1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 3ist

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)

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 449 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Freedom of Information Act (Bill M-202). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 449

Oral questions

Public service gratuities. Mrs. Dailly — 449

Restriction on off-work activities of public servant.

Mr. Gibson — 450

Safety of Site I dam. Mr. Wallace — 451

Farm income assurance payments. Hon. Mr. Hewitt answers

— 451

Share purchases in Quasar and Cheyenne. Mr. Lauk — 451

Matter of urgent public importance

Closing of Cedarhurst Private Hospital. Mr. Cocke — 453

Mr. Speaker reserves decision — 453

Routine proceedings

Tabling reports

Department of Education 105th annual report. Hon. Mr.

McGeer — 454

Universities Council of British Columbia second annual

report. Hon. Mr.

McGeer — 454

Debtor Assistance Act and Trade Practices Act:

directors' annual reports. Hon.

Mr. Mair — 454

Budget debate

Mr. Mussallem — 454

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 458

Ms. Sanford — 463

On the amendment.

Mr. Nicolson — 468

Mr. Lea — 472

Mr. Cocke — 478

Matter of urgent public importance

Closing of Cedarhurst Private Hospital. Mr. Speaker

rules — 479

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the House to welcome three young constituents from the

municipality of Richmond. In the gallery today are Mr. Tyler Caviglia,

and two of my sons, Robert and Brent.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): In the gallery today we

have a former colleague, the former MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour,

Colin Gabelmann, and I would ask the House to join me in extending a

warm welcome.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today, from the far-flung

north, the riding of South Peace River, down to watch his MLA in

action, is Bill Close from Dawson Creek, a many-time candidate for the NDP. I'd

like the House to welcome Bill Close.

Introduction of bills.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill M-202

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

PUBLIC SERVICE GRATUITIES

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the hon. Provincial

Secretary, with respect to order-in-council

3729. It states that Mr. Broadbent served under

section 2 of the Public

Service Act and therefore was not entitled t o a gratuity; however, the

order-in-council

did award a gratuity equivalent to

section 49. Is it government policy

to award such gratuities to all persons serving under

section 2?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

believe the member is asking a question of policy. I will take the

question as notice and look up the order she refers to.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if the decision to award this gratuity

was not a matter of government policy, I would appreciate it if the

Provincial Secretary would advise the House on what basis this gratuity

was allotted and on what basis it was computed.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume the hon. Provincial Secretary has heard

the question, which she has taken on notice, along with the

supplementary.

MR. KING: She did not say that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am stating a question, hon. member.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

want to know who took it on notice — you are the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: When one of the hon. members or cabinet

ministers takes a question on notice, it's not really proper at that

time to ask a supplemental — they can come when the answer comes back

to the floor. Now the supplemental came. I assume that the hon.

minister heard the supplemental as well as the rest of the members of

this House, and I presume she will take it into consideration at the

time she brings the answer to the first question.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the minister has obviously misunderstood the question. It's

the Speaker's duty to point that out, I would think. It is not a

question on what is going to be future policy of government

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not a matter of discussion.

The question was asked, and a supplemental.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would seem to me that your

attitude is not becoming to a member of the Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. While preserving the decorum

of the House, it's the Speaker's duty to listen to the questions that

are asked. A question that is taken as notice does not

[ Page 450 ]

necessarily mean that a supplementary is even in

order. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) raised a supplemental, even though it's technically out of

order. He was listened to by the members of the House. I presume that

the minister has the right to answer the original and the

supplementary, because they're there for everyone to know. They're not

only heard by the members of the House but they'll be in Hansard .

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my

understanding that the rules of the House do not oblige a minister to

answer a supplementary unless the minister has acknowledged

understanding and undertaken to give an answer. This is not the case

with respect to the supplementary I asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister wish to take the

supplementary on notice — whatever?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the whole subject

related to order-in-council 3729, as asked by the

member for Burnaby North, and the subsequent question that was raised

by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan,

on notice.

RESTRICTION ON OFF-WORK

ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC SERVANT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Minister of Environment. As the minister is perhaps

aware, Mr. Bob Bierman, who is an occasional political cartoonist for

the Times, works as a technical assistant in his department. His job,

according to his superior, is one that is in no way privy to sensitive

information. According to reports, he was told recently by the deputy

minister of the department to stop his cartooning work, under authority

of a little-used

section of the

Public Service Act. I would ask if the minister was aware in advance of

this instruction.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In answer to the question from the Member,

the answer is no. Also I might add that the deputy minister today has

informed me that he did not tell Mr. Bierman to stop cartooning.

Perhaps the House will permit me to elaborate somewhat more on this

issue. The meeting took place on January 17 between my deputy minister

and Mr. Bierman, at the request of my deputy minister upon

recommendation by the chairman of the Public Service Commission. A

letter to my deputy minister from Mr. Richardson, the chairman, says in

part: "Our file does not indicate that Mr. Bierman has complied with

section 50 of the Public Service Act, which requires the approval of

the commission if remuneration is received from another employer." Mr.

Richardson says: "May I suggest that you see Mr. Bierman and ascertain

that he did draw the cartoons and that he received a payment. If so,

then point out to him that he is contravening

section 50 of the Public

Service Act." This was done at the subsequent meeting.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker:

Because of the extreme importance of the freedom of the press,

section

50 of the Public Service Act makes provision for such activity with the

permission of the Public Service Commission. It is my understanding

that there is a good deal of what one might call "moonlighting" going

on, irrespective of

section 50 of the Act in any case. I ask the

minister if he will make representations to the Public Service

Commission in order that such permission should be given and Mr.

Bierman might continue his political cartooning which he has done for

some years under several governments.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I may advise the member that Mr. Bierman

has not made any such request, to my knowledge. My understanding, from

my deputy minister, is that he was advised by Mr. Bierman at the

interview that he recognized he was in contravention of this

section of

the Act and that there was a possibility he could resign his public

service position, as he prefers his outside occupation. We have been

advised, by way of the press, that Mr. Bierman may seek such authority

from the Public Service Commission. We certainly will respond to a

request by the Public Service Commission — Mr. Richardson or his

designate — to offer an opinion relative to this situation. But I

believe the deputy minister will be making representation to the

commission if requested.

MR. GIBSON: My understanding would be in these kinds of cases

that the deputy naturally acts under the instruction of the minister,

and I would ask the minister to assure this House....

Intejection.

MR. GIBSON: I hope it's a valid supposition or we have no

control over this government, Mr. Premier. I would ask the minister to

assure this House that if there is a request. for such permission to

the Public Service Commission, the minister will positively support

that request.

HON. MR. NIELSEN I Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the member

may appreciate and allow the opportunity for myself and/or my deputy

minister to investigate the circumstances of the situation before

making any

[ Page 451 ]

commitment in advance.

SAFETY OF SITE I DAM

MR. G.S. WALLACE (OAK BAY): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Energy, Transport and Communications responsible for Hydro: in relation

to some of the statements which have appeared in the press regarding

construction of the dam at Site I on the Peace River, can the minister

inform the House whether the statement made by inspectors that they

have had difficulty obtaining adequate core samples from which to judge

the safety of the construction is a valid complaint? If it is, what

measures are being taken to ensure the inspectors can obtain adequate

samples and decide whether or not the dam will be safe?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, I can't give the House that assurance right now, but we're

looking into it and I'll report as soon as possible.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I accept the

minister's difficulty that it may not be possible at this time to give

that assurance, but it is quite clear that in some 60,000 cubic yards

of concrete there is some real uncertainty as to how much honeycombing

effect has taken place and, in the light of recent dam disasters

elsewhere in the world, it seems to me to be a matter of extreme

urgency that the people of British Columbia get some assurance as soon

as possible. On that basis, can I ask what response B.C. Hydro made to

the recommendations of one Chalres Farris who, I believe, is a concrete-plant designer from Washington

state who was asked to assess the problem and make recommendations?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There has been a report in the press, a

response from top management from B.C. Hydro, but I'll make further

inquiries and get further details as to their answer.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the minister

doesn't seem to be really up to date on what I would consider to be a

very urgent issue. Can he tell the House, then, if the responsibility

for the faulty workmanship — wherever it lies — has been determined? Is

it the fault of the concrete manufacturing plant of B.C. Hydro or is it

the shoddy workmanship which has been reported to have been carried out

by the contractor, Atkinson Commonwealth? If it's shoddy workmanship,

will B.C. Hydro be suing for recovery of the extra cost?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as I endeavoured to indicate

earlier, the entire matter is under investigation and when

responsibility has been attached to a form or an individual, this will

be reported to the House.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE PAYMENTS

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

have answers to questions that were asked of me on January 25. I would

like to respond to them.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked what will be

the total money payable for farm income assurance in 1976. We do not

have the final data for that date, hon. member. We won't know that

until late 1977, when the final crops are in.

A question was asked regarding how much is being paid on 1976 claims

to date. The answer is $4,114,417.33.

Another question was asked: how much is presently owing on 1976

programmes? Again, we do not have the data until all the crop is

disposed of.

Another question was: what are the dates of individual programme

payouts? The programme payouts are made when the documentation is

submitted by the agriculture industry.

The fifth question was: what

schedule was used for the dates of

individual programme payouts? There is no

schedule used. It is on

submission.

Finally, the question: are you on time with farm income assurance

payments? The answer is yes.

SHARE PURCHASES IN

QUASAR AND CHEYENNE

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): To the Minister of Economic

Development: did the minister discuss with anyone the advisability of

purchasing shares in Quasar or Cheyenne Petroleum prior to December

2,1976? The minister, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker....

lnterjection.

MR. LAUK: The question was ruled in order; the minister

declined to answer. I wonder if he will answer today.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, evidently the lawyer from Vancouver Centre doesn't understand

into this matter and that I would answer questions to that inquiry in

this regard if and when I am requested to do so by the judge in charge

of that inquiry.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister

intending to give evidence before the judicial

[ Page 452 ]

inquiry?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should give that

lawyer a few instructions in the law. I will if requested to do so.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is usually

the practice in this House that when a minister quotes from a document

or a letter, that minister asks leave of the House to table the

documents. In response to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) quoting from a letter from Mr. Richardson, I would ask if the

minister would table the document in the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Minister of Agriculture, as I

recall, answered questions.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. It's

the practice of this House....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, it would be a

correct procedure, I presume, for the minister, who is quoting from

whatever source, if he desired, to ask leave to table it. But I do not

see that it's proper for another member of the House to ask leave on

his behalf.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the House for leave

for the minister. I am standing on my feet on a point of order. The

point of order I'm taking, Mr. Speaker, is that it is the usual

practice of this House that when a member quotes from a letter or a

document, that letter or document is filed with the House. That's the

point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point of order raised by the

hon. Leader of the Opposition....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister is quoting from

a public document. Quite often it is his alternative or prerogative if

he desires to file it or not. If he's quoting from information or from

communications with him that might have been personal or confidential,

he is not required to file them with the House. If he desires to,

that's something for the minister to decide, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Has it

not been the practice of this House that when a minister or member

quotes from a letter or a document, that letter or document is filed

with the House?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. It's a matter, hon. member,

that we have citations in May ,

17th edition, and other citations that would indicate that a minister

may file with the House papers if they are state papers and he cites

from them. But it certainly does not apply, according to May, to

private letters or memoranda, and I would have to really take your

point of order as notice and see exactly what the situation is in this

particular instance.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House could be

satisfied if I made a suggestion that the letter to which I referred

contains other information that I believe would not serve the purpose

for which it was asked today. However, in that I made a statement from

this letter from Mr. Richardson, if the House would appreciate a

similar letter from Mr. Richardson attesting to that

section which I

quoted, I would be most pleased to ask Mr. Richardson to arrange this.

However to satisfy the nosiness of some of the members about a matter

dealing with an employee of the provincial government — I don't think

that it would add to the case. If they would like to have this

information attested to by Mr. Richardson, I would certainly make that

request from him and it would relate to the information that I offered

to the House today — if the question is that they doubt Mr. Richardson

made this statement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this rule — and I

appreciate you wanting time to determine the practice in May and Beauchesne

on this particular rule — the reason for this rule is to ensure that

the House is totally informed. Someone may leave with the suspicion

that someone asked Mr. Richardson to look into this matter, and,

indeed, that may be referred to in the letter that the minister is not

prepared to file. To allay that suspicion I suggest that the rules of

the House be followed and the whole letter be tabled with the House, as

is the practice.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on, this point I would like to make

a brief quotation from May ,

18th edition, page 421, which bears directly on this point.

[ Page 453 ]

"A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or

quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House unless

he be prepared to lay it on the table."

Continuing, Mr. Speaker, with the citation:

"This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in

courts of law which prevents counsel from citing documents which have

not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it

has not been contested, and when the objection has been made in time it

has generally been acquiesced in."

I would argue, sir, that the proper context of any remark requires

the tabling of the entire document and I would argue as well that a

letter from the chairman of a commission to a minister of the Crown

must be either a dispatch or a state paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for your quote from the 18th edition

of May .

It's similar to the quote I was using — from a different edition,

that's all. I'll reserve my decision on the matter raised and certainly

will bring a decision back to the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps because of the

eloquence of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) I

would be very pleased to table the letter in question, if I have leave

of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to adjourn

the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, and

I have that matter here before me.

MR. SPEAKER: State the matter, please.

MR. COCKE: I have just learned at noon today, Mr. Speaker,

that the Cedarhurst Private Hospital has informed their employees and

their patients that they will be closed as a hospital as of March 4.

Since the government has found it beyond its ability to care for the

needs of senior citizens in B.C., particularly respecting intermediate

care, and therefore the Cedarhurst hospital in Surrey, caring for

patients between the ages of 75 and 90, shows the trend that is growing

in the province and the closure of other hospitals may be imminent, it

is important that this House debate this matter immediately.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member for New Westminster, in dealing with

your motion for urgent debate under our standing orders, I'm going to

defer my decision without prejudicing your right or the right of this

motion, if in fact it's found to be in order, but it is the type of a

motion that requires more than just a few moments and a glance or two

at it and I'd like to defer the decision until I've had the opportunity

to consult the authorities we have available to us, namely May and Beauchesne ,

and determine as quickly as I can and without in any way prejudicing

your position with respect to a debate, if in fact it is found to be in

order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that during that

interval if we enter into a debate in the House — that is, the debate

on the budget speech — this then loses its position?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't take that

interpretation, hon.

member. Either the motion will be in order and found to be proper under

the rules of our House, or it won't be. This is what I have to

determine in consultation with May

and Beauchesne ,

and it will take a little time to do that so all I can say to you at

the moment is that, without prejudicing your right with respect to the

motion.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding

from reading Sir Erskine May

that in an application such as this, the Speaker is to determine only

if there is a prima facie motion to go before the Legislature — meaning

on the face of it.

MR. WALLACE: Thanks very much for explaining it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: And I wouldn't think, Mr. Speaker, that an in-depth

review is required in this case. But on the face of it: is it in good

time; is the issue general and concerning the entire province and so on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If there was some consideration

that had to take place with respect to evidence and so on, I would say

that we would be in a position of considering the motion on the basis

of whether it was prima facie or not, but that is not particularly the

test right at the moment. It's not something that's before a court, or

evidence or anything of that nature. It's a matter to determine whether

the motion is in order or not. That I intend to do. I reserve my

decision, which is certainly not an unusual practice in all Houses in

Canada. As soon as I can, I will bring back the decision on it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a further point of order: could you

not also take in consideration the reading from Sir Erskine May ,

made by the first member for Vancouver-Capilano, to include all

documents as well as what has been tabled as an incomplete document?

[ Page 454 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll take your remarks into

consideration.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tables the 105th annual report of the Department of

Education and the second annual report of the Universities Council of

British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Mair tables the director's annual report pursuant to the

Debtor Assistance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31,1976, and the

director's annual report pursuant to the Trade Practices Act for the

year ended December 31,1976.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign! (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's quite plain to see that the opposition

must have been privy to the fact that I would be speaking today, and

consequently it would rip them asunder — to wit, the long debate that

ensued on these matters of order. However, I do not intend to rip them

asunder today. I didn't think they would be abetted by our ministers,

but I'm glad they took up all the.... In fact, as far as I'm concerned,

they could take up the rest of the afternoon.

MR. COCKE: That's not what you told me this morning, George!

(Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's always a great pleasure to me to stand in

this House to take my

part in the debate, even if it is just replying

to the hon. Whip on the other side (Mr. Cocke) whom I see every day,

not always with pleasure.

It is very important — and some make light of it — but to me it is

an honour to be here with a large and dedicated group of people that

does the people's business. It's always remarkable to me. The Sputnik

may even circle the earth and some may land on the moon, but I think

the most sacred trust we have is doing the people's business in this

House. Sometimes I fear for the system, but it's the best we have. I

congratulate all the hon. members for the part they've taken.

This is the second year since this government climbed out of the

swamp of fiscal irresponsibility. But today it is easy for anyone to

see — anyone who would wish to look — that we have a new look, that

today we move on a solid foundation. Today a government is planning for

the future; today we no longer squander the assets of the public. We

have the good look. No longer does fear stalk the land.

I remember full well just two years ago when we wondered what was

going to happen next. When would the axe fall again? But certainly now

the public knows the road we're on. They know that we're on the sure

and the safe way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote

that?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I wrote this myself. The hon. member asked who

wrote the speech. It had not been written even to this day; it's being

said as it goes. (Laughter.) There's no speech, for the record.

MR. WALLACE: You can tell!

MR. MUSSALLEM: "You can tell!" I will write the hon. member

for Oak Bay off my list.

AN HON. MEMBER: No Christmas cards for you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No more Christmas cards for him!

The road is still a rough road, but the road is there.

There was no road before. This province is out of the swamp and on

solid ground. Rebuilding a province torn asunder by experimenters was

not an easy task.

If we'll stop to think and to understand, it is not a new thing that

happened here in the past, during the regime of the previous

government. It was an old and tried experience that happened in many

countries of the world. When the socialists take over, disaster ensues.

When the experimenters try new ideas without foundation, in fact we are

in trouble.

We were in trouble. England, Italy, Russia, China — take it where

you will. It's the same story, the same way. Rebuilding a province torn

asunder is not an easy task, but this budget, which I support, which we

all support, and which hon. members opposite should support, is the

instrument that is taking us further into success.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not in his place

today, said clearly: "Those over there are a bottom-line government."

Well, I'm proud that we're a bottom-line

government. I want to tell you

this: if there's no bottom line

there'll be no other line — there'll be

no line at all — and that is the socialist way. They do not believe in

the bottom line — give anything to anybody who puts his hand out.

That's the wrong system, because we're not giving anything to anyone;

we're taking it out of somebody else's pocket and giving it away.

I do not wish to go into all these things except to say that this

system of giveaways has come to an end in British Columbia — fairness

to all and favours to none.

[ Page 455 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Strike some committee!

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for Nanaimo said we had a

downturn in 1976 because this government was in power. Well, anybody

with a modicum of intelligence — and I have great respect for that

member, but he has to do the best he can with what he has...(Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We like his red suit.

MR. MUSSALLEM: must realize, and realize fully, that when a

$100 - million overrun on human

resources, a $181 - million loss on ICBC,

and a $54 - million ferry loss, just to mention a few, were pumped into

the economy in one year....

MR. LAUK: Where are the jobs?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Why, there had to be jobs everywhere. But what

created jobs was deficit financing — no bottom line. That's what we

stand for: we stand for fiscal responsibility. There was a turndown in

1976 because we had to take up the slack of the wreckage of the

previous government.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That party came to power — and it has been

said before — with the coffers full, with the money in hand, with

people ready, and the government had planned for a time like 1976, but

when 1976 came the money was squandered.

MR. LAUK: Deliver your own speeches, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I am being heckled by an hon. member. He says:

"Make your own speeches." Well, what does he think I'm doing?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You know!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Now I'm going to give you just an idea, if

you'll listen to this for a minute, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: What about now?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Just listen! I'm talking about now! All right,

you asked me to talk about now; I'll talk about now.

The hon. member for Nanaimo further said: "What a terrible thing!

You leased our ferries to some eastern corporation in Toronto and

bought them back."

MR. LAUK: You sold them and leased them back.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We sold them and leased them back. All right,

put it any way you want. What's the difference?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the difference!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Keep quiet! Hon. member, keep quiet!

(Laughter.) He couldn't take it. He had to leave.

The fact is the government recovered $49 million. What a beautiful

deal! Why can't they understand it? The government recovered $49

million for these ferries, paying interest at the rate of 7 per cent,

and can re - purchase these ferries in 18 years for 17 per cent of their

present value, and with ferries kept up like they're kept up here,

they'll be as good then as they are now. We just got $49 million for

nothing! It was a very good deal, and yet they'll take this and say

it's a bad deal. How can it be a bad deal? Now the reason it was a good

deal is because at that time there was a loophole in the federal tax

system that allowed these people to make quick recovery of certain

profits that they were gathering, but it only deferred them, and these

loopholes are blocked.

The hon. member also said that small business failures were up in

1976. Of course they were up! They were up because the first to suffer

in a downturn is a small business, but the small businesses are now

coming back to British Columbia.

I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . The federal government has a plan of

this nature but I do not think we have it in British Columbia — not

directly. I would like to suggest to the hon. minister that we should

have a plan for the small businessman — not the one who wants to borrow

$500,000 or $100,000, but the man who can employ one or two people and

needs to borrow $25,000. We should be encouraging small businesses in

British Columbia. Small businesses are the backbone of this province —

are the backbone of any country. We always think in terms of big

business — in other words, hundreds of employees — but that's not where

the employment is. Half the employment in British Columbia is in small

businesses.

If we look after the small businessmen, the small businesses, the

province must succeed, and I commend to the hon. minister that he look

into this very carefully and be prepared to take a little risk now and

again. There's nothing wrong with taking a risk — nothing wrong at all.

If you lose a dollar or two now and again...well, if you lose $1 and

gain $4, it would be a very successful project. I know many small

businesses that are unable to open, unable to start. They have great

ideas but no way of getting $25,000 or $30,000 to get themselves on the

road.

MR. WALLACE: It might upset the bottom line if

[ Page 456 ]

you take a risk, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, it does not. That's the great thing about

private enterprise — they take risks, and the bottom line gets wrecked

occasionally.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, but you're telling them to take risks with

public money.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, no. You don't take risks when you win four

out of five. That's not a risk. When you can win four out of five,

that's no risk.

MR. WALLACE: I've never won four out of five.

MR. MUSSALLEM: There's nothing to it. Where there is private

enterprise, the people prosper. Where there is reward for effort, jobs

are created. Where the individual is unfettered by government and

government interference, the future of the people is assured. The

highest standard of living is by our system of free enterprise. The

lowest standard of living is under the socialist system because when

the socialists take over there are one or two bosses at the top and the

rest become the serfs. The heavy hand of socialism has squashed and

defeated any nation that has taken it up — Russia, China.... Russia

buys wheat from Canada and the United States.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): They can't even feed themselves.

MR. MUSSALLEM: China does the same thing; can't feed

themselves. Russia, once known as the breadbasket of the world, have

left only the basket — no bread.

Social Credit is private enterprise, and that's what it stands for.

The experimenter will not, must not, have returned. The experimentation

with the public fund has got to be ended. We must be developing on the

solid system of fiscal responsibility.

NDP — New Democratic Party — why did you ever use the word

"democratic"? It is a masquerade. Why don't you have it the "New

Socialist Party"? Why not use that for a term? A masquerade.

You see, the socialists cannot ever come out with the true facts

because when they do, the people see through it. Although I hate to

admit it, the best thing that could have happened to us was to be

defeated in 1972 — isn't that a hard thing to say? — because it had to

come some day, but it will never return. The people saw — the public

could see — what socialism give us: disaster at every turn.

I would like to address myself to the hon. Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) . I want to suggest to the hon. Minister of

Education....

MR. WALLACE: Pat, are you listening?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you, Mr. Member. Yes, is he listening?

MR. WALLACE: Always ready to help.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I suggest to the hon. Minister of Education

that a new status be given to learning in British Columbia — that we

take away the high-status standard of the university-educated person.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Every mother wants her son or daughter to go

through university — you have heard the term so often — because it has

status. We do not have sufficient status in the vocational system, and

we will never have status while the department is run the way it is run

today, Mr. Minister. What we need is a deputy minister in charge of

vocational training. What we need is to bend our efforts to give status

to vocational training.

The system we have today is oriented to research, and research is

not everybody's bag. Only 20 per cent of our children will go to

university, but our whole system is oriented to them. Our whole system

is oriented to 20 per cent of our students, and that is a tremendous

mistake, and I hope the minister will take that into consideration.

We have to have a deputy ministry that is able to further and expand

vocational training. We have to get vocational training out of the

hands of the unions, with respect to the unions. But everybody must

have a skill; whether they use it or not, they must have a skill. There

are so many skills so easily available — the construction trades,

mechanics, electronics, refrigeration, business machines, appliance

repairs and clerks.

The hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) said that when he was

out of a job and 19 years old, he became an interior designer. Oh,

wouldn't it have been beautiful if he had been trained for that! He may

not have become a minister, but at the same time it's the idea of

having a training for something, and every child should be trained to

be able to do something and it will never happen under the present

system.

The great disaster in our educational system, in my opinion,

happened in about 1965 or 1966 when that horrendous thing called "new

math" descended on the educational system. I think that was a disaster.

Now that could be debated by some, but I think it was a disaster. We

must give status to the practical arts.

Recently we have heard, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

has been in the fire over the cancelling of cases over 180 days....

Maybe it should have been, be that as it may. I do not know the facts

and will not comment on that point. Although the

[ Page 457 ]

Attorney-General is not here — I understand he is not well, but

perhaps he will be with us tomorrow — I would like to say that one

thing we have been missing in our system is lay judges. Our justice

system went out of control when we got rid of the lay judges.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Attorney-General, we need lay judges back

in the system, not to handle the large cases and not to handle the

technical cases, but for the 80 per cent of the cases that are

non-technical. They can be disposed of in a day. That's what we need.

We need to get back, and give people justice, because justice withheld

is justice denied.

We give legal aid. What a mess! Just ask me, I say it. I hope I'm

right, but to me, any time I've come in contact with legal aid it's

been a mess. We are going to put out $12 million to protect a drug

syndicate. Yet we have no money for a mother that should have appealed

her case when she was charged with assault because she was protecting

the same mother's children, while she was in a drug stupor and

mistreating her children. The sister-in-law came over to protect the

children, and in protecting the children she had to hold the mother

back. The mother charged her with assault, and she is right this day on

probation. Now her lawyer, I will admit, was not very good or wasn't

prepared. But that case should have been appealed. She didn't have

$1,000 for an appeal. Do you call that legal aid? I tell the

Attorney-General: there is something wrong, very wrong. There is no

time to delay.

A farmer had his truckload of tomatoes seized by the marketing

board. He is, in my opinion, definitely right. His civil rights were

abused. Can he get to court? No, he can't get to court. He can't get

legal aid because it's not there for him. Yet we have $12 million for

drug pushers. There's something that has to be wrong. I'd like to know

where it is, and I criticize the department for allowing this to

happen. I'd let those people have fast justice. For years our courts

will be tied up. You call it justice? I call it the antithesis of

justice.

I have to compliment the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for his suggestion of light rail transit. I

tell you, that is one of the things that we need, certainly in the

Lower Fraser Valley. It is needed now. I'd like to also mention, while

I'm at it, that the bus system that is travelling is very good, but the

buses are running too often. There are not enough passengers in those

buses that travel up the valley. Either we have to encourage more

passengers or run less buses. But the whole thing would be solved by

light rail transit. Get those buses off the road. The Fraser Valley is

an ideal place for this operation. I compliment the minister for what

he is doing there.

Now we all have compliments for the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser), no less from me, except for one thing — he hasn't done

anything in Dewdney yet. But he's going to. Mind you, he's done things

all around Dewdney and that's good because it helps Dewdney. I thank

the hon. minister for what he's doing, and I'm sure the time will come.

Mr. Minister, Dewdney needs the completion of the Mission Bridge

very much. That bridge was built while I was MLA in the previous

administration, but I was not here when it was opened. I was defeated

that time, but the bridge was planned to be completed. The bridge never

was completed. Now that's an eyesore and it's a mistake. That bridge

took first prize in competition for all over North America for design:

modern design and functional design. The bridge stands there, both ends

uncompleted. Mr. Minister, I urge you, for the little it would cost,

that the bridge be finished. I understand the minister and I thank him

for the fact that there's a new Albion Ferry in sight, although he has

not given me the word yet. But I am told there's a possibility of a

ferry that will carry more passengers and sort of alleviate this

bottleneck.

I urge the hon. minister to consider the plea of Agassiz to rebuild

their portion of Highway 9. I think that Agassiz has been promised this

for the last seven or eight years now. I do believe there is something

in what they say. Even if it can't be done in one year, if the ministry

could make a start, I think it's fair. Because when they first agreed

to build Highway 9, the municipality had to accept 10 per cent of the

cost. Their percentage has escalated in intervening years in any case

from $17,000 to $96,000 for the same job. It is a heavy drain on the

municipality. It is needed, and I hope and pray that it will be given

good consideration.

But one of the most important issues is that we have a town in the

Fraser Valley, my town of Haney, that is absolutely strangled because

all the traffic goes through there — very busy traffic, on a four-lane

highway, not a freeway. The town is actually strangled by the need for

the bypass. There's a natural bypass there, Mr. Speaker. I trust that

the minister will give this real priority because it's a shame to see a

town strangled because of the excessive traffic. It's very important.

There's one strange thing that always happens in Maple Ridge on the

north side of the Fraser River. It's an unusual thing. People talk

about the Fraser Valley, but always in government — not only this

government but previous governments — they forget that in a valley

you've got to have two sides. But when you talk about the Fraser

Valley, immediately to the mind of everyone concerned it is Surrey,

Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack — that's the Fraser Valley. When

there are any government offices to be established, when there are

government

[ Page 458 ]

appointees to be made, when there are new things to be constructed,

they always think in terms of the south side of the valley. Now it's

time that we reversed that, hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland).

Two job-finders appointed for our side, for example — this is just

an aside — are both from Langley. Well, that's okay. I don't care where

they come from.

I don't care where they come from, but you should remember the north

side of that valley. I've got an idea that you can leave it the way it

is. I can solve it right now; the minister responsible for ICBC (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) can solve it. Now he's standing there looking at his

papers. Let him hear this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the hon. minister responsible for

ICBC that I can solve a problem for him. I've been making problems for

him up until this time, but this time I'm solving a problem. He needs a

headquarters building. If I say to him he should build that in Maple

Ridge, he'll say: "Why? Out there?" Now he hasn't said that yet; I hope

he doesn't. "Out there?"

Well, I'd like to tell the hon. minister that they have the land

there that ICBC bought for a claims centre. I don't know what they're

going to use if for, but it's certainly not going to be a claims

centre. That's the place for the ICBC headquarters building.

You say it's too far out. Well, the hon. Minister of Highways and

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has built a beautiful four-lane highway

all the way. Let's use Simon Fraser University as a centre — it's not

any further from there to Maple Ridge than it is from Simon Fraser to

where the new hospital is going out in Point Grey at the university.

It's central to the population area, Mr. Minister. People should get

out into the country a little bit.

This corporation is not going to be as big as it was. That's the

place for a headquarters building, the right place. Give our towns a

lift. The traffic in the city, the congestion, is too much. We've a

four-lane highway out there. Give the towns a lift. The towns need

that, Mr. Minister. Get the centre of government out of the city.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Energy,

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) a matter that was brought

to my attention this morning. Senior citizens, in most cases, are

required by law to have a medical examination each year. Unfortunately,

they are not all well off, by any means; in fact, most of them are not

well off. When they go to get this medical, it costs them $10. A

government should pay that, and I'll tell you why. If any corporation

required a medical examination of anyone within the corporation, the

corporation would pay it. Government is requiring this senior citizen

to take an examination to maintain his licence, so the government

should pay the bill. I think that's an injustice that I'm sure hasn't

been noticed before. I appeal to the minister to take this into

consideration. That is very important, in my mind.

Mr. Speaker, these things are not big, but they're the little

things. The little things are the important things — not the big,

mighty things that move, but the little things that you can do for

little people. That's what this government is good for; that's what

this government can do; that's the opportunity we have today — to do

things for everyone. That has always been our policy, as you may have

noticed in years past. We shouldn't talk too much about the past, but

all the things we did were directed wherever we could to the individual.

It is an honour for me to stand here again and say how much I

appreciate the course the government has taken in this budget, how much

I am pleased to see that British Columbia is again on the track to

prosperity, and that fear no longer stalks the land.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me — the hon. Minister of Forests.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say, you're the one with the hair!

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): I am the one with

the hair — a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take my

part in

this budget debate, but before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

add my congratulations to the new ministers who were recently

appointed: the new Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Bawlf), the new Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and, in

particular, Mr. Speaker, to the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who takes over responsibility for an

industry which is very dear to me. I understand from very good sources

that the people in that industry feel that it is in very good hands and

are looking for a very prosperous period over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) made

remarks last week to the effect that various ministers had been

misleading the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) when he prepared

his revenue estimates for next year. He suggested that we were not

giving the true facts to that minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to comment on some of the revenue estimates for the forest industry,

which is my responsibility. Last year we had revenue estimates in

excess of what we are actually receiving, Mr. Speaker.

Our estimates for next year are based on a very

[ Page 459 ]

realistic look at what we think is going to happen in the forest

industry. Our estimates for next year on revenue are very, very close

to actual revenue which is being received this year, and this year has

been quite a good year for the logging industry, a reasonably good year

for the lumber industry, and not too good a year, unfortunately, for

the pulp industry.

Next year, it is estimated that there will be an increase in exports

from our lumber manufacturing industry. That Leader of the Opposition

asks: "Why, then, is your revenue not up dramatically?" The reason,

Mr. Speaker, is that although we expect to export more lumber next

year, we do not expect to harvest any more trees. We had a terribly

good year this year in harvesting and we do have a large inventory of

unmanufactured logs, and even though next year we export more — and I

truly hope we do I – we will not harvest any more because it would be

very difficult indeed to harvest more trees than we did this year. The

excess in exports will be taken up by inventories now on hand. That is

the reason, Mr. Speaker, that our revenue estimate for stumpage for

this year, for the year 1977-1978, is about $50 million, which is

exactly what we anticipate receiving during this current fiscal year.

Most of the revenue sources have minor variations from last year,

all of which are very logically and easily explained. Timber licences,

for example, next year will return us approximately $500,000; last year

it was $560,000. If the members will look over the last number of

years, they will notice that timber licences each year returned

slightly lessening amounts of revenue, and that is because these are

temporary tenures from which the timber licence revenue comes and, as

they are cut, they return to the Crown.

Eventually there will be no revenue from this source because by that

time all temporary tenures will have returned to the Crown.

I have mentioned timber sales. Mr. Speaker, timber royalties, we

estimate, will be up somewhat next year — by about $1 million. The

reason, again, is very easily explained. Timber royalties are royalties

collected on private land and on some of our temporary tenures. These

particular areas have the best-quality wood, and when we get into good

lumber markets it is quite natural for industry to move into these good

stands of timber.

Other revenues for the Forest Service, Mr. Speaker, are almost

identical to what we received this current year. I'm sure that were the

member who asked these questions last week willing to think a little,

perhaps, he would find these revenue estimates are very clearly

explained. Our government has a rather unique way of budgeting: we

determine what amounts of money we will be receiving from the various

tax measures that are in place in British Columbia, we set our priorities, and we do our best to be sure that

the revenue which we collect from the taxpayers of British Columbia is

spent to their best advantage. The previous government, on the other

hand, seemed to have a different way of doing their budgeting: they

would determine how much money they could possibly spend and then expand

their estimated revenue to suit the expenditures which they hoped to

have. It was very unrealistic budgeting, Mr. Speaker, especially when

they did not collect it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very, very happy indeed to support fully this

hold-the-line budget given by our Minister of Finance. Very shortly

after this budget was brought down I had the pleasure of speaking to the

Truck Loggers' Association of British Columbia, and shortly after that

again to a prominent service club in Vancouver. Both of these

organizations, Mr. Speaker, are made up primarily of businessmen —

large businessmen and small businessmen — the people who create jobs in

British Columbia by investing their capital in our province. These

people were all very happy with the fact that finally, at last, they

could see that governments were getting their pending under control.

They could see, Mr. Speaker, that if government spending was not

limited, if it kept growing, more taxes would be required and a greater

impost would be placed upon their businesses, and their businesses

again would be in a less advantageous position with their competitors

in other countries. The succession duties, too, were very good news to

most business people in British Columbia. Now they don't have to start

thinking about liquidating their business as they grow older and near

retirement. They know that their families will be able to carry on with

these businesses and maintain the employment provided by these

businesses in British Columbia.

A very good friend and constituent of mine in the Nicola Valley has

a ranch. This ranch has been in his family for four generations, and

each generation has added to the value of that ranch and the

agricultural community of British Columbia. This ranch has grown and is

a good industry, employs many people and adds tremendously to the

agricultural community in the Nicola Valley. During the term of the

previous government, this ranch was on the block. They wanted to sell

it out and move to Alberta, for they couldn't see any way that they

could carry on under that type of a government and they couldn't see

any way that they could maintain that ranch if they had to pay the

tremendous succession duties that would be required when the elder

member of the family passed on. They are happy now, Mr. Speaker, that

that ranch will stay in British Columbia, in this family which has

developed it from wilderness into a very viable operation.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the only person available to buy that ranch, if

it were put up for sale, would be the government. Once again, one more

piece of our industry would be under the hands of government

[ Page 460 ]

and one more piece of the life of British Columbia would be

controlled by government. That is not the system that built our society

and our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, inflation has been one of the most devastating culprits

in our ability to compete in world markets over the last number of

years. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that the biggest single

contributor to inflation has been uncontrolled government spending.

MR. COCKE: And uncontrolled government.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we know that the more

governments spend, the more they must collect. And the more they

collect, the less competitive our businesses become and the more the

people of British Columbia must pay in taxes and the more they must

demand in wages.

MR. COCKE: How come you collect more and spend less?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: But, Mr. Speaker, our inflation, our

hold-the-line budget, is a demonstration by this government that we

want to keep taxes under control. We don't want to add any further

impost on our industry to make it even less competitive than it is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty per cent increase last year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Other factors in the inflationary cycle

have been a high world demand for all of the commodities produced in

the world and, of course, oil price increases by the OPEC countries

have been a significant factor.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Another very significant factor has been

a high cost of labour in British Columbia and in Canada. The high cost

of labour, Mr. Speaker, was brought on by inflation. No one will ever

answer the question as to whether labour increased because of inflation

or whether inflation was caused by high increases in the cost of

living. That question is not important, Mr. Speaker. The thing is that

labour increases did add to inflation and are a very significant part

of it.

The leap-frogging that took place among various labour unions was

not good for our society and it helped to drive our industry further

into a less competitive position.

Mr. Speaker, our loggers, our miners, the working people in British

Columbia, generally work very, very hard. I've been involved in mining

operations for my entire life in British Columbia, and during the last

year I've made several visits to our forestry operation. The people who

work in the bush and who work in the mines generally work hard and

deserve good wages. But our society supports too many non-productive

people. Government bureaucracies get overloaded with non-productive

workers who must be supported by those few who do produce. A good

example, I think, Mr. Speaker, was the recent modifications of the

sidewalks out here in front of the government buildings. This work took

place over a number of weeks, to make it possible for wheelchairs to be

moved onto the curb. Whenever I walked past, there would be one man

running a jackhammer and three or four men standing watching him. Mr.

Speaker, our society cannot afford this type of waste.

This sloppiness, this bureaucracy, this non-productive

section of

our society, is not limited to government. Business, too, has to

smarten up, for the bureaucracy of business, and especially the larger

corporations, is almost as bad as the bureaucracy of government. They

must trim the fat and the inefficiencies from their operation in order

to make us more competitive. Our labour force, Mr. Speaker, does

deserve good wages, but I know that they are responsible people. There

are good people in labour leadership and there are good, responsible

people in the ranks of labour. They know that their jobs depend upon us

remaining competitive.

Government spending, Mr. Speaker, was touted by the former

government as being the surest way of permanently solving our

unemployment problem in British Columbia. Government spending can have

short-term effects on unemployment, and it can help over the very short

haul, but only if the spending is used to produce assets for the people

of British Columbia. You just can't have spending for spending's sake.

I'm very happy to see that the Minister of Highways and Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) has $180 million in his budget for capital

expenditures next year. These highways will provide services for people

in British Columbia which are solely needed. They'll provide

transportation for our citizens and transportation for our industry.

I was indeed happy when Coquihalla Highway was announced because

this highway happens to ride up through the middle of my constituency

into the constituency of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair). But this highway is not being built

for Kamloops or for Merritt; this highway is being built for all

British Columbians, and for all of Canada for that matter, for it is a

way of getting our products to market, and we must provide every

efficiency and every economy in getting our product to market so they

can more effectively compete on world markets.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to building the Coquihalla

[ Page 461 ]

Highway, the minister is upgrading the Fraser Canyon Highway to

provide improved transportation for the development of the north of

British Columbia, and the Hope-Princeton Highway to improve our

transportation efficiency to the southern part of British Columbia.

Government spending can help in the short term, providing it

provides an asset to the people of British Columbia, providing it

improves our efficiency in transportation. Producing goods and

services, though, at competitive prices is the only way we can

permanently improve the job situation in British Columbia and

permanently increase the prosperity which we have had in this great

province.

I think we should really get back to some basics of economics when

we speak of job creation. In order to create wealth, which is the only

way of improving our system and our society, three basic ingredients

are required. One is an efficient, productive, hard-working labour

force. Mr. Speaker, we have this in British Columbia: we have an

efficient, productive, hard-working labour force.

We must have resources. Mr. Speaker, we do have resources in British

Columbia; British Columbia is blessed with bountiful resources. But a

third ingredient is required: we must have capital. This has not been

forthcoming to British Columbia in the past few years. It hasn't been

coming because over the last few years the climate to attract capital

in British Columbia was destroyed. Capital could not return an

investment to the investor because of actions taken by government,

because of general world economic conditions and because of unrealistic

policies brought about by a government that thought the only thing you

had to do to increase revenue was to increase taxation.

Mr. Speaker, you can increase revenue by increasing taxation for a

short time. But if you continue to increase taxation, soon you decrease

revenue. This government was left with obligations that had to be

fulfilled, and when we increased taxes last year it was to fulfil

obligations made by previous governments — obligations made without any

thought as to where the revenue would come from to fulfil these

obligations.

Our budget this year has been kept to a very modest 5.9 per cent

increase. This is required to reduce taxation of our industry and our

working people in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The grinning member on the other side is

probably not capable of understanding this basic lesson of economics.

Mr. Speaker, that member does not realize that we must have labour,

that we must have capital and we must have resources.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly draw the

members opposite under control? They seem to have become infested with

a case of verbal....

MR. COCKE: Of what?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Never mind — a verbal ailment.

Mr. Speaker, if any of these three ingredients is missing — whether

it be labour, whether it be capital, or whether it be resources — we

shall have no creation of wealth in British Columbia: we'll have no

jobs; we'll have no profits; we'll have no taxes.

The resources in British Columbia are managed by the government.

Capital is managed by the investors and the managers appointed by the

investors. Labour is managed to a great extent by labour unions, and to

lesser by unorganized labour. Mr. Speaker, all of these factors of our

society must work together cooperatively if we are to avoid a further

decrease in British Columbia's ability to compete on world markets.

The world does not need the products we have to offer in British

Columbia: they don't need our copper; they don't need our coal; they

don't need our forest products. We don't produce enough of these to

affect world markets. Markets are set by pressures over which we have

no effect, really, because we are a very small contributor on the world

markets in which we compete. The only way that we can get control or

get a part of those markets which we need is to be competitive. We must

be competitive.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a very well-known labour leader in the

United States made a very profound statement. He said that the worst

sin any corporation could make was to not make a profit. That man very

clearly recognized that if there were no profits, there would be no

wages, and if there were no wages, there would be no revenue in

taxation for government.

The previous government thought profit was a dirty word, but I say

profit is an essential ingredient in creating wealth and prosperity in

British Columbia. Profits are necessary to justify the capital

investments,

I was very happy to read last week that the profits of Crown

Zellerbach Corporation, Weldwood Corporation and British Columbia

Forest Products Corporation are up substantially this year. I think

that's a beautiful thing. They are almost up to the point now that you

could get from a term deposit or a savings account from a bank. If

these profits continue to go up, perhaps they will get to the point

where we can once again attract capital back to British Columbia. That

has to happen.

[ Page 462 ]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite look at our budget and say, "We

don't see any jobs in there"; they look at our throne speech and say,

"We don't see any jobs in there"; they look at our legislation and say,

"We don't see any jobs in the legislation." It is beyond the power of

this Legislative Assembly to legislate prosperity in British Columbia;

it is beyond the power of this Legislative Assembly to legislate jobs.

Prosperity and jobs can only be created by the cooperative hard work by

all of our society. You cannot legislate prosperity. Great Britain

tried it; it didn't work; many other countries have tried it, and it

doesn't work. The only way that we can have prosperity is by hard work,

that same ingredient which built our province into what it is today.

The Pearse report was presented to British Columbia about two months

ago. It will be a very important guide to the establishment of future

forest policy in British Columbia. Within four weeks of the time this

report was released, I had placed a forest policy advisory to work to

analyse the over 380 different recommendations made by the Pearse

report. It's a terribly complicated, complex report, and it has great

implications for the future of the forest industry in British Columbia,

but our government will not take any knee-jerk reactions to this

report. We will not rush into it and start implementing any part of

that report until we have studied very carefully what effects there

will be.

There will be changes in regulations, Mr. Speaker, as the year

progresses, to make our forest industry more competitive. I hope by

this time next year we will be in a position to introduce a new Forest

Act in the Legislature, but we are not going to do any of these things

without a very close, careful assessment of what the results will be.

The committee which I have established is working long hours and

working very hard. They will come up with proper recommendations to be

then approved by our government, which will have the effect of

improving the economic viability of our forest industry.

Our jobs and our government revenue all depend upon a healthy,

viable forest industry. It's often been said that 50 cents of every

dollar produced in our economy comes from that industry. When I was

involved in the mining industry I didn't believe it, but I do now. It's

an important industry in British Columbia, and we will be making

changes as the year progresses.

My colleague from Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was critical last week of

the fact that the coastal logging guidelines are still in place, and

are not being changed. Well, they are going to stay in place. The

guidelines aren't going to be changed, but the method of enforcing the

guidelines is. These guidelines are guidelines; they're not hard and

fast rules. They were introduced in 1972 as guidelines. The following

government became overzealous in their enforcement of these guidelines,

and they became rules. In many cases, the degree to which these rules

were enforced was very detrimental to our forest industry.

Dr. Pearse very clearly points out in his report that the

enforcement of the size of cut-backs on the coast had the effect at

times of increasing two and three times the amount of logging road that

was required. He also very clearly pointed out that the most

environmentally damaging part of forestry operations was road

construction. Those guidelines became rules and were enforced to such

an extent that they became completely unrealistic. The Forest Service

is now under instructions to make every guideline a site-specific

decision so that we do not have a blanket rule that is imposed equally

throughout the province. These guidelines were meant just to guide the

decision-making process and not to become rules.

Mr. Speaker, a great clamour arose shortly after the Pearse report

was released for immediate redistribution of all timber-cutting rights

in British Columbia. Dr. Pearse pointed out that over the last number

of years there had been quite a concentration of timber rights in the

hands of a relatively small number of companies. Mr. Speaker, the

Forest Service and the present government of British Columbia will not

allow any company, whether it be a large company or a small company, to

sit on timber values in British Columbia if they are not required for

the efficient operation of their industry.

At the same time, any company that is making good use of the timber

rights that they hold for the benefit of British Columbians will not

have this timber taken away from them because it is their lifeblood. No

one can embalm timber or will be allowed to embalm timber. But those

who are efficiently using it to create jobs and opportunities and taxes

and profit in British Columbia will be allowed to continue to use it.

That is the way it should be, Mr. Speaker.

The competitive position of our forest industry has been referred to

quite frequently in the media lately — by governments, by editorial

writers, television, radio — and it is a problem. It is a tremendously

large problem in British Columbia. For example, the wages and benefits

for one particular company in British Columbia rose, from 1970 to 1974,

between 78 per cent and 87 per cent, while their competitors in the

United States, in the same type of an industry, rose by 35 per cent to

45 per cent. I'm not going to argue whether or not this increase in

wage was justified. But what I am trying to point out is that our wage

rates going up at a more rapid rate than our competitors puts our

industry in a less competitive position. We must be competitive if we

are to continue to exist.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

[ Page 463 ]

B.C. coastal logging costs in 1970 averaged $31.40 a cunit for this

particular company. In 1974, the cost was $67.74 a cunit. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if we continue to allow our cost to increase like this, there

is no way that we will be able to remain competitive. There is no way

that we will have jobs, or opportunities, or taxes, or profits.

The capital investment required to provide the tools for our working

people has fallen miles behind that of our competitors. Our competitors

are making a much more substantially acceptable profit in their areas

of operation than is possible in British Columbia. They are making

enough profit to constantly retool their industry, to build new and

modern and efficient plants, while in British Columbia, our average

return on investment in the forest industry in the last few years has

been less than 6 per cent. That is not sufficient money to attract and

maintain the capital or to provide the capital to modernize our coastal

sawmilling industry that so sorely needs modernizing.

The taxes in British Columbia, composed by Canada and the province,

total about 52 per cent in the forest industry. Our competitors in the

United States, in a similar industry, pay 38 per cent — another

competitive disadvantage. But we do have advantages as well. We still

have one of the best softwood forests in the world. We still have the

most inventive, ingenious, hardworking work force. We have people who

are willing to compete and innovate and make use of our forest. We must

encourage this, Mr. Speaker, if we are to remain competitive.

Another example of why we are losing our competitive edge is that

capital cost of constructing plants....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in 1970, the cost of

building a 750-ton bleach kraft pulp mill in the interior of British

Columbia was $80 million. That same plant today would cost more than

$300 million. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the sale price of bleach

kraft pulp did go up by about $200, but the cost of operating that

plant went up by about $218. So we are having less and less potential

for profit to pay off rapidly increasing capital expenditures which

must be made to keep our industry in business.

Mr. Speaker, we must all hold the line. This government must hold

the line. We are doing this by presenting a hold-the-line budget such

as we have done. We will keep government spending under control and do

our part. Labour must do its part, and I'm sure it will, by lessening its demands upon the economic pie

of our industry. And industry, I'm sure, will respond and are doing so.

We have had announcements lately that certain companies are investing

millions and millions of dollars, perhaps not to create new jobs, but

at least to maintain the jobs we have now. Industry, I'm sure, will do

its

part if they can see that their capital can earn wages just as our

workmen earn wages.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that no legislature in the world can

legislate prosperity. It is only by setting examples and creating the

proper environment that we can have prosperity and jobs in British

Columbia. It is for this reason that I fully support this hold-the-line

budget.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): It's a pleasure to take my place in

this debate on behalf of the residents of beautiful Comox constituency.

Before I begin my remarks this afternoon in relation to the budget....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we're getting some feedback here

through the system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There appears to be some music

coming through the speaker system. Perhaps those who are at the

controls might check it.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It's called: "We Shall

Overcome." (Laughter.)

MS. SANFORD: Is it your phone, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it's not my phone. Perhaps we could just

have a bit of a recess until we determine the source. Perhaps at the

ringing of the division bell, members may wish to return to the chamber.

We'll try to determine the source. I'm sorry for the interruption,

Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD: No problem, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

The House took recess at 3:46 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:59 p.m.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if this was maybe a

government plot!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD: Could it be a government plot? Are they afraid

that this amendment that we are going to propose today is going to

pass? Could it be?

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the Minister of Forests and he

made some comments to which I really would like to respond. He was

carrying on, during most of his speech, an attack against the working

people of this province, an attack that has been started by the Premier

and carried on by other cabinet ministers and people in the back bench.

[ Page 464 ]

Today he spent over half his speech reinforcing the impression that

this government is trying to create out there: that is, that the

working people of this province are overpaid, that they are not

carrying their share of the load and that things have to change. They

are carrying on this campaign because there are so many contracts that

are coming up for negotiation this year. They are setting the stage

early, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that he mentioned over and over

again was that we have to become competitive in this province — that

is, we have to keep salaries down so that our products will be

competitive — and the main emphasis was on salaries, Mr. Speaker. But,

at the same time, the cost of living that working people in this

province face has gone up under this government's administration — up

in almost every field, whether it's income tax, sales tax, ICBC, ferry

rates — you know that whole long list. And here he is supporting this

budget, attacking working people who are going to be asking for an

increase, supporting this budget that does absolutely nothing to reduce

the taxes to put some money into the economy. I don't understand that

Minister of Forests. On the one hand he talks about several people

standing around on a job watching'one person operate a jackhammer and

he condemns that. In the next sentence he says that we have an

efficient, productive work force. He's not even consistent.

The other thing that he said is that we can't legislate jobs and we

can't legislate prosperity? Why can't governments create jobs? There

are all kinds of job-creation programmes that have been carried on by

democratically elected governments all over this country. But, no, this

government — hands off. You can't legislate jobs. That's a no-no.

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating is a meaningless, misleading

millionaires' budget, and I would add the word "lousy" as well. It is

meaningless for those who had hoped that the inequitable 7 per cent

sales tax would be reduced. It is meaningless to those who had hoped

for some expansion in the intermediate-care programme. It is

meaningless for women who look for expansion of day-care services. It

is meaningless for those who have children who are emotionally

disturbed or who have learning difficulties. It is meaningless to the

seniors, to the handicapped and to all of those who are looking for

work in this province. For all of them, it is meaningless.

It is misleading as well, because it deliberately underestimates the

revenues for the nefarious purpose of a millionaire coalition cabinet.

The government wants to build up a surplus so that it can buy votes at

the next election with the surpluses that they've built up by handing

out various goodies to the electorate. That's what they're up to, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask you: Where is the virtue in a $40 million surplus when

services are cut and old people are asked to pay more? Ferry rates have

ruined the economy of Vancouver Island. The inequitable 7 per cent

sales tax still remains in effect. The Conference on the Family has

lost its funding. And 92,000-plus people are out of work. And on and

on. What is noble or admirable about further cuts in people programmes,

underestimating revenues and building up greater surpluses, except to

serve their own needs — those who sit on the cabinet benches over there?

Millionaires' budget, Mr. Speaker? I won't comment further on the

windfall given by this budget to them, because many speakers on behalf

of the official opposition have expressed very adequately my views on

that subject. Lousy budget? It's a lousy budget because it will do

nothing for people, do nothing to stimulate the sagging economy or to

provide work for the 92,000-plus who are out there looking for jobs.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is right — it is Machiavellian

malevolence.

I would like to comment on a few specifics within the budget. The

sales tax cut on mobile homes, except on the building materials used in

the mobile home, is a good thing. It'll help people in my riding, many

of whom are turning to mobile homes as an answer to their housing

needs. But it is regrettable that the sales tax on all building

materials used for homes was not removed, because that was promised

during the election campaign by those who now occupy the government

benches.

The $50 increase in the homeowner grant to senior citizens would be

a good thing, Mr. Speaker, if the government was not going to take more

than $50 away from the seniors through ambulance service increases,

through Pharmacare cost increases, through cuts in their GAIN programme

and through cuts in their senior citizens' housing programme, to say

nothing of intermediate care.

The one other comment on specifics in the budget I would like to

make relates to propane gas. I think the removal of the sales tax on

propane gas is a step in the right direction. It's especially

gratifying for me, Mr. Member, because it was on June 29,1976, that

during question period I asked the Minister of Finance a question in

the House on this. At that time I received an answer from the minister.

I would like to quote just the last part of his answer, as reported in

Hansard on page 3243. The hon. Mr. Wolfe, in responding to my question

about the inequities of the sales tax on propane gas, said the

following: "Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, we'll be happy to

review the matter. I wasn't aware that there was any discrepancy where

propane tax was concerned." He wasn't aware — he has since looked at it.

About a month later I wrote to the Minister of Finance and reminded

him of the question I asked in the House. I received a letter from him

in August and I would now like to read into the record the letter I

received from the minister at that time.

[ Page 465 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you table it?

MS. SANFORD: Certainly — be happy to. Mr. Speaker, the letter

I received from the Minister of Finance, following my questions on the

review of propane gas tax, is as follows: "I have now had an

opportunity to review the matter of application of the social services

tax to the purchase of propane...."

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: What is the matter with that member? Call him

to order. He's always out of order.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to read that again, Mr. Speaker. There

were too many interruptions from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot). May I read it again?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Comox has the

floor. Perhaps we could give her the courtesy of our listening.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"I have now had an opportunity to review the matter of

application of the social services tax to purchases of propane. The tax

also applies to other fuels, namely electricity and natural gas. If the

tax were to be taken off propane, it follows that it would also have to

be taken off these other fuels. This involves a considerable revenue to

the province. The points set out in support of the removal of the tax

from propane are appreciated, and they will be retained for

consideration prior to the next session when any changes to the present

tax laws would be made."

Now, Mr. Speaker, if in August the minister said, "If the tax were

to be taken off propane it follows that it would also have to be taken

off these other fuels," then why doesn't it apply in January? I've

looked very carefully at the budget speech; I can't find anything

anywhere that says the sales tax will be removed from either Hydro or

from natural gas. But in August it followed that that would have to

happen. I'm wondering if perhaps I've missed it. Maybe the Minister of

Finance, during debate on the amendment which is to be proposed today,

would be able to advise me as to what has happened between August and

January, or at least perhaps he could point out to me where I've missed

it in the budget.

The student employment programme funding, Mr. Speaker, is totally

inadequate. The first year this programme was introduced, $30 million

was set aside. The second year, it was $20 million. While this year's

programme reflects an increase from last year's $9 million, the $15

million included in this programme, I predict, will not meet the needs

of students this summer because there are going to be so many of them

out of work. There will be students all over this province who are

unable to find work and will not be able to continue their education

because of inadequate funds in that student programme.

Mr. Speaker, it is the fiscal stupidity of this government over here

that will result in students not being able to get back to school again

next year. All the time they're going to be building surpluses while

students are not able to get work and are not able to continue their

education. Mr. Speaker, that's shameful.

I want to express to this House the feelings that I had when I was

appointed labour critic for the official opposition. I want to tell the

House that I have to confess I felt a little ill at ease because there

is no portfolio in this province that means so much to the people of

B.C., and to express my misgivings at assuming the role of critic over

a portfolio that has, in the recent past, been so ably administered by

the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). That member, Mr. Speaker,

reminded us during the last session of that particularly heavy load

carried by the Minister of Labour. He reminded us that in the field of

labour relations the first requirement is to show that there is a

neutral referee — a referee that is not only neutral, but known to be

neutral. He reminded us, Mr. Speaker, after pointing out that there is

no political mileage to be gained from that post, that we could not

possibly gain from the kind of confrontation that ensues when neither

party has sufficient faith in the referee to respect that referee and

his rules. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan was

beyond any intelligent dispute, an outstanding Minister of Labour, a

man who, when presented with opportunities to turn his post to partisan

political advantage, refused to do so, reminding everyone at every turn

that taking political advantage of industrial relations disputes was a

dangerous thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, the Employers Council respected him for that. The

present minister, upon taking his post, expressed his admiration for

that. Labour organizations, though they did not often say so, admired

him for that. We had in B.C. a tough, able and neutral Minister of

Labour. People recognized that. However difficult labour relations in

B.C. might become, we had a tough, courageous, neutral referee.

And so, Mr. Speaker, despite our general disappointment at losing

the election, we were happy on hearing at the end of 1975 that the hon.

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) would take

over that vital portfolio. We thought of him as a man of considerable

intelligence, courage and sensitivity. You know, he always seems to be

on top of the situation. He seems self-assured, although we do know

that he has a short fuse, Mr. Speaker, and loses his temper on

occasion. We've seen that

[ Page 466 ]

happen in this House many times.

We did expect, under that minister's guidance, a new strain of

paternalism to creep in, but we didn't expect anything more serious

than that. So, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express our disappointment today

at learning otherwise: learning from the way in which he has handled

the Workers' Compensation Board; learning from the legislation he

introduced last year that he had no intention of being, much less

appearing, neutral; learning from his participation in debates that he

would not blush at being associated with the most squalid hucksterism —

even of his own government — as evidenced in this budget; and learning

finally that in doing all of these things he wasn't even following the

dictates of his newly found right-wing extremism, but merely taking

orders from the Employers Council. Mr. Terence Ison, in his report just

released, confirms our conclusions and reinforces our disappointment.

Mr. Speaker, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound assumed his

portfolio on December 22, 1975. So far as we know, very little was done

over the holiday week immediately after that. Some time very early in

January, presumably, the minister got his orders from the Employers

Council to fire the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board despite

the chairman's submitted resignation. He did not advise the chairman of

the criticisms that had been made against him, nor did he invite a

defence from that chairman. He lacked the courage, Mr. Speaker.

When the chairman properly and truly predicted the chaos that would

ensue, including, by the way, the ludicrous reference in the Ross

report to excess rental space and including the difficulty that firing

would add to the recruitment of a new chairman, the minister did not

flinch in his resolve to carry out the orders of the Employers Council.

What a sordid, shabby piece of business, Mr. Speaker!

MR. LEA: Workers of West Vancouver arise!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it has now become clear why it

happened. In a letter dated December 31, 1975, that is included in the

report on the Ross report just submitted by Terry Ison, a consortium of

employer groups told the chairman that they had selected someone to do

a review of the board's operations and that he should be entirely happy

to treat that reviewer as "independent." In a letter dated January 20,

the chairman did what any honest, intelligent chairman would do: he

pointed out that it would be entirely improper for the board to agree

to a review conducted by a consultant chosen by a lobby group, and a

lobby group, moreover, which begins by asserting its pecuniary interest

in the matter. That letter, Mr. Speaker, presumably came into the hands

of the Employers' Council about January 22. On January 27, four days later at most, the chairman was

fired in a fashion that is absolutely unprecedented and the minister

gave the Employers Council what they sought — a report favourable to

their interests.

The minister chose Ross and Associates because he knew that Ross

would do a report favouring and protecting the employers because Ross

had done a similar report for Alberta and for Ontario on workers'

compensation. Their conclusions were predictable, Mr. Speaker. The

minister got what he was looking for: the "boss" report. The taxpayers,

Mr. Speaker, should not be asked to pay for this report.

We understand that the Employers Council has recently been over to

see the minister again, this time on amendments to the Labour Code —

the code that this minister used to praise. I wonder what Labour Code

changes we'll see as a result of that visit.

MR. LEA: The Bill Bennett amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have here a sheaf of newspaper

clippings — a whole sheaf of them...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table it!

MS. SANFORD: ...which illustrate the incompetence of the

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to fill any ministry, in my view.

At best, Mr. Speaker, they show a record of ineptness parallelled only

by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his efforts to

sabotage ICBC. These are records, Mr. Speaker, of the chaos that this

minister has inflicted on the Workers' Compensation Board, and they

include records of the suffering that B.C. families have undergone in

order to satisfy that minister's lust for power, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MS. SANFORD: Let me give you a few examples. For instance, on

November 7, 1975, a workman in this province was injured. His claim was

accepted and he tried to go back to work but found that he could not

work, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, his claim was rejected. He appealed

in March 1976, the hearing was held on May 6, 1976, and, Mr. Speaker,

to this date there is yet no decision about this particular case.

MR. KING: Justice delayed.

MS. SANFORD: Another one: injured March 22, 1976, appealed the

decision on June 28, 1976, the date of the hearing September 24, 1976;

Mr. Speaker, no decision yet.

MR. KING: Is he on welfare now?

[ Page 467 ]

MS. SANFORD: Well, this particular one that you just referred

to happens to have run out of UIC payments and is surviving right now

on some money handed to him by Canada Manpower so he can get some

retraining.

On June 30, 1976, another worker was injured. He appealed on June 29,

the appeal was heard on October 7, and, Mr. Speaker, there is still no

decision. I have a whole list of them here! What is happening to all of

these workers while that minister has done virtually nothing to improve

the situation at the Workers' Compensation Board?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's destroyed it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, if you want to know why these

people were forced to suffer unconscionable delays in awaiting ICBC

benefits, read this report by Terry Ison. If you want to know how much

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was willing to pay for power,

Mr. Speaker, read this report. If you want to know how much the present

Minister of Labour is prepared to do in the pursuit of neutrality, read

Terry Ison's report. Mr. Speaker, if your stomach is strong enough, if

no tale of gutlessness on the part of a minister of the Crown can

sicken you, read this Ison report. Read it!

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to read just one small

section out of this report to give you some idea of what has happened

under that minister. I'm reading from page 14 of the report:

"Instead of proceeding with the selection process, and

permitting an orderly transfer of responsibility to a new chairman, the

new Minister of Labour made decisions that:

"

(1) Commissioned a government inquiry to be made by

a company that was unqualified for the purpose" — incompetent — "and

that produced a superficial report without having made any proper

inquiry.

"

(2) Failed to provide a chairman of the board with

the protection, that any chairman had a right to expect of any Minister

of Labour, from the lobbying of those whose interests do not coincide

with the interests of the people intended to be protected by the

legislation.

"

(3) Left the position of chairman vacant so that the

board became leaderless for a year, with consequential damage to the

staff morale.

"

(4) Delivered a gratuitous insult and financial loss

to a public servant and, in so doing, took the risk of jeopardizing the

prospects of obtaining a new chairman of high qualifications and

ability by making the position look suicidal.

"

(5) Brought the planning and development work of the

board virtually to a standstill.

"

(6) Brought the implementation of new programmes to

a standstill without even bothering to ask first what the new

programmes were, what the health hazards or other problems were that

these programmes were intended to resolve, and what results they were

expected to achieve.

"

(7) Lost valuable staff to the board.

"

(8) Made it clear throughout the board that job

security at the senior levels depends upon appeasing the most powerful

lobby group rather than reaching decisions by reference to the law of

the province, and insofar as the law so describes, according to one's

own judgment.

"

(9) Sterilized, to a significant extent, the

effectiveness of the independent boards of review that were established

under the 1973 amendments.

"

(10) Created the risk that the board would revert to

its old practice of violating

section 55 of the Act by refusing to

implement, or minimizing the significance of a certificate of the

medical review panel that reached a conclusion more favourable to a

worker than opinions held of the board."

MR. KING: A scathing indictment by someone who has respect

for academic integrity.

MS. SANFORD: It goes on:

"

(11) Would deny the new chairman the opportunity of

coming into the board as a going concern, and confront him instead with

an almost impossible backlog of decisions of various kinds."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon, members, the member for Comox is having

difficulty collecting her thoughts. Let's give her the courtesy of

listening.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not having any difficulty

collecting my thoughts.

"

(12) Would determine public confidence in the board,

in particular by creating a skepticism about whether the enforcement of

health and safety regulations would continue, thereby undermining the

incentive to compliance."

Terry Ison also says:

"If the Minister of Labour now wants to mitigate the

damage that he has done, and seriously wants to be constructive, he

could well (

a) issue a public statement dissociating the government

from the P.S. Ross report, and (

b) see if he can find an able lawyer

still willing to take the job, appoint a new chairman, and give him the

authority to get on with it."

Mr. Speaker, that's directly out of the Terry Ison

[ Page 468 ]

report.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Find another lawyer

— he said "a lawyer" — that's what he wants.

MR. KING: He wants fiscal integrity and fortitude.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in his own defence the minister has

just said Mr. Ison only wants another lawyer appointed. I don't care

whether he's a lawyer, or what position or what particular background

he has as long as he is effective, has some integrity and gets

appointed quickly, Mr. Minister. It's over a year.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What do you know about integrity? You used to be

a Liberal!

MS. SANFORD: Did you say Ison did not have any integrity, Mr.

Minister?

MR. BARRETT: That's what he's implying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: You just said that we want someone with

integrity, which wasn't present in the last chairman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, so that we can....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members!

In order that we can restore some order to the House, perhaps we could

observe a few of the basic rules of the House. I would ask the hon.

member for Comox to address the Chair, because to address other members

directly across the floor is to provoke the kind of response we are

hearing here today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. The Minister

of Labour is getting quite twitchy at the moment, and I am afraid that

I am responding directly to him on occasion. I apologize for that.

Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment in this debate, it isn't just the

point that the Employers Council, having ordered the Ross report,

should pay the nickel or dime, or whatever is the price of that

wretched piece of political pamphleteering. It isn't just the fact that

in this budget the government includes $30 million for rent — and I

don't think people have spoken out on this yet — which falsely inflates

both government revenues and expenditures. It isn't just that the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has increased his

real expenditures by $11 million by that artful device of charging $11

million for rent, a device that is leading the people of British

Columbia to believe that he is spending a lot more than he is.

Nor is it only the fact that virtually every minister of the Crown

has participated in that same guile. Mr. Speaker, it isn't just Arthur

Weeks and all the mess surrounding the Grizzlygate. It isn't just the

recent revelations about the BCR, which show that this government will

pay any amount of taxpayers' money to cover up alleged fraud. It isn't

just the well-illustrated fact that this government is pursuing a

fiscal path directly opposite to what it knows is in the interest of

the B.C. economy, and pursuing it for its own political gain.

Mr. Speaker, it's the people of this province who should get

something from that government. The money shouldn't be salted away into

the provincial coffers to be used at election time by this gang of

hucksters. It should be used for people!

Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the following: that the motion that "Mr.

Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of

Supply" be amended by adding the following:

"but this House regrets that in the opinion of this

House the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make provision for the

fiscal and human betterment of the majority of the people of the

province, particularly in respect t o taxation, investor confidence and

employment opportunities, and does not protect senior citizens and the

handicapped from the effects of inflation."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion appears to be in order and the

proper signature is here.

On the amendment.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, as is

customary for the seconder, I will make a few comments on the budget

speech in general, as I will lose my place in the main debate.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate and join others who have

congratulated the three new cabinet ministers. I mean that in all

sincerity. However, I don't think that one can help but notice that the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has already surprised

everyone by exceeding his predecessor in the area of being

uncommunicative and raising the alarm of people in the agricultural

industry to the point that he's now doing the impossible — he's making

his immediate predecessor look good. But, as I said in all sincerity, I

wish all three of those

[ Page 469 ]

members the very best of success in their ministries, all three of

which are very important.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there has been comment and a lot of observations made

about the millionaires' Monday budget. I think that it has been

revealed that there have been serious underestimations of revenues.

While on one hand the Minister of Finance, during his speech, pointed

to increased activity in various areas such as forestry and mining, at

the same time his estimates for revenues were down very seriously from

the previous year. It can only lead one to assume that this is a

government that is going to play politics, that is going to salt away

money and build up phony surpluses and, at the same time, is going to

deny people of the proper levels of services which are required. It

will not address itself to the measures that have to be taken in view

of the problems of unemployment and increased inflation.

I would like to say that I did welcome two moves, and shared the

concern of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). Last April 27, during

the estimates of the Minister of Finance, I also pointed out that users

of propane and butane gas must pay a 7 per cent sales tax,

whereas fuel

oil is taxed on an entirely different basis of 0.5 cents a gallon. The

tax on propane amounted to about 4.22 cents per gallon compared to the

fuel oil, which is 0.5 cents. So there was a tremendous disparity

there: it is about five or six times as much.

So there was a tremendous disparity there — it is about five or six

times as much. It was made even more disparate by the last move of the

last session when the government increased the sales tax from 5 per

cent to 7 per cent. And it's people who live in rural areas that have

to use propane or butane because the services of the piped, natural gas

lines do not reach into those areas.

Another thing in the budget which I do think was commendable was the

move to remove sales tax from the sale of mobile homes. When I first

commissioned the Audain report on mobile homes in 1975, I was pleased

to see that this was one of the recommendations, and I am pleased to

see that this is one of the recommendations of that report that the

government has moved upon.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like also to bring to the attention of the

government that while we here in British Columbia are enjoying

unseasonable weather — good weather this winter — it has resulted in

considerable savings in terms of highway maintenance costs, sanding,

clearing and snow removal. At the same time as this is happening, and

we're realizing a saving on the one hand, there has been a disastrous

effect on one very important industry — the winter tourist industry for

the ski hills in the southern part of the province.

The ski hill operations, I think, fall generally into two categories

in this province. We have the privately owned enterprises, such as the

Grouse Mountain resorts, Whistler, or Last Mountain in Westbank; or we

have the community, non-profit enterprises such as one of the most

famous, being Red Mountain in Rossland; Baldy Mountain in Osoyoos —

through you to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ; also our

ski hill, Whitewater, in Nelson; also in Fernie and in Kimberley. We

have these community-owned, but nonetheless important to the tourist

industry, facilities. As I say, these are nonetheless important tourist

attractions and they've been promoted by Pacific Western Airlines and

they've been supported by their local tourist accommodation industry. I

daresay that in most of these communities the motel operators have, by

taking out either no-interest long-term debentures or low-interest

debentures or with donations, promoted and supported these facilities,

because they realize that it's very important to their winter operation.

Because of the high level and the variety of these facilities in

British Columbia we are able to keep British Columbia dollars here in

the province in our tourist industry, as well as attracting skiers from

outside of the province. Skiers have found that they don't have to go

to Sun Valley or to Aspen, Colorado, to find a challenge in keeping

with their level of expertise or interest in skiing. Winter vacations

in British Columbia can be as good an escape as the sunny climates of

California, New Mexico or Arizona. People can ski B.C. They can keep

their tourist dollars here and we can also attract people from outside

the province. I'm glad to see that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

agrees.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Have you read the

amendment?

MR. NICOLSON: To the member for Vancouver South, Mr. Speaker,

I might — through you — make an aside that when the seconder speaks on

the amendment to a budget or throne debate, he is allowed to make his

main speech as he would be losing his place in that debate.

Many ski hills have lost out this year because of the lack of snow

during the major revenue period, and that is in the Christmas holiday.

Even today, hills such as Red Mountain in Rossland have only the poma

lift and T-bar operating. They have three full chairlifts — their major

facility — shut down. Instead of operating seven days a week, as they

normally do, they are operating only two days a week.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Red Mountain? Red Mountain

[ Page 470 ]

built that third chairlift last summer, and it was counting on this

year's revenue to start repayment. I might point out that Red Mountain

is not in my riding. This is a general problem throughout the province.

Kimberley is virtually shut down. Fernie and Nelson, on the other hand,

are in full operation. But because of the late start, and because of

the adverse publicity that said that due to the lack of snow we have a

general disaster as far as skiing is concerned this year, people have

not inquired about skiing those areas. So places such as Fernie and

Nelson are not being fully utilized, despite the fact that one would

expect to the contrary when there are so many snow-starved skiers.

The full effects of this winter will not be known until next year.

There will probably be a drop in season ticket sales that will become

evident next December, based on the experience of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Travel Industry has recognized the

value of this industry and has promoted it through the quarterly

magazine, Beautiful British Columbia . Also, special ski brochures have

been distributed through the Ministry of Travel Industry. I would urge

that the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), along with

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), embark on what I

would suggest as a starting point a five-point programme.

They should identify all the ski hills that are presently in full

operation. This could be done tomorrow very quickly.

They should launch an information campaign to promote the facilities

at such places as those in the north that are in full operation, such

as the ones I have mentioned: Nelson, Fernie, Salmo. I believe Vernon

would also fit into that situation. They're presently being

under-utilized because of the misinformation that is about. I would say

that such a campaign could be launched by Friday.

I think that the B.C. Development Corporation should contact all of

the privately held operations, including motels, in order to identify

areas where financial difficulty is anticipated and investigate means

such as loan guarantees or low-interest loans in cooperation with the

Small Businesses ministry of the federal government under the direction

of the Hon. Len Marchand.

Also, in co-operation with the Ministry of Recreation and

Conservation, the minister should contact all the non-profit

community-owned hills and identify the areas in financial distress.

Fifthly, I would suggest that they allocate funds from consolidated

revenue for a community ski hill emergency relief fund, to be

established in consultation with the affected areas, with grants to

offset loss of operating revenues as established by some auditing

process. I would propose that such grants be established on some

dollar-matching basis whereby the local community must raise perhaps

one-third of the established deficit.

I feel I must point out that I own a debenture in one of the

affected hills which I have disclosed, lest there be any controversy

over this and someone goes to read what my holdings are. I would pledge

that if the government acts upon this suggestion, I would make a grant

to our ski hill by forgiving one-half of my debenture, so that I would

certainly not be accused of profiting by any such move. So I am

obviously not acting out of self-interest.

I would point out to those ministers, through you, Mr. Speaker, a

letter which just came today. It was addressed to the Premier. It is

from the Ram's Head Inn in Red Mountain. It says:

"I would like to draw attention to a very serious

plight that tourist establishments such as ours are in this year over

lack of snow in British Columbia. The Ram's Head Inn is a small, family

inn business that has only been open one year. We aimed at providing

accommodation for skiers at Red Mountain and also to get some passing

summer travel and tourist trade.

"So far this year Red Mountain has been unable to

operate. Consequently our bookings have been cancelled, and business

has been practically nil. We have a Federal Business Development Bank

loan on which we are unable to pay interest or premiums, plus, of

course, the operational costs which are constant: insurance, et cetera.

"Is there any possibility that the provincial

government could help in any manner so that we could continue in

business?"

Mr. Speaker, that letter came just this morning after I had prepared

most of the remarks which I made on this subject. I think it points out

very much the problem which exists. I can say that there certainly has

not been a winter like this since 1962. It is not a normal

circumstance. Even a great number of ski hills which do have snow are

not being used or visited because of general misapprehension that

there's only snow in a few parts of the province.

I'd also like to comment on a few concerns which I have. You know

that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has tried to dismiss very

lightly the 180-day ruling. He's tried to say that it's not too

important. I'd like to point out one particular case which happened in

the courts in Creston. This is from an editorial from The Creston

Valley Advance . It asks the question: "Has Justice Been Equally Done?"

It says:

"Three young men were arrested in Creston and charged

with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking after RCMP

had seized a marijuana cache last March. All three

[ Page 471 ]

appeared in court charged with identical offences, and all three

were remanded without plea until they could obtain legal counsel.

"The three without legal counsel entered guilty pleas

to the charges and elected to be tried by a magistrate after they had

been s advised of the serious nature of their offence. All three were remanded in custody until they again appeared in

court May 11 for sentencing.

"However, one of the three, between the second and

third appearance in court, had obtained legal counsel. When that man

appeared in court represented by counsel, he was allowed to change his

plea to not guilty and his trial date was set for July 20. Meanwhile,

the other two were sentenced to six months in the Kamloops Correctional

Institute, but the other one was released on his own recognizance.

"On July 20, the charges against that man were

withdrawn, although he had been charged on the identical count as the

others. The Crown having flown in as witnesses the two men serving their

sentences, accompanied by a sheriff, and having flown in a police

witness from Vancouver, did not submit any evidence in the case.

"The question asked is why? This is what the community

wants to know because the police, although they had tried, had been

unable to locate the accused to serve the necessary certificates of

analysis as he had moved from his previous address, apparently leaving

no forwarding address. It has since been learned that the accused moved

to somewhere in the Vancouver area. The prosecution felt that service

of the documents just prior to the court Tuesday morning would not be

accepted in the court as a reasonable length of time prior to the

trial, and the charge was withdrawn. This conclusion was drawn from the

study of similar cases laws."

Do we sympathize with the two subjects who did not change their plea

and did not get legal counsel, or do we congratulate the person who

did? These are the types of things with which I think the community is

very upset, and the minister seems to be going in the absolute opposite

direction to what people are trying to say.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is suppressing

information which, if released, would indicate that a shoplifting and

crime epidemic was rampant in the province during the last year. I

would further say that he knows that we now see organized crime in

communities such as Kamloops, Prince George and, I would say, even in

Nelson. There are organized gangs — and I'm not referring to the

old-fashioned TV-type image of gangs. This isn't a Mafia or any other

such thing. This is a fact, and it's not being revealed: there are

organized gangs operating in the small towns of British Columbia,

involved primarily in drugs and in other areas. It is no longer just

some little user who is supplementing his income and his need for his

habit by purchasing drugs and selling them to friends. There is actual

intimidation, there are beatings going on, and this type of thing is

rampant. There is a powder keg out there.

I think it was Judge Bewley who referred to the silly computer and

that it was responsible for all the fuss over the dismissal of charges.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot more information on that silly

computer, and I call for this government to release information which

is tabulated monthly under the title of the criminal justice monthly

report. I call for them to release the police crime ratios; I call for

them to release the incidents of crimes, particularly property crimes

which are related to drugs and other types of dependencies.

Last year during the estimates of the Attorney-General I spoke at

length on the report on impaired driving and alcoholism compiled by the

Justice Council of Nelson. I said that the government is a pusher of

alcohol, it is an enforcer of the regulations and it is a doctor in

terms of having to deal with the problems. The Attorney-General, I must

say to his credit, recognized one of the recommendations, and that was

that we step up the roadblocks and that we not just hold them during

the Christmas season, but hold them all year around. But I have also

said that the overservicing of patrons is a very serious problem,

certainly in the Nelson area and, I believe, in most parts of British

Columbia. I wonder what would have happened in one incident I'm going

to relate if the Attorney-General had stepped in and done something

about the overservicing of patrons — the forced feeding of beer into

people.

Just recently a young man about 23 years old and another young man

of 29 years old, with a family and children — both of whom, I believe,

had overindulged — got engaged in an argument in a Nelson beer parlour.

They called each other out. They went outside. A fight ensued. A young

man was beaten to death and he's left a widow and children. I'm not

going to comment on details of that as it will be before trial, but one

can only speculate on what would have happened had the Attorney-General

followed my recommendations last year to consider — it was his

department at that time, and is now the responsibility of the Minister

of Consumer Services and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) — that that

department is the pusher of alcohol, this very dangerous drug.

Would that young man be alive today if there had been a crackdown on

the overservicing of patrons? It

[ Page 472 ]

may or it may not have occurred if there had been more temperate

drinking. Of course, how many people would be alive today if they were

to have followed, and not just talked about, increasing roadblocks,

particularly if they were to increase them during the weekend periods

that I identified as causing 50 per cent of all traffic fatalities?

I have referred to organized crime, and I say that it exists not

just in Vancouver but has spread to the smaller towns of British

Columbia. I say it's about time that we became realistic about this,

that we stop hiding it, that we recognize the danger for what it is.

Now I would like to get to some of the points contained in the

motion. The other evening we heard the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) get up and talk about so-called cuts in his

budget as if these things didn't exist, as if services to people were

not being cut by that ministry. In my riding of Nelson-Creston we have

a resident home for the mentally handicapped children and adults called

the Doctor Endicott Home. Last year, because of budget cuts enforced by

that minister, they had to lay off nine equivalent full-time employees

out of a total staff which is now 35 permanent and 15 part-time

employees. The effect of that was that they virtually had to eliminate

their recreation programme. Two or three years ago I had the pleasure

to watch some of these young people participate in Operation

Trackshoes, a trackmeet for persons with mental handicaps and physical

handicaps from all over the province, held here in Victoria. I also

took them out to lunch at the government cafeteria. That programme has

had to be virtually eliminated — their recreation programme.

They now are concentrating on what they call survival skills, and

that is money management and cooking. The adults who graduate and

successfully complete these programmes go out into the community; they

don't spend the rest of their lives in an institution. The objective of

this is to get these people back into the community. Some of them have

apartments and some of them are married. But the staff load is barely

tolerable. They have had to discontinue 10 adults from the Cresthaven

boarding facility — people who are being funded through the Department

of Human Resources but who have no programme to occupy them during the

day. They are in these boarding institutions and going absolutely

nowhere.

If you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, one class got up to a ratio of 26

to 1. This was a craft clas