1981 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4649 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Jetfoil operating loss. Mr. Lockstead –– 4649

Increase in government advertising. Mr. Hall –– 4650

Farm labour regulations. Ms. Sanford –– 4650

Pier B-C pamphlet. Mrs. Dailly 4651

Milfoil control. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 4651

Mr. Skelly –– 4651

Budget debate

Mr. Barnes –– 4651

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4653

Mr. Barrett –– 4657

Mr. Mussallem –– 4662

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4666

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4668

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4669

Division on the motion –– 4672

Tabling Documents

Report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4672

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I

thank you for your consent in allowing Mr. Vic Woodland to be present

today with hon. members on the floor of the assembly. Mr. Woodland is

general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, and today

marks his last official day on the job after a 32-year career in

British Columbia's public service, 27 years of which have been spent

with the Liquor Control Board or its successor. I'm certain that

members are familiar with the history and career of Colonel McGugan and

the Liquor Control Board; for 20 of those years Mr. Woodland was the

faithful secretary of that board. His accomplishments in assisting a

variety of ministers and governments with matters of liquor policy are

pretty well known. I think the qualities of Vic Woodland that stand

out, as he concludes a very successful career, are those of integrity,

common sense and a great sense of fair play.

Speaking for

myself — and I say this as a commentary not on Mr. Woodland's

personality nor his style but rather on his vast knowledge — I am the

last in a series of ministers who have had the privilege of working

under Vic Woodland. He has a vast knowledge on matters of liquor

policy, in every sense of the word. Vic Woodland has become a living

legend. His wife Kay, who is in the gallery today, has been part of

that process.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if members would now

join me in recording the appreciation of the people of British Columbia

to an outstanding public servant.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd

like to join in the eulogy of that fine fellow sitting over there.

Liquor administration was under the Attorney-General when I held that

post. I agree with what the minister said, that Vic was one of the

finest persons I ever had the privilege of working for. He was

affectionately known in the trade as Doctor No. The only difference

between him and the late Colonel McGugan is that the colonel would say

no in two letters,

whereas Vic took three paragraphs. Vic has aged

gracefully along with his whisky. If anyone here does not think that

Scotch improves with age, they should speak to me.

Vic,

we're proud of the integrity and competence of the public servants of

the province of British Columbia, and we wish you well in your

retirement years.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I know that all in

this House would like to comment on the gentleman who's retiring today.

However, as Minister of Agriculture and Food in this province I have a

special affection for this gentleman. I'd just like to say, Vic, on

behalf of the grape-growers, the B.C. wineries and the people involved

in agriculture in B.C., that we wish you well in your retirement, and I

hope I'll have the opportunity to share a few hours with you on that

sailboat of yours one of these days. All the best!

MRS. WALLACE:

In the gallery today we have a group of undergraduate students from the

faculty of agriculture at the University of British Columbia. They are

visiting the Legislature today to express their support for the

agricultural land reserve and their concerns about some of the present

situations. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I too would like to join in a tribute to Vic Woodland for a moment. I

certainly agree with the comments of other members today. Vic Woodland

is a man of a great number of talents, many of which are publicly known

and some of which are yet to be revealed. We feel we have not heard the

last of Vic Woodland, and I'm sure the province certainly has not. We

know that lurking within the mind of Vic Woodland is the answer to the

system of bureaucracy. He's a gentleman who has not only observed it

for more than 30 years but one who invented or designed certain new

wrinkles that we're still trying to uncover, and we hope that perhaps,

at some time, we'll be able to make use of this vast knowledge to see

it doesn't happen again. I think one of the efforts that Vic will be

putting forward in the not too distant future is probably a novel or

look of some kind, very likely entitled The Colonel and Me. and we all

look forward to that. Congratulations, Vic, and a great many years of

happy retirement.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to

introduce a group of students who are here today from Georges P. Vanier

Senior Secondary School in Courtenay. The students, accompanied by

their teachers, Mrs. Maddison and Mr. Doll, are guests of Crown

Zellerbach. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, it's certainly my pleasure to ask the House to join me in

extending a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Friend from Ottawa. Mr.

Friend is the president of the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association,

a very large association in Canada and one which I've been associated

with for many years.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in the

precinct today are two classes of students from Britannia Senior

Secondary School in the great constituency of Vancouver Centre. They're

with their teachers, George Rapanos and Miss Betsy Brown. I would ask

the House to welcome them today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. Warren Andrews and Mr.

Rick Jenfen from Cranbrook and Mr. Albert Bossio from Fernie. I'd like

the House to give them a warm welcome this afternoon.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, representing Vancouver–Little Mountain on behalf of my

colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), and myself, I'm

pleased to inform the House that the high-school students and the band

from John Oliver Secondary School are in the precinct today. They will

be visiting the gallery in different groups, and they will be

accompanying students from Guelph, Ontario. As perhaps some of our

members heard, they are giving a very fine band presentation today in

the rotunda. They are from the John F. Ross Collegiate Vocational

Institute of Guelph, and our students from John Oliver Secondary School

will be having an exchange visit with them in Guelph in the next two

weeks. Will the House please welcome them.

Oral Questions

JETFOIL OPERATING LOSS

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development regarding the jetfoil service. In view of the

minister's statement made in July 1980, when he said. "I have great

faith the jetfoil is going to work out and that it's going to be a

great success," can the minister confirm or deny that the Flying

Princess Transportation Corp. has suffered a loss of about $I million

in its first year of service?

[ Page 4650 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS . I'll be quite happy to advise the hon. members

that indeed the jetfoil had a loss. When I table the report of the great British

Columbia Development Corporation he will learn how much the loss was.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a supplementary question. In view of the statement of March 27,

1980, by the then Operation Jetfoil chairman, Mr. Cedric Steele, that

BCDC agreed to pay any losses at the end of the first year, can the

minister advise the House whether the taxpayers of British Columbia

will have to bear the entire loss? Are we going to pay the whole loss

or are you going to pay it yourself?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

As I stated just a few moments ago, the loss will be revealed when the

final audited statement of the British Columbia Development Corporation

is tabled in this Legislature.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister has guaranteed loans to that company up to $2.5 million.

third question is whether the minister can advise the House whether

BCDC has made a decision to continue to support the jetfoil service in

its next year of operation. If so, can he tell us what the projected

losses will be for the next year's operation? Will it be another

million dollars, or two million?

MR. SPEAKER: The first half of the question is in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would have to say at this time that the answer is no.

INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HALL:

I'd like to address a question to the Provincial Secretary regarding

advertising in the government's budget. The 1980-81 estimates contain

an increase of $4.7 million for government publications and

advertising, for a total this coming year of almost $20 million. Can

the minister advise whether his new public relations deputy, Mr.

Douglas Heal, will coordinate the expenditure of these funds?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Further information regarding details of advertising, of course, would

be appropriately answered in discussion of various estimates. It is

true that the new function of Mr. Heal as deputy minister, information

programs, will be to try to better coordinate public information

availability from ministries, and to see that it is handled in a manner

which the public will understand. So the nature of this activity is

still developing in terms of the government policy.

MR. HALL:

Last fall the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

launched his TV career by hosting a half-hour prime-time telecast at

the taxpayers' expense. Not to be outdone, other ministers have

announced their entry into these ratings games. Mr. Speaker, how many

more ministerial broadcasts are provided for in this year's estimates?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

For a considerable period of time this government has used photographic

material and film for explaining programs for our citizens. I know of

no further specific plans, but undoubtedly there might be.

MR. HALL:

Last year the former Minister of Health and the present Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) contributed their personal voices and images

to government advertising. Have the minister or his new public

relations deputy introduced guidelines concerning the appearance of

ministers in government advertising?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MR. HALL: In the field of print advertising, the Premier's selected Hansard

mailings and the ever-popular B.C. Government News have done yeoman

service in bringing some appreciation of fiction to the public of

British Columbia. Can the minister advise how many household mailings

are planned for 1981-82 out of the $20 million public relations budget?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a future activity. Does the hon. minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I cannot advise him at this time.

FARM LABOUR REGULATIONS

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. On January 20 Labour ministry

officials stated that the regulations establishing pay rates for

farmworkers working on a piecework basis would be ready in a month. Can

the minister advise why those regulations have not yet been adopted?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, it's true that the regulations have not yet been

completed. The concern is attempting to equate the value of piecework

in relationship to the picking of raspberries and strawberries, and

there are some problems in trying to work out a formula which is

acceptable and fair. I can assure the member that this matter will be

brought to a successful conclusion before the berries are ready to be

picked.

MS. SANFORD: Can the minister then explain

why he has authorized his ministry to begin an expensive promotional

campaign, which includes newspaper and television advertising as well

as glossy pamphlets like this one, when the regulations affecting

farmworkers are still not in place?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The major portion of the regulations called for by the employment

standards legislation are in place. There is one item which remains

outstanding, and that is the item to which the member has referred. As

far as the advertising program is concerned, it was provided for at the

time of the legislation, and I feel it is our duty as the government to

inform the public of the contents of that particular bill. That is the

reason for the advertising, which covers much more than the one

particular item to which the member refers.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, there is another area that the minister has neglected to

tell us about that relates to the bonding of farm labour contractors,

which has still not been established as regulations either. Obviously

this pamphlet is going to have to be replaced if in fact the minister

will have those regulations in place by the time the berries are to be

picked. Could the minister advise what the cost of this

[ Page

4651 ]

particular publication, which has been mailed all over the province, is to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the House as far as the cost of that

particular pamphlet is concerned, but I'm quite prepared to take the

question as notice and provide the information.

PIER B-C PAMPHLET

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier in regard to a recent

publication entitled "Challenge to British Columbia," dated December

15, 1980, which was a government promotion for Pier B-C. Would the

minister tell the House if that publication was paid for out of the

public purse?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I am knowledgeable of the publication. It was paid for through the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

MRS. DAILLY:

My next question should, perhaps, go to the minister responsible, but

as it was a promotion put forward entirely by the minister I'm

addressing the question to, I'll continue with her. Would the minister

tell us why, if it was paid for out of public moneys, there was no

ministers name, ministry or official government endorsement printed on

that publication?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe the

replies for the publication were to go back to the new manager of the

trade and convention centre to help promote and bring business to the

centre. It might be of great importance to the member asking the

question to know that already the trade and convention centre, which,

as you know, has not even been started yet, has presold, through the

efforts of that manager and through the committee that has been putting

that project forward, $72 million worth of trade shows and conventions,

which will bring a great number of jobs and money to the city of

Vancouver and all regions of the province.

MRS. DAILLY:

That is a typically evasive answer from that minister. We're not asking

for a speech on the promotion of her centre. What we're asking is: why

was there no official endorsation from a ministry on that publication?

If we can't get that answer, then we will have to assume that the

minister who put it out must pay for it out of his own money.

MILFOIL CONTROL

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) about the use of a 2, 4-D formula known as Aqua-Kleen.

The ministry does not recommend suspending the use of the 2, 4-D formula known

as Aqua-Kleen in Okanagan Lake. The ministry has used Aqua-Kleen safely for

five years, and the guiding policy is to be ultra-conservative in preventing

the exposure of residents to even minute residues of this material where it

is used. Contrary to the implications in the question in the House concerning

the subject, staff advise that only a few formulas of 2, 4-D are of concern

to the federal government. These are the so-called "dirty" formulations

which contain as contaminates minute quantities of certain types of dioxins.

Most 2, 4-D formulas are made by conventional methods, starting with 2, 4-D

acid, and do not contain dioxins. In contrast the dirty formulations are produced

by the non-conventional method resulting in various kinds of dioxins. The manufacturers

of the formulas have already withdrawn their products from the market.

The

formation known as Aqua-Kleen was tested by Agriculture Canada a few

years ago and at the time was found to contain no dioxins. However, in

order to be absolutely sure, my ministry has forwarded additional

samples of this material to Agriculture Canada for further testing

using the latest in sophisticated detection equipment. I might add that

in the manufacture of 2, 4-D there are some 75 different dioxins, the

most lethal of which really comes from 2, 4.5-T, and that is the dioxin

known as 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, the one that is one million times our

acceptable level. The water standard which we accept is one

one-hundredth of the minimum that the federal government are prepared

to accept. I want to emphasize the fact that our standards are 100

times stricter than those acceptable by Agriculture Canada.

MR. SKELLY:

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care

to admit that Aqua-Kleen is a 2, 4-D ester formulation, which is one of

the class of 2, 4-D formulations that the minister calls dirty

formulations. and is presently being tested right now with new

equipment by the federal government? They have found it does contain

dioxins — that class of 2, 4-D esters which could be both immediate and

hazardous in a long-term way to animal species.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I'm advised that the 2, 4-D we use does not contain dioxins. However,

as I've advised the member, the matter is being tested in Ottawa. The

sample was shipped yesterday for testing in Ottawa. It will be some

time before this year's applications of 2, 4-D would come up in any

event, so, we should have the answer back in time.

I would

like to thank the member for some very detailed information that he did

provide me with, because it has been of some assistance. There are

further questions that I've asked the ministry to come up with and I'll

be responding to those by putting them on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, the question that was raised this morning had to do with

the government's fiscal policies, which I suggested did a great deal to

fan the flames of discontent among British Columbia's races and

cultures, which suggests that bigotry, racism, scapegoatism etc. are

definitely associated with hard times and with economic unrest and so

forth. So the government has done its share to encourage some of the

problems that the Ku Klux Klan, the group I was discussing this

morning....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Yes, I can back it up, Mr. Speaker. What are they getting so riled up about?

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It must have been awfully bad during the NDP years.

MR. BARNES:

You should have been here this morning, Mr. Minister of Municipal

Affairs. I was discussing some of the contributions you made personally

to the present situation we have in British Columbia.

[ Page 4652 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre will assist

greatly in order in the House if he directs his remarks to the Chair.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I think the members on the government side are upset for a

good reason, because with the budget, the taxation measures that they

have exercised — the hoarding of funds in order to build surpluses for

later political manoeuvres — indicates that the people of British

Columbia are not getting a fair share or return on the punitive fiscal

policies that this government has used to collect funds from them. So

that's why I have made the remarks I've made, and in the next five

minutes or so I'd like to indicate why there is concern.

This

is a publication that was put out by the Canadian Knights of the Ku

Klux Klan. They only have a box office for this piece of literature. It

says: "Stop coloured immigration now." Please bear with me, because my

eyesight is failing and I can hardly see, but I will have some glasses

next week, I believe.

"We should only allow in

white immigrants, because they are the only people who can be

assimilated into our white, western society. Bringing coloureds into

Canada is polluting our society both racially and culturally.

"Was

it coloured people or European whites who colonized and built Canada?

Did our white forefathers and all our white Canadian soldiers in World

Wars I and II die for nothing? We are destroying the society they died

to preserve.

"Multiculturalism has never

worked anywhere. Don't be fooled by white bleeding hearts; they are too

cannot live in harmony together, let alone whites and coloureds. We are

having a language problem with the French, but when the Chinese or East

Indians are the majority, we will have only one language forced upon us

— their language.

"On race riots:

"Each

time we let one coloured immigrant into Canada, he can apply to bring

up to 15 relatives. Can't our government see the race problems being

experienced in the United States, Great Britain and South Africa? Why

let it happen here too? Everything cultural which originates in the

United States comes to Canada. Do we need ghettos, forced busing,

reverse discrimination and race riots? Many American cities already

have racial war zones. When Canada has enough coloureds, we fear a

racial civil war will occur here in Canada which will make World War 1,

World War II and Rhodesia look like a picnic. It will only take an

economic recession or a minor crisis, and the race war will begin.

White people will have no choice but to fight, because there is nowhere

else for us to go. We will cease to exist unless we push every coloured

person south of the border or into the oceans."

Mr. Speaker,

that's a piece of literature that is floating around in British

Columbia. There is another introductory piece on the Klan, and it has

this to say about the white race: "The irreplaceable hub of our nation,

our Christian faith and the high levels of western culture and

technology." And it has this to say on the Negro question:

"The

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan does not consider itself the enemy of the

Negro race. The only way both races can develop their full potential

and culture is through racial separation. The Klan will oppose

integration in all of its manifestations, including the high black

crime rate, racial intermarriage, the destruction of our schools,

lowering of labour standards etc."

That's from the Toronto office. The mailing address, the telephone numbers — all the information is on it.

This is from the Times-Colonist ,

February 4, 1981. The headline is: "The Ku Klux Klan Urges B.C. Members

to Arm. The Ku Klux Klan is preparing for an unavoidable race war in

the Vancouver area, and members are arming themselves with rifles,

handguns and survival equipment." They refer to Vancouver's East

Indians as bloodsuckers and trash. They go on to say: "Opening Canada's

doors to future immigration by non-whites, East Indians, Chinese and

Japanese immigrants has contributed nothing to Canada's economy,

culture or heritage." They issue an application form for people who are

interested in joining the Klan, and on that form it says: "Are you a

Christian? Do you believe in the absolute and total supremacy of the

white race? Are you non-Jewish? Are you a non-homosexual?"

These

are just a few examples of things that are being floated around that I

have suggested should at least contravene in part some of our laws with

respect to maintaining peace and goodwill among Canada's cultures and

races. The Criminal Code of Canada,

section 2812 (

l) reads:

"

(1) Everyone who by communicating statements in any public place incites

hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely

to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (

a) an indictable offence

and is liable to imprisonment for two years, or (

b) an offence

punishable on

summary conviction.

"

(2) Everyone who by communicating statements other than in private

conversation wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is

guilty of (

a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for

two years, or (

b) an offence punishable on

summary conviction.

"

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) who (

a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true, (

b) if in

good faith he expressed an attempt to establish by argument an opinion

upon a religious subject, (

c) if the statements were relevant to any

subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public

benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true, or

(

d) if in good faith he intended to point out for the purpose of

removal matters reducing or tending to reduce feelings of hatred toward

an identifiable group in Canada."

I'll skip down now to subsection (6). It says:

"No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General."

I want to refer now to the B.C. Human Rights Code,

section 2, dealing with discriminatory publications.

"

(1) No person shall publish or display before the public or cause to be

published or displayed before the public a notice, sign, symbol, emblem

or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to

discriminate against a person or class of persons in any manner

prohibited by this act.

[ Page 4653 ]

"

(2) Not withstanding subsection (1), a person may by speech

or in writing freely express his opinions on a subject."

don't have much time to debate this point. What I'm suggesting is that

both of those acts have a good intention but they go to great lengths

to try to show why people's rights should be defended. In other words,

they give just as good a case for why it's okay to discriminate as they

do for why we should not.

I think at the very least the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich) should protest to Ottawa with respect to the Criminal

Code and ask that it be amended, so that the people of this province

will have their day in court and not have to get permission or a fiat

from the Attorney-General in order to do what an individual can do.

We're talking about groups of people, classes of people, not

individuals. We're concerned about those people whose self-respect and

dignity is being undermined with impunity by an organization that has

cleverly found the way to circumvent the laws.

With respect

to the Human Rights Code, when we talk about freely expressed opinions,

I did a little review in the dictionary of what "publication" means and

found that you can publish something either by handwriting, press or

any other form. As long as it is made public, it is published. We need

to amend the Human Rights Code. We need to take a look at where it's

failing, because right now, Mr. Minister, I believe that the government

is not prepared to start attacking those principles that are obviously

failing us such as free speech and other freedoms, which can clearly be

used to hurt this country and the people, and are in fact hurting the

people. I know that that is a new area for us, but the only way we're

going to get our day in court is to broaden our perspective, to

increase our imagination and to take a look at the results of our doing

nothing and sitting back and saying that this is a matter that is not

physical; it is an intangible problem and we can't nail them. I think

that that shows we are a long way behind in coming up with sufficient

legislation to deal with these problems that we're faced with today.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would very much like to associate myself

with the many who are again welcoming you, sir, back to the chair. I

certainly hope that you have a great 1981.

I would like to

make some remarks about the budget and how critically important an

effective budgetary direction and the concept of balancing income with

outgo are necessary not only for the progress of our province but for

the future of our nation. I would also have to consider the budget in

the light of a continuing constitutional authority and responsibility

of the provinces and regions of Canada to manage their own affairs,

develop their own initiatives and provide their own affirmative action

programs. I don't think there is any question that the constitutional

turmoil in our country is undermining the capacities of this nation to

effectively deal with the upfront and the real and immediate problems —

the burgeoning national debt, the energy crisis, the double-digit

inflation, the depreciating dollar, the sky-rocketing interest rates,

the unemployment and the critical housing shortages.

As I

said before, it even takes a letter about two weeks to cross town. As a

matter of fact, it was only on Friday when I happened to receive a

Christmas card from the hon. Premier of Ontario. It took three months

to come from Queen's Park to Vancouver. I think it would have done much

better by covered wagon.

Even more destructive is the fact

that the present federal initiative, if carried into effect, could

result in a drastic restructuring of the capacities, the economies and

the opportunities of our various regions to achieve their ambitions and

to realize their potential. What Canada could well face is 50 years of

constitutional and legal embroilment with all of the attendant

uncertainty and expense and all of the disruptions and discordance that

could flow from that. It might well be a mother lode for the lawyers, a

bonanza for the legal profession, but it would certainly be an awful

drain on the pocketbooks and the energies of our citizens.

With

this constitutional land-mine we find a massive departure from Canadian

tradition and direction that has not been called for and is not wanted.

By far the majority of our citizens and regions are opposed to it.

Nonetheless, we have the Prime Minister of our country. aided and

abetted by Ontario and the majority of the federal New Democratic

Party, and apparently all of the B.C. New Democratic Party, still

insisting on wanting to maintain, enshrine and cast in stone for all

time for central Canada a perpetual constitutional, productive, and

economic supremacy. All of this is notwithstanding the contemporary

realities of a shifting, changing, growing, regionally expanding and

maturing Canada. These Canadian centralists, aided, abetted, encouraged

and fawned upon by the federal NDP and all of the B.C. socialists, are

in essence saying, "We'll go along with the game of federalism,

providing it's only played our way, providing it's only in our

interests so that only we can win," even though it's very clear that

the forecasts, the discoveries and the new technology all indicate that

the economics of the nation are shifting, and indeed should shift. It's

a natural consequence. It's a Canadian evolution.

The

centralists still say: "No way. We'll change the goalposts. We'll bring

in a new system. We'll enshrine our centralist position, whatever the

direction the natural forces and the progress may take." They also say:

"If that's a process towards republicanism, if that's a movement

towards increased judicial authority at the risk of submerging

parliamentary supremacy, then so what? We've got the raw power. We'll

ramrod it through, regional non-representation notwithstanding." All of

this is absolutely flying in the face of the will of the majority of

our people, the majority of the governments and the majority of the

regions of our great country. Yet tragically all of this is supported

by the federal New Democratic Party, and even more tragically all of

this is supported by the B.C. New Democratic Party. I say what a

travesty, what an abandonment of responsibility and what a neglect of

duty.

"Negotiate," say some. We say: "But Ottawa won't. They

refuse." They say: "Nyet — no way." Mr. Speaker, that constitutional

steamroller still powers on full bore — straight forward. The whole of the country

is saying to the Prime Minister and to the federal NDP — who could play a major

role in stopping this steamroller, as could the provincial B.C. New Democratic

Party — "Hold, cease and desist." They're paying no heed, and the juggernaut

rolls on. What are the options — to roll over like two-thirds of the federal

NDP, or to roll over like three-thirds of the provincial NDP and end up nothing

less than an inglorious piece of the pavement, or to try to stop it?

What

we should be doing is bringing about a return to reason in our country.

Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba,

Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan are all trying to do just

that. They 're trying

[ Page 4654 ]

bring about a return to reason. The administrations of these provinces,

Mr. Speaker, are telling these central Canada centralists and all of

the socialists who support them that what they are doing is wrong, it's

unfair and it's not the Canadian way.

This unilateral

activity is contrary to Canadian custom, Canadian convention, Canadian

practice, Canadian federalism, Canadian constitutional law, and most of

all it's contrary to the will, the desires and the wishes of the

majority of people right across our nation. What is attempted to be

imposed upon all of us — force-fed is a better way to express that —

upon the Canadian public by Mr. Trudeau and his cabinet and by Mr.

Broadbent and his two-thirds supporters and by you people over there

who are supporting him is something that is discordant, divisive and

purely and simply destructive. I say to you, plead with you: stop

before you do any more damage.

Canada was established as a federation for very clear, practical and obvious reasons.

AN HON MEMBER: What were they?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

It's an enormous country, it's strung out, it's very diverse. It has a

tremendous amount of regional uniqueness, Mr. Speaker, and there's a

strong requirement, and indeed a practical need, for doing locally that

which can best be done locally. A continental country cannot be run in

detail from the centre. There is a virtue with smallness — the

quickness and the ability to respond, the first-hand know how and the

capacity to provide affirmative action and develop programs to meet

local needs. As a federation, the affairs of Canada are managed by two

distinct orders of government, each with their own defined areas of

responsibility and jurisdiction, wherein each order is sovereign within

its own area of jurisdiction — in other words, the principle of

sovereignty or nonsubordination of the two orders of government. This

was best summed up in a report of the Canadian Senate under the hand of

Senator Carl Goldenberg in November 1980. This is the way our country

has worked for 113 years. It has prospered as the most enviable place

in the world for anyone to live.

We, said, in the submission that we regretfully had to file before the Kershaw foreign affairs committee in London:

"Federalism

is a fragile form of government. Its success is never assured, even in

the most stable and sophisticated countries. Success flows entirely

from hard work, tolerance, a willingness to compromise and faithful

adherence to the framework of federalism, provided in the constitution.

Failure will flow inevitably from diminution of these ingredients. The

remedy for political deadlock in a federal nation cannot be unilateral

action by one level of government. Rather, the remedy must be an even

more dedicated search for compromise."

But that search for

compromise is not being carried out by two of the provinces in this

country. That search for compromise is not being carried out by the

hon. Prime Minister and his cabinet. That search for compromise is not

being carried out by Mr. Broadbent, the leader of the federal New

Democratic Party, and that search for compromise is not being carried

out by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in the province of British

Columbia.

The fragility that I've talked about is being

sandbagged for a fare-thee-well by both Sussex Drive, Queen's Park and

the various tag-along socialists. Most Canadians are not prepared to

sit idly by in a manner of passive acquiescence and become

constitutionally mugged. They are responding to the defence of Canadian

traditions. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is not the

time in the history of our country and your country to run to the rear

and hide. That's what you're doing.

We say this federal

unilateral activity is wrong and it must be condemned. There's not only

the need, but it's the solemn duty and responsibility for the Prime

Minister to return to the table so we can arrive at an agreement,

patriation, amending formula and an immediate agenda for change

according to that specific formula. What we wish to develop in Canada

is a made-in-Canada constitution. That's why our country needs today,

more than ever before, some up-front, straightforward, no-frills,

Canadian type of negotiation and compromise and a return to Canadian

common sense. I implore the Prime Minister to get the premiers

together. Let them all stay in a room. If necessary — and I'm being

capricious — let them have their food under the door, but let them stay

in a room together just like a jury. Let them deliberate the evidence

until they can reach a conclusion and bring in a verdict. That is their

solemn duty and responsibility.

The sorts of sentiments that

I've been stating now are being expressed right across our nation,

except by the governments of Ontario and New Brunswick, except by the

B.C. NDP and except by Mr. Broadbent and his followers. Listen to what

some of the provinces have said.

MR. MACDONALD: Tell us about René Levesque's position.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll come to that in a minute, my friend.

Alberta

passed a resolution last November opposed to federal unilateral

activity. It asked for patriation with appropriate safeguards for

provincial rights, proprietary interest and provincial jurisdiction. In

other words, maintain

section 92 of the BNA Act — provincial rights,

the kind of rights that the provinces in our country have enjoyed for

113 years. Don't unilaterally encroach upon them. It's the way the

country is structured and the basis on which the country was born. It

is the conditions under which the provinces were formed and came into

the partnership of Confederation.

In Manitoba we hear that

Premier Lyon refers to this as being a domestic matter for resolution

in Canada — not imposition. He condemned the unilateral activity. He

stated that it does affect the powers and responsibilities of the

provinces. In a speech that he gave in London not too long ago, he made

reference to a statement from the council for the federal government in

the court cases who admitted that the federal government appeared to be

pursuing a deliberate strategy of avoiding a reference to the highest

court in the country. That appears to be the situation today, and I

think it's disgraceful. Fortunately there is going to be an appeal to

the Supreme Court of Canada, launched by Manitoba within the next few

days.

Quebec condemned the one-way route of the federal

government. They said that it was contrary to the very nature of

Canadian federalism and asked for proper constitutional renewal and

consultation.

Newfoundland strenuously objects to the

process of federal force-feed. They say that amendments affecting

federal-provincial relations require consent and approval of federal

administrations and provincial administrations.

[ Page 4655 ]

Premier

Buchanan of Nova Scotia said that the agreement of union never provided

for nor contemplated that either the federal government or the

provincial government would be able to assume the unilateral right to

alter the terms of the agreement and invade the autonomy of the other.

But that's what Canada is facing now, hon. members. It's facing a

constitutional invasion, and that constitutional invasion has to be

repelled. Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia said it was causing disunity,

and that that course was planting in our soil the seeds of destruction

of our nation, and he asked for suspension of the proposals until the

court decisions were handed down.

Premier Maclean of Prince

Edward Island said that the drastic and perhaps illegal steps are not

justified, and he rejects the unilateral step; he calls for the

resumption of discussion; he favours patriation with an agreed amending

fornmal. He also said that it would be constructive for the Prime

Minister of our country to seek a reference from the Supreme Court of

Canada to see if what he is doing is legal, constitutional and is

within the spirit of the law. The hon. member applauds. Even the

Attorney-General of Ontario, the Hon. Roy McMurtry, agrees with that

concept.

A word or two about Saskatchewan. We heard some

very strong and very correct statements from the Premier of

Saskatchewan. I think the language in the statements by the Premier of

Saskatchewan was perhaps the strongest expressed by any Premier in the

country. Premier Blakeney of the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan

said:

"What this exercise is is a breach of firmly established

constitutional convention. It is not federalism. It is not Canadian. It strikes

at the heart of Canadian federalism. It defies constitutional convention. It

must be condemned. It's clearly corrosive of the basic principles of federalism."

He said it's flouting 50 years of tradition and pulling Canada apart. He

too said that Westminster should have the assistance of the Supreme Court of

Canada.

resolution was passed in Saskatchewan on March 4 not too many days ago

— stating that the unilateral process was incompatible with the

fundamental principles of federalism — a very clearly defined

statement. With all of that, Mr. Speaker, let us please make some

comparisons with those stands and those

definitions and those concepts

of federalism, all of which are indeed most complimentary to what I'd

say are the highly learned, precise and correct assessments of the

federal nature of our country, which was so well articulated by the

likes of past Prime Ministers Pearson, Meighen, Borden, Laurier and St.

Laurent. It was summed up best of all and in the shortest form perhaps

in the 1965 federal government's own White Paper when it said: "The

Canadian Parliament will not request an amendment directly affecting

federal-provincial relations without prior consultation and agreement

with the provinces." All of this is blatantly ignored by the B.C. NDP.

It's blatantly ignored by Mr. Broadbent, and it's blatantly ignored by

Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet.

I'd like to make

some comparison with all those principles what we've heard from the

B.C. NDP. It's truly sad and it's truly regretful that you've been

unable to formulate or articulate any position on the greatest

constitutional issue that our country has faced in 113 years. I'd say

that if silence is golden, they've sure cornered the bullion market.

But

we hear some other members of the New Democratic Party from the former

CCF who quite well understand what the issue is. In a speech he gave in

the House last December, my colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), quoted Mr. J.S. Woodsworth. This is what he said in 1925:

would urge that the only way we can maintain Confederation is to insist

upon justice for all, for the newcomer as well as for the old-timer,

for the westerner as well as the easterner, and for those parts of the

country that entered Confederation more recently as well for those that

entered into it when the BNA Act was passed."

Mr. Woodsworth moved an amendment to a resolution dealing with constitutional

change and he added these words: "upon first obtaining the consent of

all of the provinces of Canada."

Here's what Stanley Knowles said in 1964, House of Commons Hansard , p. 4465:

"But

in more recent years, with the exception of the amendments passed under

our right to pass amendments to our constitution regarding things that

are purely federal. any amendments that touch the boundary line between

section 91 and

section 92 of the BNA in all cases were not sought by

this Parliament until it had the unanimous consent of the provinces.

That tradition, I suggest, is so well established that it is now good

as law."

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say last week?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Isn't it unfortunate that he didn't follow his own principles last

week, hon. members? This is a statement that Mr. Lorne Nystrom made. It

is referred to in the Colonist of March 1, 1981:

"Since

I feel so strongly that this resolution ignores federalism. Ignores

that Canadian way and will further divide the country, I have informed

my leader, Mr. Broadbent, and mv caucus that I will oppose this

resolution when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons."

Why don't you side with Mr. Nystrom? He carries on:

"In any federal state there is a division of powers between two orders of government."

You people don't believe that. He carries on:

believe that it is wrong for one order of government, acting

unilaterally, to amend parts of the constitution that are properly

within the jurisdiction of the other or that affect both orders of

government. It is made even more unacceptable when this unilateral

action includes the most important part of federal constitution, the

amending formula itself." And you don't agree with that. He carries on:

"To

argue otherwise is to argue that Canada is not a federal state but that

provincial governments are subordinate to the federal authority, even

in areas of provincial jurisdiction."

And you don't agree with that, because you don't support Mr. Nystrom.

"Since I believe unilateral action is wrong in a federal

state, I fear the process the Liberal government has embarked upon may do lasting

damage to the political structure that has enabled us to maintain unity in a

country of diverse peoples and regions."

Mr. Speaker, Mr Nystrom is telling the truth, and he is not running to the

rear and hiding like the B.C. NDP.

[ Page 4656 ]

Here's a good

summary of where Mr. Broadbent and the B.C. NDP are. I'm referring to the Globe and Mail which summed it up very well on February 10, 1981:

"Mr.

Broadbent jettisons certain NDP principles in accepting the Liberal

program. He permitted the Liberals to throw overboard cooperative

federalism, the idea that the federal and provincial governments are

both sovereign in their own jurisdictions, that any shift of powers can

only be properly achieved by negotiation and compromise. He let the

Liberals retain a veto to please the Liberal senators. Mr. Broadbent

let the Liberals retain the power to make future constitutional changes

by referendum, with no matching power for the provinces. He let the

Liberals approve a massive charter of rights, knowing that while the

majority of Canadians may want a charter of rights, they most

emphatically do not want it imposed unilaterally from Ottawa. Mr.

Nystrom, speaking in the House, saw it as fraught with danger for

Canada. 'We are a federation,' he said, 'we are supposed to try to

reach a consensus before doing things.' Mr. Nystrom, like Premier

Blakeney of Saskatchewan, seems to us to have a superior sense to Mr.

Broadbent of what is due the provinces and the people of Canada."

what have the B.C. Broadbent socialistic paragons come up with? There

appears to be a new Canadian axis — the B and B brigade. You have

bought, you are party to and you are supporting all of these things:

you're supporting a built-in, never to be changed, never to be

reformed, solely to be prime ministerially appointed Senate — a Senate

with ultimate, everlasting and permanent veto over anything the people

of Canada, via the elected representatives and via parliament, may wish

to do.

Even today's Senate, the Senate of Canada, did not go

that far; for in their report they advocated only a suspensive veto.

But no, the NDP have bought the whole thing. Give an absolute veto to a

non-elected body! What happened to these great statements of principle?

What happened to them? The Nystroms of this world understand it, the

Blakeneys of this world understand it, the low man in Alberta — I must

confess and I am sorry that I've forgotten it — he understands it. The

NDP opposition in Manitoba understands it. The provincial party in

Quebec understand it. But not in B.C.! The B-B axis is rolling right

down the line.

That's what they are voting for — a

permanent, everlasting, enshrined veto power for a Senate that is

appointed by one person. That's what Mr. Trudeau is voting for, that's

what Mr. Broadbent is voting for, and that's what the leader of the

official opposition in British Columbia, David Barrett, is supporting.

It's a lot of hollow talk.

They are trying to sweep the

thing under the rug. They've even refused to let their own federal

council meet to consider this monumental departure from the historic

CCF and NDP position and philosophy. What have they done? They've

developed the biggest case of constitutional lockjaw in the annals of

Canadian history.

At one point the only thing clear about

the New Democratic Party's constitutional petition in this issue, which

has been going on for about three or four years now, was that it was

unclear, but that's no longer the case, because they've sold out.

They've sold out on Canadian federalism, on provincial rights and

responsibilities, on Senate reform and on all of these historic NDP and

CCF concepts, and they've sold out on resources. "Give them to the feds

or keep them in the ground," they say. What a great policy. But Premier

Allan Blakeney, a socialist, and Mr. Lorne Nystrom, a socialist — but

socialists of a different hue — said: "No way." No way are they going

to sell their souls for something that is contrary to the fundamental

way in which our country is run, contrary to fundamental NDP policy and

contrary to fundamental CCF policy. But apparently these sorts of

fundamental differences don't mean anything to the B.C. NDP party.

You're going to take a chutzpah approach to that, I guess.

think we'll all agree that Hon. Robert Stanfield is a mild and

thoughtful Canadian, and he's well regarded by politicians of every

type for his temperance and his integrity. He likened this present

exercise to a coup d'état. If the course doesn't change, if reason

doesn't take over from emotion, if confrontative federalism isn't

replaced by cooperative federalism, and if this onslaught upon our

Canadian traditions is not stopped, great and lasting damage may be

inflicted upon our country. We'll never know quite to what extent.

I'm going to say to the NDP in B.C.: will you step forward? Canada

today needs the help of all of its citizens. Will you change your mind

and come aboard? I say to the B.C. NDP: join the views of the great

Prime Ministers of our country. Join the views of Laurier, Pearson and

St. Laurent. Associate yourselves with the views of the eight premiers,

and join with the sentiments of Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles and the

very, very strong and courageous stance of Mr. Blakeney and Mr.

Nystrom. Join yourselves with the NDP opposition in Alberta and the NDP

in Quebec and Manitoba. I say to all of you here: break away from this

B-B axis whose course, if unchecked, will be to impose and perpetuate,

for all time, a protected, sheltered and privileged economic and action

capacity for just central Canada, and enshrining the centralists with

an even more fixed, rigid and inflexible power base than they've ever

had in the past. It's not just maintaining the status quo in central

Canada, but it's maintaining more and more of the same for evermore.

That, Mr. Speaker, is not our view of what all of Canada should be or

what direction all of Canada should take.

All the while the

proponents and supporters of the federal proposals are asking the

Parliament of Canada to do that which no previous Canadian parliament

has done or has been presumed to have the right to do, and which no

future parliament would ever have the right to do. As Mr. Blakeney

said, it's not the Canadian way. It's an exercise in ultimate

autocracy. Central Canada does not need, nor is it entitled to, more

constitutionalized power. What it needs and what Canada needs is a

Canada that can grow and truly prosper in all of its regions from sea

to sea.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's have a

united, harmonious Canada, a vigorous private sector and a burgeoning

and effectively managed economy. What we wish is cross-country growth,

and we wish it to be encouraged, not discouraged. We wish a

free-flowing federation, not a constitutionally locked-in, restructured

federation that will project, for all time, the present overly

protected hot-house economy industries of central Canada. What they're

proposing flies right smack into the face of evolution.

What we've heard about this budget from the NDP in this House, most of whom, I think, represent the more radical and

[ Page 4657 ]

republic

elements of the NDP party, is doctrinaire socialism and not even basic,

let alone sound, economics. They appear to be still virulently

anti-individual, virulently pro-collectivism, pro-structure,

pro-regulation,

pro-borrowing, contrary to paying as one goes, pro-deficit financing,

pro soaking it to the children to pay the debts of their fathers, and

pro planned economy.

Here's a a marvellous quotation from the smaller member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in 1976.

"MLA Gary Lauk, Vancouver Centre, former Economic Development

minister, wanted party members to be careful in supporting the concept of free-collective

bargaining. Lauk argued that the NDP's long-term goal is a planned economy,

which, he said would be inconsistent with collective bargaining."

That's a remarkable quotation.

Mr. Speaker, this party

over here is still haunted, I'd say. by the 1972-75 excesses, when they

squandered the provincial treasury. They had $100 million errors in

arithmetic, non-accountability, no auditor-general, no Crown

corporation reporting committee, no ombudsman, no quarterly accounts,

whilst wallowing in the greatest period of non-economic accountability

in the history of our province. They blew every nickel and every dime

that the taxpayer and the province had. And then, Mr. Speaker, they had

the ultimate gall to go the people in 1975 and not level with them and

not tell them the treasury was broke; not tell them there was no dough

— and then they ran on a platform of strong leadership. Mr. Speaker,

I'll tell you, it was as strong as a beached mackerel in the midday

sun, and that was about its greatest strength.

I remember

the promises, Mr. Speaker, when the treasury was empty. Poor Mother

Hubbard's cupboard was as bare as it could possibly be, and what did

they promise? Twenty-five dollar car insurance! It improved by only one

thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dead

broke — flat broke. What was the next promise? Free pensions for

housewives. They said that was strong leadership. If the money was

there, it would have been a good idea, but the money wasn't there and

you knew it wasn't there and you didn't level with the public, and

that's too bad.

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that is a

tough budget. but notwithstanding that, it is tempered and it is fair.

Most important of all, it is a responsible budget; it is

paying-as-we-go; it's not soaking the kids for the excesses of their

fathers. That is responsibility, that is leadership, and that's why I

shall support it, Mr. Minister of Finance.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I hope within the course of my discourse today that I will

wake up some of the members who have been treated to a Sominex form of

lecture from the former Attorney-General, who is now the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. The word, Mr. Minister, is "chutzpah."

taking a great big bundle of nerve.

Don't leave now, Mr.

Member. Oh, he's gone. That member, lecturing this House about chutzpah

and praising this Social Credit budget — which is the same old Socred

angle of underestimating your revenues and overestimating your

expenditures to come up with a balanced budget — used to be a Liberal

and attack it. And he's got the chutzpah to stand up in this House and

defend Social Credit? Mr. Speaker, Major Douglas is whirling in his

grave this very moment.

Then he lectures us on his position

on the constitution, and if anybody doesn't agree with him, they're

traitors. Mr. Speaker, in a free democratic society when people have

differences of opinion they're respected for their ideas and

differences of opinion, not classified as something less than committed

to this country. It was the Premier of this province who called the

Prime Minister an arsonist. Does that help in any way, Mr. Speaker, to

have rational debate in this nation, as we go through our political

adolescence? There was never an apology from the Premier for personally

vilifying the Prime Minister of this country, who may not be of a

political party you like, especially to those who came from the Liberal

Party. Like all new converts they try to wash away their past. Of all

governments in Canada that have contributed less than nothing in terms

of responsible political debate on this important issue, it has been

the Social Credit Party, that coalition and the Premier, who has done

nothing than vilify people personally.

Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I still love the former Attorney-General as a person, because

there 's still hope in the human breast. Even though they show a

tremendous amount of chutzpah, there's still hope for salvation. I want

to warn the former Attorney-General that somebody is going to record

his words and mail them to Ottawa, and those silks that he so

desperately desires before the next provincial election may not come by

air freight; they may not arrive by mail. The member for Oak Bay-Gordon

Head (Hon. Mr. Smith) may get to the bench before the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey. We know there is a great race going on and that

they're all trying to jump ship, but there's only so much room on the

bench. Room on the bench is limited to the number of offices in the

courthouse. That's how it's worked, and we didn't build that many rooms

in the courthouse. So there are two spots open and three in the race.

MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't give me much chance.

MR. BARRETT: No, you're not going to make it; you're too wise.

also found the same old business of attacking the NDP interesting —

we're bad and nasty. Let's end all this; let's finish the argument. If

we're so bad in attacking this budget, if this budget is so good and

you're so right and we're so wrong, then take us to the polls and whup

us. Call an election. Put us out of our misery. Go out there and sweep

this province with the polls. If you really believed in what you're

saying, you'd dissolve the House right now and let the people of

British Columbia decide. How many of you would get reelected? Well,

North Peace River would make it. Oak Bay might make it. Yale-Lillooet

could make it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Small debts court? Not with the debts Social Credit is racking up. I'll tell you; there are no small debts in this government.

I'll

just leave that and go on to the budget. But really, stop that silly

nonsense about how you're so good and great and everything else. Call

an election. Wipe us out. You wouldn't

[ Page 4658 ]

get

15 members back even if you gerrymandered again, Mr. Speaker. Where are

you going to gerrymander to? Are you going to put 56 seats in Oak Bay

and 3 in the rest of the province? That's the way they'd operate, Mr.

Speaker. Before the former Minister of Health left and went to a

hotline show, he announced what he thought the redistribution should

be; and not to be outdone, the Premier announced what he thought it

should be — another seat here in Kamloops, one in the Okanagan. Never

mind bringing back Eckardt; just write it out with all those excuses.

What a sham. What a pile of mockery.

You know, I don't

understand these fellows — the sanctimonious claptrap not based on fact

that comes from that side of the House. I know for a fact that three

government members are going to vote against this budget, by the

statements they've made in the last short while. I'm going to read some

of those statements as I go through the budget.

Before I do

that, I want the House to welcome a very prominent Victorian, Mrs. Paul

Freeman, and her mother. Mrs. Freeman is the wife of one the best

orchestra conductors in North America, and we are lucky enough to have

Mr. Freeman as the symphony conductor for the city of Victoria. I'm

sure the House will welcome them both. Mrs. Freeman's mother is from

Alabama, and she is going to take the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes) out for dinner. That's her first mistake in coming

to British Columbia. Speaking of that member, may I say that he gave an

excellent presentation on a very serious topic. There is a serious

problem of racism in this country, and that too is part of our

political adolescence.

Now to the budget. I want to quote from this well-known socialist newspaper, the Vancouver Province . I want to discuss what the well-known socialist business editor, Mr. Ken Bell, says:

"The latest provincial budget smells to high heaven. Yes,

according to Finance minister Hugh Curtis, the budget will neatly break even

for the year. Provincial revenues, at an estimated $6.6 billion, are expected

to be ahead of the provincial expenditures of $6.61 billion by $26 million.

To reach this conclusion, Mr. Curtis has made some absolutely pessimistic predictions.

It's hard to believe that Mr. Curtis is actually predicting that natural

resource revenues will drop 34 percent."

He goes on to give a detailed analysis from a vicious left-wing socialist point

of view out of the Vancouver Province of why this budget is bad.

What

did he discover? First of all, this is a budget that is designed to

fuel inflation because it benefits from inflation. This budget is

designed as no other budget in the history of British Columbia has been

designed to actually benefit from inflation and encourage inflation. I

want to go through some comparisons before I carry on that thesis.

When

we left office in 1975 the provincial share of personal income tax was

30.5 percent. Under Social Credit the personal income tax is now up to

44 percent. That's inflationary. That is taking money out of the

pockets of ordinary people in this province at an accelerated rate for

government purposes such as northeast coal and other projects that lead

us to even further debt in our Crown corporations.

The sales

tax is back up to six points. It was never at six points under the New

Democratic Party. When Social Credit was first elected they raised the

sales tax to seven points to say that they had to do that to clean up

the problems inherited from the NDP. Then they cleaned those problems

up, they said, and they reduced the sales tax to four points. Now it's

back up to six points. Whose problems are they trying to clean up now?

I'll tell you whose fault it is. It's Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fault.

That's whose fault it is. You listen to that budget, and every single

problem here in British Columbia is directly attributable to the desk

of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, that Liberal mastermind down there in Ottawa

who's messing up ever single one of Social Credit's plans, including

the jetfoil, B.C. Place, Pier B-C, northeast coal, the moon being

eclipsed by the sun, or any other reversal they want to throw in.

MR. KING: Did Pierre do that?

MR. BARRETT:

Pierre did it all. We ought to be the luckiest people in the whole

world to have a Prime Minister with all his power. He frazzles their

imagination, Whatever the trouble is now, it's all Ottawa's fault.

Room tax is up 5 percent to 8 percent.

Cigarettes are up from 8 cents under the NDP to 34 cents. Who's the arsonist? Who's lighting all these matches?

Car licences are up from $22 under the NDP to almost $70 in some instances under the Social Credit Party.

Medicare

premiums are now up from $60 for an individual and $150 per family to

$102 and $255 respectively, and going up a major amount.

Gasoline

tax up north. I haven't heard one northern MLA complain about the

dramatic increase in the gasoline tax. The gasoline tax has gone up

from 17 cents a gallon under the New Democratic Party to 24 cents a

gallon under Social Credit. Furthermore, it is one of the new indexed

taxes — indexing taxes to ensure that as inflation goes up the

government will build in increases related to inflation without ever

having to come back to this House and face accountability in those

dramatically increased taxes. That's a COLA clause in taxation.

The

first person to explain that to me in simple terms was the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Last night the Minister of

Municipal Affairs was on television explaining why he would not support

the GVRD proposal for escalating clauses in taxes to support light

rapid transit. I saw the minister myself. Being part masochist, I

watched the whole two-minute interview. What did I discover? There was

a minister of the Crown saying clearly to all who would be listeners

that there is no way he will support any cost-of-living or increases on

indexing in any taxation formula, and he went further and said: "I'd go

back to growing bulbs before I support a program like that." Well,

we've got a brand new returnee to bulb-growing in British Columbia

today when we see how he votes on this budget. He was the one who said

that the GVRD had no right to propose this kind of taxation formula; it

lacks accountability; he would not support it personally. Well, we'll

see whether or not he meant what he said on television, come the time

for the vote for this budget.

Really, did he know what he

was saying, or was this his first overt move towards a leadership bid

which he so modestly said a week ago Friday that he would not make any

effort to reach for unless it was offered to him or he tripped on the

way to the room and it was in his hand. He said he's not going to vote

for an indexed tax; he'd rather go back to growing bulbs. Do you want

to know something, Mr. Speaker? We

[ Page 4659 ]

can't

predict the final outcome of any member's vote, but I'll bet you that

within 24 hours that minister will put the lie to his own statements

and stand up for indexing taxes right in this budget. Who do they think

they're trying to fool!

Let's go on to the rest of the

proposals in this so-called balanced budget and pay-as-you-go. It's

skin-as-you-go, Mr. Speaker — a little strip of skin off the taxpayer

in B.C. and then throwing salt in the wounds, through every page of it.

For

the first time, all gasoline, diesel fuel, motor fuel, aviation fuel,

coloured gas and tobacco taxes are to be indexed. Now that is a fact in

this budget, and it is a fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

said that he's opposed to indexing taxes. He said so last night. Now

we'll get a chance to see whether or not the minister is to be

believed, when he says on television that he's opposed to it.

know that the automatically increased taxation is built in on the hope

of inflation. The only purpose of indexing taxes is the hope that

inflation will indeed bring them that turn. He only gets to vote

against the budget once, but seven of the budget tax increases are

indexing — all of the indexing that he says he's opposed to. Again, I

want to quote an editorial from that socialist morning daily, the Vancouver Province ,

which says: "...a tax smoke-screen." I can appreciate why the

former Attorney-General didn't want to talk about the budget. Would you

want to talk about the budget if you were faced with the kind of

hypocrisy that budget is laden with? The best thing to do is to wrap

yourself in the flag and avoid any mention at all of what's happening

here at home to the ordinary homeowner or taxpayer. This is what the Vancouver Province said:

"What is worrisome, though, is the apparent intention to

build in an escalating regimen to take advantage, for tax purposes, of inflated

price rises. The budget achieves this by adopting percentage tax increases that

will be adjusted periodically in some measures. Government revenues may therefore

accelerate at rates faster than necessary to meet rising expenditures. The government

should be prepared to deal with its cost problems as they arise, rather than

try to build in automatic revenue increases."

Who

was it that ran around this province? What was his name then — when he

ran around this province and said: "Not a dime without debate"? It's

the Premier of this province who made that a slogan of his campaign.

For the first time in the history of B.C., and to the shame of that

coalition government over there, we're going to have seven taxes

indexed. It won't be a dime without a debate, it will be millions of

dollars locked in without debate, under this government.

Now

I want to go back to some other statements that are contradicted by

this budget. Again I'm quoting from that morning newspaper — no slight

against the afternoon paper. I hope that I get to some material there

from some nonfeature column articles — just facts, like today's

headline saying that the Premier announced a new policy in the forest

industry: "You can grow, but you can't. BCRIC can, but you can't — but

I don't interfere in BCRIC." We'll come to that under his estimates.

Let's

take a look at this beautiful interview of December 21, 1977, four days

before Christmas. Here is the Premier lecturing the people of British

Columbia on how the fiscal policy of his government is going to be

maintained.

"The Premier said if we could restrict borrowing for operating

costs and then restrict our dependence on outside capital it would make a significant

difference in the dollar deficiency. Over the long run there would be lower

prices in Canada. But he wants to study the borrowing levels of the B.C. Crown

corporations. There should be limits on what we can borrow. We should impose

those limits."

This is what he said in 1977 about borrowing. This is another part of this budget. He says in the Vancouver Province that

we should restrict our dependency on outside capital, yet a few

weeks ago he went to Wall Street to talk to the bond borrowers and try

to get $100 million more. Or was it Europe he went to, Mr. Speaker? We

don't know where this government went, cap in hand, looking for money —

but we know they failed in direct contradiction to what the Premier was

telling the people. This year we are going to be increasing the

borrowing by the Crown corporations by $1 billion. Next year we will be

increasing the borrowing of the Crown corporations by an additional

$1.6 billion. At the same time, the then Minister of Finance said

anything over 12 percent of the GPP was runaway inflation.

Let

us tie together these two statements by the Premier and the former

Minister of Finance. There has been absolutely no limitation on

borrowing for the Crown corporations, and the budget presented by the

new Minister of Finance is about 161/2 percent ahead of the GPP in

Canada. Is the former Minister of Finance going to vote for this budget

contrary to his own theories? You want to bet he is, Mr. Speaker? Why

do they say one thing out there, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs

saying he's opposed to the indexing of taxes, and today he'll come up

and stand and vote for indexing of taxes? Why would the former Minister

of Finance say that the government should stop runaway inflation and

not spend over 12 percent of the GPP when he'll stand up today and vote

for a budget that goes up to 161/2 percent of the GPP? Why do they say

these things outside and do something else in here? If school children

did that they'd call them fibbers. We ask our young people to grow up

and be straight and to tell the truth. It's a matter of courtesy, Mr.

Speaker, to expect the truth from government, yet you wait and see.

I'm

not through yet with examples of conflicting statements, mis-statements

and desertions from the truth, as to their regular policies. Number

one, the Minister of Municipal Affairs will vote today for indexing of

taxes, something he said last night he would not do. He'd rather go

back to growing bulbs instead of doing it.

Number two, the

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will stand

up today and vote for a budget that is 161/2 points ahead of the GPP

when he said that anything over 12 percent was runaway inflation. I

ask that member through you, Mr. Speaker: is this budget, under your

definition, "runaway inflation"? I ask the member to speak. I'd gladly

give him the opportunity to respond. Is this budget within your

definition of runaway inflation? Did you say it was Pierre's fault?

No, Mr. Speaker, silence. That's two ministers.

Then we get

to number three, the former minister, the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who stands up in this House and attempts

to play the guardian angel of the touchstone of reality for this

government. Oh, there's a little tippytoe criticism here and a little

tippytoe criticism there, hoping against hope that those editorials

written about this maverick will get him back in the cabinet. How many

times does that member have to be kicked in the

[ Page 4660 ]

head

to know that he will never be back in that cabinet? The member for

North Vancouver–Seymour, who gets up and criticizes the coal deal and

the budget, will also get up and vote for the budget. You wait and see.

That's

three of them. If I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker, I'll buy you a steak dinner.

I want to tell you that I am not the kind of guy traditionally and

culturally that goes around offering to buy people steak dinners. But

in this case, Mr. Speaker, I make you that offer. You wait and see how

they vote regardless of what they say.

I saw that member on

television talking about the budget, the coal deal and the energy

problems in this province. Do you know what he said? He said the energy

bill was a socialist bill brought in by the Socred government. Then a

caller phoned in and said: "But you voted for it and the NDP voted

against it." "Aha," he said, "that was their mistake." That's what he

said, and that's the way he explained it on television.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Rhodes Scholar.

MR. BARRETT:

That's right, he's a Rhodes Scholar. Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness,

he's actually one of the most tragic figures in this House. One of the

most tragic figures in this House is the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour. When we hear sanctimonious cant from the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) saying that we

shouldn't criticize the oil companies because they haven't yet been

found guilty, who was it that let that minister sit for three days and

let rumours spread throughout this whole province without taking any

action on the basis of what ultimately led to his dismissal? It's

pretty scandalous, and we hear the sanctimonious cant of the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs saying we're being naughty about

attacking the oil companies. Oh, that the member for North Vancouver

had the same caution from the government that they're giving to the oil

companies.

They're harsh statements, but they're the truth.

The more the truth has begun to be said about this government, the more

we can hasten its departure from office. If there was ever a government

that double-talked, flim-flammed, and was full of hypocrisy and

contradictory statements, there was never one to match that coalition

group over there and their twisting and turning in office.

Let

us examine the record of this government with debt. When the NDP left

office this province was in debt $4.5 billion. Most of that debt was

incurred by B.C. Rail and by B.C. Hydro. In relation to the B.C. Rail

debt, a little unnoticed note, almost a footnote in history, has gone

by related to some of that B.C. Rail debt. The provincial government

was this year convicted in court of civil fraud — that's right, civil

fraud. Contractors had sued the government over B.C. Rail contracts and

they proved their case in court that the previous Social Credit

government had lied to them about contracts on the B.C. Rail.

MR. BRUMMET: That's not true.

MR. BARRETT:

That is not true? Would you stake your seat on the statement which I

have just made? I will repeat it. The courts of British Columbia have

found that B.C. Rail was guilty of civil fraud in the contracts that

were let by that Crown corporation under the administration of W.A. C.

Bennett. Do you contradict that statement?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is

reminded that the Leader of the Opposition has the floor, and I'd

remind all members that it's a courtesy in debate to use parliamentary

language.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, civil fraud is

what I'm quoting. If it's not parliamentary, that's something the

voters have to decide. The government — its Crown corporation — was

convicted of civil fraud because of decisions made by the previous

Social Credit administration in deliberately fudging contracts on the

B.C. Rail. The court has ordered that $9 million in taxpayers' money

must go to cover up this fraud and pay for the fraud that was

perpetrated by Social Credit. That is a fact, and I challenge that

member or any other government member to deny that that indeed was the

finding of the court. Contractors were lied to by Social Credit.

Contractors went to court and won their case, and the taxpayers have to

pay $9 million because of that fraud and lying — some record for you to

have around your necks, some record to be bragging about, some

distortions that the courts of this province finally had to clarify.

And the total debt on B.C. Rail now takes over $70 million a year out

of the taxpayers' pockets because of the stupid and fraudulent policies

of the Social Credit government who lied to contractors about how much

was involved.

Here is the Vancouver Province from

Tuesday, January 20, 1981. The headline says: "Court Defeat Stuns BCR

Directors" — stuns BCR directors; it stings the B.C. taxpayer. Because

of the fraud taxes are going up in this province. The case is a matter

of record; there's no point in my going through it in detail at this

point, but I certainly will later on. So don't let any member walk away

from this House thinking that this so-called "great" Social Credit

government hasn't been caught committing fraud through one of its Crown

corporations.

Let's come back to the budget itself. When we

left office there was a debt in this province of $4.5 billion. By

December 1982 the debt under Social Credit will be up to $10.5 billion.

That's an increase in debt, in six short years under the administration

of W. R. Bennett and every one of those Social Credit cabinet

ministers, of 135 percent — a guaranteed increase in debt for every

taxpayer of 20 percent a year. This government is absolutely out of

control and those Crown corporations are doing anything they want. This

budget, along with the previous Social Credit budget, will increase the

per capita debt to the people of British Columbia from $1,800 per

person when we left office in 1975 to $3,900 per person by the end of

AN HON. MEMBER: Debt-as-you-go.

MR. BARRETT:

The member has coined the best phrase I've heard yet in this debate.

There's "debt- as-you-go" in this budget — debt-as-you-go, not

pay-as-you-go. I will go further. I will publicly put my seat at stake

to the Premier of this province if my figures are incorrect. I

challenge him: if my figures are correct, let him have the decency to

call an election and put an end to this madness of Crown corporations

saddling us with debt in every corner of the province. We are swimming,

gasping and trying to hang on through a quagmire of debt that has no

public explanation. The Crown

[ Page 4661 ]

corporations

have not been compelled to come to the Crown corporations committee.

Requests to get information by our members at those committees have

B.C. Systems Corporation has from time to time been stifled through

that committee. The debt load under Social Credit will have gone from

$1,800 per person to $3,900 per person — every single person in the

province of British Columbia — by December 31, 1982.

I saw a front-page quote from the Minister of Finance saying: "Well, the NDP and the Vancouver Sun

don't understand the difference between borrowing for operating costs

and borrowing for capital costs." Having read that, I say to the

absent Minister of Finance: name one time in the last 25 years in the

province of British Columbia when any government, Social Credit or NDP,

borrowed any money for operating. The closest a government in the

province of British Columbia came to having to borrow money for

operating costs was when W.A.C. Bennett's administration seized B.C.

Electric. He didn't nationalize or expropriate it. He seized it by

bringing a bill into this House seizing private property that those

free enterprisers always say they defend. The bungling of that seizure

cost the taxpayers of this province tens of millions of dollars to

clean up that mess, and at one point we were very close to having to go

out and borrow money for operating. But we survived that crisis, and no

government in this province in the last 25 years has borrowed a ten

cent piece for operating. All of the borrowing has been for capital

purposes. It is absolute nonsense when the Minister of Finance is

trying to dismiss the front-page story in the Vancouver Sun by saying that we don't know the difference between operating or capital borrowing.

don't think that we need to belabour the point too much, but the fact

is that every single member of the government that votes for this

budget is going to be voting for a huge increase in the debt and the

borrowing powers of those Crown corporations. Who is going to supervise

that money? For the last two weeks we've asked questions in this House

about the accountability of the B.C. Rail proposal to build two tunnels

through Tumbler Ridge. We haven't had any answers of any consequence to

this great northeast coal mystery. The fact is that almost a billion

dollars will be borrowed to put into that project. That borrowing will

be hidden in some areas and in other areas the expenditures will come

out of the operating budgets of other departments that had been

depending upon general revenue.

On top of that, the

government has also shifted ferry costs, computers and public works out

of the budgets and into Crown corporations, so that by second-hand

methods they are borrowing money for operating. By moving Crown

corporations out of traditional pay-as-you-go expenditures, they have

been the first government in 25 years in this province to use a ruse

and guile to borrow money for operating costs. The computer and ferry

services were sold, and we're buying them back. The public

works.... All were moved out of the budget by this government in an

attempt to hide the fact that by that device they're actually borrowing

money for operating costs for the first time in 25 years. It was that

government, Mr. Speaker.

I won't even touch upon the special

funds because I've only got five minutes left. The fact is that they

have moved those general operating services out of general revenue into

Crown corporations and have been borrowing money for operating costs

and piling up debt after debt because of mismanagement, and they

piously say that it's different.

I expect that the Premier

will be voting against this budget. He's the one who said there should

be some limit put on the borrowing. He said so in that interview. Mr.

Speaker, I'll pass over the giving away of coal resources under the

royalties and the coal licences. It was raised and they were warned

about it by the former member for North Vancouver Capilano, who stood

in this House and said that those coal licences were being given away.

We were given a promise by the Premier. He said that his government

would have a whole new look at policy and nothing would happen. That is

another mis-statement of fact, Mr. Speaker. Nothing was done and those

coal licences were given away. The coal royalty losses alone, as

pointed out in a most conservative estimate by the member from

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), are $102 million since 1975.

Mr.

Speaker, we lost the natural gas export profits between 1976 and 1979

because we sold gas at an underpriced level into the U.S. market. We're

told by the Minister of Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources (hon. Mr.

McClelland) that there is a mining boom in British Columbia. That's

right. He said so. But listen to this, my colleagues. While we have a

mining boom, this is what this budget proposes to do: mining tax

revenue, cut $8 million: mineral land tax, cut $500,000; coal and

mineral royalty revenue, cut $800,000; oil and gas fees and permit

revenues, cut $100 million. That's a gift to the oil companies. That's

what it is — hand-in-hand with the Premier of Alberta. fighting the

good fight on behalf of the oil companies to ensure that they maintain

vast profits. Forest taxes and royalty revenues are cut $65 million.

The total natural resource revenue taxation, Mr. Speaker, is down 57

percent — down 57 percent on the corporations and on resources. But to

make up for it the taxpayers of British Columbia have had an increase

in income tax. sales tax, services tax, indexed to a 37 percent

increase, Mr. Speaker, while there is a reduction of 57 percent on the

resource area.

People taxes. This is my last point, because

I want to be brief, but, Mr. Speaker. before this budget under Social

Credit the per capita taxes in British Columbia were $1,091 last

year. After this budget today, the per-capita taxes are going up from

$1,091 to $1,492 — $400 per capita increase in taxes in one year to the

ordinary citizen. In winding up, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that

the natural resource revenues last year brought in $443 per capita, but

that has been reduced to $254 per capita. The taxpayers of this

province are being asked through their taxes to subsidize the loss in

revenue in what is supposed to be a booming economy based on resources.

had so much more to talk about — the problems of housing, health

facilities, secondary employment, those great boondoggles that are the

monuments that Social Credit is building — but I don't have the time.

Mr. Speaker, in winding up let me tell you that before I even get a

chance to talk about BCRIC in detail, my last question is to the

Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance tell this House

whether or not we'll ever vet the $20 million of taxpayers' money back

that was used to float BCRIC? Will we get back that money that was

taken out of the pockets of taxpayers and was used to float BCRIC? Will

you be sending a bill to BCRIC for that money?

Mr. Speaker,

I had intended to answer the former Attorney-General's constitutional

debate in detail; however, I've been blocked by time, and I will

address myself to his facetious arguments and impacted statements and

other traditional words that have been brought into the lexicon of high

[ Page 4662 ]

level

of debate in this province later. Let me conclude by guessing again.

The formula of the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe) will be violated today. Will he vote for the budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT:

The formula of the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on

indexing taxes will be broken today. Will he vote for the budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier's formula on borrowing will be broken, Mr. Speaker. Will he vote for the budget?

And

last but not least, Mr. Speaker, will the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), whose formula will also be broken, as

expounded in this budget, vote for it? Let us see if they will vote as

they speak, or is it just sheer politics? Mr. Speaker, for your

information, I'm voting against this hypocritical, debt-as-you-go

budget.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I take my place

in this debate with great satisfaction and pleasure. But I do so with

the deepest regret after having heard the Leader of the Opposition

regale and insult to a degree that I didn't think possible an hon.

member in this House. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour is a

gentleman of the highest calibre, a man of honour. He will never stop

the proverbial needling to create dissatisfaction and dissension, no

matter what the cost. He knows very well that a judge carefully said

the man did no wrong. Yet on a technicality in British justice he had

to be treated as he was, when he did only what members of business

concerns always do when they can take their trips one way or another,

either in cash or by car or whatever. Large corporations in other

jurisdictions do the same thing, but a technicality of British justice

called for judgment and it was given.

To think that the

Leader of the Opposition would suggest that the Premier maliciously

charged that member in this House.... I think it reduced the

stature of the Leader of the Opposition, and it reduces the element of

this debate to a disgusting extreme. I tell you today that I am

honoured to consider that member my friend. He's a friend of every

member in the House. He has never served a purpose greater than he

serves today. He is a man of deep intelligence, impeccable character

and honour. He is serving the caucus as I've never seen it served

before. To think that the Leader of the Opposition would use this floor

to regale and insult an hon. member is beneath the judgment of this

debate. I say he should forever hang his head in shame. I say it

sincerely.

He said: "Will the member for North Peace River

(Mr. Brummet) take the challenge that this government is not in debt to

the tune of $3,000 per person. Would he take that challenge? Would he

give up his seat if it's true?" I'll take the challenge. I'll give up

my seat if it's true. I tell him that distinctly. The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) smiles. He's so smart and so clever;

they're so intelligent, so all-knowing and so supreme. Well, I take the

challenge.

On the small technicality of direct debt or

indirect debt — whatever you wish to call it — they're riding on the

slim thread of possibility. There's no debt in the province of British

Columbia except for the $261 million that that government left us in

debt. That is all. It will be paid off in ten years' time at 10 percent

a year. The bill is before the House today.

Let me carefully

tell this House when it happened. How many times have I said it before?

But I must say it again. During the days of the W.A.C. Bennett

government school boards, hospitals and municipalities were finding it

difficult to borrow money because of high interest rates and the lack

of a credit rating. Some municipalities were unable to borrow at all,

while some had better rates than the other. The government of that day

saw fit and proper to guarantee the bonds of the municipalities,

hospitals and schools, and in that way got them a lower and constant

rate of interest. At the present time we have triple-A rating. Does

this party over here find any fault with that? Would they prefer that

we got off that thing and shot up the cost of bonds and the cost of

borrowing? Would they prefer that? Would they prefer that Hydro borrow

at a higher rate, and our schools borrow at a price they could not

afford? Do they not understand that it would almost stop the

construction of schools and hospitals? Yet they sit there with complete

disregard. That's the reason we have this contingent liability — not an

indirect debt.

Let's discuss Hydro. Sanctimoniously — and I

use the word advisedly — they say that Hydro is always borrowing. Well,

they have to borrow for the construction which is necessary for the

power required to run this province — the industry and the jobs.

we had decided to get rid of Hydro, it would be a very simple matter

for Hydro to be sold. Let us go to Detroit Edison and say to them:

"Hydro's for sale. We'll sell it to you." Well, we could sell Hydro.

They'd be lining up to buy Hydro and would probably pay over $10

billion over the debt we owe — maybe $20 billion. I don't know the

figures, but the assets are there. We could run the province for the

next five or six years without a cent of taxes. Is that what these

great businessmen want?

It is essential to understand the

facts and necessities of life. The proper operation of the business of

this province is that the government of British Columbia guarantees the

debt of Hydro, of schools, of municipalities, and of their bonds, for

the sole purpose of getting them a better rate of interest. Would these

great businessmen over there say that is not good business? Would they

do it differently during their term of office? Listen to this. During

their term of office Hydro borrowed over $1.3 billion, probably the

greatest borrowing in any three years that Hydro has been in debt. That

wasn't their fault, because that's the way it came up.

When

Hydro needs more money Hydro will borrow. I'm going to say this a

little cautiously. I have a feeling that the day Hydro stops borrowing

this province is in trouble, because that means the province has

stopped growing. These power generators are necessary for industry. The

only reason we have power today is because Hydro borrowed. Hydro is a

child of the government. Certainly it is. It must be that. It's too big

to be any private organization. The Americans have their private

corporations, but here we have it for the benefit of the people of

British Columbia. Where else can you find a postage-stamp rate for

power for people in the Peace with the same price for power as in

Vancouver. I tell you, it's a great day for this country....

hope the Leader of the Opposition will take my challenge and put his

seat on the line. I challenge him now that I'll put my seat on the line

in saying that there is no debt in the province of British Columbia.

There's none whatever. I know what he's going to say — that we're

hiding behind a tech-

[ Page 4663 ]

nicality.

There's no technicality when they talk about finance. I don't pretend

to be as smart as many hon. members of this House, but I'm certainly

equal to the Leader of the Opposition.

I heard, with some

concern, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) speak of

racial discrimination in this House today and it bothered me a little.

I know it must be a concern to everyone here. Racial discrimination is

one of the terrible things of society, but I have an optimistic view of

it. I see it much better than it was ten years ago and many times

better than it was 40 years ago. Looking back on history, I see it is

the best it's ever been. Yes, racial discrimination raises its ugly

head, and I'm glad to hear members bring out issues that come up so

they can be stepped on quickly. I know that the white race sort of

considers itself in a position of superiority, but I tell the hon.

member for Vancouver Centre: fear not, worry not. As I said before, the

white race is doomed anyway. Three-quarters of the world is either

yellow or black, and the few white people left are eventually going to

be gone. Have patience — in another 100 years there'll be none of us

left. The only ones will be in the museums. The question of racial

discrimination is one of the sad things in our society. I don't think

we'll ever get rid of it, because it's the individual person. It's nice

to hear it brought up, but let's not put too much importance on it. I

respect his point of view in bringing it to the attention of this House.

was interesting to me when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

brought up the question again of Buttle Lake and Western Mines. I

remember one night in this House when the matter of Western Mines was

debated extensively, and I recall that the Leader of the Opposition of

that day, Mr. Strachan, had a bottle of water from Buttle Lake here

which sat on his desk. He told us that that polluted water came from

Buttle Lake, and we looked at it and said: "Isn't that awful." The next

day, after investigation, we found out that this certain lake in the

Buttle Lake area is always polluted like that. It has that milky colour

to it.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's

true. It was always that way, and if you want to find out you find it

out from the biology station at Nanaimo. I went to the trouble to phone

them the following day, and the next day I was in the debate. They said

to me: "Oh, yes, that murky water comes from" — they gave the name of

the lake at the time, I can't remember it now — "and that's always that

way." They pointed out at that time that the tailings that are put into

Buttle Lake are returning to the ground exactly the same stuff that was

taken out elsewhere. There's no difference. The biology station from

Nanaimo also told me, much to my surprise — and you can find this out —

that they had a sample of this water that is the tailings from the mine

and they put fish in it, and they said when they put the fish in that

water the fish got friskier and seemed to enjoy the water more than the

regular water of the lake. I'm just telling you what they told me.

When

it comes to environment and to looking after the environment, this

government has done more for the environment and the control of

pollution than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Certainly it couldn't

have been done quicker or faster. The Pollution Control Act of 1967 or

1968 was such that it seemed at that time impossible to accomplish what

it set out to do. But today we see the results: not one sewer outlet of

any major size in the Fraser River and no homes can be built except

where the land will percolate. All these things are developing: fly ash

is practically nonexistent and power is being developed from wood chips.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Pollution

in the environment is a major concern of this government and always has

been. I heard hardly anything about it during the three years of the

NDP government. No change happened; they left things as they were —

thank goodness. The only thing that happened in those three years was

more debt. Let us not concern ourselves with little issues. The

important issues are the things we have to deal with in this House, and

that is happening today.

Speaking on the budget, the member

for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) got my attention in his speech. The

NDP would stop everything. I want to refer to a debate some years ago

in this House when the W.A.C. Bennett government came forward with the

two-river policy. The two-river policy was the Peace and the Columbia.

You have no idea of the howl that went up from these benches. It was

too soon; there was no need of that power. We didn't need it till 1984.

I have something here on it if I can find it. Mr. Strachan was the

Leader of the Opposition then.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

No relation — I'm glad to hear it. He's a nice man; there was nothing

wrong with him. He was the instigator of ICBC — the $25-a-year

insurance man. That's the financial wizardry of the NDP. This

$25-a-year insurance never came out of the air. It came from somewhere

particularly. The provincial government insures its own vehicles, and

at that time it was found that the cost of insurance for those vehicles

was $25 a year, for this reason: they were only used eight or nine

hours a day — sometimes not that — and so they had self-insurance. So

Mr. Strachan said: "Everybody will get the same deal." But he forgot

that the cars on the highway drive differently and have different

drivers. That's a different story, but that's the financial wizardry of

this party over here. Let's just remember that and not make any issue

of it. They just do not understand financial matters. They've proved

that during their three years in government.

Now this is a

statement from Mr. Strachan regarding the Peace River: "The Social

Credit government is obsessed with dam building and disposal of our

primary natural resources at any cost, providing it pays political

dividends. Expediency was the sole reason for the Peace River

development — a monument to the party." You're hearing that all over

again. They were talking about monuments then. "The Leader of the

Opposition is very fond of travelling around occasionally in his

pin-stripe suit as if he was the first to do it."

But he was

not the first: Mr. Strachan was doing it a long time ago. Mr. Strachan

was talking to the Bond Dealers Association at their monthly luncheon on

this Thursday last. It's interesting that when he was talking to them

he made certain statements — almost a repeat of what the Leader of the

Opposition is doing here today. We are hearing now that this Leader of

the Opposition has a brand new role to play talking to the bond

dealers, the businessmen and the chamber of commerce. Mr. Strachan was

doing that then as a standard procedure. A pin-stripe suit is not a new

phenomenon. It's worn by....

[ Page 4664 ]

MR. LEGGATT: By the Speaker himself.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The Speaker himself has a pinstripe suit.

Mr.

Strachan continued. His party favoured the development of one power

source — Columbia or Peace — at the time, since there was no market

available in B.C. or in the United States for that power. If we had

waited till they had said go, where would be we today? The

lowest-priced power we have is the Columbia, and had we not developed

the Columbia at that time, it would have been impossible to develop it

today, Mr. Speaker. I could go on with this.

Northeast coal.

They tell us now that it's too soon for northeast coal, far too soon.

They say to wait for a while. We're too soon for northeast coal the

same way they said we were too soon for the two-river policy. When

would you have northeast coal? When would you develop this coal? When

would you put in this infrastructure? When? According to your deal,

never. But this government is going ahead with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to give it away.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Even at this late date — a session ago — Mr. Barrett in his speech here

in the Legislative Assembly said: "The previous administration felt

that their government needed to do something spectacular, and so they

got involved in the two-river policy." I want to ask you: where would

we be today if we had never had the two-river policy?

AN HON. MEMBER: In the dark.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In the dark; that's the answer.

Mr.

Speaker, this budget is a great budget. The hon. Leader of the

Opposition says that it will create inflation. It's the most

uninflationary budget that could be imagined. It simply supplies the

needs of British Columbians; it supplies our needs for a progressing

economy. The budget maintains the fiscal integrity of the government's

finances; it sustains a public service of the highest quality; and it

ensures that efficiencies are achieved in the delivery of programs. The

budget provides additional funding for certain high-priority areas, and

it is not a tax on future generations. If we dealt in the fancy

theories of the opposition, we would be borrowing money and

deficit-financing. We would have a limited budget and borrow money for

the future and tax future generations, but we will not do that.

For

example, in what is an election budget today, Quebec has budgeted for a

deficit of $3 billion. If we would do the same pro rata as Quebec, we

would be budgeting for a deficit of $1 billion. Can you imagine the

horror that would overcome this province? Could you imagine how the

province would begin to recede, and how employment would diminish? That

is what your opposition would have us do, by implication.

The

government and the Minister of Finance had three options: cut progress,

raise taxes or go into debt. Going into debt is absolutely unthinkable.

Employment is high in British Columbia and continues to be higher. We

always hear the consistent story: "Why are you giving away your natural

resources?" We're not giving them away; they'll be sold at high prices.

But we are developing industries that are possible in our area. At the

present time in British Columbia we are developing, through the

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, high-technology

industries. We're encouraging them to come here into parks, and they're

coming.

I am delighted to tell you that we have areas where

this is happening right now. In my constituency of Dewdney, we have the

Pitt Meadows airport — the busiest airport in Canada bar none. But the

runways are not long enough, and we're hoping to get a study. I'm

hoping to ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) if he'll allocate money for a study to prove to the federal

government that the runways in that airport should be extended to 5,000

feet. Then we could bring in small-business jets, and the new

industrial areas of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge could move into the

high-technology industry. These industries need to be situated near

airports. I'm hoping that I will be able to get him to develop a study

to prove the necessity of increasing the runways. At one time Boundary

Bay was mooted as such an airport. That apparently has gone by the

board, as it's too close to Vancouver. I do think that Pitt Meadows

will be an ideal site, and I do hope that the minister will give me

that consideration and assist with the study.

Do you recall,

hon. members, the trauma of Ocean Falls? Do you recall how our

government decided they had to be shut down? Do you recall 1972 when we

were defeated? You will recall that when the NDP came back in tears

were falling all over the place for the poor people of Ocean Falls who

had to leave their homes. That was a sad thing, I agree. But Ocean

Falls became impractical and a little impossible, and it had to go. So

they went back into Ocean Falls with arms flailing wildly, saying, "It

will never stop while we're here," but they forgot that to run a mill

you need wood, and there was no wood. They were defeated in 1975 when

the facts came out. There was no wood to run Ocean Falls. In the same

way they went flying into Squamish to build railway cars. There was no

steel and no need for the cars and the cars cost many times more than

what you could buy them for. That's the kind of economics that kills

employment and the enthusiasm of the people. There's nothing worse than

working at a job when you know that it's costing the government, the

people and your neighbours money.

What about Ocean Falls

today? By dint of a very marvellous person, Mr. Ray Williston, a former

minister of this House, we found out that it's possible to develop a

new kind of board to be part of the plywood industry. It's called

oriented fibreboard. That will be the answer to Ocean Falls: low-grade

wood making the equivalent of plywood. That's what I call inventive

ability and making things work, and that's what this government stands

for and always has.

Another little thing yesterday was one

of the most heartwarming incidents I've had sitting in this House. I

was invited by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to

go and see a little operation just a few blocks away. Everyone here

should go to see it. It's called Individual Opportunity Plan — the

British Columbia way. Mr. Speaker, if you want your heart warmed, if

you want to see people in action, if you want to see bright young faces

looking to the future instead of depression, if you want to see people

finding something they can do, Individual Opportunity Plan, an idea of

the Minister of Human Resources, is working today. It's also working in

Surrey. I've asked the minister to see if it can be done in Maple Ridge

and other places where there is a high incidence of Human Resources

people.

The minister's own note in this folder says: "The

opportunity plan is a way out of a life of income assistance. It is a

commitment by each individual to work towards independence. It is also

a commitment by our government to help you to a more productive and

enjoyable life." Signed, Grace McCarthy. I think that's a tremendous

statement.

[ Page 4665 ]

was there yesterday. I saw these bright young people — not hundreds of

them, but a few, because it's the sort of thing where you do a few at a

time. There were maybe 15 there. They were not being trained to do a

job, but being trained how to find a job. We looked at the record of

some of them. Some have not only found jobs but they've created new

jobs. These young people have been on welfare most of their lives — third

generation.

Mr. Speaker, that was one thing that made my

day. I didn't think it was possible to see that. It's what this

government stands for: initiative, making people creative — not

expecting the government to help. What did the opposition do? That's

part of the budget. This budget says we want initiative and we have

initiative. What did they do? They shovelled money out of a truck.

Everybody had a job at the public's expense. The Finance critic, the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), stood up and said: "Instead of

spending all this money trying to do something, why not give everybody

$3,000?" Well, that's the negative way of doing things. Will they ever

learn the principle of enterprise, personal effort, doing something for

oneself and standing, with friends or alone, and succeeding? That's the

only thing that works. It's a process of nature. The socialist system

defies nature. That's why it never works. Wherever socialism is in

operation in the world, that country has gone down to defeat — every

single one; there is no exception. Even Britain was brought to its

knees. Will it ever rise again? I'm not sure.

MR. LEGGATT: How about West Germany? How about Denmark?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

West Germany is not a socialist country. They call themselves

democratic socialists, but you don't go by name. I don't call them

communists, for example. I wouldn't do that. They're not socialists.

They're very much akin, mind you. I'd be careful of that word. It

reminds me of something that Mr. Khrushchev said when he was travelling

in the United States. He was asked: "Do you have socialists in your

country?" He replied: "Oh, no. We don't have any socialists in Russia.

Socialists are gutless communists." Those are his own words. I don't

say that; I don't use those terms at all, but just mention it.

MR LEGGATT: What would that make a fascist, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

These terms mean very little. You can call it socialism, you can call

it communism, you can call it democracy — the principle is that private

enterprise....

Where our systems lose out is when the

initiative of people is lost when you defy the principle of nature.

Nature itself is aggressive. We defy the principle of nature and say

that everybody has to be treated absolutely equally; everybody will get

the same; nobody need worry, as they'll all be fed by somebody. It's

got to die, That's why socialism collapses. If the Lord had wanted to

create everything perfectly he'd have made the world a round ball

with no mountains. But the socialists want to press down the mountains

and raise up the valleys — everything nice and even.

One of

the sad things that we have to face today is the Trudeau-Broadbent

unholy alliance. If there's any sadness in this House, that's where the

sadness must be. That Leader of the Opposition speaks so highly of that

alliance. Where will the members for B.C. be when the vote is taken?

Will they be courageous like the members of that same party in

Saskatchewan? That unholy alliance.... Today I'm sorry that as time

goes on and the constitution is repatriated, which I presume it will

be, we will be the poorer for railroading by a government unthinkable,

unthinking, unfair and unjust, a government that has practically

forgotten that there's a Canada in the west, a government that is

central and is more dangerous to the unity of this country than the

ancient Family Compact ever was, a government that will have destroyed

the unity of this country by the very act of pretending to create its

unity by taking for itself power that enabled it to put the iron heel

of central government on the western provinces forever. That is the sad

day that we face with this government. The unholy Trudeau-Broadbent

alliance has cost us dearly. Surely the people of Canada will

understand. Surely they will hear us. Surely somewhere the song will be

heard.

Here the four western provinces have to accept,

because we are loyal to the Crown and to the great Canada, a position

that may take 100 years to overcome — a position of subservience to

central Canada, because that's all it means. It may take 100 years, but

I tell you that I'm not a separatist. I will never join separatism. I'd

sooner suffer. We have suffered for the past 100 years to some extent,

more or less. We could tolerate it when we were small but now the west

is growing up. The time has come when we should be able to flex the

muscles of the west to create a greater Canada. But no, we cannot flex

the muscles. We must stamp the iron heel of central government in the

face of our whole nation — the eastern seaboard and the west. The very

terms that they bring forth for the constitution will be the terms that

create the full power of the central government on all of Canada. If

they do what they've done in the past, it will be done for the benefit

of central Canada and not for the benefit of all Canadians. That's the

only fault we have. none other.

I have the pleasure of

suggesting to you now that all the matters that have been brought up in

this debate have been, in one way or another, attempting to suggest

that the government is all wrong in the budget. The government cannot

be all wrong in the budget, because the government's budget is a proper

fiscal budget. It is a free, private enterprise budget. It is not a

socialistic budget. It is not a dead budget.

MR. LEGGATT: It's a socialist budget; it's a big spending budget.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Yes, it is a big-spending budget for one reason only. The main reason

that this is a spending budget is because B.C. is growing. There was a

time, five years ago, when there was no time for this kind of thing at

all; we had to hold back the string. Now is the time to open the power

that's within the province. The inherent power of B.C. must proceed,

and it will with money, planning and a future ahead of us. Socialism

would have us stand back — wait, do not develop northeast coal.

remember Kaiser Coal. They said to us that it was a terrible disaster.

Everybody would lose money in Kaiser Coal. The people would lose and

the country would be polluted. It would dig great holes out of the land

and it would be a disaster area. Now what have we got today? Go up to

Kaiser Coal and see how they've dug the mine and refilled the open-pit

mine and planted grass on it that the cows, the goats and the chickens

are eating. Isn't that something? Yet these people would have returned

the rocky, useless land to agricultural land. If these people had their

way, there would have

[ Page 4666 ]

been

no Kaiser Coal. They talked about pollution. Today they're so proud of

Kaiser Coal. Unless you have the enthusiasm and the idea of developing

something, they don't develop it.

They were asked in this

debate: "What have you developed?" The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) was speaking at the time. He was asked what his government

had done. He stood there as if in shock and said: "We started the air

ambulance system." Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish he had thought of

something else, but he couldn't because there was nothing else. They

didn't start it at all; it was started by this government about three

years ago — not by them at all. These are the things that bother you a

little bit.

I'm delighted to have the privilege to speak in

this debate bringing to your attention the policies of this government

and the issues brought forward by the Minister of Finance by the desire

to create a going, strong, forward-moving economy that is creating jobs

for the people in this province. We are having the lowest unemployment

today that we have had for many years. There would be no unemployment

if we had enough skills. The only reason we haven't got full employment

is because the people who are unemployed are without skills. There are

jobs for everybody. British Columbia has got a brighter and greater

future only because this government has the strength, imagination and

courage to do things that have not been done before.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to participate in this debate. I'm only

sorry there are so few members of the opposition here, but certainly

that isn't too unusual. I guess five is perhaps not a bad number

compared to what we normally see across the way.

I'm sure

that a lot of people here must certainly have been wondering what the

NDP strategy really is as it applies to all programs, projects and

proposals, but particularly as it is applicable to the budget

discussion. We've been waiting to hear from the NDP as to what they

would see government do for British Columbia, or how they might do it

differently. I think I've just figured out the NDP strategy this

afternoon, and I'm sorry it took so long. I realize now that their

approach is that if you don't do anything or say anything worthwhile

and don't offer any alternatives, perhaps then the public won't really

have anything to criticize you for. I think possibly the public is

going to catch on. Really, you can't fool them all the time. They're

possibly becoming more and more aware that during all these last number

of days we've heard nothing from the opposition as to what they might

propose with respect to the needs for the people of British Columbia in

the year ahead.

This afternoon we heard speeches from

various members there, and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) certainly went on and on and said nothing other than: "Bob

Willi