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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1381 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting

of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia (Bill M202). Mr. Leggatt.

Introduction and first reading –– 1381

Oral questions.

Radial emission from visual display terminals. Mr. Cocke –– 1381

Administration of justice. Mr. Leggatt –– 1382

Budget debate.

Mr. Stupich –– 1384

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1401

Presenting reports

Law Reform Commission report on a Parol Evidence Rule as at December 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Law Reform Commission annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Report of Guarantees of Consumer Debts by the Law Reform Commission, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act of British Columbia report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Academic Council of British Columbia annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1405

Occupational Training Council annual report as at April 18, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1405

Management Advisory Council report, June 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1405

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to introduce today a gentleman who is, I

believe, currently in the precincts and will shortly be meeting with

the Premier. His name is Alan Perry, of CFAX Radio. On behalf of some

40,000 citizens in greater Victoria, he is presenting a petition —

albeit perhaps a bit late, but we know who is to blame for that —

concerning the preservation of the Princess Marguerite . I ask every member of the House, including those opposite, to make him especially welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I trust that we can, in making

introductions of guests, preserve this as perhaps one of the

non-political things that we do in this room. I think it is a custom

well worth preserving.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your ruling, I would

like today to introduce six guests from the other side of the water:

Mr. and Mrs. Fraser, Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Mr. and Mrs. Atton. I'd

like the House to welcome my guests.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I've two guests in your gallery

this afternoon. One is Father Bill Devlin, a constituent of mine and

parish priest from Fort St. John. I'm sure he'd be willing to listen to

the confession of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). Looking

after Father Devlin while he's in Victoria is his friend, Father Ray

Cunningham of Victoria.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce today

Mildred Hofmann, who is a member of the village council of Cumberland,

and ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the

students from the grade 9 class of Glenlyon School, who are here with

their teacher, Mr. deGoede. This is a famous school in the great

constituency of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery this afternoon a

constituent of mine, Dr. Ross Regan, who is an educator, and who I also

understand was at one time a colleague of the father of the Minister of

Education in Victoria. I ask the House to welcome him.

MR. HALL: I ask the House to welcome some constituents of

mine from Surrey, who are over here to see the proceedings in the House

and to meet with the Minister of Education. In view of your ruling, Mr.

Speaker, I can't tell you why they're meeting with the Minister of

Education.

MR. HOWARD: I rise in the House today, pursuant to standing

order 49, to seek consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon.

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the following resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before we can proceed with the

motion, we need leave of the House, since this is a motion not on the

order paper and without notice. So we must first have leave. Shall

leave be granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, how can I decide in my

wisdom whether or not to grant leave that a motion be proceeded with by

leave if I don't know what the motion is?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the technical reason why we must

have leave first is because in order to even present the motion, we

would need leave to suspend the precedence of the House, which is the

precedent motion to consider budgetary matters before anything else

except introduction of bills, as I recall the motion. As a result, it

is not a matter of leave to hear the motion itself, but it's a matter

of leave to suspend all other business in order to even present a

motion. I think that perhaps it can be solved very easily by just

asking if leave shall be granted. Shall leave be granted? Leave not

granted.

MR. HOWARD: Could there be some indication on the record as to who said no?

MR. SPEAKER: I wish that were possible.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT RESPECTING THE

TELEVISING AND OTHER BROADCASTING

OF THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M202,

An Act Respecting the Televising and

Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Oral Questions

RADIATION EMISSION FROM

VISUAL DISPLAY TERMINALS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Minister of Health.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He's surprised, he says.

Mr. Speaker, in the press gallery there are a number of visual

display terminals; the new ones have the trade name "Teleram." There

are thousands of them in the province in government offices, in

airports and private offices. Since a New York finding, on July 5,

showing excessive radiation and an order pursuant to that for lead

shielding around a number of these terminals, has the minister

instructed his public health officials to examine the many machines

housed

[ Page 1382 ]

in this building and those housed in airports, private offices and government offices throughout the province?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I received a telephone call this

morning advising me of the situation that the hon. member has advised

this House about now, at which time I advised the person in question to

get in touch with the Ministry of Labour. I understand they now have

contacted both the provincial and federal Ministries of Labour. At the

same time, I have instructed my ministry to look into the question and

determine what action, if any, would be appropriate for the Ministry of

Health of this province to take.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would gather the minister could

have his radiation people come over and check them. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been

informed that the compensation board are considering dropping from

their health hazards,

schedule B, the kind of equipment that I've just

talked about — the non-ionizing radiation emitters?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon.

member I have not been notified of this, but I will take it upon myself

to make the appropriate inquiry and report back to the member in the

House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Attorney-General.

Yesterday, in answer to some questions from the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), he indicated that his Associate Deputy

Attorney-General of Criminal Justice, Mr. Neil McDiarmid, would be

assisting in the review of, or the investigations into, the matters

that were raised in the CBC program. Can the Attorney-General confirm

that Mr. McDiarmid also reviewed the matters previously for his

predecessor, presently the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom)? Did the same associate deputy minister review the

matters raised in the Donald letter previously, and can the minister

advise the House why he would expect the conclusion from his associate

deputy minister to be any different now than it was previously?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Associate Deputy Attorney-General was

instructed by my predecessor to examine the matters which were raised

by Crown Counsel Donald in his letter of November 15, 1979. However,

the review which is being undertaken by me is a more extensive one and

covers other matters than were addressed by Mr. McDiarmid at that time.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I take it that one of the other

matters that's being reviewed is the case, referred to in that program,

of Mr. Mickey Moran, which was one of the three that the program

referred to. My information is that on April 20, 1979, a letter was

directed to regional Crown counsel in that particular case, Mr. Brian

Weddell, instructing the Crown to drop the proposed appeal in the Moran

case. That letter was signed by Mr. Neil McDiarmid. The person who has

apparently been assigned to examine the Mickey Moran case not only was

involved in the case but made a decision — and it may be a perfectly

appropriate one. But my question is: does the minister now feel it's

still appropriate, in view of this, that the person who made a decision

on the Moran case should now be investigating the circumstances of this

case, when he had previously come to a written conclusion that an

appeal should not be proceeded with?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member continues to be

confused about the nature of the review. I'm not looking into the

decisions that were made in the Moran case, but the allegations

associated with that case as raised by the CBC telecast of last

Thursday evening. If the member would very carefully consider the

distinction between the two, I think he would recognize what the answer

to his question must be. I must say, however, that I'm glad he said he

wasn't suggesting that the decision of Associate Deputy Attorney

General McDiarmid was the wrong one, because, in fact, it was the

correct one.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister knows that that's not the issue and

that's not the principle that's at stake. No one is casting any

aspersions upon a man who served more than one government in this place

and is a fine servant of the province. We're only directing the

minister's attention to the appropriateness in this case of a person

who had an active involvement in all three of those cases conducting,

or assisting in, the minister's review. Surely he can go outside his

department to get an independent member of the judiciary to do that

review.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not detect any question,

and before the Attorney-General proceeds, I would like to observe that

in other Houses long

preambles to questions are perhaps permitted; I'm

not sure. Perhaps in some instances even statements are made. But I am

duty bound by the regulations which have been given to me, and by which

I am supposed to supervise question period. I must advise the hon.

member for Coquitlam-Moody that to gain the floor in question period in

order to make a statement is irregular.

MR. LEGGATT: I have one further question, Mr. Speaker. The

circumstances that persuaded the minister's predecessor to appoint Mr.

Justice Seaton in the alleged interference in the case of Judge

Govan.... Will the minister now distinguish, if he can, the reasons for

appointing an outside judge in that case and the reasons for not

appointing an outside judge in this case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm happy to, Mr. Speaker. The royal

commissioner was appointed in the previous matter because we were

dealing with statements made by a judge of the provincial court in open

court, which were recorded and made in the presence of counsel,

whereas

in this particular case we are dealing with allegations on a television

show, presumably a news show. There is some distinction in that.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, having placed the letter from

Bruce Donald, the senior Crown counsel in the city of Vancouver, in the

context of some kind of private communication....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want me to answer that right now?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Why don't you refer that matter, that

came from an official of your own ministry of justice, to an

independent judge? Answer it, by all means.

[ Page 1383 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I certainly will.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I have the question, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I do place Mr. Donald's communication in the category of a

private communication. It was a private and confidential letter

addressed from the Crown counsel to the Attorney-General, which someone

has seen fit to make available and, therefore, breach the

confidentiality assigned to it by the writer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are not here to argue the point, are we?

MR. MACDONALD: Would that be against the rules, Mr. Speaker?

It's public now, Mr. Attorney-General. Why don't you appoint a judge? Two years later; why not?

My question is this: did the Attorney-General receive a phone call

from Mr. Donald Winterton, chief of the Vancouver city police, on or

about February 5, 1980, relating to the matters referred to in the

Donald letter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I received a telephone call

from Chief Winterton on February 5. They did not refer to the matters

detailed in Mr. Donald's letter.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I ask the Attorney-General then: what

was this report? What was the occasion for this phone call from the

chief of police of Vancouver to the Attorney-General? What was it about?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Attorney-General: when did he first

become aware of either the actual letter of Bruce Donald of November

15, 1978, or its contents?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I first became aware of the letter, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Attorney-General not know that such a

complaint in general terms had been made prior to last Thursday in

conversations with the then Attorney-General, who is now the Minister

of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom)? Did you not know about

that before that time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I had been advised by my predecessor that

there had been a number of meetings with respect to the relationship

between Mr. Donald and the Deputy Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: Was the Attorney-General aware in a general

way of what the complaints were that Bruce Donald was making in terms

of the administration of justice?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The question asks about being aware "in a

general way" to matters related to the administration of justice. The

answer to that question is that in a general way I was aware of the

difference of opinion between these two gentlemen. The specifics, which

were referred to in the letter, were not known to me at that time.

MR. MACDONALD: Being aware in a general way of what the

complaint was when the Attorney-General received the phone call from

the chief of police of Vancouver relating to a proposed broadcast on

CBC television, did he not know what the chief was talking about? What

was the chief calling him about?

MR. SPEAKER: A further question?

MR. MACDONALD: In view of no answer, Mr. Speaker, I'm

nonplussed, am I not — as the Attorney-General is. At this point I must

pass on to another question.

In terms of the allegations surrounding the hon. member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), the RCMP were requested to make a report.

Were they requested by an official of the Attorney-General's office to

make such a report — by the Attorney-General or his predecessor?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The RCMP were not requested by me to make

a report. I'd be happy to make specific inquiries as to who requested

the RCMP to involve themselves in that investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: I take it that the Attorney-General will come

back with an answer to that question — as to whether the inquiry was

ordered from Victoria.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As is my usual practice, when I take

questions on notice, I find out the answers and bring them back at the

earliest opportunity.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question, Mr. Speaker. The

Attorney-General told the House on March 10 that on the day previous to

the press release being issued by the associate deputy minister, Mr.

McDiarmid — relating to that case in Central Fraser Valley — he made no

inquiry as to what that press release was to be. I'm asking the

Attorney General, in view of the fact that the matter was of great

consequence — because it could be either the green door of the cabinet

room or even the grill bars of some other room, for all I know — how he

can seriously tell this House that he made no inquiry as to what the

statement that was to be released to the press that day was going to be

that was to be. No inquiries?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Did you know what the statement was going to be?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't. Mr. Speaker, the second

member for Vancouver East surely has some difficulty in understanding

what I say, or in reading the Blues. I was advised on the Monday that

Mr. McDiarmid had reached his decision, and I knew what the decision

was.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, that's contrary to what you said.

[ Page 1384 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No. You asked me if I knew what the press

release was going to be, and, as I indicated quite clearly, what Mr.

McDiarmid was prepared to say with respect to his decision in the

matter, I left to Mr. McDiarmid. Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

MR. STUPICH: First, may I say that in keeping with the

tradition that was a tradition in the House when I first entered it, I

don't use introduction period for political or any other particular

purpose, other than to introduce groups of students or similar such

groups. I know things have changed over the years; but now that I'm on

my feet in another debate and can use this period for almost anything,

may I say that I do have a number of guests here from Nanaimo, most of

whom are hard-working, dues-paying members of the NDP down here to make

sure that I keep in line this afternoon. They include my 91-year-old

mother, who just a few years ago didn't like her age to be known; but

now that she's 91 she doesn't seem to mind too much. Another guest all

the way from Toronto is not a member of the NDP, but then we can't all

be perfect. Mr. Speaker, I do have some introductory remarks.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I will for a while, Mr. Premier, I'm not sure whether you're going to sit through it.

I'd like to refer briefly to the budget, then get into some more

general remarks, then go back to the budget, if I may. I was intrigued

yesterday to hear the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), declare

that this budget is one that's going to make the province leap forward

into the 1980s. I note, Mr. Speaker, that I wasn't the only one who

heard him say that.

But I think it would be more appropriate to say that this is a

budget that is designed to drag us back into the 1930s. It's a budget

that's designed not so much for economic purposes, but rather to try to

get this government out of its political troubles — a government so

concerned with bailing itself out that it really isn't aware of the

very real problems that are facing people all over the province of

British Columbia. In the past few weeks we have been treated to the

spectacle of the Premier lurching out of his office at random moments

to announce a series of large-scale capital programs, each one quite

unrelated to the other, unrelated to any general plan or any strategy

for development in the province, or to anything else, really, except

for his desperate need to change the subject.

We saw a $200 million mortgage assistance project which he promises

to patch up if we'll only stop talking about dirty tricks. My initial

reaction was to think that this was great stuff, that $200 million

project, but within hours of the money being made available I started

getting complaints from people who weren't able to get in on it. What

will it accommodate? Something like 4,000 applications, and then the

money will be all gone. How much money is the government spending on

the project? It looks good to put $200 million into another savings

account, to put it aside — $200 million into another corner that's

being hidden away for the time being.

The next thing was B.C. Place, another great announcement that

seemed to fall kind of flat after it first came out. It didn't really

meet the kind of response that the Premier expected and hoped for. When

that didn't work, he tried once more; he upped the ante and rushed into

print again. "How about a bridge?" he said hopefully. He got a positive

response from the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and perhaps a

few other people.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I see the hon. member for Langley (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) likes the idea too, but I wonder about the rest of the

people of the province, who are looking for something that is going to

do something about the economy generally.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you been to Langley lately?

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he been in Nanaimo lately?

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I was in Nanaimo last weekend. I was in Langley about three months ago.

The point about these huge capital projects, however worthy they

might appear in a mature economy, is that you really couldn't think of

any way in which to spend a half a billion dollars which would be less

relevant to the serious flaws in our economy, the serious flaws in

B.C.'s economic structure, than the kind of announcements that have

been made.

We need to develop, out of our resources and our resource

industries, a mature economy. We simply can't afford to put out huge

sums of money that do nothing to advance that overall goal. The

Premier, with his hastily announced projects, the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) with this budget, demonstrated that they have the

fastest fiscal guns in the west, which blaze away indiscriminately at

everything, moving or stationary. What remains is for this government

to develop a sense that targets are not only permissible but are,

indeed, essential.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are yours?

MR. STUPICH: I'm coming to that. Mr. Speaker, I've been asked what mine are; I'm coming to that.

Just as important would be for the government to develop the

capacity to aim at those targets. However, we get no assurance from

this budget that the Social Credit government has any appreciation of

the real problems that face the B.C. economy now and in the future.

We get no sense that they understand the problems of ordinary people

living in today's society, no sense of that at all. Nothing in this

budget will help to solve the three main problems facing us today:

record unemployment, high interest rates and increases in the cost of

living.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you read the paper?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I've been asked if I read the

paper. I have documents to refer to which I hope the government members

will listen to.

This budget does not make it any easier for the average British

Columbian to buy groceries. It does not make it any easier for him to

meet his mortgage payments, to buy a home.

[ Page 1385 ]

It doesn't make it any easier for him to find a

job. It doesn't make it any easier to get a member of the family a bed

in a hospital if that person needs surgery.

This is a government ridden with internal problems and scandals.

They have expended so much effort trying to cover them that they have

not had the time to deal with the problems that they are paid to deal

with by the taxpayers of this province.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) suggests that I am not getting much support. I have some

things to say to him as well, and I hope he will listen. But I take it

that rather than support, what I am getting is people listening. l

didn't really expect that, and I do appreciate the fact that the

government members are listening rather than interrupting.

They say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that protocol suggests that I

really should, somewhere near the beginning of my remarks, take an

opportunity to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for

Delta (Mr. Davidson), on his promotion, and also to congratulate those

members on the opposite side who have joined the cabinet since the last

session. I find it just a bit difficult, though, to do that with any

real sincerity when I consider some of the actions of the leading

members of this government. I'm not sure that congratulations are in

order.

In general, I confess that I find it difficult — and this is a

personal shortcoming, if you like — to associate personally and

socially with many of the members on the opposite side. Now that's not

the way it is supposed to be, but I've got to admit that that's the way

I feel. So many of them have shown themselves to be complete and

absolute opportunists, devoid of any feeling other than personal

ambition, willing to resort to any tactic or any fabrication in order

to maintain their positions of glory, and I feel that way about many of

them. I just find it hard to stomach people like that, Mr. Speaker, so

I find it hard to socialize, but there are some opposite towards whom I

have felt differently, at least on occasion. With those feelings in

mind, and more in sorrow than in anger, I'd like to comment on the

discussions in this session to date. We've been here for two weeks;

today will be the end of the second week.

I'm sorry the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) isn't in his

seat right now, because I was distressed to hear him say that he really

believed the stories told about the secret police force, the stories

that were uncovered by the Social Credit researcher at that time, Grace

McCarthy. I have a photocopy from the newspaper of the day, the Vancouver Sun , May 11, 1973, and it's headed: "Secret Police Set, Claims Socred," and it said:

"Social Credit researcher Grace McCarthy warned Thursday

the provincial government is forming a secret police force. Mrs. McCarthy told

500 party supporters attending a dinner here for former Premier W.A.C. Bennett

that the police force is to be used" — and this is a quotation —

"to enforce the government socialist, monopolistic legislation."

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dewdney told us that he believed that at the

time. I can understand him feeling that way at that time. No doubt he had respect

for that particular Social Credit party researcher. No doubt he believed that

she would be telling the truth. He knew her; he liked her and he believed her.

He felt she would be telling the truth. But, Mr. Speaker, that was almost seven

years ago; in May it will be seven years. To my knowledge there has been no

uncovering of this cache of arms and ammunition, hundreds of thousands of rounds

of ammunition, thousands of arms that were talked about — no uncovering

of that secret cache. It is obvious that they existed only in the mind of that

particular Social Credit researcher. Since she is now an hon. member of this

Legislature, there is no doubt in my mind but that she would apologize for her

mistake, had she been mistaken. She has not apologized. The only conclusion

would seem to be that she knew she was not telling the truth at that time, believing

it was proper to do what she did in her attempt to unseat the NDP government,

to do or say anything, to tell lies if they seemed appropriate at the time.

It reminds me of a story about a previous member of a Social Credit

cabinet who stood up in this House and said that he does not tell lies,

and, if on occasion, he does tell lies, they're not really lies because

he believes he's telling the truth. Now this member didn't believe she

was telling the truth; she has never apologized....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, one member at a time. Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I knew it wouldn't last.

I can appreciate the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)

swallowing that line seven years ago, and I don't expect any better

from the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), but,

frankly, Mr. Speaker, I expected better from the hon. member for

Dewdney. That he would continue to support a government leader who

would deliberately spread those kinds of stories makes me disappointed

in him; I'm not at all disappointed in the hon. Minister of Human

Resources. I wish that this rot in government stopped with the deputy

leader.

Let's consider some of the actions of the Premier himself. I know

that a lot has been said about this in the past few days, but some of

the material has not been used, and there are some members in the House

who are not aware of some of the things that that Premier did in the

name of his government in the previous session, and I think they should

be reminded of it. Those are the people who are supporting him and

keeping him in office, and I think they should be reminded of some of

those deeds and misdeeds. Surely some of them already must have some

cause to wonder at some of what they have heard, and wonder, if there

is so much, perhaps there is some truth there at least. But there's

more, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to refer to a speech, an infamous speech if you like, by

the Premier on February 20, 1976, when he produced the Clarkson, Gordon

report, and I quote from what the Premier said in making public that

report at that time: "In line with our pledge to research and share

information, we move first on the research." It sounds okay. "One of

the first acts of the Minister of Finance was to appoint Clarkson,

Gordon and Co. to conduct a full and independent review" — note that,

Mr. Speaker and those of you who weren't here — "of the province's

financial affairs, including those of government agencies and Crown

corporations." That really sounds great. Eyebrows were raised, you will

recall, when it was discovered that the man placed in charge of this

audit was a former bagman for the Premier. That ought to cause some

[ Page 1386 ]

raised eyebrows here today. That was changed — a full and independent review by the Premier's own bagman.

A full and independent review of government finances, of all its

agencies and all its Crown corporations was to be conducted by an

international professional firm. And this is the part that gets me, and

perhaps others who are knowledgeable enough to understand it: this was

going to be completed within a period of about six weeks. The biggest

business in town — by far the biggest business, with all the Crown

corporations and all the agencies — and they were going to do a full

and independent review in a period of about six weeks. In saying that,

the Premier knew that he was setting an impossible task; he knew it

couldn't be done. He had no intention of having it done. The Clarkson,

Gordon report itself, dated February 18, 1976, makes it perfectly clear

that they were simply asked to add up figures that were going to be

given to them by the Deputy Minister of Finance and the heads of the

various Crown corporations. That's what they say right in the report.

"On December 22, 1975, you requested us to coordinate

the production of certain unaudited financial information for the year

ended March 31, 1976, which you had requested from the Deputy Minister

of Finance, the comptroller-general and the management of all Crown

corporations, boards and agencies, and to produce a

summary report of

the overall financial position of the province."

A clerk could have done it, but it looked better to hire an international firm of chartered accountants to do it.

The lie to that Premier's claim is further proven when we read the

report itself. We find that the figures given to Clarkson, Gordon added

up to a deficit of $541 million for that period. The figures were

handed to them, and they added them up on their little calculators, I

suppose. They did exactly the job that the Premier wanted them to do:

they came up with a total $541 million deficit. But even with all the

financial manoeuvres effected by the government, the deficit turned out

to be not $541 million, added up by Clarkson, Gordon on the basis of

the figures handed to them, but rather only $261 million. I use the

word "only" not in any way saying that it's a small figure — it's very

large — but simply comparing it with the original figure of $541

million.

That's not the end of it. Perhaps you'll recall the Premier doing

something else. In the fall of 1976 he appeared at a Social Credit

convention and held up a document which he said was the secret budget

of the outgoing NDP government, a budget which showed that we were

going to be something like $1 billion in the deficit position for that

year. He held this up and waved it at the Social Credit convention. He

had uncovered this document that showed how unreal and how

irresponsible the NDP were in coming up with a budget $1 billion in

excess of revenue. He admitted at the time, when pressed by reporters,

that the document was not a budget. He knew at the time that the

figures he was talking about had never been considered by Treasury

Board and could not be a budget; had never been considered by the

Minister of Finance; had never been referred to the Deputy Minister of

Finance; had not even been considered by the ministers of those various

departments. They were simply figures put together within the

ministries of what their maximum goals would be in the event they had

all the money to work with that they wanted.

He knew that. He admitted it under pressure from the press, but he didn't retract at that Social Credit convention. He

didn't go to them and say: "I apologize. I told you a lie. I knew what

I was telling you was not the truth, but for political gain I wanted to

tell you people how bad those NDPers were. Go out and tell everybody

else how bad they were. It's not the truth, but you don't have to admit

that because nobody will really know." That's the kind of person you

have agreed to support as leader of your party.

AN HON. MEMBER: With a standing ovation.

MR. STUPICH: With a standing ovation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. If there are to be

any charges against the character of any member of this House, that

would require a substantive motion requiring two days' notice. I trust

the hon. member will keep this in mind as he continues his debate.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not quite finished

with the Premier yet. I don't really have it in mind to put that kind

of motion. I'm quite prepared to let the people of the province be the

judge when they have the opportunity, which I hope will be at the

earliest possible moment. But we'll have to wait for that.

There are some other things, Mr. Speaker. What about the way in

which this particular government leader has handled the ministers of

the Crown? According to his own statement in this House, the Premier

locked the office door of a former Minister of Transport and

Communications, locked him out of his own office on the basis of what

was not much more than a rumour at the time. He stood in this House and

told us that he really had no information other than a report that had

come to him. He stood in the House and said that he hoped that that

minister would be exonerated, and that when he was exonerated he would

be reappointed to his position or able to re-enter his office. That's

what he told us with almost nothing to go on. Yet that minister was

kicked out, locked out of his office.

Now what's happened since? The so-called Ritchie affair. I recall

the Premier saying on the radio how pleased he was that the hon. member

for Central Fraser Valley was exonerated of all the charges against

him. That's just great.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There were no charges.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps I've used the wrong word with the word

"charges." I've been corrected, Mr. Speaker. May I say that the Premier

stood up and said how pleased he was that the hon. member for Central

Fraser Valley was cleared of any allegations against him. That's what

he said. It came out very soon after that that the RCMP, who had been

asked to do a review — an investigation, a study, whatever —

recommended that charges be laid.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased when I heard the Premier say that the allegations

were unfounded, because as a member of this House I think it hurts all of us

if any of us are accused and found guilty of doing things like that. So as one

of the members in the House, I think it's good that he was cleared. That's the

way I felt; that was my initial reaction. But when I heard the next day that

the RCMP had indeed recommended that charges be laid, my first thought was that

the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley should be the first to stand in line

and say: "I want charges laid."

It's the old story about the fellow in the insane asylum. When he gets out he's got a certificate to say that he is sane.

[ Page 1387 ]

The rest of us don't have that. Here, allegations

were made that sounded pretty serious — serious enough that the RCMP

recommended that charges be laid — but apparently so serious, from the

political point of view of this government, that charges were not laid.

I would think that the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley would want

those charges laid so that he would have an opportunity to clear his

name.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the Premier now. Apparently he

was informed that everything was okay. Otherwise, would he have stood

up and said: "I'm pleased that the allegations were unfounded."? Now

does that mean that the Attorney-General didn't tell him about the RCMP

recommendation? If that is the case, how is it that that Attorney

General held office for some time afterwards when the previous Minister

of Transport and Communications was locked out of his on much less

evidence?

Mr. Speaker, if the staff member in the Attorney General's

department didn't tell the Attorney-General, I'm sure that staff member

would have been locked out of his office. But he wasn't locked out. I

take it from that that the staff member kept the Attorney-General fully

informed. Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney-General, in the face of that

kind of report, didn't tell the Premier, I find it awfully hard to

believe for one moment that that Attorney-General would not have been

locked out of his office. So I take it from all that, Mr. Speaker, that

the Premier knew the whole story, knew how bad it was and didn't want

to draw any public attention to it by taking any moves that would make

it more public than it was. I don't see any other

interpretation to

place on all that.

Another affair has recently come to our attention which I will call, for want

of a better description, the Vogel affair. The same thing, Mr. Speaker: if the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) wasn't kept fully informed — a different

Attorney-General; they're both involved, the previous one and the present one

— if they weren't kept fully informed, then it would seem to me that it

was their responsibility to deal with the person who neglected to inform them.

On the other hand, if the Attorneys-General, both of them, didn't keep the Premier

informed, then surely their crime was much more serious than the one that resulted

in the previous Minister of Transport and Communications being locked out of

his office on the flimsiest of evidence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member

has inferred that either I or the Attorney General has been guilty of a

crime. I ask him to withdraw immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing. It is not permitted in this chamber.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "crime."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: While we have interrupted the member, which I

regretfully have to do from time to time — and I resist it as much as

possible — I think that something needs to be said about relevancy in

debate.

Order, please. I'll request other opinions if they're required.

I think relevancy is a matter we should concern ourselves with.

We've had two debates. One was on an amendment in which the scope was

established by the wording of the amendment itself. We have also had

the debate on the reply to the throne speech in which the scope is

rather wide — traditionally so in this House. We are now in the budget

debate, and I would trust that the hon. member would at least

occasionally refer to budgetary matters as he proceeds. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: We appreciate your advice. I didn't take

part in

the earlier debates, and that's not an excuse for what I'm saying now.

I don't mean it in that way. I'm just saying that some of the material

I am using in this reflects on the government as such, and reflects

indirectly on the budget. For the first few minutes of my remarks, I

spoke generally about the economic conditions of the province, and what

I am saying now has some bearing on the economic conditions of the

province, how people outside of this House see the economic conditions

of the province, and how they feel — comfortable or otherwise — about

the kind of people who are directing the affairs of the government and

indirectly of the province.

If I could just refer to the debate to date, I mentioned earlier

that I've been in this House since I was elected in 1963 — there was a

break of three years. One of the other traditions that used to be a

feature of this House was that cabinet members would talk about their

ministries or their departments. Mr. Speaker, quite a number of cabinet

members took

part in the two weeks of debate that we have been involved

in to this point. Except for passing reference, none of them has told

us anything about the ways in which their ministries are going to be

conducting themselves in the year ahead. We look forward to those

speeches to tell us something about what the government is going to do,

but unfortunately they have told us very little.

In particular, I listened to the hon. member responsible for energy

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) the last day of the debate and I thought: "Here

we might hear something." Well, Mr. Speaker, after listening to him for

40 minutes, I had to look up my record to refresh myself to see which

ministry he headed. He made no reference to his ministry unless it was

some fleeting reference that I missed completely.

The hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) spoke as well and

I would like to refer to his remarks, because certainly forestry is a

very important part of this province. There is another aspect of it.

The Minister of Forests, speaking in the House on Wednesday, March 5,

and talking about the way in which the NDP administration handled

forestry, said:

I became involved as the Minister of Forests in 1975

in the forest industry, which had almost been scared out of British

Columbia. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned the

assets for BCRIC and how they were acquired, and they were a great

asset. Any resource investment in British Columbia can be made into a

good asset if it's properly managed and properly administered.

The Minister of Forests was proud about the Plateau Mills purchase, saying:

...it was purchased in a free and open market. Well, I happen

to know something about what took place in those days when Plateau was being

purchased. It was for sale. The government, of course, controls the timber allocations

and is in a pretty strong bargaining position if it wishes to purchase companies

in the private sector.

[ Page 1388 ]

Mr. Speaker, he very carefully skirted around the issue without

saying that there was anything wrong. Certainly the implication was

there. Anyone listening would get the impression that something was

wrong with the deal that had been made between the owners of Plateau

Mills and the government, but he didn't say it. Someone else did say it.

The hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), perhaps emboldened by the

introduction offered by the Minister of Forests, did say there was

something wrong. He spoke on Thursday, March 6. He said: "I have a

clipping from June 26, 1973, written by Allan Fotheringham;" — that's

the source of his information about the Plateau Mills purchase.

The news from Victoria is that the government is about to buy Plateau

Mills in Vanderhoof. It is not just that the B.C. government is going

to intrude further in the forest marketplace; there is an added factor.

Last fall a bid was made for Plateau Mills by International Telephone

and Telegraph, those wonderful people who brought you an abortive

overthrow of the Allende government in Chile through its subsidiary

Rayomer. The NDP squelched the ITT bid, because Victoria controlled the

timber rights.

Then the hon. member for Omineca said: "Intimidation, Mr.

Speaker.... They stole Plateau Mills. It's all documented here...."

Later on he said: "The government of the time stole Plateau Mills." He

went on to say: "I think the thing that puts the whole cap on it is

when they did in fact steal Plateau Mills for $7.4 million. And the

story is here — this is a clipping from June 29, 1973, from the Vancouver Sun ." It was Fotheringham again. The headline was: "Barrett Asked to Re-study Decision to Purchase Mill."

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Omineca knew that what he was

saying was not so when he spoke in the House on Thursday, March 6. He

knew it, because he sat as a member of the public accounts committee

that tried in every way they could to get the president of Plateau

Mills to say that he had been unfairly dealt with in any way.

MR. KEMPF: I've never ever been on the public accounts committee — never!

MR. STUPICH: Oh, weren't you on it then?

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, I do have an apology to

make to the member for Omineca. In that case, I'm sure the hon. member

for Omineca will be pleased to learn the truth about the Plateau Mills

affair. I was chairman of the public accounts committee when members on

the other side of the House did everything in their power to get Mr.

Martens, the president of the company, to twist his story in some way

to say that the NDP....

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd use anything over on that side of the floor. You're all bloody hypocrites!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member who has the floor is the only one who should be speaking. Let's not interrupt.

On a point of order, the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I heard the civilized member for Omineca refer to

the opposition as "a bunch of bloody hypocrites." It's clearly

offensive. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw the word "hypocrite."

MR. KEMPF: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I'd be only too happy to. They're just incorrect, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Would the hon. member for Nanaimo please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: It's been suggested that we would use anything

and that I would use anything. May I say that what I'm using is the

transcript of the public accounts committee meeting recorded by Hansard .

It's available to any member of the House. In addition to Mr. Martens —

the previous and still president, I believe, of Plateau Mills — members

of the Social Credit Party on that committee asked that Mr. Williston

be included in that delegation. Mr. Williston attended the meeting as

well and he too was questioned.

Mr. Veitch started the questioning: "Mr. Martens, how long have you been

associated with Plateau Mills?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I think this is

perhaps an account of what happened in a committee, at least from what

I can determine. The only way those matters can be dealt with in the

House, of course, is by report through the chairman of the committee.

Other than that, we are not even remotely interested in what happened

in committee. I think that's the procedure that we follow here.

MR. COCKE: This is a wide-open debate, Mr. Speaker. What are you talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It doesn't matter what the scope

of debate is; we are not interested in a report from a committee,

except a formal report which comes through the Chairman, as I

understand the rules you have given me.

On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Under standing order 9, I draw your attention

to your responsibility when explaining a point of order or practice to

state the standing order or authority applicable in the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Fine. I'll consult the pages and report to you immediately. The debate continues.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I may, while you're consulting

the authority.... I'm speaking about something that happened almost

three years ago. I went to the library to do my research, and as part

of that research I consulted the minutes of the meeting. I'm not

reporting on what happened in the meeting; I'm simply dealing with the

charges that were made by a member opposite that the NDP administration

stole something. What I'm reporting on are the words of the president

of that company, that I could perhaps get from another source, but it

happened in this case that the library was the easiest source, and it

was something that happened in a previous parliament. I think there's

no way that this could actually be presented to the House at this time

other than as a history of something that happened in years gone by. In

any case, I'll proceed.

Mr. Martens was asked how long he had been associated with Plateau

Mills, and he said that he had been associated with Plateau Mills since

[ Page 1389 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I gather that you are determining whether or

not this member is in order in following this line of debate. I don't

feel it is right for members of this House to hear this debate continue

until you make a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: If that be the wish of the House, I will require

just a few moments to find the proper reference so that the member for

Nelson-Creston can be satisfied. I declare a short recess.

The House took recess at 3:14 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:25 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if we can proceed on the report

that I have quickly prepared for you, the matter in question was that

while the member for Nanaimo was continuing his debate, he was

referring to proceedings and matters which had been under discussion in

a select standing committee of this House. There was an intervention,

and the minute the report is over the member for Nanaimo will again be

in control of the floor.

Beauchesne, in his fourth edition at page 251, gives the general

outline for debatable material in this House — material which has

arisen in committee. He says at

section 324:

"Until the report and evidence have been laid upon

the table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate or to put

questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee. When the

evidence is before the House it may be debated at length, but members

will not be permitted to discuss the conduct or language of members of

a committee, except so far as it appears on the record."

The general rule that is cited by Sir Erskine May at page 422 talks

about unreported evidence taken before a select committee: "It is out

of order to refer in debate to evidence taken before a select committee

until the report of the committee has been laid before the House." That

is also a general rule.

Another problem needs to be introduced, and that is that although it could

be argued that the matter to which the member for Nanaimo is referring had been

reported, I draw to all members' attention that they had not been reported to

this parliament because it has been drawn to the Chair's attention that these

matters took place in another parliament. So it requires, perhaps, a more general

rule than either of the two that I have cited to determine whether or not the

debate is relevant, and that is the general rule of relevance:

"A member, when called to speak, must direct his

speech to the question then under discussion or to a motion or

amendment he intends to move."

This is at page 421 of the nineteenth edition.

"The precise relevancy of an argument is not always

perceptible. However, when a member wanders from the question the

Speaker reminds him that he must speak to the question. Debate must not

stray from the question before the House to matters which have been

decided during the current session."

As a result, I think that it could be said, in general terms, that

the debate upon which the member for Nanaimo was embarking could fall

into question and would need to be interrupted by the Speaker on one of

perhaps three counts, the most important one being the one of general

rule and relevancy, in that the question to which he was referring has

already been decided in this House in the throne speech debate. I think

I cautioned the hon. member for Nanaimo already on one previous

occasion that relevancy was of concern in this particular debate, and I

would draw it to his attention again.

MR. NICOLSON: My concern is with the ability to report, or at least to quote, Hansard ,

which might have occurred in committee in a previous sitting. I think

that on page 146 of the nineteenth edition it cites the ancient custom

of parliament, which I think would probably be the spirit of what we

would attempt in the rules. I feel that that citation at the bottom of

the page 1ndicates that what we're trying to avoid is anticipating or

prejudicing something that is under active consideration when we wait

until a committee has reported before referring to matters presently

before a committee. I think that's the spirit by which subsequent

decisions have been made. Therefore I would submit that referring to a Hansard of a previous parliament would be in order just as it is to cite something in a newspaper.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that your point is well

taken and I think that the Chair would certainly condone a casual

reference, but to build a debate upon a question which has already been

decided, even though in a previous parliament, I think, would require

the interruption of the Chair.

The Minister of Health rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: If, of course, you invited the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Nelson-Creston to assist you in

your deliberations, then my question has no relevance and my point has

no relevance, but if you did not, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know

whether it's a practice of this House to allow members of the

opposition, or any members of this House, this side or the opposition

to intrude upon your privacy when you're making decisions and when

you're seeking advice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Any member of this House is

welcome, either at the throne or at the office of the Speaker, at any

time to offer his opinion. The Speaker may not always accept that

opinion; however, I think the Speaker would always hear that opinion.

I recognize the member for Nanaimo, who proceeds, considering relevancy.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you for inviting me to proceed, Mr.

Speaker, and also for the invitation to take control of the House; but

I decline — please. I would rather you continue to be responsible for

trying to maintain some kind of order in the House.

With respect to the relevancy of my remarks, I suggest that they are

extremely relevant to the subject under discussion. What we're

discussing is the budget, and through the budget, the economic affairs

of the province of British Columbia. Forestry is certainly extremely

important in the economic affairs of the province, being responsible

for a minimum of 40 percent of our total provincial product; and for

members opposite — the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 1390 ]

Waterland) and, more particularly, the hon. member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — to suggest that actions of the previous

administration hurt the forest industry in the province is to reflect

upon the future of the province, and could be damaging to the economy

of the province if these charges.... And I do say that the Minister of

Forests didn't make charges; he skirted around the issue, but didn't

come right out and say there was anything wrong. But the member for

Omineca did say that we stole it. Now if those charges are well

founded, then we certainly did hurt the forest industry, and by doing

so, hurt the economy of the province. So I think it's important to

prove to the members opposite that we did not, indeed, deal unfairly

with the owner of one of the mills that was acquired by the NDP

administration.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I had intended to go on at some length on this, and I believe it has been established that we can certainly refer to Hansard

as much as we like; but I won't bore the House, now that I've put you

through this exercise of having to recess and be brought back together

again; and I don't really want the members opposite to get exorcised

about this. But I will say that the various members of the committee

tried in every way they could to get Mr. Martens to say there was

something wrong.

MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the

Speaker's last ruling he talked to us about preciseness and relevancy

of debate, and the hon. member for Nanaimo, I'm sure, is debating in

that atmosphere. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that

if he's considering preciseness, Mr. Martens pronounces his name

"Mar-tin" not "Mar-ten."

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that's a rather obtuse point of order. I think also that Hansard will find it a little easier to spell it properly if I say Mar-tens; but in any case Mar-tins will do now that Hansard knows it's spelled M-a-r-t-e-n-s.

I'm not going to refer much more to this, other than to say that

several members of the committee tried in every way they could to get

Mr. Martens to change his story. And I'll just quote from one small

reference: "Mr. Martens: 'Well, verbally and honourably, we had

completed the deal. We would have had to break our word of honour to

change it'." I suggest that's something some of the members opposite

would not have the least compunction about. But Mr. Martens was an

honourable man. He had made a deal and he went through with that deal.

He said himself that he was an honourable man, and those members

opposite who felt that he should have changed his story didn't realize

they were dealing with an honourable man. And that honourable man said

that he was treated fairly by the NDP administration. And with that I

will not deal any further — unless the members opposite want to hear

more about that particular meeting; it was quite a meeting.

I will now go on with some of the other remarks of the ministers who

participated in the earlier debate, and who really said so little about

the affairs of their ministries. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) didn't really tell us much about agriculture when he spoke —

and I'm not particularly surprised, Mr. Speaker. He did speak, and was

reported on, in a publication called The Rancher ,

in February 1980. I'd like to quote a little bit from this; it's more

than he said in the House about agriculture. "I also hope that we will

be able to eliminate some of the politics that is involved in the

agricultural land reserves." Well, they brought the politics into it,

and I certainly hope they'll be able to get some of the politics out of

it, too; but let's hope that he realizes that particular hope.

The minister noted that in this province farm income assurance, farm

credit and interest reimbursement had done much to provide needed

capital to the farmer. I endorse that recommendation for the policies

brought in by the NDP administration in British Columbia. I wonder what

the Minister of Agriculture would have had to talk about at that

meeting had he not followed a three-year NDP administration, because

all he talked about were the things that were brought into effect under

the NDP administration.

Throughout this session so far, throughout the whole affair of the

dirty tricks episode and all that, the Premier, and everyone else in

the government, has refused to accept any responsibility for these

acts. They've hidden behind their subordinates and minor officials. We

are supposed to believe that the executive assistant to the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), working in that minister's

office, did certain things without the knowledge of the Minister of

Human Resources, and he was fired. We are supposed to believe that the

top man in the Premier's office was handing out thousand-dollar bills,

and the Premier was there a good deal of the time but didn't know that

this kind of thing was happening, and so that person lost his job. We

are supposed to believe these kinds of things were going on all the

time around these various cabinet members, in particular the government

leaders, and they didn't know that anything was going on. Something

like those three monkeys; they saw no evil, could hear no evil, and

could feel no evil.

However, Mr. Speaker, it's kind of a pleasure to read something

other than the budget, because in the budget speech they are taking

cognizance of something. I finally discover that ministers of this

government are prepared to take some responsibility for something. They

admit no responsibility for the depredations that go on under their

noses in their offices, but they are, we are told, responsible for the

high rate of home construction in the United States. They take pleasure

in that. This is great! Under their administration, everything is great

in B.C. because we've had a lot of homes built in the United States.

The high level of world demand for items such as copper and molybdenum

is because we have this administration in office; they take credit for

everything good that's happened in the province. It's happened because

a lot of homes have been built in the States; it's happened because

there are high levels of world demand for copper and molybdenum. It's

good because of the low value of,the Canadian dollar, and that's

something they are responsible for as well. In consequence of which

B.C.'s raw material exporting economy did, in gross terms, do

reasonably well.

We wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this government opposite will be so

anxious to assume responsibility for these things one year hence,

because certainly the forecasts are not good, and the Minister of

Finance did refer to this, or to some of these forecasts in his budget.

One of these publications, Business America ,

dated February 11, 1980, has the headline "Prognosis Uncertain for

1980, but Lean Year is Seen Likely." British Columbia's real gross

provincial product is expected to grow 3.4 percent this year, off from

an estimated 3.9 percent in 1979, and the Minister of Finance did

recognize

[ Page 1391 ]

that. The Employers Council of British Columbia,

December 11, 1979, business trends survey, November 1979, said the B.C.

business climate reached a record high in 1979, but the outlook for

1980 is less positive. The Minister of Finance recognized all this, but

apparently felt no responsibility to do anything to try to turn that

situation around in our own province. Those conclusions about the

future were reached by 156 executives who responded to the Employers

Council of B.C. twelfth business trends survey.

I draw to your attention the most recent surveys of 1980 U.S.

residential construction, the only ones made, to my knowledge, since

the recent increases in the U.S. discount rate. I make particular

reference to a publication entitled Random Lengths dated February 22, 1980, and I quote:

"Housing starts in January were off sharply from

December, but building permits were up slightly and have held within a

narrow range for the past three months. Seasonally adjusted annual rate

of starts for January was down only 6 percent from December, at

1,420,000 units. However, adverse weather in the two previous Januarys

is an influence in the statistical calculations of the January 1980

seasonal rate, and probably inflated it to some degree. Actual starts

were reported at 72,900, down 19 percent from December, 17 percent from

January of 1979. Those projections have now fallen to between 1.2 and

1.45 million units."

Since that time there has been a lot of speculation in the United

States and elsewhere about the possibility of further large interest

rate hikes. The Colonist of March 5, 1980, had a story on page 5 quoting market analysts about the real possibility of 20 percent interest rates:

"U.S. banks jacked up the prime lending rate another

half point to 17 1/4 percent Tuesday and analysts said volatile

financial markets could lock the key interest rate near 20 percent.

"Record interest charges would provide a further blow

to the already weak housing market. The prime rate has risen 1 1/2

points in the last eight business days, and with increases coming in

rapid half-point jumps, a 20 percent prime rate is now within striking

distance."

If that happens, the 1.2 million unit projection will probably turn

out to be the most accurate. That 1.2 million has to be compared with

the 1979 achievement of 1.74 million units, a precipitous decline of

more than 30 percent in one year. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the health

of our forest industry is linked more closely to that U.S. house

construction rate than to any other economic activity. It provides the

best single indicator for the state of the industry; it provides 51

percent of our manufacturing and, therefore, of our overall economy.

Richardson Securities' publication Investment Thinking

for February 1980, noting increases on the supply side for our base

metals together with weakening demand, predicts lower prices and lower

volumes for these ores. On the supply side, increased free-world

production is projected for aluminum, copper, and lead, among other

metals, in 1980. Demand, on the other hand, is expected to weaken from

1979 and the trend to inventory replacements may turn out to be the

name of the game for the majority of the metals listed.

"Prices for copper, lead and zinc in 1980 are projected as follows."

This is from the London Metal Exchange prices in U.S. dollars per pound:

"In the years 1979 and 1980 copper is expected to stay at 90 cents."

Considering inflation, that will be a reduction in real dollars.

"Lead is expected to drop from 54 cents down to 52 cents, copper from 33 cents down to 31 cents."

That's much more in terms of real dollars.

"Looking at the copper market, resolution of the

Rhodesian crisis is expected to provide more alternative transportation

routes for copper exports and could create a more favourable political

climate in Central Africa, thus enhancing productivity in that area.

Markets for lead will be influenced by increased primary supply from a

new mine in South Africa. Demand from the battery sector is also to be

less buoyant than evidenced over the last two years. Fundamentally, the

demand growth for zinc metal is not attractive."

Mr. Speaker, the budget, at the beginning of page 5, does say

something with which, I think, we can all be associated. Perhaps we

would wish that it was entirely positive, but there are some remarks in

there that I think we can all join in: "This budget represents a strong

statement of confidence in our province" — we would all like to be

confident in our province — "in our people" — and we certainly all

share that confidence in our people — "and in our economy" — and we

certainly all hope to be confident in our economy. The kind of budget

speech that was delivered by this government in 1976, its first budget,

did a great disservice to the economy of the province by telling the

whole world how bad things were in British Columbia. It was a budget

speech couched in rhetoric so bad for the province that the government

withdrew it and issued a reprinted version of the budget. There is some

of that in this budget but not enough to do any damage; certainly we

can all identify with the positive statements.

"We are part of Canada's booming west" — I'm pleased to see

that in the budget and I'm pleased to endorse it. "We are situated to take

advantage of growing markets on the Pacific Rim" — but we have to

be concerned about these markets. "Our resources are rich and varied, and

our people are skilled and energetic. The ingredients are all there, but they

will not come together without effort." Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we

don't see the kind of effort in this budget that will bring together those ingredients.

The budget goes on to say: "The task for all of us will be to put it

together — to build a secure and satisfying future for our citizens."

We all want that, Mr. Speaker; in that we work together.

With respect to the resource picture generally, the only bright side

is provided by natural gas, and I'm sure that the present government

knows who it has to thank for being in the position to take advantage

of that aspect of our economy. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that

when we assumed office in September 1972, the price at which we were

selling our natural gas and the price at which we had been selling it

since the pipeline was built was 31 cents a thousand cubic feet. You'll

remember, Mr. Speaker, that energy prices were increasing, and

certainly the price of that natural gas would have increased. But you,

Mr. Speaker, will know that had the NDP administration not established

BCPC, an organization that was opposed most vigorously by those members

opposite who were in the House at the time, the profits from the

increase in the price of energy would have gone to the international

oil corporations and not to the people of British Columbia — profits

that have made a considerable difference

[ Page 1392 ]

to the public accounts in this province, Mr.

Speaker. In 1974-75, the first year in which BCPC was operating, but

for part of the year, $26 million was turned over to general revenue.

In 1975-76, $198,950,000 was turned over to the public accounts to

provide people services. In 1976-77, $149.5 million was turned over to

public accounts; in 197778, $170.8 million. In 1979 it exceeded revenue

from that other government enterprise — euphemistically called a

government enterprise — the liquor administration: $164.250,000. In

1979-80 the projected figure is $310 million, and the budget for

1980-81 is $450 million.

MR. LEA: And they voted against it.

MR. STUPICH: They voted against it. They opposed it in every

way they could. Yet in the course of its relatively young life it will

have provided $1.5 billion for the people of British Columbia — money,

as I say that would have gone to the international oil corporations

were it not.... Increased money from the sale of drilling rights would

have come to the Crown, but this is money in addition to the sale of

drilling rights. This is profit that would have gone to the

international oil corporations had the NDP administration....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The member is complaining. I'm not sure what he

is saying. He wasn't in the House at the time, so he didn't have an

opportunity to vote in favour of it. I would like to think that he

would have been intelligent enough to have supported the institution of

BCPC at that time.

One and a half billion dollars over a period of eight years. Now

that's a tremendous accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, leaving aside

everything else.

Mr. Speaker, I have recounted some of the grim forecasts of what

might happen in the future, and I've recounted some of the optimism.

The facts of the matter are, of course, that in B.C. we really have

little influence over international markets. There is not all that much

we can do about them. The responsibility of the B.C. government is to

create a framework within which the citizens of this province can best

respond to those larger-scale circumstances, and that is where the

budget falls short.

Despite these looming signs of difficulties on the international

level, Mr. Speaker — despite a government which is not only unable to

do anything about them but to declare itself, as a matter of high

doctrine, unwilling to do something — there are people in B.C. who are

doing quite well, thank you. According to the Royal Trust survey of

Canadian house prices, homeowners in Kerrisdale, for example, appear to

have experienced a capital gain of 35 percent in the past eight months.

They're doing quite well — an annual rate of about 50 percent. That

gain, of course, isn't taxable, as long as it is a residence, and at

worst it is taxable at only 50 percent. According to the Vancouver Real

Estate Board, since 1960 the prices of homes in that area have

increased by a factor of ten. So those people are not really hurting,

by the stories I've been told. Similar increases have been recorded in

Point Grey, West Vancouver, Shaughnessy, Oak Bay and, of course, in the

area known as Gracie's Finger.

Major shareholders in certain enterprises have done even better.

Imperial Oil "A" common shares rose from $18.50 to $56.75 in the

one-year period from March '79 to March '80.

The decline experienced since March I has not affected the order of

that capital gain. Dividends for the year 1979 were $1.15, though even

that represents a 43 percent increase over 1974-75 dividends of 80

cents. It appears that Imperial shareholders, confident of a generous

deal from the Canadian government, are happy to leave their earnings

with Imperial. By the way, only 24 percent of the common shares of that

corporation are held by Canadians. The remaining 76 percent — including

70 percent owned by the parent, Exxon — of the dividends flow out of

Canada, thereby contributing to by far the largest factor in our trade

deficit: what is euphemistically entitled, in Canadian government

accounts, the service account.

Significantly, MacMillan Bloedel shareholders have also done quite

handsomely. Their stocks increased in the same period from $15.38 to

$36.76. The company recorded a return equity of 16.5 percent, almost

identical to Imperial Oil's 16.6 percent. Dividends reached $1.75 in

1979, up more than 400 percent from 1977.

Nor have the beneficiaries of Canadian government been limited

entirely to the exercisers of ownership. The Chapman Executive Report

on Salaries yields the following information on salary and bonus

increases for middle-management personnel in the Pacific region of

Canada. In the year 197576 salary increases for such people were 14.4

percent, much more than the cost of living — and that in a time of wage

and price control. Salary increases 1976-77, still under wage and price

control, were 10 percent. Salary increases in '77-78, still under wage

and price control, were only 7.5 percent, but bonus increases were 42.1

percent. Controls are tough, Mr. Speaker. In 1978-79 salary increases

were 14.9 percent and bonus increases were 5.3 percent. Some people are

not hurting all that much. If you're high enough up, you don't really

get hurt.

It is interesting to note that the 14.4 percent salary increase and

the 42.1 percent bonus, as I've said, occurred during the period of the

Anti-Inflation Board program. Regrettably, these figures for increases

are not clearly tied to absolute salary levels, and since the study

deals only with reported bonuses, it would not, in any event, yield the

kind of data that we have available on wage earners. We can control

them. We know what's happening there, especially those who are covered

by a collective agreement. What we can venture from figures like these

is the guess that when the newspapers predicted in a recent story that

most people, given the income increases that they have experienced over

the past couple of years, would be able to handle the very large

increases in mortgage payments, they were talking of a group that

includes these middle management people — they will be able to handle

them.

The point of the foregoing is, of course, not to begrudge people

these fruits of good fortune but rather to provide a contrast against

which to assess the circumstances of the less fortunate of our society

and to provide a measure of our ability to assist them. I propose,

therefore, to examine some very gross indicators of how the less

fortunate among us have fared. Limiting myself to numbers respecting

income and expenses, I have to rely on members of this House and on the

public to translate these numerical facts to far more profound ones.

Each of the 100,000 unemployed represents a human being deprived of

his or her livelihood. There are 119,000 separate cases, and each one

of us knows some of them. Deprived of the chief token of respect that

this society has to

[ Page 1393 ]

offer, deprived of the chief source of self esteem

— in many cases it represents a person expected by society, by his

family and by himself to be the main provider, coming home daily to

report yet another failure.

There are those in our society who believe we ought not to mention

things like this in polite society. I believe it's essential that we

remind ourselves from time to time. Many of us were insulated, by the

circumstances surrounding our births, from these harsh realities, and

we too easily focus so strongly on statistics that we evade the

tragedies that they represent.

Among the more fortunate are another group reported on by Statistics

Canada in their time series, "B.C. Industrial Composite." If we combine

these figures with the consumer price index for Vancouver we discover

that in the seven quarters since the first quarter of 1978, real

earnings have increased in only one quarter, and that is the third

quarter of last year. This decline in real wages, in purchasing power,

is for many of our people understated in a variety of ways. The figures

include the organized people who, among wage earners, are best able to

defend themselves against the process. For the non-organized the

picture is, of course, much more bleak.

Second, increases in income tax consequent upon nominal increases in

income are not included in the CPI, or the consumer price index. To

that extent their real wages have not been sufficiently devalued.

Third, a point which has a greater bearing on groups with even

smaller incomes, the consumer price index standard, the basket of goods

and services, assures a standard percentage of expenditures on all

items. Obviously the poorer people are, the higher percentage of their

income that has to go to the inescapable fundamentals: food, housing

and transportation. One of the most inhuman features of inflation is

that these are precisely the items that have experienced the greatest

inflation. For Vancouver, the December 1979 all-items figure was 197.0;

for food, it was 240.3; for housing it was 189.3; and for

transportation it was 190.5 — and this is on a base of 100 at 1971.

They are the three most rapidly increasing items listed by the index.

A group included in this latter one is the one we call the working

poor. These are people who rely to a great extent not upon collective

bargaining, which is in some instances legislatively forbidden them,

but upon the minimum wage. The group is, of course, much larger than

those employed exactly at the minimum wage, although no one seems to

know exactly how many are included. Many of the individuals affected

are recent immigrants, and it goes without saying, that the perilously

low levels of their incomes reflect not the value of their work to the

economy but their vulnerability to exploitation, which is aided and

abetted by this government.

The last increase to the minimum wage was enacted by the Legislature

in 1975 and implemented in 1976. It stands nominally at $3. But to

quote the Ministry of Labour's own publication, Labour Research Bulletin ,

February 1980, page 31: "Currently the purchasing power of the minimum

wage in 1971 dollars is somewhat less than the $1.50 provincial minimum

wage implemented in May 1970." That's how far we've fallen behind in

this province. The question this should pose for government is whether

this retreat to a ten-year-old standard is sufficient. Would they

prefer, say, the standard of 1910, or 1810? And this is the budget that

was going to take us forward into the eighties. Suffice it to say now

that these figures, coupled with the number of people unemployed — and

that is referred to in this Labour Research Bulletin as well, in the

very first paragraph.... The government spoke in the budget about how

great we're doing from the point of view of employment. But read their

own publications.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who should have some interest in this, who should have some

responsibility for it, threw something across the floor; I'm not sure

what it was.

I wonder whether he has had anyone read this to him yet. I wouldn't

expect him to be reading it, but I thought perhaps someone might read

it for him. This is from your own government's publication, the January

statistics: "The result was the highest level of unemployment in the

province's history." Is that something of which this government should

be proud, which they should tolerate, which they should accept as

something which they shouldn't do anything about? They've never said

they couldn't do it. All they've said is that they really shouldn't;

it's not their responsibility. That seems to be their attitude. I think

this illustrates the absolute urgency of doing something permanent,

something systematic about this grievous problem.

They illustrate also the folly of refusing to abandon the grotesque

economic metaphysic which has been paraded by this government as an

excuse for their lethargy. The proposition is that no matter how grave

the circumstances, fashioned in large measure by this government, they

must always leave it to the private sector to bail us out. We must

always swear our fealty to a version of laissez-faire economics that

even Adam Smith would have declared outdated.

It is not to Major Douglas that this government is obligated; it is

to the people of British Columbia. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Mair) is laughing at the reference to Major Douglas. He's one of those

people I was speaking about at the beginning when I talked about the

political opportunists who really have no basis for their politics,

other than that of political opportunism. So he laughs at Major

Douglas. And I can appreciate his laughter.

To the people of British Columbia, and especially to those who owe

their financial difficulties to the resolute determination on the part

of successive Socred governments to leave industrial strategies

entirely to the tender mercies of Exxon, ITT, et al....

We come now to those who are perhaps the least favoured of our

society, those who rely on the even less tender mercies of the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). The circumstances of these

people have been clearly described by a recent publication of United

Way. The point of exploring the happy circumstances of some among us

and the unhappy circumstances of others is to emphasize and make more

general the point made so well by United Way, that the gulf between

different sectors in our society grows ever wider: the rich get richer

and the poor get poorer. There was a warning recently from, actually,

the Tory minister — I don't think the change in government will change

the circumstances very much. This is from the December 10 issue of the Vancouver Sun :

"Tough Time Ahead, Tory Minister Warns: 'I would be less than honest

with the Canadian people if I said we were going to have a great year

in 1980. We won't. We're living through a difficult period...'." It

wouldn't be difficult for him, who is very well off; it won't be

difficult for the members opposite; but there are people in our society

for whom it will be very difficult. This government seems not to be

concerned about that.

[ Page 1394 ]

This process of enlarging the disparities goes on in this province,

punctuated by the pious pronouncements of the Minister of Human

Resources, which pronouncements are currently being orchestrated by a

$40,000 publicity campaign. In the circumstances prevailing, the

Minister of Human Resources cannot think of anything better to do with

that money; and that accurately describes the limit of both her

imagination and her compassion. The idea seems to be to spend money to

tell people they're well off, in the hope that they'll believe it.

The question raised for this government especially, and for all of

us, is how wide shall we allow, or cause, the gap in incomes to be.

Make no mistake, these ever-growing gaps are of society's making. I

quote from a study published by the C.D. Howe Institute in 1978,

entitled "In Search of Robin Hood." I recommend it to the members of

this chamber. Reading from page 5:

"It is by now a well-established fact that the

distribution of money income in Canada has not changed significantly

during the past quarter century. In addition, government redistributive

activity during the 1960s did not favour poor families at the expense

of the highest income families."

From the same document, on page 18:

"The reform legislation of the early '70s did

surprisingly little to improve the distribution of income in favour of

the poor. Especially significant is the result that tax reform provided

virtually no benefits for the poorest families, and did not

redistribute income from the highest income families to the poor.

On the top of page 6 the budget says:

"First, and I think most important, will be a

continuation of the firmly established Social Credit tradition of

fiscal responsibility in government. Public services and facilities

must be provided efficiently, with sensitivity to people's needs, and

at minimum cost to taxpayers. But responsibility has to prevail. We

should not be spending today the tax dollars of our citizens of

tomorrow. We should spend without recourse to government borrowing."

That's rather interesting. Page 54 of the same budget speech shows

that the debt of the province, the "contigent liabilities," as they're

euphemistically called, now exceeds $7 billion. Even with some of the

debt represented by relatively low-interest bonds, that must mean some

$600 million in interest charges in the course of the year.

The budget talks about the people of the province not having to pay

interest. Yet the people of the province, through their B.C. Hydro

bills, through their subsidies to B.C. Rail — which I do not oppose,

but nevertheless I recognize that they're there — through their support

of B.C. Ferry Corporation — and I don't object to that — through the

B.C. School Districts Capital Authority Act.... I don't object to any

of these things. The British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital

Financing Authority, the British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts

Financing Authority — all of these things and others that I haven't

listed — add up to $7 billion in debt that's on the backs of the people

of this province.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that all of those things should be

paid for on a cash basis; I'm just saying let's quit the fiction of

saying that we're not paying interest. Some $600 million, roughly, on

an annual basis — $50 million a month, and yet they say in the budget

we're not paying interest. How ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

But beyond that, they talk about recognizing the needs of caring for

those unable to care for themselves. They talk about recognizing our

responsibility to people like that, and at the same time, March 31,

1979, a year ago, had cash in excess of $654 million sitting in the

bank — over $654 million a year ago while people on income-assistance

programs, according to every study that was done, except the one by the

Minister of Human Resources, said that all of these people were living

at subsistence rates below the poverty level. Yet this government was

sitting on $654 million in the bank a year ago.

By now that figure will be double that. It'll be some time before we ever seen the Public Accounts

for March 31, 1980. We didn't see the ones for March 31, 1979, until

February 28, I think it was, so it'll probably be a year before you

have an opportunity to check my forecast. But I forecast right now that

the cash figure on March 31, 1980, will be $1.25 billion sitting in the

bank, while people are going without in this province. A year later it

will be close to $2 billion, unless this government does something

different. It'll be tied up in all kinds of funds, they'll hide it away

in all kinds of little corners, but when it comes to the balance sheet,

March 31, 1980, will show $1.25 billion, cash sitting in the bank, and

March 31, 1981, will show close to $2 billion cash sitting in the bank

— while people are waiting to go into hospital for serious operations;

while people on assistance programs are living at less than the poverty

level; while homeowners are being hit with a regularly increasing share

of the cost of paying for education. All of these things are going on

and the government is sitting on all that money.

Even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, do you remember the device of

1976, when they provided that a grant of $175 million would be taken

out of the pockets of the taxpayers in the province and handed to the

people who drive automobiles? That $175 million would have gone a long

way toward dealing with some of the problems individuals were facing in

our community at that time, and it was handed to subsidize the premiums

for automobile drivers. ICBC at one time had a bank loan as high as $26

million, and that's the most that it ever borrowed from the bank, yet

that government chose, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, to

take money away from people who were on income assistance programs, to

take money away from people who were not getting a proper level of

health services, to take money away from people who are waiting to get

into hospitals, to take away from those people $175 million and give it

to the automobile drivers in the province so they would not have to pay

the costs of their automobile accidents. That's what happened; there's

no doubt about it.

The divisions that have been created and widened in our society and

the sacrifice and suffering that have been endured by those at the

bottom end of the economic ladder have all occurred so that the Premier

of this province could squirrel away funds which he spends with

reckless abandon to rescue himself and his government from political

problems. Every person requiring medical treatment, but waiting for a

hospital bed, every person....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm afraid I might miss something over there,

Mr. Speaker. I thought I should listen to the interruptions over there,

but so far there's been nothing from that

[ Page 1395 ]

loudmouth pea-brain, so I'll continue with my

speech. Every person looking unsuccessfully for work in this province

is doing so in order that the Premier can have the option of buying his

way out of his political difficulties. Expenditures of the NDP

government on the forest industry, Railwest and on facilities crucial

to agriculture were not chosen overnight. They weren't sudden

announcements to deal with sudden emergencies, as the recent

expenditures announced by the Premier of this province have been — in a

desperate need to spend.

If we are ever to develop secondary manufacturing and the more

reliable, skilled jobs that such industries provide, it will be from

the base provided by our forests, mining, fishing and agricultural

industries. In a recent study published by the Science Council of

Canada entitled The Weakest Link ,

the author points out that the percentage of agricultural machinery

Canadians import has been increasing in recent years. This is a

quotation. It says: "In a country with capital intensive agriculture as

developed as in Canada, agricultural machinery imports of this

magnitude are a disaster." The authors might have added that where food

costs are the most rapidly escalating in a severely inflationary period

the disaster is magnified, and that in such a context to under spend

budget allotment to agriculture is, to understate the point,

irresponsible.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is out right now, but,

Mr. Speaker, you will recall from your review of public accounts that

of the $72 million provided for agriculture in the year ended March 31,

1979, approximately half was spent — $35 million. Food is the most

rapidly increasing cost in our cost of living — something that concerns

every one of us — and yet this government shows its lack of interest by

spending only half of its budget.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the tractors that we use so extensively in our

major industries — B.C.'s forests, mining and construction — are not,

from a manufacturing standpoint, much different from agricultural

tractors. What is needed is to reach some critical mass of steel

construction to make a steel mill viable. Things like Railwest moved us

closer to that critical mass. This government chose to close Railwest.

Negotiations with the Japanese brought us closer. Bridges and

construction projects like B.C. Place consume a one-shot ration of

structural steel, but then they play no further

part in building up the

economy for the construction of a steel mill.

But there is an even more fundamental approach to our economic

immaturity, Mr. Speaker, and that is through the most strategic of

industrial expenditures, those on research and development, or as the

above-cited study observed: "A strategy is required to create and

secure technological ability so as to obtain for Canada a measure of

technological sovereignty." What that means for us, Mr. Speaker, is

that ITT, Rayonier, Weyerhaeuser and Exxon have no reason at all to

invest in B.C.'s process of economic maturation, and that it is naive

to expect them to. Therefore we must at long last bestir ourselves to

ensure that research and development are undertaken here. There is a

reference on page 16 of the budget.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there is a comment from opposite that we can afford to now. I would suggest that we can never afford not to.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do when you were government?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have been challenged as to what

we did in our day. I was reminded, I think a couple of days ago in this

Legislature, by some of those opposite that the Social Credit Party has

been in office in this province for 24 years and the NDP for only

three. Yet we are asked: "What did you do?" Mr. Speaker, I ask them

what they did in their 24 years. In the twenty-fourth year they've

suddenly found a million and a half dollars to put into research. Isn't

that great! After 24 years running the affairs of this province, they

have now found a little bit of money for research. Some people wake up

awfully slowly; they're not doing nearly enough now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Don't be so dramatic.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Forests challenges me not to be

so dramatic. These are dramatic subjects that I'm discussing; I would

hope that you would take some interest in them. I'm going to tell you

something about research in your ministry.

The Minister of Forests interrupted at a most opportune time,

because I would like to talk a little bit about what's happening in his

ministry. He spoke in the Legislature a few days ago and unfortunately

didn't talk about what's happening in his ministry, but perhaps later

on we'll hear something from him. The budget discusses a reforestation

project which needs a great deal of examination and explanation, and I

look forward to hearing that. But this much is clear, and I think the

minister would admit this: if we don't know what seedlings grow best in

what climate and soil conditions, or if we do not research and develop

superior trees or fertilizing or thinning or disease-control

techniques, we will, with our fast fiscal guns, have wasted a lot of

money. The research is basic, the research is important; it has to be

done, it should have been done. That, Mr. Speaker, is another reason

why, apart from BCRIC's prosperity, the purchase of forest industries

by the NDP administration was a good idea as part of a larger set of

good ideas.

How does our forest industry stand as regards research and

development? Let's look at what others say about us. The Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development did a study in 1979 entitled

"Trends in Industrial Research and Development from 1967 to 1975." Page

24 of that study reveals that in the group including forest industries,

our real expenditure on research and development was down between 25

and 49 percent, and the number of research and development scientists

and engineers employed was down between 3 and 24 percent. This neglect

of our most important of all industries is not something that started

in 1979, estimates over the last three decades recognize that the

forest wealth of our province accounts for between a third and 40

percent of the total wealth produced in B.C. The Sloan report of 1945

referred to a figure of one-third of the total production in the

province coming from the forest industry. Mr. Speaker, the minister is

smiling; I guess he thinks that's out of date. It was 35 years ago.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: You weren't even born then? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that he knows something. It

[ Page 1396 ]

has been said that those of us who refuse to learn

anything from history are destined to suffer the same mistakes, to

experience the same mistakes. I think it is well that the Minister of

Forests knows something about the mistakes of the past.

That same report recommended that the subject of forests was

important enough to warrant another inquiry ten years hence. I'm going

to quote briefly from the report. The minister says he wasn't born

then; perhaps that's his good fortune. But I'd like to read him a

little bit out of this report. It's in the library, Mr. Speaker.

Although he wasn't born then, he still has access to it.

"I would estimate that in general terms the wealth

produced by processes of extraction and conversion of logs into final

manufactured form accounts for at least one-third of the total

production and wealth in this province."

Page 127:

"It is essential that a royal commission, ten years

hence, re-examine all aspects of forestry in the light of development

during that ten-year period."

That recommendation was accepted.

Mr. Speaker, I could be reading this in 1980 as easily as it was said in 1945.

"At present our forest resources might be visualized as a slowly descending spiral."

This is being said by people all over the province, all over the country.

"We must change from the present system to a planned

and regulated policy of forest management leading to a program ensuring

a sustained yield from all of our productive land areas."

Page 128:

"The rate of planting denuded areas of productive forest land, especially on the coast, must be greatly increased."

Page 143:

"The third step towards a sustained yield production

objective is to start new forests growing on our denuded land areas. On

the coast approximately one million acres" — this was 35 years ago —

"and in the interior 19 million acres of productive forest land are not

satisfactorily restocking. It is of the utmost importance that this

acreage be planted at the earliest possible date."

That's Sloan, 35 years ago.

A further report by Mr. Sloan was described as....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is muttering about a $1.4

billion program, I'm going to come to that if he would just be patient.

A further report by Mr. Sloan is described as the 1956 report — and

the Minister of Forests was born then — although it was not delivered

until 1957. By that time forest industries in the province accounted

for 40 percent of the total net value of production, as referred to in

that report. But neglect of our most important resource of all had

continued during that ten-year period; there was no improvement.

The Sloan report of 1956 says: "It is generally agreed that forest

industries as a whole comprise the most important industrial group in

the province, accounting for 40 percent of the total provincial value."

Then there is a table on page 290: "Acreage Not Satisfactorily

Restocked." In 1945 on the coast it stood at 918,000 acres; in 1955 it

had almost doubled to 1,723,000 acres. Acreages are given for the

interior as well.

He comments on page 292:

"The Forest Service should be planting on Crown lands

12,000 acres a year merely to prevent the present position from

worsening, plus 36,000 acres a year if we are to reclaim the lost

900,000 acres in 25 years. This would mean a yearly planting program at

a cost of $1.9 million a year."

That is what Sloan had to say in 1956.

As I mentioned earlier, members opposite have been making much of

the fact that Social Credit has been in power in this province for 24

years, as opposed to three years for the NDP. That being the case I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they have to accept responsibility for

the almost total neglect of our forest resource over a period of 28

years since that party was first elected.

A further report was commissioned. The Social Credit government

didn't do it. They didn't want to hear any more bad news; they didn't

want everyone to hear how bad a job they were doing of looking after

our resource. But the NDP did commission a further report, the Pearse

report, which was completed in 1976. It is one more reminder of the

sinful neglect of our most important of all resources.

I have a quotation from the Pearse report as well, from page 277:

"In 1965 a specific target was adopted by the Forest

Service. It was estimated that one-third of the acreage logged would

require artificial reforestation which, at the level of logging then" —

and the minister was certainly around in 1965 — "implied a need for 75

million seedlings annually."

At that time annual planting was in the order of 18 million, roughly

one-quarter of what the Pearse report said should have been going on in

1965. That was recommended by the Forest Service in 1965, when this

government had been in office for some 13 years. They stayed in office

for seven years after that.

"In 1974 the long-sought objective of 75 million seedlings was met for the first time...."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Not true.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Forests says that the Pearse

report is untrue in this respect. He will have an opportunity to

explain to us in what way the Pearse report was wrong. In the meantime,

since this is the only evidence I have, and since I have never before

heard the facts in the Pearse report challenged, I am going to refer to

them in this debate. But I appreciate that the minister may want to say

something about it later.

In any case, nine years after the Forest Service set a target of 75

million trees a year, and after two years of NDP administration, that

target was finally reached. According to the Pearse report it "was met

for the first time, and by 1975 had expanded to 90 million."

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Sloan recommended in 1956 that,

in terms of 1956 dollars, we should be spending $1.9 million a year

simply on planting seedlings — that's $40 an acre. What was the

government doing then? I didn't go that far back. There was no need to;

the figures were infinitesimal.

[ Page 1397 ]

In 1962 this administration, after having been in office for ten

years, spent not $1.9 million on reforestation but $0.4 million — and

$0.2 million on research. By the time they were voted out of office in

1972 their level of spending on reforestation was $4.7 million. That is

all they were spending on the most important resource, on

reforestation, in spite of the fact that Sloan, in 1956, had

recommended $2 million a year in terms of 1956 dollars.

On research, from 1962 until 1972, a period of 10 years.... They

spent $0.2 million in 1962 and $0.2 million in 1972. That is what they

thought of research. Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've been challenged opposite: what did we do in

research? Ten years' history of that administration from 1962 to 1972,

and what they were prepared to spend on research on our most important

of all industries year after year was $200,000 — sometimes a little

less.

As they said, we were in office only three years. But the spending

on reforestation went from $4.7 million in the last year of the

outgoing Social Credit administration to $14.3 million in the last year

of the NDP administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you keep it up?

MR. STUPICH: Because the voters, unfortunately, chose to

re-elect a government that persisted in its policy of neglect and has

persisted since then. The levels of research that we worked up to have

been maintained at those levels — little change since then. There's

been little increase in reforestation since then. But no, Mr. Speaker,

we have a grand new program. The minister....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I keep hoping I might hear something worthwhile.

I wouldn't expect the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) to

consider any of this worthwhile. You know, I have to consider who's

listening, her estimation of what is being said and the importance of

what is being said.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) quite properly expressed

concern over the future of the forest industry. A major expenditure for

forest management is planned. This is where we come to the figures:

$388 million this year as part of a five-year $1.4 billion program that

the minister of economic development referred to in one of his

interjections. I'd like to examine that, and hope that the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will expand on this when he has an

opportunity to speak.

On page 15 of the budget: "Renewing Natural Resources. Funding for

the coming year will be provided from three sources: $157 million will

be allocated to the Ministry of Forests, an increase of $32 million

over last year's budget estimate." Sounds terrific. The budget for the

Ministry of Forests is up 27 percent, which is the same figure for the

increase in the total budget. Nothing special for forestry in that;

they're treating forestry the same as the average government

expenditure. But there are other things in there, I confess that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The second item: "$84.1 million will be allocated from stumpage

revenue for reforestation and other projects related to forest

management." I wonder just exactly what that means. Does that mean that

we're simply shuffling the same dollars around? Does that mean that

dollars previously expended by industry and reported by them on their

profit-and-loss statements will now be reported by the Minister of

Forests as expenditures on forestry? The way this reads to me, there's

no new money coming out of government revenue, no increase in stumpage

to provide for any new and additional bold programs; it's simply a

reshuffling and taking credit for something previously done by the

industry. It's a recalculation of the same dollars.

The minister is shaking his head. He had an opportunity to tell us

something about these things in his previous speech; he'll have an

opportunity again, I hope.

Then we look at: "$146.6 million from the 1979-80 revenue surplus

will be placed in a new forest and range resource fund. Included in the

fund expenditure in 1980-81 is $1.45 million for Forintek Canada."

That's not enough but it's a good start.

But let's take a look at page 61, and consider the use of this

$146.6 million. If you look at the forest and range resource fund,

forecast revenue for this fund is $146.6 million; forecast expenditure

is $19.3 million. Isn't that great! We're taking $146 million out of

surplus to have a bold new program for forestry; and a year later,

March 31, 1981, we expect to have left in that fund $127.3 million in

cash sitting in the bank. The cash sitting in the bank isn't going to

plant any trees.

Then let's look at the $1.4 billion to be spent over five years.

Some $785 million will come from the regular ministry budget. Gee, why

didn't you say ten years and say that it was going to be $3 billion

regular budget expenditures? Over half of the $1.4 billion they've been

boasting about is the regular. ministry expenditures, and "$448 million

will be returned from stumpage revenues back into forest management" —

it has been going into forest management, I suspect; I believe that the

forest companies have been putting that kind of money into forest

management, and that it's going to keep on going there — "and the

remainder will come from the forest and range resource fund to be

created by legislation..." — and maybe spent over a period of time.

They're projecting in the first year that they actually are going to

spend $19 million out of that $147 million allocation. That's not going

to do very much, I'm afraid, for the future of the forests in the

province of British Columbia.

I come back to a point I made earlier, Mr. Speaker, and that is that

if this money is going to be spent wisely, adequate research must be

done, and my complaint about the research that's provided for in this

budget is that it isn't nearly enough. Adequate research must be done

into tree-planting techniques and silvicultural practices. It's

difficult to pick some of these figures out. They've changed the way of

recording expenditures for the activities in the forest ministry, so

we're going to have to ask some detailed questions of the minister. It

used to be that there was an item in the estimates called

"reforestation." But I guess they were so embarrassed about the little

that was being done in that field that they've now included

reforestation in with another vote, and we don't know, without asking

the minister — and perhaps we will have trouble getting the answer then

— precisely what is the comparable figure on a year-to-year basis,

because it's not identified any more as "reforestation," not identified

any

[ Page 1398 ]

more as "research." So that's one way of hiding the

fact that you aren't doing very much — change the description so that

it can't be compared.

In the recent past and in the long past our expenditure on forest

research has not been high. The total budget of the research branch of

the Ministry of Forests last year was $3.8 million; less than $1

million was spent on tree improvement, only $750,000 on silviculture.

In A Review of the Canadian Forest Products Industry , published in 1979 by the federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce, these observations were made on page 211:

"Although the Canadian forest products industry can,

in many respects, be considered a mature industry, a more intensive and

long-term commitment to research and development is essential."

Mr. Speaker, I have ranged rather broadly in these remarks,

attempting to set out our view that a great deal more is required of a

government than an accountant's facility for book-balancing or the ad

man's facility with phrases like "sunshine budgets." Our greatest

shortcoming as a society is not to be able to provide good work for

those willing and able to do it, and that shortcoming is linked in turn

to our failure to develop the economy. All senior governments have a

heavy responsibility in that matter, Mr. Speaker, and especially those

of the western provinces. Certainly our claims as provinces to

jurisdiction over natural resources will morally, if not legally, be

weakened by a failure to exercise stewardship in such a way as to

benefit the economy generally.

I'd like to refer again to the budget, and I wonder, really, Mr.

Speaker, whether the Minister of Finance was doing a service to the

people of British Columbia in saying what he did in this paragraph on

page 29:

"The next few years will see important decisions made

at the national level and it will be of utmost importance to ensure

that the interests and concerns of British Columbians are appropriately

reflected. The federal election results could make this more

difficult...."

Mr. Speaker, what was the Minister of Finance saying in the budget

when he said that the results of the election could make it more

that really what he meant to say in that budget? How can he talk on

other pages of this budget about negotiating with Ottawa if he says in

his budget speech that he regrets the fact that the government of the

day was elected? It's going to make it more difficult....

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even vote.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier thought it was unimportant, not even

worth voting. The Minister of Finance says it was a disaster for

British Columbia that the Liberal Party was re-elected.

He talks about bargaining: "...federal taxation of British

Columbia's natural gas beyond that currently applied to natural gas

producers through the income tax system, is unacceptable." Mr. Speaker,

is that the kind of challenge to issue in a budget speech? He's going

down to bargain: yet he says in the budget speech what his position is

going to be, says that he doesn't like the government, can't get along

with it and that their position is unacceptable even before he hears

what their position is.

"Such taxation would substantially reduce revenues accruing to the

people of this province and limit our capacity to develop energy

programs...." I'm reading out of the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: What would be your position today?

MR. STUPICH: I'm asked what would be my position. I would

never say in a budget that I would find it difficult to represent the

people of British Columbia in negotiating with whatever federal

government happened to be in Ottawa. I would never say in a budget that

I'm going down to Ottawa, but before I go, regardless of what is put

before me, I'm not willing to negotiate, that I want what I want for

British Columbia and am not prepared to negotiate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I see one person standing, but I hear many voices.

MR. STUPICH: You're hearing things, Mr. Speaker.

"A first priority of the new federal government" — I'm now on page

30 of the budget — "should be the introduction of a budget." That's a

profound statement. "I should also like to see the budget contain

measures to offset the adverse impacts of high borrowing costs until

such time as the federal government is able to bring down interest

rates."

They don't like the fact that the federal government is borrowing. I

pointed out earlier that the provincial government, through its

agencies, is in hock right now to the tune of $7 billion. But they

don't like the federal government borrowing. They're sitting with

approximately one-and-a-quarter billion dollars cash on hand, and yet

they say in the budget: "We've got to go to Ottawa for more. Ottawa

shouldn't borrow, it shouldn't spend any money, but it should give us

more, even though we've got one-and-a-quarter billion dollars sitting

in the bank."

I'm still reading from page 30: "We are looking to the new

government" — the federal government — "to commit funds to the

development of British Columbia Place. This government has made a major

financial commitment" — well, I'm not sure what that commitment is —

"but federal financial support is necessary and appropriate." It's not

appropriate that they borrow; it's not appropriate that they have a

deficit; it's appropriate that we have one-and-a-quarter billion

dollars cash sitting in the bank, and it's appropriate that we go to

them and ask them to give us more money for projects in British

Columbia, money for projects that are designed simply to take the

Premier's political irons out of the fire.

I think it's worth reviewing changes in taxation revenue over the

years. There have been some substantial changes in the collection of

revenue, between the province and the federal government. Personal

income tax, for example, represented 18 percent of the budget in 1972.

In 1981 — and this is a shift of taxation revenue to the province:

we're dealing with much larger figures, of course, but even the

percentage is higher.... Twenty-two percent of our total budget is now

coming from personal income tax, a field that used to be entirely

federal. Corporation tax, again, used to be a federal collection

device. In 1972, 5.5 percent of our total budget came from corporation

tax: it's 9 percent now. And that much-maligned federal government,

that does so little for the province of British Columbia, its share of

joint service prog-

[ Page 1399 ]

rams, its contribution toward programs in British

Columbia — although we're getting back a higher percentage of the

personal income tax and corporation tax — its share of our total budget

is roughly the same as it was in 1972. In 1972, 18.7 percent of the

cost of everything that this government was doing was money that came

directly from Ottawa; and although they've handed over the tax points,

18 percent of everything that is done in this great $5.55 billion

expenditure budget is money that is coming from the federal government

— the people who are so criticized for borrowing money, so that we here

in British Columbia might pile up huge surpluses and deny services to

our citizens.

A study just released by the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy

estimates that in '78 prices, $58 billion worth of additional goods and

services would have been produced in the four years 1975-78 had the

Canadian economy been running at capacity. How many people would that

potential have removed forever from the chilling reach of the Minister

of Human Resources? Neither governments nor budgets are to be judged by

their willingness to hurl money at everything in current sight, nor by

the exuberance of the huckster's prose. Governments and budgets in

British Columbia must be judged in the short term on the assistance

provided to those most in need, and in the long term on the

effectiveness with which they address our fundamental economic

problems. On both these counts, this government and this budget fail.

The government of British Columbia will be spending over $1 billion

more this year, without compassion for the needs of citizens or concern

for the economy's industrial future. Total government expendi