusiastic about what

this government is doing.

MR. LEA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member please state the point of order.

MR. LEA: Under

section 14, I just wondered if the minister wants leave to continue his speech or to finish it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we continue on the budget debate.

I trust that the next member, who will soon be recognized, will speak

softly, because the level of noise seems to be encouraged to assume the

same level as the level of noise of the speech. So I would ask the hon.

member to speak softly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will speak softly, and I do hope

that for your part you will maintain order in the House so that I can

continue to speak softly and be heard during this debate.

I am fascinated by the previous speaker, because, to me, he gives

the best indication of the kind of deep trouble that that government is

currently in. Let me just illustrate. The Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development, the member for South Peace River, as you

indicated, Mr. Speaker, quite often raises his voice in this chamber.

But do you know, in recent days he has been very subdued; he's been

sitting there frowning and he has been making derogatory

[ Page 1408 ]

comments across the floor of the Legislature, which

to me is the indication that that minister, along with the rest of that

government, is deeply hurting. Even this afternoon, when that member

got up to speak, he was relatively subdued for the member for South

Peace River, who's generally known as Leather Lungs in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you've heard that before. He's been referred to

as Leather Lungs. But the dinner hour seemed to have improved his whole

outlook and approach and he began to adopt a bit of the life that he

usually demonstrates in this House. But really, even tonight, during

his last three or four minutes, when he was in flight, I have to tell

the people who are sitting in the galleries that he was relatively

quiet. He usually speaks much louder than that, and with much more

enthusiasm. Interestingly enough — and I sat and listened to every word

the minister had to say — he neglected to mention one very important

topical issue, and I was very surprised. The minister usually doesn't

hesitate to get involved in topical issues.

Now, this afternoon he spoke for about 35 minutes and another 5

minutes tonight; he used his full 40 minutes. He didn't speak until

after 5 o'clock today and I'm sure he was quite aware of what the most

topical issue, on the front page of the Victoria Times

is today. If not, he certainly had the supper hour to look through the

paper in order to realize that one of the most topical issues relates

to the Princess Marguerite . I waited and I waited, but the minister didn't say a word about the Princess Marguerite .

Mr. Speaker, we had a petition today presented to this Legislature with 40,000 names on it, requesting that the Princess Marguerite

continue the service between Victoria and Seattle this year. We've had

the president of the company resign, or get fired — I don't know which

— because he could not tolerate the decision of that government with

respect to the Princess Marguerite .

We have a Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) who proudly boasts of

the marvellous things she is going to try to do for tourism, and then

we have a government that makes a bungling decision about one of the

most important tourist attractions on the whole of Vancouver Island. He

didn't mention it, and he is the minister that talked about the vessel

being unsafe.

And what do we read on the front page of the paper today? That the Princess Marguerite

is very safe. It's just as safe as any other vessel within the B.C.

Ferry Corporation. The chief inspector for the Coast Guard tells us

there may be some problems with the Marguerite but, Mr. Speaker, the Marguerite is a safe vessel.

Art Elworthy is no longer with that board because he cannot face the prospect as president of running the Queen of Prince Rupert

on that run this summer because he knows the problems that are

associated with that. He knows the fact that the people on Vancouver

Island are going to be very unhappy about the reduction in the number

of tourists that are coming to Victoria. The minister is out in the

hallway telling the press that the Princess Marguerite

is unsafe, and we have the chief inspector for the Coast Guard saying

that vessel is very seaworthy. What are they doing over there, Mr.

Speaker? They're bungling, bungling, bungling. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm

raising my voice.

Isn't it interesting that that minister, who has so much to say and

regretted that he didn't have any more time, couldn't find even one

sentence about the very important decision and the very important

article that appears on the front page of the Times today with respect to the Marguerite . What are they hiding over there? Why don't they want to put the Marguerite

on the run this summer? It's now obvious that it's not a matter of

safety. There must be something else involved, and I hope, Mr. Speaker,

that along with all of the other unanswered questions out of that

government we will get some answers with respect to the decision

surrounding the Marguerite . It's a disaster.

MR. BARBER: Who have they sold it to?

MS. SANFORD: Has it been sold? We haven't been told that.

What other reasons are there that you would have the president of the

company decide he could no longer stay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He was canned.

MS. SANFORD: He was canned because of the bungling decisions of that government — you're right.

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the minister's speech, and I must

say that I have a number of concerns with this budget. The member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) this afternoon did an excellent job of outlining,

on behalf of the official opposition, the shortcomings in the budget

that was presented to us yesterday by the Minister of Finance. The

things that he mentioned referred to the fact that this government and

this budget does not recognize, does not attempt to deal with in any

way, the problems surrounding inflation and the effect that inflation

has on those people who could least afford it. The budget does not deal

with the problems of unemployment, and that is very important to us on

Vancouver Island, not only because of the decision surrounding the Marguerite

but because of the fact that in the last release of the figures on

unemployment we find that on Vancouver Island the figures are in

opposition to the trend that is taking place across the country. On

Vancouver Island the unemployment figures have gone up again this

month, and they are now up to 12.6 percent.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about Vancouver?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable and is an

intolerable situation. As far as Vancouver is concerned, Mr. Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or as far as the rest of the

province is concerned, we still have tens of thousands of people in

this province looking for work, and that's not good enough.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's 7.3 percent in the province, the best ever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the hon. minister will have an opportunity in the debate.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, the minister will be able to tell us about

the $3 million that's going to be set aside out of a budget of $5.8

billion — or is it $5.6 billion? — for energy conservation and

alternate energy sources. He will tell us about that, I'm sure.

Because of the current rate of inflation the member for Nanaimo

referred to this afternoon, what we are going to find is that half of

this billion-dollar increase that we see in this budget is going to be

eaten up through inflation. When you look at the catchup that has to be

done in services to people in this province, that billion dollars

doesn't look as great as it might on first appearances. It just doesn't

look as great. We

[ Page 1409 ]

had 20 years of Social Credit government under

W.A.C. Bennett where social services were neglected — and I see the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) applauding. They were

neglected for 20 years and we have a massive catchup program to do.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You did your share.

MS. SANFORD: We did our share. From 1972 to 1975, when the

NDP was in office in this province, we did a great job of trying to

catch up on those services. There was no ambulance service in many

parts of the province and the then Minister of Health, the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), undertook to provide ambulance services

throughout this province. It wasn't there before. We undertook to do

something about day-care services in this province. We undertook to

bring in Pharmacare in this province; that was introduced by the

Minister of Human Resources of that time. We introduced a Mincome

program for all of those people in need over the age of 65.

Mr. Speaker, in recent times, in the last four or five years, we

have seen horrendous problems in the delivery of health services under

that previous Minister of Health and the present minister (Hon. Mr.

Mair). We have intolerable waiting lists for hospital beds; we have

people on Human Resources assistance living below the poverty line in

this province. It seems to me that the extent to which a society

dependably and systematically reaches out to its less fortunate members

is surely one of the most reliable gauges of the extent to which that

society is civilized.

And what are we faced with in British Columbia today? It is long

past time that the people in this society, including government,

business, labour, churches and everybody joined together to alleviate —

if we can't abolish it, at least we can alleviate it — that disgrace of

people living below the poverty line and not being able to obtain the

services that they need.

Mr. Speaker, about 20 years ago Gérard Pelletier made a speech on

this issue. I think his words are just as valid today as they were at

that time, and I would like to quote them for you tonight. He said:

"One proof among thousands that we still accept it is the absence of

any research into the way in which we can get rid of it." He is

referring to the poverty that exists in Canada. We are still prepared

to accept it. "Where are the social laboratories" — and I'm still

quoting from Mr. Pelletier — "or the research workers provided with

enough facilities and money to apply themselves to the causes and the

remedies of poverty, just as thousands of medical people study cancer

or rheumatism or any other disease that we are faced with in society?"

None of that is going on, Mr. Speaker, and under this government we're

certainly not seeing any attempt to overcome that disgraceful problem

of people living in poverty in a society as wealthy as ours.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you a few examples of the kind of lack of

services that still exists in this province, examples that come from my own

constituency. I would like to refer to a paper published just last week in the

Courtenay area, the Comox District Free Press . The headline on the front page

says: "Hospital Bed Wait Bloody Horror." That story stems from the

experiences of a man living in Comox who is faced with a blocked carotid artery.

He suffered a minor stroke last July and was sent to Vancouver to a specialist

from St. Paul's Hospital. The specialist agreed with his doctor in Comox that

he needed an immediate operation; that at any time he was in danger of facing

another serious stroke which would either kill him or leave him a vegetable.

His doctor in St. Paul's Hospital booked him in for the needed operation. Mr.

Speaker, that operation had to be done at St. Paul's, because they specialize

in carotid surgery. The man had his appointment, his bed and his operation cancelled

not once, not twice, but three times. He claims in this

article that if he had

not threatened the people at St. Paul's Hospital that he would camp on their

doorstep until a bed was made available to him, his fourth operation would have

been cancelled.

The reporter from the Comox District Free Press

was alarmed when he heard the comments of the constituent from Comox.

He took the trouble to phone his surgeon at St. Paul's Hospital, and

the surgeon said that the bed shortage is a "bloody horror." That's the

quote of the specialist operating in St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver.

It is going to be a long time before we are able to provide the kinds

of services that will enable people like him to have his surgery when

he needs it. It's a catchup thing, and it's long overdue.

Let me tell you about a senior citizen who lives in the Parksville

area within my constituency. At a regular checkup at her doctor's she

found that she was going deaf. The doctor indicated this and told her

she would have to obtain a hearing aid.

She said to her doctor: "I think you are right, because I myself

appreciate that I do not hear as well as I used to. I recognize that I

now have to go and obtain a hearing aid. Would you please refer me to

an audiological centre sponsored by the provincial government?"

"Well," he said, "the nearest audiological centre is up in Comox,

but the waiting list there is already six to eight months, and the Comox audiological

centre has now stipulated that only people from the Comox area will be accepted.

Therefore the nearest audiological centre that I can send you to is in Victoria."

She made inquiries so that she could be admitted to the audiological

centre to be tested and to receive her hearing aid through that

program. She was told that the only people they were accepting at that

centre were those 18 years old or younger, so there was no way she

could get into that centre.

She was also told that there were now new facilities in Nanaimo

which provided an audiological centre. But there has been no allocation

of funds to staff it. In addition to that, the people involved in this

program had been trying for over a year to get authorization from that

government to have a mobile unit placed in Nanaimo, so that people 65

years old and over, and others who cannot afford to put out $300 or

$400 or $500 for a hearing aid, could be attended to in those centres.

What has been happening during that period of time, when one of my

constituents couldn't get the operation he needed, when a senior

citizen couldn't get the attention she needed through an audiological

centre? That government has been building up a surplus day after day

after day, without authorizing the kinds of funds that are needed to

meet the needs of these people, so that they will be facing about half

a billion dollars in surplus at the end of this fiscal year.

Let me give you some more examples, Mr. Speaker, while I think about

them. I have a constituent living in Courtenay who is a single parent.

She has been ill for a number of years and has had to rely on social

assistance. She has three children. Finally she became well enough to

go out to look for a job. She was fortunate; she obtained that job.

[ Page 1410 ]

She worked for a year, and at the end of that year

the job was terminated, the job was phased out. She has been trying

desperately since then to obtain employment again.

Because of the unemployment rates she has not been able to find a

job; they are just not available in that area. So what has she done?

She too, like those people who were surveyed in that United Way report,

has had to live below the poverty line. She is back in receipt of Human

Resources assistance. She told me just last week that she has given up

two of her children to foster homes, because they are now teenagers,

they now require more in the way of food and clothing. She cannot

provide it for them, and reluctantly and regrettably she relinquished

two of her children to foster care so that they might have a better

chance to escape from the poverty and the deprivation under which they

were living. She has sold her washer and her dryer trying to meet

payments. She has no car and virtually no opportunity of finding a job.

She must rely on that government that has been building half a

billion dollars in surplus for her very means of existence. She is

hoping that the remaining child who is still with her, now 11 years

old, will be able to stay with her; that this government will finally

come to recognize that people out there live in those conditions, that

they will show a bit of heart, which heretofore they have never shown,

that they will enable her to keep that child at home, to feed it

properly, to ensure that it is clothed and to ensure that it gets its

education.

Any government that will brag about building up a surplus, while

allowing the people of the province to be faced with problems of that

nature, does not deserve to be government.

What about the excellent ambulance program that was introduced by

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when he was the Minister of

Health? Ever since 1976 the essential services people have been putting

in requests to the government through Treasury Board in order to obtain

and train the needed ambulance attendants, so that they can provide a

service for the people of this province. They are feeling very

demoralized. They are not getting the support of the government. They

are forced to work overtime. People who have been coming in on a

part-time basis are leaving, those who have received some training are

leaving, which puts the essential services people in the position of

having to train even more. They are far behind; they are desperate for

additional ambulance attendants. The government could have, at any

point during this past year, when it was building up that surplus day

after day — and they knew it — released the necessary funds, so that

the essential services people could provide the kind of ambulance

service that every citizen in British Columbia deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I'm getting angry. I get angry when I think

about these things. These are people within my own constituency who are

being adversely affected, while the government brags about the surplus

it is building up. I remember getting particularly angry just before

Christmas, when we had a press release issued by the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), saying that she was being very generous

— or at least implying that in her press release — because the people

in receipt of GAIN were going to receive a $25 bonus at Christmastime,

or $50 for a family. That's not very much, in view of inflation and all

of the other problems we have been talking about. But what she did not

mention in that press release is that that bonus at Christmastime did

not apply to those on GAIN who are over the age of 65; they didn't

qualify. Nor did it apply to those in receipt of GAIN between the ages

of 60 and 64, unless they had a dependant. Nor did it apply to those

who are in receipt of handicap pensions. Somehow they did not qualify

for that little bonus at Christmastime. And they are sitting on that

kind of surplus. It angers me.

I have been remiss, because this is the first opportunity I have had

to speak in the Legislature since this session was called and I have

not offered my congratulations to the new Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson)

or to the four new ministers who have been appointed to the cabinet. I

would like to wish them well in their positions.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), shortly after she was

appointed, wrote to all of the MLAs and asked us for our suggestions as

to how tourism in British Columbia might be improved. I was pleased to

receive her letter, because the tourist potential within Comox

constituency is tremendous. We have outstanding scenic beauty; we have

fine opportunities for boating, fishing, swimming, hiking and camping.

And now, with the development of a fine new ski facility, we present to

the province one of the best ski areas in all of B.C.

All of these attributes, which could be so valuable in terms of

attracting tourists to the area — and I am not going to mention any

more about the Marguerite ,

because that's all tied in with this.... In attracting tourists to the

area, the problem is that the tourists are not going to want to come

back into that area in spite of all of those attributes, because of a

major problem that we are facing on Vancouver Island from Parksville

north right through to Campbell River.

I have written in response to the Minister of Tourism, who has asked

me for suggestions as to how tourism can be improved in this province,

that she use her influence in cabinet to convince the government and

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that until we get a bypass

route from Parksville right through to Campbell River we are not likely

to bring tourists back again again into that area. The Minister of

Highways knows what the problem is. He has spoken many times in this

House about the problem, year after year. He responded to our

questions. He knows that the present highway can hardly accommodate the

people there now, let alone any additional tourists that might come in.

So I have asked the Minister of Tourism: "Please, in the interest of

tourism, let's get on with building a bypass highway from Parksville

north through to Campbell River." I hope she is successful in

accomplishing that.

I mentioned that unemployment still remains at an unacceptable level

— 12.6 percent on Vancouver Island is a horrendous figure, and it's

inexcusable.

The Minister of Finance in his budget speech yesterday pointed with

pride to "the $4.5 million allocation from the surplus fund to the

Minister of Labour for a youth employment and training program to

assist young people in their permanent entry into the labour market."

It's not quite clear from the speech how much of that $4.5 million is

going to go into apprenticeship training, how much is going to go into

the Youth Employment Program and whether all of it will be used in one

area or the other or whether it will be split. The Minister of Finance

failed to mention that last year out of the surplus fund there was a $5

million allocation to that same program. So we are hardly keeping up.

We are not keeping up at all. The $4.5 million allocation is not going

to solve the needs of the students this summer who are going to require

work in order to get back to school next year. It's going to be

inadequate, and I think that the Minister of Labour knows it.

[ Page 1411 ]

Some time ago outside of this House the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) — and some mention was made of this in the budget speech as

well as in the throne speech — had given us a brand new commitment to

solve the problems surrounding that apprenticeship training program. I

have to smile a little bit. He's talking about enriching the program —

I think that's the term that's being used now. The problems are not

being solved, he's saying. He wants a brand new approach to that

apprenticeship training program.

What we have right now is a situation in which young people cannot

get into the training programs they require, and employers who need

trained people are not able to get them. We have the scandalous

situation of employers having to appeal to the federal Minister of

Employment and Immigration in order to import skilled people to the

province of British Columbia, because they can't get the training here.

That was a problem that was recognized a number of years ago; I think

it was about 1976 or 1977 that I remember the former Minister of

Labour, now the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), made a great

to-do about the whole new era of cooperation that was going to exist

between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education — because

both jurisdictions are involved — in order to ensure that the training

programs would meet the needs of both the employers and those who

needed the training. I thought that that was really going to happen.

After all, the Minister of Education at the time (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and

the Minister of Labour at the time both sat together and worked

together over here on this side of the House when they sat as Liberals.

They both abandoned whatever principles kept them to the Liberal Party

and joined the Social Credit Party. They seemed to be working together

quite well. So I assumed that this whole new era that was referred to

in 1976 was really going to happen. It didn't happen.

The problem today is that not only do we have the new Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) who is a Liberal, and the new Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) who is a Conservative, as well as the now

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

who is a Liberal also, but we now have three ministries involved in

trying to solve this problem. It's going to be interesting to see what

develops.

All in all, this budget is supposed to meet the needs of the people

of the eighties; it's supposed to be a challenge. It doesn't do any of

those things, and that's why the response from the people of the

province today to the budget that was announced yesterday by the

Minister of Finance is a lukewarm one. They are just not able, because

of their bungling, the problems that they have faced and their internal

problems, to give the province the direction that it needs for the

1980s.

MR. STRACHAN: I rise to speak on the budget. It's an

excellent budget, and I don't think there is anyone in this assembly

who can really deny it.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) didn't speak to the budget but spent some time on the Marguerite ,

and then finally got to the budget, which actually turned out to be the

estimates of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and

the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Then she

got back to the newspapers — good old NDP research through the

newspapers.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) the other day spent

some time in this chamber reading a newspaper item to us about the

supposedly poor little disfranchised man on the farm in Salmon Arm or

somewhere in his riding. It was a sad story. It accused the government

of hiding away in cabinet somewhere and introducing legislation that

wasn't brought to this wonderful House, this forum of the public. It

accused our government of the ripping-off of a poor little 89-year-old

farmer. It was tragic; I was most upset when I heard the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke read that newspaper article.

Then, to and behold, we find out the facts from the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). In fact, that legislation was introduced in

the House. When we find out the truth it was introduced with all

members assembled. It was duly debated and passed. On further

investigation, we find out that in fact this gentleman's farm status is

something which he still enjoys and his taxes didn't go up to $2,900,

but in fact stayed at $1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. STRACHAN: That's right. The Provincial Secretary said that, and it's recorded in Hansard .

So what we have is the official opposition doing their research through

the newspapers and trotting out that type of material, wasting the time

of this House, and finding out that what they're saying is in fact not

true at all in the first place.

The member for Comox spoke at length about the tourist industry in

her area. Outstanding stuff, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very happy to see

that the member for Comox is interested in the tourist trade in her

area. She speaks of the scenic beauty of that lovely part of Vancouver

Island. She speaks of all the people that will be coming to that

wonderful part of this little island, and says it's about time that our

government did something to help them. Well, I should point out to that

member that we have tremendous items in our budget for highways — 100

million, I believe, for highways. I wonder if she would take that

message back to her constituents in Comox who are interested in the

tourist business, and then maybe at that point also compare this budget

that we saw yesterday, this afternoon and again tonight with statements

made by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he was

Minister of Highways, and his comments on what he thought the tourists

should do. I am sure the people in Comox would be delighted with the

stated NDP philosophy on tourism — "Let them stay home. If we don't

build the highways then people won't come, and that way we can control

the tourist business." Good, sound policy.

The member for Comox, Mr. Speaker, also spoke at some length about

trades training, and for the information of that member and all members

in the House, there have been tremendous increases in trades training

in this province. If I can get a bit parochial, I will tell you about

the trades-training programs that I've seen in Prince George at the

College of New Caledonia since 1976 — a whole new program to train

electricians, an expanded millwright program, and an increase of our

shop space by one-third. That's just the beginning, Mr. Speaker. Those

trades-training programs are taking off at an incredible rate right

now, and I think the member's being most irresponsible when she speaks

about the fact that there has been no increase in trades training since

Well, I'd rise to speak to the budget, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

[ Page 1412 ]

Mr. Phillips) said, a budget is a blueprint, it

sets the design out and it's something we follow. It's a strategy and

it's a tremendous blueprint for this budget. I don't think any member

here can deny that this is a long-term blueprint, a long-term budget, a

budget that doesn't just speak for 1980 but speaks for the decade and

for decades to follow.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think if we examine the budget

that this political jurisdiction — the province of British Columbia —

has introduced to the House, and if we examine the budgets of other

provinces in Canada, if we examine the budgets of other state

assemblies in North America, we will find that the budget before us now

is probably the most innovative budget, probably the only budget that

speaks to the 1980s of any budget introduced in any North American

political jurisdiction to date. I would stand on that, and I would like

to see any of the members opposite refute that.

This budget aids consumers, homeowners, education, the forest

industry, the senior citizens, mobile-home owners, the sick, the

tourist industry, the small businessman; everyone in this great

province is aided by this budget. This budget also fights inflation,

and I think if you had any sort of a finance critic, you'd....

MR. COCKE: How does it fight inflation?

MR. STRACHAN: Well, how about a $50 homeowner grant for the

elderly? Yes, very good, you've picked up on that one — super. The

loyal opposition speak against this budget not with a bang, but with a

whimper.

I've asked in previous speeches to this House in this session: where

is the opposition? Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom this afternoon, you

asked them to debate the budget, and I think for a while they kind of

got back to it, although, I must admit, it has drifted and strayed, and

has become reasonably irrelevant since your admonishment this

afternoon. You asked them to debate the budget, and what did they do?

They rehashed old policy. What constructive criticism did we hear? Was

there anything constructive mentioned by the members opposite, either

this afternoon or this evening? Where is the opposition, Mr. Speaker?

When we look at some of the great old CCF guys, and I'll acknowledge

there were some pretty good orators, some pretty good constructive

thinkers — Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, Robert Strachan (no

relation, by the way) — those people would have said something; they

would have proposed constructive criticism; they would have analyzed

what we have said here; they would have done something to explain and

extemporize on their great socialist philosophy — I'm sure they would

have. But where are the stirring speeches? Where's the constructive

criticism? Stanley Knowles had policy, Tommy Douglas had policy and

Robert Strachan had policy. Where is it now? None, just a whimper.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Sorry, I will retract that. We have heard five

policy statements from the members opposite since this session began.

One, they know how to read newspapers. They're convicted on that one.

The mother superior of the press gallery is writing their stuff for

them. The members opposite know how to say: "We were going to do that."

They're good at that one. They can talk about unemployment, and they

talked about Railwest, and they talked about a steel mill. Those are

the five items that we've heard, said with conviction, since this House

opened seven days ago. And they say they will vote against the budget.

I would ask the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)...he's not here. The

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is also gone. Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) — that member's here. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) are missing.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member

for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) are all missing.

You people have said you are going to vote against reforestation.

The members I have just spoken to — you are going to vote against

reforestation? That's good to hear. You are going to vote against sales

tax exemption, are you? Isn't that interesting. You members are going

to vote against a sales tax exemption for wood- and coal-burning

furnaces, stoves and fireplace inserts, storm and multiglazed windows

and doors, and equipment for solar heating systems? You're going to

vote against that. I think that would be interesting for the member for

Skeena or the member for Atlin to take back to the folks at home and

tell them how they feel about that. You're going to vote against $100

million for highway construction? Isn't that wonderful. You'd better

tell your friends at home about that one too.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Speaking of bridges, Mr. Speaker, through you

to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — and

actually to all ministers here — a great lot has been said, quite

humorously, but I think with some sincerity in the last week and a

half, about the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and his bridge. The

opposition is opposed to that bridge. Well, I think they should go back

to Delta and tell the 75,000 people in Delta that they're opposed to

that bridge. Why don't you tell Carl Liden that you're opposed to that

bridge? Tell the 35 percent of the people in Delta who voted NDP, who

voted for Mr. Liden, that you're opposed to that bridge. Are you going

to do that?

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it was a small percentage, but 35 percent of the people voted for Carl.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you will assist me in maintaining order if you address the Chair.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked all members to ask

themselves if they can really go back to Delta and say they are opposed

to that bridge.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, tell Carl Liden you're opposed to that

bridge. Tell the consumers, particularly in the cold-weather areas —

Skeena, Atlin and Prince Rupert — you're against taking the sales tax

off gas and oil, hydro and telephone. Members for Prince Rupert, Atlin,

Skeena and the Island, tell them you're against the sales tax on used

mobile homes. Will you go back? Will you give me an undertaking that

you will go back and tell your constituents that?

You're speaking about employment. Mr. Speaker, through you to the members opposite, you will then, I pre-

[ Page 1413 ]

sume, go back to the trade unions and tell them

that you're against B.C. Place. Is that right? You're against the

Annacis Island crossing, and you're against increased hospital

construction. Go out and tell them that. I'm sure you will.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is not here, regrettably.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is in Prince George this evening. I

wonder if she'll speak against our proposed increase in the health

budget — the greatest increase we've seen in that health budget. I

wonder if she'll speak against the 17 percent increase in the Ministry

of Human Resources. I wonder if she'll speak against homeowner grants,

Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, no, I'm not actually, because she won't,

and if she does speak against those things, not too many people will

hear her because in the facility that she's speaking to tonight, the

largest meeting room can accommodate 40 people, so I'm not too

concerned about a great audience. I wonder if we could have the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) tell us all about small crowds

when you have an NDP speaker.

I wonder, members opposite, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether you

will speak against education. Will you speak against the $1.2 billion

for post-secondary education? Why don't you phone the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds in Prince George, hon. members opposite, and tell her

to tell the crowd assembled that she is going to speak against the

College of New Caledonia when she addresses this budget. That would be

interesting.

It's funny, you know. The NDP Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly)

said great things would happen in post-secondary education. I'm sorry

she isn't here tonight; I hope she's listening on the speaker-phone. I

remember those NDP days in post-secondary education. I remember the

great Hazel L'Estrange commission under the auspices of the NDP

Ministry of Education. It lurched from college to college, and nothing

happened at all.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Miss Elaine Sparks from the Prince

George Regional Hospital was over in England recruiting nurses while

the NDP were wondering what they should do about post-secondary

education. The College of New Caledonia does have nursing programs now.

We do have Prince George graduates working in our hospitals, and we

have a great expanded hospital in Prince George. There is no bed

shortage. It's in great shape, and expansion is continuing. We have

lots of beds. We have elective surgery. We have no problems with the

health situation in Prince George. I doubt if we really have that

serious a situation in any other part of this province, because I have

seen what expansion has gone on under this great Social Credit

government.

I know the members opposite will say: "Oh, we were going to do

that." Well, I would have to submit that you weren't going to do that,

because you couldn't have afforded it. You might have borrowed the

money, but you couldn't have afforded the expansion that we've done in

post-secondary education, in hospitals and in other great provincial

institutions that this government has put in place since we've been

government.

However, we believe in paying our way, and paying our way is what we

did, Mr. Speaker. We will continue, because we're a good government and

the people of the province know it. We're hard working and we're free

enterprise.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, thank you. Good, you like free enterprise? Perhaps you should tell the member for....

MR. BARBER: Author!

MR. STRACHAN: Here's an author for you: the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard). "Free enterprise is a heartless system, a system that has

a balance-sheet morality to it. And no one can speak from the heart

when they speak of free enterprise." I'm sure that will make very

interesting reading for the constituents in Skeena, the small

businessmen.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena talked about m.p.g. and referred

to it as "money, power and greed." "Miles per gallon" is what it stands

for. Perhaps I might point out a few items to this House — what the

sliding sales tax rate on automobiles is going to do to our imports —

and perhaps cite a few statistics from Statistics Canada and from

Transport Canada, items that the members can research if they don't

trust my comments.

Mr. Speaker, Chevrolet Citation is one of the GMC"X" cars.

Comparable models are made by Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick. When you

convert the litres per 100 kilometres to miles per gallon, you get 35

miles per gallon. On a 500-mile trip, assuming that gas was about $1.15

a gallon — it varies throughout the province — that trip would be

$16.45. If we take a Chevrolet Camaro, which gets 26 miles per gallon,

that same trip would cost you $22.08. If you're in a Cadillac Seville

getting 20 miles to the gallon, that trip would cost you $28.75. Now

let's presume that with this outstanding budget we can switch a good

amount of people from cars selling for the 4 percent rate to those

selling for 2 percent.

If we look at those mile per gallon figures, Mr. Speaker, we can

then see that we'd increase our gas mileage by a third and reduce our

imports by a third. I might point out that the gasoline imports for

1979 were 3.8 million gallons, and that a one-third reduction would in

fact reduce our dependency on other gasoline producers by $125,000. Now

that may be rather boring to some members, but I think it's an

outstanding piece of legislation. It is, by the way, the first piece of

legislation introduced in any political jurisdiction in North America

that does speak to conserving energy and becoming less dependent on

imports.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: An enlightened critic said that there would be

jobs for foreign car workers. Well, I would submit to that critic that

there are many cars that fit into the 2 percent category, a good long

line of them made by General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and Renault in Nova

Scotia. They are excellent lines.

Mr. Speaker, we import 3.8 million gallons. Given the 33 percent

increase in mileage we could reduce our imports by 115,000 gallons.

That is policy, members opposite, and our answers are there.

We'd like to hear about your answer. We have heard tremendous criticism about too much unemployment. I hate

[ Page 1414 ]

to bring this up to you, but your facts are wrong.

It's unfortunate that the party that depends on newspapers for research

has finally been shot down by their own research bureau. Gee whiz,

while you were making all those statements about unemployment, to and

behold, in the Province today.... While the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was speaking about unemployment, what do we see in the Vancouver Province but that Vancouver and B.C. jobless rates are falling! Isn't that interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean to tell me those people over there lie? No!

MR. STRACHAN: No, they don't lie. They just don't do their research.

They talk about fast decisions, they're concerned about our

low-interest mortgage rate that came in. Mr. Speaker, that low-interest

mortgage rate is one of the reasons we did have an unemployment decline

in this province, because we stimulated the wood industry, the

construction industry and the service industries to the construction

industry. With good government, with sound, fast, decisive thinking, we

were able to keep our jobless rate down when normally it's up. You

know, you folks are going to have to start doing your own research.

Maybe you should start with Tommy Douglas. He didn't deliver pap from a

newspaper; he said something with conviction.

Speaking of research, members opposite are going to speak against

the $3 million fund to aid public libraries and computerization. Tell

me, all you academics — the first and second members for Victoria (Mr.

Barber and Mr. Hanson), the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson).... Well, I think they're going to have a little trouble with

this one. They're going to vote against the budget; they're going to

vote against the $3 million aid to public libraries. You just walk into

the public library, walk up to the catalogue department, see the

catalogue clerks filing away, and then you walk up to them, the

brilliant academics, and say: "We're voting against computerizing

public libraries because, in the words of our whiz-bang Finance critic,

the government won't build a steel mill." Good stuff! You'll be asked

to explain. Members opposite, you'd better have your finance critic

with you when you walk into those libraries.

I would perhaps submit that you should walk into a union hall and

say: "We're going to oppose the budget, a budget that includes

tremendous construction projects. We're going to oppose the budget and

job creation, and we're going to oppose trades training. We're going to

oppose small business incentive tax exemptions, and we're going to

oppose municipal revenue-sharing and increased transit, and we're going

to oppose the Prince Rupert port." Walk into your union halls, members

opposite, and tell them you're going to oppose all those items because

there's too much unemployment. Take your whiz-bang Finance critic with

you when you do that one. "There's too much unemployment so we're going

to have to oppose construction and any sort of development in this

province."

You tell us that you want to develop resources. Did you ever develop

resources? I would submit that the record shows they left. Ask the

miners. You know, great things were said today about the markets and

how fortunate B.C. is to have tremendous offshore markets, United

States markets. Members opposite, you faced one of the greatest mineral

markets when you were government, and what did you do? You drove all

the miners out of the province — and you talk to us about development.

You accused us of developing tactics of shooting at targets. Yes, we

do, and we succeed. We have lowered unemployment. We build, we develop,

we project and we reach our goals. We have the highest standard of

living in Canada. The official opposition Finance critic said that we

have no budget for the eighties, and then spent three hours talking

about the sixties and the seventies; that's consistent.

You speak against the private sector. You speak against anything.

You speak against a $1.4 billion forest management program. You speak

against the Ministry of Health expenditure of $226 million. You speak

against the Human Resources increase to $763 million. You speak against

reducing the sales tax on natural gas, electricity and telephone

rental. They speak against lots of things, but there's absolutely no

constructive criticism. They haven't made a decision. They've been

nothing but destructive.

Our government makes decisions. We plan, we encourage, we stimulate

and we build; that's our government, that's our policy and that's our

budget.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this budget,

first of all to take some time out to congratulate yourself being

elected Deputy Speaker, and to congratulate the new Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan).

I'd like to thank the new Minister of Tourism for responding to the

first request I put into her office, that she meet with Mrs. Val

Anderson of the Kaslo Chamber of Commerce, who wanted to put forward

that community's plans and aspirations for getting a sternwheeler back

on Kootenay Lake and their proposal for the Samson V .

I'd also like to thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser). For some time now, I guess, I've been making a

request on behalf of the people of Glade to have a larger, safer ferry

located there. I understand that just this week they have finally moved

the old West Creston ferry down into place, and work is proceeding.

And, of course, the steel is going up on the Tagum Bridge, and the

decking contract is due to get underway fairly soon; things are going

on schedule.

In fact, I'm rather surprised, in view of the fact that these couple

of nice things are happening in my riding, that they didn't get a

little bit more attention.

In this weekend just past we had a most curious visitation. I was

phoned by the good mayor of Nakusp, and he related to me a most curious

incident which happened to him on the weekend. He said: "Now, Lorne,

you know I'm not a man for taking strong drink. You might think this

rather strange that I would relate such a story to you. We had a

visitation here last Friday in Nakusp. It was a most curious thing. I

was phoned on Friday morning by the president of the Social Credit

Party. He said: 'Mr. Mayor, please be down at the senior citizens'

centre this evening at 7 o'clock. We have a surprise for you, good

news'." Well, Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't believe it, but he swore on

this — and I know the man to be a man of good word — that lo and behold

a leprechaun appeared right before their very eyes, and he presented

two cheques on behalf of the fine Social Credit government. Not only

that, but that very same leprechaun appeared to the Kootenay Society

for the Handicapped the next day, so it's a widespread story and it's

coming from different independent sources.

[ Page 1415 ]

So it appears that we had a visitation in the riding of

Nelson-Creston. I kind of wonder why the government would choose this

strange way of bringing glad tidings from the government, by sending

someone else out to look into various concerns. I'm surprised that

perhaps the Premier himself didn't appear, but then I don't know if the

Premier has appeared in my riding — it's been rather quiet if he has —

since about 1976.

It is a little bit humorous, and yet it is a little bit telling

about the attitude of this government toward elected representation.

Indeed, as has been mentioned, we have a Premier who thinks it not even

important to vote. So it gives a little bit of an idea of the interest

and the attitude that this government has toward the electoral system

and toward elected members, when they have to keep an appearance secret

even from the mayor for fear that he might tell me and that I might

show up in Nakusp when these government cheques are being handed out.

It would be rather interesting, Mr. Speaker.

I have been associated with the Kootenay Society for the Handicapped

as a concerned and interested supporter of their work, certainly, since

1969, and I can say with some pride that I have been instrumental in

assisting that society to get a sheltered workshop for the handicapped

in both Nelson and Creston, with the assistance of the former Minister

of Human Resources. I've tried to take a non-partisan attitude, and I

have gone to lengths to set up appointments when people would come down

here to meet with various ministries. In fact, I did set up

appointments for representatives from Nakusp to meet with the

appropriate ministries concerning those cheques which were handed out

last weekend to the Nakusp Hot Springs society and to the senior

citizens.

It is rather curious, though, that a letter was sent to the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) dated February 18, and a copy

was received in my office on March 3. I immediately dictated a letter

to the minister — that was a week ago Monday — and said: "I am

enclosing for your convenience a copy of a letter to yourself of

February 18, 1980, from Mrs. Ruth Hufty, the chairperson for the

Kootenay Society for the Handicapped, Nelson branch." I explained in

the letter that because this government did not come through with some

capital funding for the expansion that was underway at the Kootenay

Society for the Handicapped, they were unable to make the most

expeditious use of the $58,000 Canada Works grant that was given to

them. And I just want to show you what happens when a government

doesn't listen.

Canada Works has strings on it; it is for labour. It was $58,000,

but it could only supply the labour component. The Kootenay Society for

the Handicapped also needed capital to buy lumber to build the

extension, and were pressed to the point, because they were ignored by

the Ministry of Human Resources, of having to get a portable sawmill go

out on the site, which does happen to have trees, and go into the

business of sawmilling so that they could produce rough lumber to

change a capital item into a labour item. Had the Ministry of Human

Resources come through with more money, not only would the much needed

capital expenses have been met in a more orthodox manner but the

$58,000 for labour would have gone a darned sight farther.

What were the excuses given? Did the ministry just refuse outright

their earlier requests in Mrs. Hufty's lengthy letter? I won't bother

to read it in its entirety. She points out that in 1978 and in 1979

they made a request for capital for this expansion and they were turned

down. They were told that there were no more funds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the Public Accounts ,

page D151, human resources community projects. The second item in vote

155, achievement centres for the handicapped, provides assistance to

centres for the development of programs to improve the quality of life

skills in handicapped persons. Achievement centres for the handicapped.

Here in this Legislature last year we passed a budget of $3,837,866.

The minister only spent $3,003,611. Over $800,000 of a $3.8 million

budget item went unspent and yet they were told by the ministry

something that was not true — that there was no more money in the

budget.

Indeed, in every item of the human resources budget last year there

were unexpended items, as in the previous year when they were also

given the same cock and bull story, and yet there was an

underexpenditure of funds in every vote of the Ministry of Human

Resources — underspent even in the minister's office, underspent in

administration and community service, underspent in services for

families and children, underspent in services for the seniors and the

handicapped.

If the previous speaker from the government wanted to get up and

support this budget he should have gotten up and also told us that we

were voting against $1 million for senior citizens' housing in this

budget. Why didn't he mention that? He didn't mention it because in the

last years of the New Democratic Party government there was $12 million

for senior citizens' housing.

Here is a headline from the Nelson Daily News :

"Handicapped Exploited, Says Workshop Director." Why do they need

funds? They need funds because when you are sawing dust.... We won't

allow students in the high school woodworking shops to operate in

violation of workers' compensation regulations. There are dust

standards and we have had to install — at least in School District No.

7 — dust collectors. We have brought them up to standard. What is so

different about the handicapped? Why don't they count?

For $40,000 — or even less if it had been done a couple of years ago

— we could have brought the Silver King sheltered workshop up to decent

standards and we could go a long way toward meeting standards for

workers' compensation. These people are doing work. They are producing

thousands of dollars worth of merchantable items. In this sheltered

workshop they make cedar furniture. They get an allowance there of 73

cents per client-hour.

Mr. Speaker, we spend $75 a day for disturbed teenagers but we

ignore the people who I think really do deserve the very best. This

government has underspent and is not meeting the needs of the

handicapped. How can they explain the waiting lists? I have been

talking about people who are chronic mental patients or people who

might be suffering fairly profound retardation but who are still able

to make a contribution to society.

It isn't only the Silver King Workshop in Nelson. I understand the

Langwood Workshop issued a press release on February 28, 1980, which

said:

"The Ministry of Human Resources currently provides a

grant to assist in the operation of workshops throughout the province,

and the grant is 73 cents per trainee-hour. This amount may be of

assistance to some workshops, particularly those dealing with

physically handicapped people, and others who have considerable ability

to participate in revenueproducing activities; it works a terrible

penalty on

[ Page 1416 ]

those who are severely mentally retarded. No reasonable person

expects that a severely retarded person can participate in revenue-producing

activities, yet the funds available to us under this funding make it necessary

that some effort be made to meet the increasing shortfall — donations from

the public, payment from parents, etc."

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this organization,

which I believe was in operation even before 1972, is in more financial

difficulty now than they have ever been at any time in their course of

operations.

And if these people weren't in an unfortunate enough position, what

about the profoundly mentally retarded who also have severe physical

disability? Because of the Long-term Care Program, which this

government has introduced, they have come up with a definition that

people that fit into this category are to be in long-term care. Many of

these people were formerly in Glendale, here in Victoria. There are a

couple of other facilities. There's Cradlehaven, over on the mainland,

there's Queen Alexandra Hospital; there are just a handful of

facilities in this province that can handle these people. I know that

Queen Alexandra Hospital has a waiting list of almost 60 children in

this category. Because they've come up with some kind of bureaucratic

definition, there are empty beds in Glendale, and yet children cannot

be placed in those empty beds because, for some reason, Human Resources

is in charge of Glendale, and they are not supposed to take long-term

care patients — I'm talking about long-term, not short-time relief. I

think that this is an absolutely insane policy, by ministers who are

constantly being shuffled around into different responsibilities — and

I suppose they're very relieved to be given a new responsibility so

that they don't have to carry the can for the mess they've just left.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard this budget called lots of things: how it's supposed

to appease the people; how it's supposed to cover up. Mr. Speaker, there is

so much mess with this government, this budget is almost a sort of kitty-litter

to try and clean up the mess that's being spread all over by this government.

I think that, because of the problems they have been facing, not only have we

not been able to have a public accounts meeting — because the chairman of public

accounts was the chairman of caucus, and he was trying to deal with its internal

problems.... It is a symptom of what is affecting many of those ministries.

Why can't a Minister of Health and a Minister of Human Resources and

a Premier sit down and do something about a mess like this, which is

causing divorces and other family breakup? There is a tremendous strain

when you have a profoundly physically and mentally handicapped child in

a family. It is hard on siblings; it is hard on partners in a marriage.

The longer we let this go on, the bigger the problem we are going to

create, and it is going to cause unnecessary problems. You know, Mr.

Speaker, it isn't easy. I don't think it would be easy, when you have a

child born this way, to really come to grips with what is best for that

child. You would be suffering guilt, and you would, maybe, after some

careful consideration, come to the conclusion: "Yes, we have tried with

our child, and we think the best thing for our child and our family is

long-term care." I think most parents try to care for that child; but

when parents finally come to that decision, and find that they are

being put on a two-year waiting-list, I think that that is absolutely

shocking and unnecessary. And the number of children involved is not so

great as to make this an unmanageable problem. If the government had

the will to solve this problem, it could be solved in two weeks or a

month.

Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that that member from Prince George is so

proud of this budget, when this budget is going to spend another

umpteen million dollars for a Vancouver coliseum and a Vancouver Place

— and that's not so bad. I'm as much of a sports fan as anybody, but,

Mr. Speaker, what is in here?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Member, if you don't

know. I'll not only vote against that bill if this government does not

come through with something for rural people, but I'll go into your

riding and I'll tell the people about it.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I've been in both of those

members' ridings, and there are fine people up there. I'd love to go up

there and meet with them again.

I think the Premier can read that in Hansard —

I think it was 1972-73.... I'll talk to you about some things I did

support that this government did. When the government brought in the

Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, Bill 5, in 1978, I got up and I not

only stood up and voted for that bill on a division, but I got up and I

spoke in favour of that bill in second reading. I probably spoke in

favour of it in committee when we got to the

section that dealt with

assistance to water improvement districts.

It's rather interesting to know — and I'll be getting to the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) pretty soon, Mr. Speaker.... This is

a list of all the water improvement districts in the province. It goes

on for some 28 very condensed, very fine-print pages. There are a lot

of water improvement districts in this province, Mr. Speaker. Some of

them have 20 subscribers, some of them have 80 subscribers, some of

them have hundreds of subscribers. They're in rural ridings like

Kamloops, Kootenay, Columbia River, Omineca, Yale-Lillooet — that's

where you'll find these. They are also in other areas that might not be

thought to be rural ridings, but they're also in the Saanich and the

Islands riding. There are a lot of them out there on those Gulf Islands

in the riding of the Minister of Finance, and I wish the Minister of

Finance were here.

I supported the $2 million appropriation in 1978; I looked forward

to it with anticipation in 1979. I gave the government the benefit of

the doubt that perhaps due to the government reorganization and the

transfer of community water systems from the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) it might have been just an oversight and it might have been lost

in the shuffle. So, Mr. Speaker, in the true spirit of this House, in a

non-partisan way, I circulated a letter to all of the rural members of

the Legislative Assembly, and I reminded them that in 1978 we passed

Bill 5 and I solicited their support. I pointed out to them that while

we're expected to vote for coliseums, rapid transit, trade-fair centres

and other things for the lower mainland, now we were going to be asked

to vote for another crossing and so on, and I think fair is fair, Mr.

Speaker.

I think that all of us rural members, if we pretend to represent our

constituencies, should vote against this budget, because it has been

tipped off that it does not include help and

[ Page 1417 ]

assistance for rural water systems, and I think

that's terrible. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about people who are

volunteers, in fact maybe some of the last pioneers, people who do

things for themselves, people who don't need big government to go out

and build a water system for them. What is this government trying to

do? They're trying to force them to go under the regional districts.

They're trying to force them into the county system that they have up

their sleeve in terms of government. I'll be reading some of the

letters that they got back from the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

This is a nice one that the Minister of Finance should have read. It says:

"Dear Mr. Curtis:

"I find it strange writing to you in support of a

policy proposed by an NDP member, since I have always been a strong

supporter of yourself and the party you represent. I must, however,

strongly concur with Lorne Nicolson in his statement that rural water

supplies deserve all-party support.

"In 1978, $2 million was set aside for rural

improvement districts, but in 1979 the program seems to have been lost

in the reshuffle from water rights branch to the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs. Now it seems that the only access to needed funds is through

the Capital Regional District, which would mean turning over our water

district assets, and that would certainly mean losing local control.

This would be strongly resisted by the water users served by water

improvement districts on Saltspring Island for the following reasons:

We, who get our water from Maxwell Lake, have that precious thing — a

totally untainted water supply. Half of our watershed is owned by the

water district and the other half is so restricted that at most only

four dwellings could be built on the watershed. At present, there are

no dwellings at all.

"We fought hard to preserve the integrity of this, and

hope to see the day when the complete watershed is owned by the water

district. That is preserving one of the very few remaining totally pure

water sources. To this end, the water board was very carefully selected

for their unusual expertise. The calibre of trustee is far beyond that

normally found in a rural district. The five members are:" — and they

give the names — "chairman — Ken Patrick, retired chief engineer and

water commissioner of the Greater Vancouver water district; Don

Lockhead — retired vice president, International Nickel, Falconbridge,

geologist and mining engineer; J.J. Fairley — purchasing and marketing

manager, Standard Oil of B.C.; Dr. L.J. Kreissl — pathologist; and Stan

Sage — Electric Communications engineer, B.C. Tel. Now where could you

hand pick a more capable board? Help us to keep them at the helm and

preserve our vital water supply, and pardon my typing — Fred

Brookbanks."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, just for the Minister of Finance alone, I have this many letters.

I have letters from a Mr. and Mrs. Beauchemin, expressing concern for the water

improvement district on Saltspring Island; another couple concerned about Saltspring

Island; another one from Saltspring Island and North Saltspring water district.

Mr. Speaker, I have letters from the riding of the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair), letters from the East Kootenays and all over this province. And I

want to tell you that if those members are so proud of this budget.... I

think that they've gone out and bought themselves some white shoes and maybe

some alligator shoes. I think they've lost their roots, Mr. Speaker. I think

they've forgotten why the people elected them and why the people put them here,

because if they think for one moment that the people put them here so that they

can be forced into a form of big government, so that the initiative can be taken

away from them, then they've got another think coming. Because the people of

the rural areas just want a little bit of financial assistance. They just want

their due.

There are many items of concern I would like to bring to the

attention of the government. For instance, I think we heard a statement

that the visitor industry is going to be the number one industry by the

year 2000. If we don't start looking after some of our natural

resources, we might not reach that fairly desirable goal. I just hope

that we have full employment by the year 2000, and I really don't hold

the brief for one form of industry. I don't want everybody to have to

become waiters and I don't want everybody to have to become heavy

construction people, necessarily. I think people should have a choice

of profession. If we don't do something about our environment, I don't

think there's going to be much to come and visit.

Mr. Speaker, for years I have been concerned about the Kootenay

light fishery. Government could, if they wished, I think, disclose what

has happened in order to cause a total shutdown for the next two or

three years of Kokanee fishery, which is the most popular fishery for

tourists on Kootenay Lake. We have had such a serious die-off, yet

there are no funds for enhancement of spawning channels. The fisheries

branch is carrying on a very limited program on Redfish Creek on the

West Arm of Kootenay Lake. Work should be done at Kokanee Creek, at

Duhamel Creek and at others. As a result of the recently announced

shutdown of the Kokanee fishery — a total ban — I would call on the

government to immediately initiate a study to identify the problem once

and for all and see if various enhancement programs could not take

place.

There is a very extensive study by the Inland Waters Directorate of

the federal government; a draft copy of that has been circulated. I

think that the Minister of Environment should call for the immediate

release of its final form. I think that would go a long way towards

deciding what appropriate measures should be taken. Unlike the member

for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who suggests that we should

perhaps go ahead and build artificial spawning channels only to find

that the problem could be due to the lack of nutrients in the lake, I

wouldn't propose that we go ahead and spend money foolishly. I would

expect that we would identify the problem first and then consider

solutions. I think some possible solutions might be found in looking at

nutrient levels and at artificial spawning channels.

There are a couple of other things. I think there is an alarming

amount of acquisition of farmland by non-nationals for the purpose of

divesting their assets, probably into a multiplicity of investments.

The very people who are putting some money into gold are also looking

from Europe at farmland in British Columbia. In the Creston Valley in

the past couple of years over a thousand acres of land have been

acquired, mostly by German people at the moment. Some of

[ Page 1418 ]

them are landed immigrants who are farming. They are welcome. I think they will be good farmers. They are an asset.

The thing that does disturb me is the absentee owners that are

purchasing land, and it disturbs me because the government's action

taken with Swan Valley Foods a couple of years ago has put on the

market 5,000 of the 20,000 acres on the Creston Flats. About

one-quarter of the land on the Creston Flats is now really not listed

on the market but it is available for sale, and people know who has

their farm up for sale right now. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a

very serious problem. I have heard nothing to date in this session

about the government's measures to curb foreign land acquisitions and

the possible problems that will have for us a few years down the road.

Right now we're talking about energy; we're in the middle of what

has been called an energy crisis. Back in the mid-1960s people were

pointing out this problem and it was being ignored. Well, it's 1980,

and I am pointing out that we are going to have a crisis in the food

industry. We are going to have a crisis in food. We're going to be

having the same economic pressures if we do not do something. I think

that the first step is to look at control of foreign land purchases,

particularly of our agricultural lands, when they're made by absentees.

MR. RITCHIE: As I listen to this monotonous, non-productive

nonsense that's been going on for almost two weeks now, I listen to all

of the money that is being wasted and all of the money that isn't being

spent, and all of the people who are suffering, and all of those people

who are going hungry, and all of those poor children going without

food. Yet this is what we get for almost half a million dollars of

their expense. I call it absolutely disgusting. As I listen to it I'm

reminded of an old farm story, if it's permissible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us a farm story.

MR. RITCHIE: It's clean. But it goes as follows. There is a

bachelor farmer out in the Fraser Valley. He was called on

conscientiously by the district agriculturalist. On this particular

visit he told the farmer: "You know, I think you have to modernize if

you are going to keep up with the times. You are going to have to cut

out this business of milking by hand and get yourself a milking

machine." He was a bachelor, and he said: "This was good enough for my

father and it's good enough for me."

The DA said to him: "You just can't keep up with modern times.

You're not going to be able to compete in the markets unless you

modernize. I would suggest that you get rid of your horses and get

yourself a tractor." The farmer said: "No. This was good enough for my

father and it's good enough for me."

The DA was really confused. He didn't know what to do. Finally he

said: "John, I think what you are going to have to do is get yourself a

wife; that would help you." John said: "No. It was good enough for my

father, it's good enough for me."

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday a member opposite suggested that I was

not being parliamentary. Just to make amends I am going to begin my

remarks by referring to a great parliamentarian, Sir Charles Tupper.

Tupper said there were three duties of an opposition. The first was to

use its considerable influence in restraining vicious legislation. The

second was giving loyal support to government proposals which were in

the best interests of the people. Finally Tupper suggested that the

opposition should propose measures for the common good which it felt

the government had not put forward.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: has the opposition lived up to such ideals

during this debate? I don't think so. Frankly, I had hoped they would

choose the high road. Not that their present approach isn't great for

us on this side of the House; it most certainly is. For the

opposition's lack of substance is going to hurt them very badly, not

just here but throughout the entire province.

Yes, the government will gain much support from the many voters who

will be dismayed when they read how much talking the opposition has

done without saying anything. I am not happy about this. I am not

delighted by the disappearance of real opposition in this chamber. I

understand that we used to have some good opposition. I do feel that

there is a crucial role for the opposition to play in our Legislature,

and I am sorry to see that that role has been abandoned.

In the Bible we read:

"There is a time to break down and a time to build up." Sadly, the

members opposite have only the time to break down. I may be naive, but

I fully expected the opposition to provide some ideas and some

suggestions to improve our programs and proposals in the throne speech

and our budget.

So far the debates have been like shadow boxing. We can't argue

ideas or policies with the opposition, because they won't comment on

ours and they won't state any of theirs. They haven't got any at all,

so there's nothing that you can really tackle; there's nothing that you

can come to grips with.

Some observers will say: "Well, it's all a game, anyway." But it's

no game when the potential of the opposition benches — and there is some

potential there — is squandered on so much nonsense. I believe that there

is some potential over there; and it's really too bad to see it squandered on

the nonsense that we have heard discussed over the past ten days.

What I'm trying to point out is that we must have some constructive

criticism coming from the NDP benches if this assembly is to perform

its proper function.

We have before us a complex and challenging budget that really

deserves the assembly's scrutiny, not all the nonsense that we've been

listening to and witnessing over the past ten days. Our government is

prepared to listen to criticism when it is valid and informed.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Any material you've come up with so far is what

has been appearing in the newspapers — that's all. Of course, as I say

this, I must remind them that not all criticism is worth listening to.

During the last session we heard the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) talk about the economic situation at the start of the summer. Do

you remember what he said? Let me quote directly from Hansard :

Unemployment is just as bad. Inflation is just as bad.

There are the same problems and the same pressures, the same economic

forecasts and almost the same economic players; although there has been

a significant improvement.

Now was that capable criticism, Mr. Speaker, when a member tells us

things are just as bad, and then goes on to admit that things are

really better? I would say it's totally confusing. It's like saying

it's just as cold out today as

[ Page 1419 ]

yesterday, but it's a good bit warmer — sounds like Alice in Wonderland to me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is that Scottish humour?

MR. RITCHIE: That's Scottish humour, yes. I'm still trying to figure out what humour this is, though.

When I read that kind of opposition criticism, I am reminded about

something Sir Harold Macmillan said when he was the Prime Minister of

Britain. "Criticism in politics," he said, "is never inhibited....

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: I want you to hear this, my lawyer friend.

"Criticism in politics," he said, "is never inhibited by ignorance."

Did you get the message? [Laughter.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you explain it to him?

MR. RITCHIE: I'll repeat it for the benefit of the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt): "Criticism in politics is never

inhibited by ignorance."

A similar useless criticism came from the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) during the 1979-1980 budget debate. Do you know what his

constructive analysis of that 49-page document was, Mr. Speaker? "This

budget," he said, "does nothing." What a creative approach to a budget

packed with details, new initiatives and ideas.

Mr. Speaker, are we to hear more and more of that sort of washed-out

comment in this debate? Will the opposition continue to evade each and

every real issue before us?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you set us an example?

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: I would like to remind the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell).... I'll go back, if he wishes,

to what Sir Harold Macmillan said: "Criticism in politics is never

inhibited by ignorance."

Mr. Speaker, will the opposition continue to evade each and every

real issue before us? I hope not. I am one of those who believes, as

Disraeli did, that we need good opposition to have a good legislature.

I don't think any of you realize that, but you people have a

responsibility to make this a good legislature.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned and saddened by the refusal of the

opposition to constructively criticize the government's policies — not

just criticize them, but constructively criticize them.

MR. MITCHELL: Resign.

MR. RITCHIE: "Resign," he says. Why, our PCB boy says: "Resign." We'll deal with you another day. Tonight we're dealing with the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Central

Fraser Valley please address the Chair. I'm waiting dutifully for the

approach to the budget.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm referring to the

debate on the budget, and I'd like to go on by saying criticism is not

just condemnation of everything and everyone. That philosophy, I

believe, is belief in nothing. Criticism takes some positive thinking,

and that's something the opposition hasn't shown a hint of to this

point. I believe the people of British Columbia are just sick and tired

of hearing and reading so much negative news coming from the

opposition, because the people I talk to are not at all negative.

MR. LEA: You've been getting all the headlines.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I have to give you and your colleagues

credit for that indeed. There is only one thing about that, Mr.

Speaker: I wish they would spell my name correctly.

I believe the people of British Columbia are sick and tired of

hearing and reading so much negative news from the opposition, because

the people I talk to are really not negative. They're happy to be in

this province and optimistic about its future and about their future.

Their attitude is right. They're not going around with sour faces and

angry looks, feeling negative; they're positive. The opposition should

get in touch with the people; they should get back to their

constituencies and know what's going on. They should join the people in

displaying some enthusiasm for our province.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition could be immensely helpful, if they would only

change their attitude and become confident and proud of British Columbia. I

for one would welcome the change, and I would be the first to listen to their

ideas and their criticisms of our policies and of this budget. These are not

only my views, because I'm hearing the same thing from many people throughout

the province: the voters, the people who pay our salaries in this assembly.

They want sound, constructive and no-nonsense opposition to this administration.

The people do want the opposition to play the traditional watchdog role, but

they do not want a rabid watchdog snarling and foaming at the mouth and turning

on everything in its path.

Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the opposition members do have the

ability to participate positively in the deliberations of this House,

to contribute their ideas to the debate on policy. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I believe some of them also have that desire, but for some

unknown reason it doesn't show. May I challenge those members to rid

themselves of their mud-slinging approach and show their constituents

that they have a worthwhile and constructive contribution to make.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more I wish to say and time is

getting on, I don't want to spoil the real text of my speech.

Therefore, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of

the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:52 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada