1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4501 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Closure Of Mount Paul private hospital, Mr. Cocke –– 4501

Tenants of Stratford Hotel. Mr. Barnes –– 4501

Mr. Lauk –– 4502

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 4502

Ministerial Statement

Committee to investigate school taxation assessment system.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4503

Mr. Lauk –– 4503

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Hanson –– 4503

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4504

Mr. Macdonald –– 4505

On the amendment.

Mr. Leggatt –– 4509

Mr. Levi –– 4512

Mr. Lockstead –– 4517

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4520

Mr. Barrett –– 4522

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd like to welcome to this House Mr. Warren Docker, who is from

Australia. Over the past number of years he has operated with a tour

company out of London, England, and that tour company is the largest of

its kind in the world, catering to those under 35 years old who want to

tour the Middle East, European countries, etc. They offer camping and

hotel activities and ski tours. Before Mr. Docker leaves this afternoon

I hope he has the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan). Mr. Docker is a good friend of my executive

assistant. I'd like to wish him well on his trip back to Sydney and ask

the House to join me in my good wishes.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

One of the best features of Vancouver South is that it contains Magee

Secondary School, which at every provincial election has, beyond

question, the best all-candidates meetings in the area. We have Mrs.

Garvin and a class of grade 10 socials students in the gallery today.

If I may, with your indulgence, Sir, I should tell them that shortly

after 2:30 p.m. they will still be in the gallery and see firsthand my

colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — one of their

two MLAs — at work. Nice to have you with us.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to discharge the order for second reading of Bill 6, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

CLOSURE OF MOUNT PAUL

PRIVATE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a

question to the first minister, the Premier. I am informed that the

Premier, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) met regarding a private hospital closure

in the city of Kamloops. This province is shockingly short of long-term

care beds, and Mount Paul Private Hospital in Kamloops has announced it

will close. Mr. Speaker, I could give you a number of quotes from

people. One is from a wife who indicates that it would be a death

warrant for her husband if he's to be moved, and the moves are quite a

distance. Those are the kinds of quotes that we're getting.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. COCKE:

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier would announce the decision

regarding the future of that hospital here and now in the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Although I think the question might be out of order,

this government is so concerned with the plight of those who are patients in

this hospital that I'm quite willing to state that, yes, not only has Minister

Waterland met with people in the area, but we've had substantial meetings

with the Minister of Health, who has instructed members of his staff responsible

for that area to make a quick investigation on ways in which we could prevent

any hardship for the people. We're positive that we have the solution; we're

working on it and we'll be making an announcement, hopefully, very shortly.

But I do want to assure the House, as we have assured the people of Kamloops,

that their care is the concern of this government. It's not an issue in which

we would want to see politics played. because the whole area surrounds people

and their families. The government is doing everything they can to make sure

that what was an announced closure of a private hospital will not cause any

hardship to these people, and an announcement, hopefully, will be forthcoming.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker. that gives us a tremendous amount of confidence. In spite

of the fact that Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops has announced that

they have no room — they've already got a number of chronic-care

patients in that hospital, and appropriately housed — insomuch as the

Minister of Health has announced that they will do their best to place

these residents in other facilities. will the Premier take into account

that this would be a travesty, because we're talking about great

distances, and will the first minister announce something that will

give some sort of satisfaction that real attention is being paid to the

Mount Paul problem?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we are concerned. A number of options for a solution were

discussed, entertained, and we will have a solution before any

disruption will occur. I've had ministers in the Kamloops area

discussing the matter with the people. I hope to have the Minister of

Health go directly to the area and deal with the people to find a

solution that will be acceptable not only to those who are patients but

to the broad community of British Columbians who are proud of our

health-care system.

While many of our facilities are in the

public domain, there are a number of private hospitals that do operate,

and it's consistent with our government's policy to try to encourage

the broadest base of health care that there is to ensure the best

possible care for the people of this province. As I said before, it is

not a political issue; it's a human issue and one which we're dealing

with and we believe we have the resolution for.

The member

has my assurance that the situation has received major attention and

discussion from the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Health —

particularly his staff — and myself, because it's an area in which I

have a lot of concern. The Minister of Health, as late as this morning

in discussion with me indicated he is prepared to go to Kamloops, and

I'm positive that I can assure you that we have a solution.

MR. COCKE: The logical conclusion would be that the government will be taking over Mount Paul Private Hospital. Is that the solution?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

TENANTS OF STRATFORD HOTEL

MR. BARNES:

This question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Eviction notices have been served on the tenants of the 151-unit

Stratford Hotel, effective March 16, in order that the suites can be

made into 51

[ Page 4502 ]

self-contained

luxury apartments. Many of these tenants are disabled and have lived

there for up to 30 years. Has the minister decided to ask cabinet to

proclaim amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act passed by this

Legislature last spring in order to protect people who are living in

hotels, motels and lodging houses?

MR. SPEAKER:

Insofar as the question tries to explore future policy, it is out of

order. Any question regarding a decision already made by the minister

is in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd happily respond to the opening concern of the member,

which concerns me too. If he'll give me a day or two I'll take as

notice that portion of the question dealing with that particular hotel.

I'll personally look into the situation and I'll be happy to get back

to you.

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing with respect to the same question. We're not

raising this question as an isolated example in our constituency; it's

an example of what's been happening in other areas of the city and

elsewhere in the province, because of the lack of policy on the part of

this government with respect to housing and the protection of tenants.

What steps have you decided to take to work with the city of Vancouver

to ensure that the tenants of the Stratford Hotel are rehoused promptly

in affordable, decent housing by March 16, when they will be homeless?

As I understand it, the city has formally requested it — if they have

not, I as the MLA request it. I wonder if the minister has arrived at a

decision with respect to assisting these people. It is a critical

problem involving disabled persons.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I've not received a request for assistance from the city of Vancouver.

Now that the member brings the matter to my attention, I'll be glad to

look into it and bring an answer back to this House.

MR. BARNES:

This is to the Minister of Human Resources with respect to the same

matter. Would the minister indicate if she has any plans that would

assist these people who will obviously have to find new accommodation

at, perhaps, considerably more expense than the affordable housing they

will no longer have as a result of this decision to vacate them from

the Stratford Hotel?

MR. SPEAKER: That same ruling applies. Only that

section of the question which deals with decisions already made is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I have not, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has

indicated, had any indication from the city of Vancouver, but I would

be pleased to have my ministry look into it, and I'm pleased to have

the question from the hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank all the ministers who have been

questioned with respect to the Stratford Hotel and who say that they

will consider it, and I know that they will honestly consider the

plight of these people. But as an aftermath to this situation I direct

a question to the Minister of Education in his role as coordinator of

the International Year of Disabled Persons. Some of the Stratford Hotel

tenants are physically handicapped and need alternate accommodation

with an elevator, and that's been one of the major issues that has

concerned my colleague and I. Has your committee had under

consideration the plight of these people in the Stratford Hotel, or

people like them, and if so what action has it decided to take to help

them?

HON. MR. SMITH: Since the committee was just

appointed a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. They don't

have that particular matter under consideration, but they most

certainly do have proposals under consideration in this province to

make public facilities accessible to the handicapped and to consider

wouldn't be ruled Out, but it would be a subject that I would be quite

happy to bring to their attention. They will be scrutinizing proposals

and grant applications from all over the province and then making a

recommendation to government on them. I certainly agree with the

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development, again on northeast coal. In 1977 the

northeast coal study revealed that the cheapest and most efficient

route for getting coal to tidewater out of the northeast was the

Monkman I route. Total cost estimates were $195 million for that entire

route — that's not much more than half the cost of the Anzac route that

was chosen. Can the minister advise the House why the most expensive

route was chosen rather than the Monkman route, which was clearly less

costly?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to

the member's question, in order to be perfectly accurate I would have

to go back into the records. I think if I checked the records on the

exact costs of both lines back in 1977, I might find that the original

cost on the Anzac line was somewhat less. I'll be happy to check back

into the record to determine what the costs were for both of those

lines at that particular point in history.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, when B.C. Hydro proceeds with the McGregor diversion the

Monkman route will flood that area. Wasn't the real reason for the

minister choosing the more expensive route to protect the McGregor

diversion project for B.C. Hydro which, as the minister knows, will

pollute the Fraser River system at great cost to the fisheries resource

of this province? Has the minister calculated the loss of the valuable

salmon resource in the Fraser River, the most valuable river fit for

salmon in the world? Has he calculated the cost to that river of the

McGregor diversion, and is this cost reflected in the loss projections

for the development for northeast coal? Don't tell me that there is no

pollution. You know very well that there are spawning beds all through

there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we

are forgetting the purpose of question period. It is to ask questions

and not to bring information to the House and certainly not to enter

into a debate.

[ Page

4503 ]

COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE

SCHOOL TAXATION ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

HON. MR. SMITH: I

want to make a ministerial statement. I would like to announce today

the establishment of a committee to investigate the operation of the

assessment system on school taxation in this province. Due to the

increases that have been experienced in assessed values in certain

parts of the province this year, particularly — but not exclusively —

in the lower mainland, and the impact that that has on school taxes in

those areas and around the province, I have appointed a committee to

investigate this problem and to make recommendations to cabinet with a

view to finding solutions to alleviate this problem for the 1982

taxation year.

This committee will be chaired by Mr. J.R.

Fleming, assistant deputy-minister of educational finance in the

Ministry of Education, and will include a senior economist from the

Minister of Finance's office. It is thought as well that the committee

will rely on outside expertise — that is, expertise outside of

government — and that it will meet with other agencies, including the

assessment commission, the B.C. School Trustees Association, and

possibly the B.C. municipalities and other bodies who are interested in

this matter. It will not be a touring, roving commission of its kind.

It will be a committee to examine the matter and to report

expeditiously before the end of June, in the hope that we can find some

method of alleviating or cushioning the impact of these assessments in

certain areas of the province.

MR. LAUK: First of

all, Her Majesty's opposition is opposed to the committee because it is

a smokescreen for a money-grab on the part of this government — a pure

smokescreen. The minister's predecessor shut down the McMath

commission, which was providing the answers for a proper education

financial formula in this province. It is interesting that the minister

states that the committee has as its term of reference until the end of

June, when the final tax bills for all of us in this province will have

already gone out and been paid. It is a cynical attempt to smokescreen

a money-grab and the loyal opposition rejects it out of hand.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to perhaps

review the fifth edition of Beauchesne in regard to what kind of reply

is expected to ministerial statements. It is not a time of debate.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. HANSON: Before our break, Mr.

Speaker, I was trying to convey to the government through you the

general perception that the public has of this government. There is a

clear double standard in that they want to have the ordinary citizens

of the province carry all the financial burden for transit, for school

taxes and so on. But at the same time, if you notice the news stories

that come out of this House, people close to the government, close to

the Social Credit Party in various parts of the province, do

exceptionally well on land transactions and other kinds of decisions

that are clearly of a political nature and that override the advisory

bodies established within our government structure to remove the

political aspect from decision-making.

I reviewed some of the major decisions made that have been purely of a political

nature — the Spetifore decision in Langley, which we have seen unravelling.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON:

My friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) says it is not true. The public

record speaks for itself. Any citizen of British Columbia is entitled

to go to Burnaby and ask for the file to review the Spetifore decision.

You'll see quite clearly that the soils people, the technicians and the

people in the fanning community who know what they're about, have

stated quite clearly in those files that that land has high

agricultural capability and is capable, through improvements, of

sustaining the population of the lower mainland with food production

for many years to come.

What we have as a backdrop to that

decision is a person closely associated with the Social Credit Party,

who has been working through the Social Credit connections for at least

eight years to have that land removed from the land reserve. I pointed

out before the break that the Spetifore case is rife with political

patronage: and the Wenger case in the Windermere area, with the

Minister of Lands. Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). Is rife with

patronage. It is that kind of....

MR. BARBER: And Gloucester.

MR. HANSON:

And clearly the Gloucester property one is another. It is that that has

coloured the public perception of this government. In December 1975,

when you were first elected, there was a great deal of coverage of the

extent to which wealth was in the cabinet. In other words, it was a

millionaire's government. That language has somewhat disappeared. We

tend not to hear that quite so much. But if the public was to think in

terms of the wealth of that cabinet and the lack of sensitivity that

millionaires have for ordinary people....

They think it's

funny, for example.... Not even funny; they're just disinterested in

the fact that they foisted all the costs of transit onto local

government with a diminishing formula. Over the next five years the

provincial share will diminish. Therefore the senior citizens in my

riding and the children who go to school and ride their buses for 15

cents — up until April 1 - can't do it any more. It will be 30 cents.

Now we find out that the taxes are going to increase again, so we're

going to go to the senior citizens of my riding and say it's going to

be 55 cents or 75 cents. Many of those people are right on the edge of

poverty. By adopting the formula of the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on the Urban Transit Authority and relinquishing

your own responsibility, you are pushing those people over the edge. I

think it's a bit much when I see George Spetifore with the likely

prospect of the GVRD rezoning his land as urban and his walking away

with $100 million when senior citizens in my riding can't afford to

ride the bus and feed themselves properly. That's a bit too much for me.

pointed out in my earlier remarks before the break that we have another

one coming up. I'm serving notice right now that we're going to be

watching this Eldon Unger case. Here we had a clear-cut situation of an

advisory board of academics and lay people around the province,

concerned with the heritage resources of our province, telling the

government, look, we have an advisory board in Chilliwack that has

recommended acquisition of this seven acres of the very earliest dairy

farming operation in the province. We're not coming to you for money.

There's going to be a $200,000 rebate from the people selling the

property to the province to

[ Page 4504 ]

provide

for the development of that land. Because that Eldon Unger is a central

Social Credit figure in the Chilliwack area, the cabinet overruled the

advisory committee. They also overruled the Heritage Trust, which is

dominated by your people — J. V. Clyne, etc. Why would you do that? Why

are you so politically stupid? You want to be re-elected so you can

control the treasury for the projects....

HON. MR. FRASER:

On a point of order, I don't think any member of this Legislature

should, when he's speaking, point at you, sir. I think it's very

threatening. I'd like you to ask this member to stop it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't see a point of order in this particular remark; but I would encourage the member to address the Chair.

MR. HANSON: I have great respect for the Chair and for you personally, as you know.

This

is a decision of the government, and my understanding is that cabinet

overruled these committees. I'm pointing out the error of their ways

and their not benefiting the people of the province in these decisions.

know my time is running out. I intend to raise the specific objections

I have to this budget in individual estimates as they arise in this

House, but I'm serving notice that we will be watching that Chilliwack

case very closely. I also want to say on behalf of my constituency that

this budget is a disaster for ordinary working people, and it is

certainly a disaster for the retired community of my riding.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

First of all I'd like to welcome the students from Magee Secondary

School, who have surpassed the records of most students by staying past

question period to the first couple of speeches in this debate. I

extend a warm welcome, as was extended by my colleague the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman).

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

was commenting in his discussion earlier today about health care in

this province. Both of you have undergone some very major health-care

problems. I must say that thanks to our seatbelt legislation, I was

buckled up when I was tail-gated not so very long ago and therefore

only had to have a short stay in Vancouver General. I want to tell you

that for as good as the service was that you found, I found the service

to be excellent as well. I'm only glad that I followed the regulations

and had the belts on, otherwise I'd have been in there a little longer.

I'd

like to address the budget, if I may. One of the main decisions that

was made by the Minister of Finance, as any Minister of Finance must

make, is the decision of whether or not to go for the so-called

stimulative deficit budget. He must decide whether to say: "This is a

bad year; we know it. If we raise taxes there'll be less spending and

less government revenue. On the other hand if we leave taxes where they

are or reduce taxes, there'll be more spending, and with more spending

the government will have more revenue. So a little stimulative deficit

for one year won't really do us all too much harm."

I'm

reminded when I think of that of the number of countries in this world

that have massive national deficits and provinces in this country that

have massive provincial deficits, and they always mean to repay some of

the debt. But, you know, it never happens, because governments never

have a year that's good enough to start repaying debt other than debt

interest.

There are never enough hospital beds, day-care

centres, homes for senior citizens or extended care beds. There are

never enough park facilities, schools, fish hatcheries, forestry work,

ferries, highways or any one of the government agencies. Every single

one of us, every single ministry in government, not only this

government but the governments across Canada, could easily find ways to

spend more money, and justifiable ways as well. So the decision of a

government to retire debt is one that is almost never made. The federal

government hasn't made it. Many of the governments of Canada, Ontario

as well, have never made the decision to start retiring their debt that

they incurred those years when they took the stimulative deficit route.

all the countries in the world, I would think that perhaps the province

of Alberta and maybe some of the states in the Persian Gulf may have

actually retired all of their debt, but none of the others have.

Governments just don't choose to do that. I think it's a brave step and

a courageous one that we raise taxes to make sure that we don't go into

debt. If we do, once we start down that sad road there are so many

legacies in front of us and so many examples of other people that have

done it and have had such great difficulty. The number of dollars that

are spent every year from our federal tax dollars just to pay the

interest on the national debt is testament enough to this argument.

want to talk about coal for a minute, not just northeast coal, which

seems to be the subject of great discussion — and so it should be — but

coal from British Columbia altogether. I think the outlook for coal on

the Pacific Rim is fantastic. The outlook for coal in Japan, and Korea,

and maybe in the People's Republic of China, and certainly in other

countries thermal coal as well as coking coal — is very exciting.

was recently in Japan, and one of the things we found there was that

the country of Japan currently consumes in two days the same amount of

oil that was consumed by the imperial navy in 1938 and 1939. They are

so critically energy-dependent that it's just beyond doubt, and yet

they are still importing from such unstable parts of the world as Iran

and Iraq. Japan and Korea are both on a hard-conversion program from

oil-fired to coal-fired power stations. In one particular power station

that's converted recently from coal to oil, they have a culturing farm

built right into the power station where they raise abalone in the hot

water from the exhaust gases, which is one of the things we went to

see....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Once again. I thought you just had a chance to speak. Don't you

remember the rules? They're in the little red book. You'll find it in

your desk.

They're using the exhaust gas for mariculture

purposes and using it very successfully. It's one of the things I hope

we can look forward to incorporating in our power generation projects

in this province in the future.

The outlook in terms of coal

exports for this province, through Ridley Island, through Neptune

terminals and through Point Roberts to the Pacific Rim.... Consider

what the competition is: unstable oil from the Middle East, unstable

oil from Nigeria. Consider the shortage of supplies from around the

world, and increasing world-wide consumption. Coal is one of the safest

fuels to move, to store, one of

[ Page 4505 ]

those

most easily stockpiled and one of the easiest to handle in its

conversion to energy. It's much more competitive than going to nuclear

power and much more reliable with suppliers than oil is. I think the

northeast coal is positive, just the first page in a long book. I think

we will find that over the next five to ten years there will be a whole

host of people coming to buy coal not only from northeast B.C. but from

the southeast as well. To that end, the development of Ridley Island

will be very important.

On behalf of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I recently

signed the agreement with the federal representatives when they were

here. He was out of town, which is not unusual.

That road is

under construction. There is a joint federal-provincial project to

construct the road from Prince Rupert to the port of Ridley Island. It

won't be very long before that becomes one of the major ports in the

Pacific. It's one day closer to the Orient than Vancouver is, and

Vancouver is already the largest tonnage shipping port on the Pacific

coast and strained to capacity. The grade on the CNR is much better

between Prince George and Prince Rupert than it is between Kamloops and

Vancouver, for example, on the CPR. The quality of the roadbed is

excellent, and I think that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've upset the man on the CPR. You'll have a chance to argue.

can see the time when that rail is running at capacity, which it hasn't

done since its very early days: a time when Ridley Island will be a

terminal for grain, potash, coal. wood products — a whole host of

things.

I want to talk about another item in the budget.

Last year the Ministry of Environment had a very successful task force

on the Fraser River to address the problems of pollution between the

area of Mission, just south of your constituency, and the Sand Heads.

But it was only a temporary task force, because it wasn't permanently

in the budget. In this year of constraint this is one of the few things

I asked for — one of a few things that I asked for, quite frankly, that

the Treasury Board acceded to. I'm personally very pleased, and the

enthusiasm of my staff is unbending. With their success rate so far in

prosecutions on the Fraser River, with a permanent force of people —

not temporary people in for just a short time as we had last year — I

expect that not only the prosecutions but also the persuasions of

people to clean up the Fraser River will be infinitely greater than in

the past.

There's also additional staff for the hazardous

wastes branch. We have a hazardous wastes task force now. They are made

up of a cross-section of the industry and are addressing this very real

problem in this province. Additional permanent staff for the hazardous

wastes force was one of the things that in this tight budget the

Minister of Finance saw fit to grant to my ministry.

I'll be

spending more time on it, of course, during my estimates. I anticipate

my estimates will take some time, as they did last year, so there will

certainly be cross-examination at that time. I wanted to say so at this

time, though, because maybe we won't have as big a turnout during my

estimates. There tend to be times when you have difficulty getting a

quorum.

There's also $6 million in the budget this year

for flood damage that has to be paid from my ministry: damage from the

tragic floods that happened in early December and on Boxing Day and the

days following, not only in Squamish but also in other areas of the

province — in Cowichan, Bella Coola, McBride and other areas; there

were a lot of places where it happened.

The member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) isn't here now, Mr. Speaker, but I was

wondering if he would accept the challenge from me, that each of us

would take a sign and go to the end of the Deas Island tunnel early in

the morning. He could have a sign saying the Annacis Island bridge

isn't necessary, and I'll have a sign saying I think the Annacis Island

bridge is necessary, and we'll see which one gets run over first. The

winner can come back. I'll tell you, if he means what he said when he

said that bridge isn't necessary, then he need only once try to come

in, either in the morning or in the evening, through the Deas Island

tunnel. Only stand up there once. The traffic is going slow enough so

that someone could get out of his car and give him a piece of his mind

without any difficulty at all. So I'll support him if he wants to go.

If he wants to go with me, we can stand there at the edge of the tunnel

and see who gets the nods. I want to tell you, if you think that bridge

isn't necessary, you could go and have a look. You may not think it's

necessary....

MR. HALL: That's your idea of leadership, is it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I don't think that was the subject under discussion.

The

cabinet took a tour of Vancouver Island. When the cabinet was on tour

of Vancouver Island we stopped in Nanaimo. Because the ferry service is

so excellent between Nanaimo and the mainland, fortunately I was able

to come home on the ferry, The Minister of Highways managed to show me

the new no-tell motel of yours. What is it called — the Pink Inn? I'm

not sure what it is. But anyway, he showed it to me. He's very proud of

it. He showed it to everyone in cabinet. We've all had a look at it. I

want to tell you, Alex, that I was really thrilled, because without

that I wouldn't have any idea where to stay in Nanaimo the next time

I'm there.

There are a long list of people who want to speak

in this debate. I think it's a good budget, a tough budget. It's a

budget that says things that need to be said, and it avoids that

terrible pitfall of going down the road of a debt this year which will

be paid next year. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I support the

budget and I trust that all other members will.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to raise my voice; I'm not going to argue. I

think, though, that what we're witnessing in this House is something of

great significance in the political life of the province of British

Columbia. It's a kind of watershed here in these sunny spring days of

March. A government has finally lost its credibility. Oh, the corpse is

alive and it's going to stagger around for another year or two, at

great cost to the province of British Columbia, trying this survival

tactic, that survival tactic. But the people know that this budget is

political expediency and not fiscal management, that politics has

invaded the office of the Minister of Finance, that there's no fiscal

integrity left in this government, that they're going to tax the people

this year as if it were Chinese water torture. Then when they let up

and make a surplus and bring in a sunshine budget at some later time

prior to an election and bring down the sales tax again, they hope that

the people will forgive them for the needless, callous treatment that

the people of this province are suffer-

[ Page 4506 ]

ing

this year. Oh, the corpse will stagger around for a while. But it is a

dispirited, discredited government opposite. They still flare up. The

member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) makes his old firehouse speech,

seizing on any little thing he has. But all the signs are there of

disintegration and decay.

You'll notice that in their

speeches they go back to telling their political bedtime fairy-tales

about how bad things were in the old days of the NDP government. This

is a sort of comfort to them. They never quote any figures in this.

They try to bolster up their courage by painting that kind of a

picture. They're not appreciating that while there were many

difficulties in those years and many problems overcome, the level of

expansion of capital expenditure, public and private — which they will

never quote — rose higher in those years than at any other time in the

history of the province of British Columbia. But they comfort

themselves, this dying government that is still staggering around. They

know what I'm saying is the truth. They go back to the old stories

about the mining industry in the NDP days — fairy stories too.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Read the reports. "Oh, I don't want to." Go ahead, tell your fairy

stories. But if you want to look at the mining reports you'll find that

the gross output of all minerals, from oil to natural gas to the

various metals, increased in production in those years at a higher rate

than any other time previous in the history of British Columbia. But

never mind the record. You're falling back on your placebos. You're

comforting yourself with your fairy stories. You still think that the

people of British Columbia are going to accept that kind of thing. Yet

you know in your heart of hearts that you've reached a watershed under

this Premier who is waving at the press gallery.

I know

there is not too great attention being paid to this debate, I think

because most people know what has happened. We're seeing a watershed in

the political history. We're seeing the death of the Social Credit

coalition and nothing that can be done will revive it. I don't know

what the future political configuration will be in this province. I

don't know that with certainty, but I do know that we've seen the end

of the Social Credit era. That end should come quickly and cleanly if

the people of this province are not going to be made to suffer as they

are being made to suffer with this kind of a budget.

The

government has spun out of control. When the Premier is not in Mexico

he's in Arizona. When he's not in Arizona he's selling B.C. resources

to the countries of southeast Asia who are so poor they can scarcely

feed themselves. It's junketeering. It's running away from the

problems. While all of these things are happening in the province of

British Columbia, the Premier has really given up.

His

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

was out of the province junketeering most of last year. You know, I

think the money may be considered to be well spent when that minister

is out of the province, because I've listened to his answers in this

House now for three or four years and I've never heard such

gobbledegook. Mr. Minister, you make Waldo Skillings look like a

financial genius, and you're our minister of economic affairs!

Look

how you're bleeding the people of this province. I've got this little

picture here, printed by the government, of the famous signing on

February 10 of the coal deal. There are the minister and the Premier

sitting down at the table. But what was really happening around that

table? The Japanese representatives had every reason to be pleased.

They couldn't lose. If the coal deal goes ahead at all they will get

our coal at what will be below world prices.

The federal

government at least has a policy that they do not believe in the

subsidized export of the non-renewable resources of the province of

British Columbia to our competitors. They at least have a policy. So

they were businesslike in terms of setting the CNR freight rates. They

were businesslike about the port, which was going ahead at Ridley

Island anyway because of the grain terminal. They were businesslike

through the whole thing.

The companies can only be happy.

They haven't committed themselves to anything. The funny thing that

happened when this little gathering was taking place was that the....

The minister knows this. He wouldn't reply the other day. I don't know

whether he was just shamming ignorance or he really is ignorant of

these things. The senator of the federal government had sent a Telex to

the companies, of which the minister has a copy, setting out in detail

the federal terms of assistance to the northeast coal project. Just

before the group met for the signing — you remember this, Mr.

Minister.... Just as they were sitting down to the signing, the

companies, Teck and Denison, replied saying, in effect, that the deal

wasn't good enough for them and they wanted another $50 million. Yet in

spite of that, the Premier and his Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development went ahead and announced a firm deal — it was a

great thing for the province of B.C. and it was a firm deal.

The

bleeding off of the public money of British Columbia to this project of

heavily subsidized coal exports is unbelievable. The planning involved

is unbelievable. That minister hasn't the slightest idea of what he has

let himself in for. He met the train when it came back through

Vancouver Island and he thought it was a great deal. Let me tell you,

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia were skinned when their

members sat around that table on February 10. You didn't know what you

were doing. You didn't know what costs you were going to incur. You

have no idea today what the financial liabilities of this project are,

and now you're taking it out on the people of British Columbia with

increases in sales tax and all the other things: hurting the little

people of this province, making them pay for your blunders, making them

pay for incompetent management of the resource economy of the province

of British Columbia on a scale that can scarcely be believed.

The

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

accused us the other day of political bed-hopping or something of that

kind, because the NDP was responsible in terms of the constitutional

crisis, in terms of trying to get a better package, in terms of not

tearing this country apart. To be accused of political bed-hopping by

that political nymphomaniac who deserted his own party, the party of

which he was a leader....

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would remind the second member for

Vancouver East what he said at the beginning of his remarks. He didn't

propose to lose his temper. I think he has been most intemperate in his

choice of language, and I would ask him to withdraw the suggestion that

the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is a nymphomaniac.

[ Page 4507 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the second member for Vancouver East to kindly withdraw that remark, which is clearly unparliamentary.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'll withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but may I suggest, just between the two

of us, that he has been a little politically promiscuous himself? He

and the Attorney General, having deserted their own party and slipped

the knife between the ribs of the leader they swore to support, are the

last ones who should be making these aspersions against the New

Democratic Party.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD:

Cassius, who brings back David Anderson and swears to support him. And

who was the first one who slipped the knife between his ribs? That

Attorney-General. Sure you did. That story will be told. It's a story

of treachery.

[Mr. Speaker rose, ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, if there is to be order in this House, there must be a

will to be orderly demonstrated on both sides. I will seek to assist

you, and in failing to assist you to my satisfaction perhaps the

Sergeant-at-Arms would be able to assist us all.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD:

Good resource management of this province by the Social Credit Party?

Let me give you a couple of instances of what's happened in this

province. One was the Peace River dam, where owing to the bungling of

the Social Credit Party B.C. Hydro was sued over a period of three

years in the courts of the province of British Columbia and ended up

paying $50 million in damages and untold legal costs. The Dease Lake

extension is a blunder; if it had been committed by any other party or

coalition they would have been shouting abuse about it from the

rooftops. Premier W.A.C. Bennett went ahead with the Dease Lake

extension for a cost, he said, of $80 million. He was told $80 million,

and then he abruptly ordered that it be revised down to $68 million.

There were no negotiations with the Indians of the Stuart-Trembleur

band. There were no negotiations with the federal fisheries in terms of

the diversion of the Bear River. There was no idea whatsoever what the

real costs were, no more than these people have any idea what the real

costs of the coal deal are. They were guilty of fraud. That's what the

judge found, Justice Kenneth Fawcus.

This is the Social

Credit record of what we're told is good business management. Kenneth

Fawcus held that the railway's cavalier style of assessing grading work

on the proposed line amounted to civil fraud. Although he said civil

and criminal fraud are different, the judge nonetheless added: "Even

civil fraud contains an imputation of dishonesty." It was political

interference with the estimates of the amount of rock, sand and gravel

to be moved and the grading and all of the costs to that railway that

led the people of this province to spend $191 million. It's down the

drain for a railway that couldn't be finished, because they killed it

off. That is a blunder on a colossal scale by the Social Credit Party,

and now we're asked to trust this gang. They do not have any of the

answers that we've been asking for in this House about the coal deal.

We're asked to trust them, and the people of British Columbia finally

made up their minds that this group cannot be trusted.

Look

what they've done. Mr. Speaker, in terms of substituting political

expediency for sound fiscal management of the finances of the province

of British Columbia. When you look at the story of the sales tax going

up and down and so forth. what do you see? Do you see any suggestion

that it was sound management of the economy and the finances of British

Columbia? You see politics creeping into the office of the Minister of

Finance Under the leadership and direct orders of the Premier of the

province of British Columbia.

On March 26, 1976. It was

raised to 7 percent. The political reason was to blame the NDP and its

administration. It was a purely political decision that cost hundreds

of thousands of people in this province lots of money that year. It was

just done for politics, to make a political point. This is financial

management? On April 10. 1978, the sales, tax was brought down to 5

percent because the federal government had a program of support which,

I think, amounted to $48 million. There was no credit whatsoever given

to them, and the announcement from the benches over there was that the

cut was permanent. Then, just before the election.... I repeat that,

Mr. Speaker, because my charge is that this government is dominated by

politics, and people know it now.

Just before the election

on April 2, 1979, that sales tax went from 5 percent to 4 percent. The

Premier of the province gave a press conference and he said: "The

reduction to 4 percent is permanent." Was he deliberately misleading

the people of this province for election purposes? Was he? Can you be

that incompetent that your own words? Do you deny, Mr. Premier, that

you said this was a permanent reduction? Ah, it was to fight all

election, and to heck with financial integrity and fiscal management.

Politics

is creeping into the office of the Minister of Finance on a scale we

have never seen before in this province. You know, there are two jobs

that are supposed to be a little bit above politics. One is the

Minister of Finance, who's supposed to manage our public moneys. Mr.

Speaker, in a way that is justified by the economics of the situation.

He has a peculiar role of trust, but that Minister of Finance and his

predecessor have been taking the orders. His predecessor came out with

the statement in 1978 that they were going to control expenditures,

that they would only rise as the real growth of the economy rose, and

they'd be restricted to 5 percent. What happened to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That wasn't permanent, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD:

No, he didn't say that was permanent, but he.... Well, there's a 17

percent increase this year. They accused the federal government of

fiscal mismanagement: they're great at finger-pointing, that bunch over

there. The increase in their budget is 12 percent. They've been using

that sales tax and they're using it now for political purposes and with

a callous disregard of what it's doing to people in this province. Have

they no appreciation of what that means to a family? This government of

millionaires and political turncoats have no feeling or care or concern

about what's happening to ordinary people who are trying to keep their

families out there. But people know now, I say

[ Page 4508 ]

you've

reached the watershed, that this government is gone, and they know it,

however long it may stay in office with every survival tactic they may

attempt to employ. It's gone, because the people finally understand

that you have no credibility.

In the days of W.A.C. Bennett,

who had a bit of feeling for people — I give him credit for that, and I

sat through those years — he would increase the homeowner grant year by

year. When this government came into office, what did they do? Let the

people suffer through higher taxes until just before an election and

burnp it up to the $380 and the $580 figure — just before an election.

And there is no relief this year; they're doing the same old trick.

It's politics, but people are suffering.

I could go through,

Mr. Speaker, the various scams and things; they've been so well

developed. I hope people were listening to the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who went over some of these things that are

happening in this province in terms of rewarding friends, injecting

politics into the Agricultural Land Commission and letting Social

Credit moneybags walk off with $50 million or $500 million. I don't

know what it is. I know it's a scandal. I know they deliberately took

the.... The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says:

"All we were doing with Spetifore and Langley and so forth was

fine-tuning the agricultural land reserves." What was the tune? The

tune was money, money, who's got the money. They did it with liquor

licences. They took it into the political area of the cabinet room

where the Socreds sit around and reward their friends. They took the

issuing of liquor licences out of there.

The member for

Delta (Mr. Davidson) holds the government up to ransom. He says: "Give

me the Annacis Island bridge or I won't run again." And they give in,

because anybody can hold this government up to ransom now. You've got

warring ministers. You've got any one of them with any strength over

there saying give me what I want or I will not support you and you'll

go down the drain. So the member for Delta says: "Give Spetifore what

he wants. He's a big supporter of mine. He's given me money in my

campaigns." And he gets it. His friends the Olms brothers want a

neighbourhood pub. It's turned down by the liquor administration, but

he gets it. Oh, the favouritism and payoffs referred to by the second

member for Victoria should be enough to make any of the people of this

province wonder what's going on.

It's too late for

finger-pointing. Blaming the NDP for all of these troubles, as you've

done all through these years — it's too late for that. Now you've made

Ottawa the source of all these troubles. Your budget and all your

mistakes and blunders you try to blame.... The finger-pointing is not

believed any more. What you have to do if you're looking for the source

of the blame for the troubles of this province of British Columbia is

to look in the mirror. Mirror, mirror on the wall will tell you where

the source of the trouble is. You're totally out of control.

Let

me just mention one little thing. I'm just mentioning this in passing,

because it's an example of how totally incompetent the government is.

The Premier brings us back to a special session last December and he

presents a constitutional resolution and the resolution required

unanimity. It said: "...with the consent of all the provinces and the

Parliament of Canada" — for the amending formula and any other changes

in the constitution. That was the motion. In Montreal, on February 8,

1981, Premier Bennett has this to say, that among his principles are:

"Unanimity among the provinces must not be a requirement for future

constitutional change. So strict a requirement could prohibit change."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the debate, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD:

If there's an explanation, it's either massive incompetence or playing

politics with the constitution, the Minister of Finance, liquor,

resources and land. I don't know which it is. I don't care. I think the

time has come — and everybody recognizes it — that this government has

had its day.

I don't know whether any other members read

this into the record, but I think I should do so. Ken Bell's not a

raving radical; he is the respected business editor of the Vancouver Province , and he said this about the budget:

"It smells of the government doing its best to reestablish

a healthy surplus at the taxpayers' expense.

"In effect, what is happening is that the scene is being

set for the provincial government to create a substantial surplus by the end

of the budget year.

"Politically

it's a return to Socred budgets of yesteryear where chronic

underestimation of government revenues led to massive surpluses which

were subsequently available for redistribution as political gifts,

particularly in election years."

I'm telling you, you can

build up surpluses and try to buy the people of the province of British

Columbia with their own money, but it's one time too late. You'll never

do it again. You've been seen through.

Spending's out of

control. Integrity in government is out of control. The projects....

Before I sit down let me say something about Pier B-C, because the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has insisted that she

have her money for that project, and she's a strong voice in cabinet.

We hear reverberations of the kind of debate that's taken place in

cabinet, but the incredible business mismanagement would be enough to

make somebody ask for the net. Suppose the NDP had done this? You tear

down the existing sheds on the Pier B-C; there's nothing there now. You

have no idea what the cost is going to be or what kind of a project

will be acceptable to the people, or to the government for that matter.

You say it's $25 million. You blunder again and cut off all additional

federal funding for the thing by sending a Telex back to Ottawa saying:

"If you contribute this much to the plan" — which I think was $13

million — "that's all we'll ever ask you for."

MR. BARRETT: Did they do that?

MR. MACDONALD: They did that. You know that's just cutting off the thing, and then the Minister of Human Resources....

MR. BARRETT: Who signed the telegram — Kelly?

MR. MACDONALD:

No, the minister did. Then on December 15 the minister puts out a paper

paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia.... I would think it is

part of the cabinet infighting to show there's popular support and that

she can get more money out of that cabinet over there for this

particular project, and it isn't even endorsed with who

[ Page 4509 ]

printed

it. You know there's a strict requirement, Mr. Speaker. that if a piece

of material goes out it's to be certified as to who issued it. You know

that minister, Mr. Speaker, in sending out this kind of propaganda when

she had no idea of the costs involved, no idea of the final plans, and

being ashamed to sign it as issued by the government of the province of

British Columbia, should be made to pay for this out of her own pocket.

What right has that minister to reach into the taxpayers' pockets and

put out this kind of propaganda that isn't even certified as issued by

the taxpayer? It's a fraud. If governments are allowed to got away with

that, they'll get away with anything.

I will not repeat the

very excellent remarks and points that have been made by our members on

this side of the House about the budget, The member for Nanaimo's (Mr.

Stupich'

s) analysis was good, sound and to the point. He pointed out

just how badly people are being hurt by this kind of spendthrift

government with no idea of what they're really getting into in the

northeast, no idea of what they're getting into in the convention

centre, no idea of what these monuments are costing that are supposed

to save their political hides. It's just total fiscal mismanagement.

But I won't repeat all that.

I'm going to move an amendment

to the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), that the motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair for

the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the

following: that this House regrets that the Minister of Finance has

introduced onerous, unnecessary and expedient tax increases, I use the

word "expedient" because that's the theme of what I'm saying today.

It's politics that has dominated the decisions of this government to

such an extent that the government itself is out of control and the

people are suffering.

We're talking about real people. We're

talking about a government that has performed in its term of office

matters that are so tinged with scandal that on that ground alone, they

should not be sitting- over there. I say that after the dirty tricks

affair, there's one good turn only that this government can now do for

the people of the province of British Columbia, and that's to go. Go!

You

know, it's a walking corpse we're looking at, but it's costing too much

for this province, which we all respect and like — all members on all

sides of the House. You've got members clown there who speak up, within

limits — like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). or even the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — but then when the moment of

principle comes, they think in terms of political survival rather than

of principle. But that will change. If it doesn't change, there will be

a realignment of political forces in this province, you can be sure of

that.

So I say that this budget is hurting people. It's a

government spinning out of control. It's a record of incompetence and

fiscal mismanagement. It's a record of political expediency taking the

place of the decisions that should be made on their merits and in

favour of the people of this province. I move the amendment accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER:

The amendment is here. and the required two signatures are on it.

There's a slight change from what the member read in the last word: the

last word here appears as "increases." Should it be accepted as spoken

or as written?

AN HON. MEMBER: As written.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT:

I think the word that threw some of us was "expedient, " as it has a

positive connotation. How can we say anything good about this budget?

Then when we add the word "political" to the word "expedient" ....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I know that

member will search his soul. He knows how hypocritical and how

expedient this particular budget is. The people of British Columbia now

know that they are about to finance the next election for the Social

Credit Party because of the gouging taxation that's taking place.

colleague from Vancouver East suggested that this is a government at

the end of its life. There comes a point when every government gets

into trouble and the trouble stays for a long time. This one has been

in trouble for a couple of years. If you go out and ask your own

constituents what the most pressing issue is in & province — Is it

inflation? Is it unemployment? Is it taxation? — the answer that comes

back to us every time is that the most important issue in the province

of British Columbia is this government of the province of British

Columbia. The question is the same. The question is always: "When, oh

when. oh when are they going to call an election so that we can get

some relief?"

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're waiting for your platform, my friend. You haven't said one word in five years.

MR. LEGGATT: I've got three more years to go.

This

is not just a bad budget in terms of the phony and hypocritical

overtaxation one year and then the phony surplus that will be developed

next spring. It's a bad budget for business. Business itself. which

likes to think of itself as a friend to this government.... Ask Chunky

Woodward of Woodward's stores what lie thinks about this budget. He's

taken the consumers at Woodward's stores and lie has to wonder whether

they are still going to buy the same amount of products they bought

last year. because they haven't Lot the money in their pocket. The

money is now in the pockets of the Minister of Finance. That purchasing

power has gone. What kind of free enterprise government is this? The

big-spending. overtaxing government — that's what we used to be accused

of for years: "Those big, centralist. overtaxing socialists." They've

got the worst of both worlds on their side. They're big spenders,

they're overtaxers, and they don't provide any social policies. They

haven't got any of the assets left.

At least once they

claimed efficiency. Once they claimed the Milton Friedman doctrine of

efficiency and low taxation. No, they are big spenders. They are

removing the purchasing power of ordinary people of the province of

B.C. and hurting the economy of B.C. In a way that no other government

has ever done. I see the minister of industry, trade and commerce

smiles and lie says earlier: "Well. what's your program? You fellows

are sitting in the weeds. You're not making any kind of construction

suggestions."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 4510 ]

I'll

make one — just one — today. I don't want to give you guys too many

ideas. You're completely bereft of original ideas. You budgeted $48.2

million to sink into the northeast coal deal. That clearly means that

the sales tax that has been gouged from the average- and low-income

people of British Columbia is going into northeast coal. The people

right now who can't find a place to live know that they're paying for

northeast coal every time they go into the store. Every time! And we're

going to keep reminding them. Well, $48.2 million doesn't sound like a

large amount in terms of the total budget, although we know the

expenditures on northeast coal are going to run into the billions and

billions.

Let's just deal with that one item — $48.2

million. Say that they had the wit and imagination to conic in with a

lowcost mortgage housing program using $48.2 million to fund that

program. Do you know what kind of an impact you could have on the worst

housing crisis in North America? You could produce $1.2 billion of

low-cost interest mortgage funding for the province of British Columbia

and make a significant dent in that. But this government hasn't got the

wit, skill or imagination: in fact you're just boring. You haven't sat

and thought any of these things through.

There is a point

when it isn't just a case of get an election, let's get rid of it.

There's a sense of pity out there. The old supporters of Social Credit

have been signing up in droves for the NDP. The change in the

atmosphere in this province in the last two years is just unbelievable

and they know it. Those people are asking themselves some questions —

simple questions about management, simple questions about whether these

guys know what they're doing. Have they got any plans for the future?

But no, all they can use is the same, old, tired funny-money trick.

"This year we overtax them and next year we have a few goodies on the

plate. and they'll return us." Well. I can tell you. my friends — they

aren't going to return you.

There has been a tendency

throughout the budget to look for scapegoats for this problem. It used

to be: "It was these terrible socialists over here that had ruined the

economy of the province, and therefore we had to jack up all the taxes

in the province to solve that problem." That worked for a couple of

years.

AN HON. MEMBER: They threw you out.

MR. LEGGATT: Right. That phony argument threw the NDP out.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well. It was the truth.

MR. LEGGATT:

He knows it's not the truth, because the facts are in. But they've got

a problem, you see: the memory of the public has worn thin on that

subject. Not only that, the public have investigated the facts and it

won't wash twice. They now know the phony exchange of funds that went

on with ICBC — the $177 million loan that they didn't need that was

built into a phony deficit. But it's amazing how little the NDP,

socialism and so on has come in for attack in this budget. No, now it

is Ottawa. Ottawa is a very convenient target.

HON. MR. FRASER: We all know what you did for B.C. while you were in Ottawa.

MR. LEGGATT: I did more for B.C. than this government did.

Let

me go back to the question of the federal government's role and this

new villain that these guys have decided is their convenient route back

to power. First of all, such a large

section of this budget is devoted

to blaming the federal government for everything that has occurred. The

federal government has not moved out of one single major cost-share

program. Tell me which one that's major that they've moved out of. Have

a look at your revenues. The amount of revenue that comes from the

federal sources is the same now as it was in 1976. In fact. you haven't

even paid a dime of the gas tax. That's all blocked because your legal

experts tell you that you don't owe the money. If you don't owe the

money, why don't you give credit in your budget for it? You look like

you're about to pay it. You're already claiming you’ve lost it.

But

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canada-bashing

doesn't work either, And the reason it doesn't work is that the public

of British Columbia knows: in the northeast coal deal. who's looking

after the taxpayers of British Columbia better, the federal government

or the provincial government? I have yet to hear any assurance from any

minister on that side of the House that the public investment, the

squandering of public money, will ever come back on a commercial basis

in terms of northeast development, because they know it won't. But to

their credit, the federal minister has said: "We're going to get our

investment back out of this deal." The reality is that the coal deal is

premature, and this government knows it. It's so premature that the

people of the province of British Columbia will pay millions and

millions and your grandchildren will pay millions for a dumb, stupid

decision on the part of this government.

When we look at the

budget as a whole and at the trumpeting of the triple-A rating and the

very good credit that this province has always had....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Neither did anyone else. In terms, however, of the major financial

problem in this province — and the government knows it as well as

anyone — the major financial problem lies in the viability of B.C.

Rail. We pay $70 million in interest alone on B.C. Rail out of the

pockets of the taxpayers of this province. The McKenzie royal

commission, as this government knows. recommended that B.C. Rail should

not touch northeast coal with a ten-foot pole. So when you come to look

at that development in the northeast....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

I know something about the Dease Lake extension too. Tell me about the

Dease Lake extension, How was it that your government, Mr. Speaker,

stated that Dease Lake would not cost more than $69 million, and after

you had squandered $200 million

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

I did, a very imaginative program. After they squandered $200 million,

what do they do? They go to B.C. Rail to get their estimates on the

Anzac line. How close are they going to be on the Anzac line?

Mr. Speaker. we know a few facts about the northeast coal. We had to get them

ourselves. The minister has refused to be open with this House: he has refused

to answer ques-

[ Page 4511 ]

tions in this House. So we'll provide the minister with some....

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT:

The minister will have the floor as much as he wants at a later time,

but he can't have it now. If he won't take the floor in question

period, he's not going to get it during debate, I can promise him that.

But when he gets up in question period, we'll consider giving him....

He loves us to ask questions: let's have some answers on some

questions, and let's ask a few more.

His deputy minister,

Mr. Peel, provided some very interesting memoranda on the coal deal —

and I know the minister is now going to be most anxious to provide us

with some specific answers about the coal deal. This was on January 6.

1981: I'm quoting from this document, which I know the minister has

studied and is very familiar with. Let's have a look at what really

occurred just before this exchange of valentines took place; let's see

what the background of the coal deal is. This was after Dalcor

engineering suggested that you couldn't be on stream in time — and you

know it — and it was after two of your coal experts told you that

Ridley Island wasn't going to come on stream in 1983. But they're ready

to pay whatever penalties are available, I suppose.

Well,

let's get to the specifics. I quote: "Certain changes were made in the

financing formulas for the Anzac branch line surcharge escalation to

meet the Japanese concerns about future cost competitiveness of

northeast coal." Now my question to the minister is quite

straightforward: what were the Japanese concerns, and how much did the

minister cut down the amount that the taxpayers of British Columbia

were going to get — the miniscule amount they were going to get anyway?

I'm sure he'll be able to tell us that.

The original

proposal on this was to have the Northeast Development Act. That was

the act that was to go before the B.C. Legislature, and we were going

to have a look at that and decide whether to pass it or not. In fact,

they even went to the trouble of hiring a lawyer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that?

MR. LEGGATT:

I think his name is Basford. He does everything for everybody in this

province for some reason, Mr. Basford looked at this, and his office

went to work. I understand they provided all the legislative backup and

provided the act and so on. What happened to it? What happened to the

northeast coal development act?

Let's have another look.

They were also going to establish something called the Tumbler Ridge

railway company. What was the matter with the Tumbler Ridge railway

company' Did the Toonerville trolley lose steam? I don't know. Maybe

the Tumbler Ridge railway company was a free enterprise company. They

couldn't have that in northeast coal. could they? They couldn't

possibly have tried to sell shares and gone a free enterprise route on

that thing. No one would have believed it from this free enterprise

government.

It's clear why this Legislature didn't see that

legislation. It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that it was coverup all the way

on northeast coal. It's going to continue to be coverup on northeast

coal until the documents are here, are tabled. and we can have a look

at the final figures. We're satisfied that we're cautious and

conservative. In fact, the numbers that have been released so far are

very likely to be far less than the ultimate losses to the province of

British Columbia. We've taken on the conservative side all the way

through. The surcharges will not pay for the interest on a debt that

has to be incurred to build the Anzac line and the minister knows that.

I see him shaking his head. He can't pay the interest on the debt of

BCR, which is probably in the worst financial shape of any Crown

corporation in the Dominion of Canada. He has decided to use that as a

vehicle to bury the massive amounts of losses that are being incurred

in northeast coal.

Teck Corp. and Denison Mines Ltd. who are

making a major investment in the coal project. are now saying that they

won't go ahead with this thing, They don't like it. They think maybe it

could be sweetened up a little bit. They've gone to the federal

government and said: "We think your port charges are too high. We want

you fellows to go a little easy on us, because we don't think our

profit margin is high enough."

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker.

that this government is ready to buckle on those charges. If this deal

starts to collapse, watch our brave minister jump up in the House and

announce changes which will accommodate Teck and Denison. It's going to

happen. If they don't get their own way with the federal government.

the softies on this side are going to buckle tomorrow, because they're

desperate for this uneconomic deal.

MR. LAUK: The politics of desperation.

MR. LEGGATT:

It's the politics of desperation. It's the last shot from a government

that's clinging to the big, ticket solution to return to government, It

doesn't work anymore because it's 1981.

I want to say a

little bit about housing. Here we have a government that fails to

understand. Even the lowest elected official in this province knows

that housing is the major problem in the province at the moment. It

gets to everyone. This government doesn't have the wit, the

intelligence or the imagination to touch the housing question.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Why not? Take that $48.2 billion and turn it into a low-cost housing program, and you'll put $1.2 billion into the market.

MR. BRUMMET: Did you say $48 million?

MR. LEGGATT:

I said $48 million, It's an "m" not a "b". Read my lips very carefully

now. You've got your ruler on the page: move it up and down a little

bit.

If you look at housing in terms of where we go, in the

northeast corner of the lower mainland, in the Coquitlam Moody area

which I represent, the GVRD study shows that beyond the year 2000 we

have enough land for housing on the north side of the Fraser River.

This government has decided to do nothing about it. They decided first

of all to abandon the only solution: a housing corporation which would

develop a private-public mix of housing in a land-scarce lower

mainland. This ideologic fanaticism that only the private sector can

solve the housing crisis has been rejected in every market outside of

Dallas. Texas. In North America. They have clung to these myths of the

past.

Most people in this chamber who first built a house, built it with CMHC guarantee interest. It's never been a complete

[ Page 4512 ]

free

enterprise market. We've always had zoning and interference by

government in the market. The only vehicle to solve the problem was the

B.C. Housing Corporation, and by destroying that Housing Corporation

they have put us in the position we are today.

In the

northeast corridor there is enough land. What it has lacked is a

government with the direction and drive to start solving the problem.

In the northeast corridor we can bring on stream co-op housing, rental

housing, the whole myriad of things in the imagination of the people of

British Columbia. That's why I say this government lacks imagination

and wit. It can't see beyond a 60-by-100 lot with a massive subdivider

and a large corporate developer. Everybody else doesn't count in their

equation. But it's all there. The land is there and the people want to

get ahead. What they lack is a government with a spirit of leadership

that will provide them with the leadership, the spirit and the funds.

Expediency.

It's hard to believe that this government could come so low after the

kind of confidence that was invested in it when it originally came to

power. It's a tired group. I guess this budget, in a way, probably says

more about the government than anything else they've done. The

difference between the two parties in this House has always been that

we believe in people and we have confidence in their ability to solve

their own problems. We have confidence in their ability, their

imagination, their ideas and their capacity to solve their own

problems. This government has decided: we are going to solve your

problems for you, and we're not even going to leave you the money to do

it yourself; we're going to take it away, we're going to put it all in

our pocket, and we're going to give you northeast coal whether you like

it or not. Let me tell you, people ask: are you for northeast coal, are

you against northeast coal? I say right now, you call an election on

northeast coal. Let's find out what the people of.... [Applause.] Ah,

Mr. Justice Gardom was clapping as well. I'm so pleased to see that.

MR. LAUK: Of Dawson Creek provincial court.

MR. LEGGATT:

After the amount of money this government has taken from the people, it

looks like we're going to meet more people in small debts court in the

very near future.

Here we have a government that lacks

confidence in the public of British Columbia. I can tell you they've

got an answer. They have no confidence whatsoever in the government. So

if you really don't want to hedge about northeast coal you call an

election on it.

MR. LEVI: My gosh, we're overwhelmed by the government getting up to support the budget.

think if anything characterizes the budget that the minister brought

down the other day, it was something he said just towards the end of

his speech. I just want to quote it because I was a little perplexed

after he said it. He made reference to the Hotel Room Tax Act. This was

one of his more effective budgetary measures. He said:

Effective

budget night the tax rate on accommodation is increased to 6 percent

from the previous rate of 5 percent. This will provide consistency with

the new social service tax rate. In addition, a special tax rate of 8

percent will now apply to the full charge on accommodation renting for

$50 or more, night or day.

I'm sure he did that after consultation with the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). Then he goes on and says:

Effective budget night the exemption level is increased to $10 per night or

$70 per week from the previous level of $4 per night and $28 per week, in just

one short ledger he attacked the basis of the tourist industry with no consultation.

If that's something the Minister of Tourism agrees with, then I want her

to stand up and say that she is in favour of these increased taxes on the tourist

industry.

This

is the third time that the tourist industry — particularly on this

island, apart from what's going on in the rest of the province — has

suffered from the kind of taxation measure this government has brought

in. It was simply an attempt by the government to find more revenue,

because last year we were greeted with the minister getting up,

bringing in the largest budget the province ever had, and everything

was fine in the garden. Six weeks after the budget came down, there was

a great panic throughout the government. Somehow things were not

working out right. Apparently one of the things was that natural gas

was not selling at the rate they thought it would in order to bring in

the revenue. There was nothing surprising about that. If they have the

people that do the proper kind of estimates in the departments — and

I'm sure they have, but they probably chose to disregard them — they

knew that Washington and Oregon were not buying our gas, because it was

high-priced. The last request for the price came from the minister. He

went down to Ottawa and asked them for the high price; then he changed

his mind and asked for it not to go through. But he should have gone

down to Washington and Oregon and found out what the score was. People

were not prepared to pay that kind of price, yet he built it into his

budget in terms of the revenues.

There was nothing realistic

about the way that budget was drawn up last year, and there was a great

panic for something like six months of last year, having to cut back on

expenditures, holding hiring and somehow finishing up with a little

money in the sock. This year we have a different kind of a budget. The

great speculation up there was: are they going to come down with a big,

giveaway budget that would represent an election budget? Obviously it

doesn't represent an election budget at all. What it is is the classic

bail-out budget for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

One of the things that I'm

happy about in this budget is that there was no increase in sales tax

on toys, because since the minister of economics has gone over to Japan

on several occasions, they've now brought out a new game which they'll

be marketing in North America called "Who's Got the Dummy?" We're going

to be seeing it on the market, and there's a depiction of a character

that looks not too unlike the minister of economic development in the

way he dealt with the Japanese over the past four or five years. Now

they've put a game out for him — "Who's Got the Dummy?" Well, we've got

the dummy right here in British Columbia, because of what my colleague

from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said about the coal deal.

want to address my remarks particularly to the crisis which probably

touches everybody in this House who is of my generation in terms of

their children, because this is now a standard topic of conversation

amongst all of the children of all of the members who are of

marriageable age in this House, and all of the people out there. Where

are they going to get a house from? What has the government done in

terms of having some meaningful discussions with the banking industry?

Because without having meaningful discussions with the

[ Page 4513 ]

banking industry, we're never going to get the housing problem solved in this province or in this country.

Today

in my riding there are 37 lots going up on a bid basis, and they're

starting at $65,000. It's expected that not one of those serviced lots,

50-by-120, is going to go for less than $100,000. And on top of that

you have to put on at least an $80,000 to $100,000 home, because that's

what it costs to put one on, and when you turn around you've got

yourself a $200,000 headache. Who can afford to be involved in that

kind of venture? Do any of you have children that have what is a basic

requirement now to go into the housing market — something like $15,000

in savings; a young couple that has $15,000 that can go and start

negotiating for one of those kinds of houses, that can say to the bank

that, apart from the money they have, they are debt free and they can

sustain a mortgage that is going to require an income of $42,000 with

two people working, paying anywhere up to $1,100 a month? That's a very

serious crisis in this province.

This government took its

first tentative step a year ago to address one aspect of that problem,

then quickly backed away and has done nothing since. I shall have some

remarks to make about the third Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), who has fallen into the same trap as his

two predecessors in suggesting that on the horizon there's going to be

a larger housing vacancy. He's going to have to get up and tell us what

crystal ball he has that nobody else has, particularly the housing

industry, as to what's coming down the line.

The basic

question to address. If this government is political.... They had

better be aware that there are people over 20, 25 to 30 out there who

are going to vote against them because they simply have not done

anything about the housing question.

We know that three

years ago you disposed of the Housing Corporation. The great Minister

of Finance, with all of the genius he could muster, said we don't need

the Housing Corporation, because the housing problem was solved. Then

we had his colleague, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, who has now gone into the private sector, who said: "There's

no problem with housing. We're going to take off the controls." We now

hear. In the report that was issued by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing in December, that 35,000 houses are going to go off control by

this year. Next year we're going to have well over 130,000. By the end

of next year we're going to have something like 60 percent of all

housing in this province going outside of the controls. People living

in apartments, who are renting, are literally scared to death that once

they get outside of the controlled areas they are not going to be able

to afford to live there. That is on top of the problem of people who

cannot afford to buy a house. My colleague suggested that $48 million

is going to be expended up there on one aspect of the coal development.

Last year you took $9 million in a mortgage subsidy program; and then

you leave it $200 million into the housing market. You created

something like 5,300 houses. Yes, that happened, with an expenditure of

$9 million to $10 million in cooperation with the credit union. It was

a good, sound scheme. It was very hard for you to accept it, but it was

a good, sound piece of socialism — the government involved in the

housing market.

Now this morning we were told by the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who was in

one of his more buoyant moods.... In all the years I've known him

I've never seen him in such good form. I was very nearly going to sidle

over and ask him what he was on, because he was in a jolly mood. One of

the things he said was that we have a buoyant economy. Then he started

to talk about his riding, and he got very upset because he couldn't

sell the lumber. Well, there's a great difference between the Social

Credit government that can't sell lumber and the NDP that can't sell

lumber. We couldn't sell lumber in 1975; it was because we upset the

world market. Because they can't sell lumber this year, it's somebody

else's problem.

But there is a solution to the lumber

market. Mr. Minister. The one thing you can sell in this province — if

you're prepared to take it, get it round the neck and wrestle this

problem down to the ground — is housing. You can sell housing if you're

prepared to make land available to people who can afford to pay the

mortgages and make the payments on a regular basis. Then you can sell

your lumber. You know, it's great that we have an export market. After

all, it's the key part of our economy. But you've got to remember that

for every cent our exports are below the American dollar, we pay

through the nose for our food imports. It's nice to be able to sell

lumber at 82 cents on the dollar: but we pay $1.18 and $1.20 for the 60

percent of our food that is imported. That's tough. There is a way of

curing the problem of the lumber industry — for the minister who is

concerned about his riding and all those mills there. Do something

about creating more housing. You took the first tentative step last

year, and you backed away, Why? You Know that the free market system is

not going to do it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

my colleague said, ten years ago the bulk of the housing in this

province was provided by either NHA or it was VLA land for those people

who were veterans. Now there's a greater move towards co-op housing.

Again, that is government involvement. We know that the bulk of housing

is built by the private sector. But there is the group, and it's

getting larger and larger, who simply can't go into the housing market

and put themselves on the hook for $200,000 worth of mortgage: it's

impossible. Turn around and ask your own children who are married.

You've all got the same problem; if you haven't, then it's quite

remarkable. I'm sure that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) has that problem.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No. I'm looking at you. because you're better looking than he is.

Your

children talk about the same problem. They're all talking about it

today. They want to know whether they can ever expect to live in a

house. That's what they were raised in. Can they ever expect to live in

a house? I'm telling you, if we do not get some government involvement

on a long-range basis, none of our children will ever live in a house.

Yes, they may live in a house if they go to the north or to the central

part of the province — and that's where they may have to go. But the

idea that somehow you can live in a house in the Vancouver area or that

you can afford to buy a house is completely out of the question.

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is at

all concerned about the housing market, then I would suggest to him

that he take a good look at the real estate industry. There's a very

serious problem in the real

[ Page 4514 ]

estate

industry — flipping over of houses; the kind of competition that exists

in real estate companies: "If you get the most listings, we'll send you

to Hawaii." They're soliciting people on an almost daily basis: "Let us

sell your house we can get you a big price for it." That is a

contributor to this kind of high inflation. It's a very serious problem.

But

the more serious problem is the housing stock. We can't just lie back

and say that our record was good last year because we had the highest

number of housing starts. Well, we'll wait till the end of the year and

just see what the rest of the provinces finish up with. Yes, we got off

to a good start. It was a good start. But bear in mind that we can get

started a lot sooner than most people. It's not sufficient to say that

we had more housing starts. For three or four years past, our housing

starts haven't even reached 20,000. We have all these people coming

into the province. So that's an obligation the government cannot avoid.

If they avoid it, what is going to happen is that they are going to

suffer the kind of pressure that will inevitably come from people who

are not satisfied that they cannot live in an urban-based society.

They

don't want to go elsewhere but they will have to leave. That's the kind

of sadness that can take place when people go somewhere else, not

because they're looking for employment, but because they're looking for

somewhere to live. That's a great tragedy but the government is not

prepared to address it.

In the light of all of this that is

going on we're still having to put up with a debate that's going on in

Vancouver over Pier B-C. Every day we've got to listen to the nonsense

that comes out of the mouth of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy), who has no idea how to count — no idea whatsoever. She

came two years ago and told us: "For $25 million we can build you the

nicest place you've ever seen. We'll have a trade and convention centre

with roof gardens and glass over it." And here we are $95 million

later: nothing is built, nothing is likely to be built. Almost three

years ago now, in June 1978, there was an item in the Province by

Marcus Gee. He said: "It seems that the new Vancouver trade and

convention centre proposed by Provincial Secretary" — she had a

different job then — "Grace McCarthy, will be more expensive and less

grandiose than the announcement made it sound." Do you remember the

announcement? "For $25 million I can get you anything." That was in

June 1978. Then Gordon Shrum — the guy who has continually bailed out

these people — said the total cost of the project with parking, a trade

centre, commercial development, site improvement and public walkways

added would be more than $42 million. They said that in June 1978. And

I can't call you Gracie because I don't know you that well. Nearly

three years ago Gordon Shrum turned round and said to the public as

well as to you: "It's not $25 million, it's $42 million." And you went

into the debate in this House last year telling us how wonderful it was

going to be for $25 million.

Your colleague the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) pounded his desk, got

splinters in his elbow and now he's having terrible trouble explaining

it to his children. You start at $25 million, wind up with a bill of

$98 million and nothing's happening. The best description of what we've

got over in Vancouver now was given, I think, by one of the Vancouver

aldermen who said: "The site looks like a denuded aircraft carrier." It

really does. The only thing you can do with it now is to throw some

blacktop on it and set it up as a parking lot. Then try and get Nelson

Skalbania to build the stadium on a couple of scows.

It's

that kind of thing which you've been able to get away with for two or

three years, because five or six years ago you started to attack the

previous government and talk about fiscal competence. Over the years we

have now catalogued.... This has got to be — until we get all the

facts on northeast coal — the most embarrassing mess you've got

yourself into. You were so sure that everything was right that you went

ahead and pulled down the buildings, talked about what it was going to

look like, and then somebody said: "Wait a minute; we don't have the

money yet." People go to jail for that kind of thing. You can't sell

people on an idea. You can't say to the federal government, we'll do

this, we'll do that, when you can't even put up your own end.

Gordon

Shrum told the government in 1978 that that was going to cost a minimum

of $45 million and you came into this House last year and kept

insisting that you were going to do it for $25 million. If that's the

way that small minister of small economics has totalled up his coal

project, we're in a lot of trouble. We're not only in a lot of trouble

because he's the minister. After all, you've got to know this minister

really well to understand him. He's the kind of guy who sits

back.... Usually his mind's in neutral, his mouth is in top gear

and nobody knows what's going on with it. But wait till that game comes

over from Japan — "Who's Got the Dummy?" We're all going to recognize

the picture. "Who's Got the Dummy?" That's the new game that's coming.

They have a phrase in Japanese....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

No, no, no, we had nothing to do with the coal deal. You were the ones

who sweated and scrambled. You became a sophisticated, suave kind of

gentleman who went over to Japan. When you bowed you hit your head on

the door and you've never been right since — suave and sophisticated.

I'm talking about David Rockefeller; I'm not talking about the minister.

But

that's it. Who's got the dummy? At the moment we've got the dummy and

it's hurting; it's hurting really bad. You're up there spending money,

promoting a company like B.C. Rail that's bankrupt, and somebody was

trying to tell us — the minister — " Oh, it's not bankrupt." Don't you

read your own auditor general's report'? Of course it's bankrupt. It's

in the hole for $700 million. Either you pick up the debt or it's

bankrupt.

We had the minister before the Crown corporations

committee. He couldn't put his finger on one cent. He has no fiscal

independence at all, because he has no way to negotiate with anybody

who loans money, because he's got no credit. He doesn't have triple-A

credit.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: We can't

have the Minister of Transportation and Highways interrupting all the

time. He had his say this morning. He was eloquent and sophisticated.

He was his usual Cariboo self; he was delightful. I have never enjoyed

myself so much. I fell off my chair twice. The minister lost his notes'

you know the way he writes notes. I've watched him when he writes

notes; he usually writes them on his sleeves and then gets so excited

his sleeves crawl up his arm. Alex, you've got to write your notes on

the palm of your hand; that's where they'll always be.

[ Page 4515 ]

had a good delivery from the minister this morning. He made ail

important point about the lumber industry. There is a solution to the

lumber industry. The member for Dawson Creek, or wherever he comes from

up there, is always saying we're very negative. The member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said: "Take the $48 million and lever it

into some assistance on mortgages." I just told you, if you can't sell

your lumber, do something about promoting a housing program. You'll

sell the houses here, providing you provide land that's reasonable —

not costing the kind of money that cabinet ministers' salaries can pay

for mortgages. We're not all that fortunate; it's a short-term kind of

feast. Do it for the young people. We all have the same discussion.

It's tough, but there's not one suggestion from the government; no

vehicle, nothing.

We're going to have. I think, a lot of fun

in some respects, but then we're going to get down to some hard facts

about B.C. Place and the coal project. What I don't understand is that

it's usually the case that when a government has something good to tell

the people, they tell them all of it. For the last six months that

minister has backed and filled and dodged and avoided. Is it not as

good as he says it is? Why isn't he telling us? He's got tables and

documents. Well, we'll wait and we'll see, but you'd better do it

before that game hits here. When that gets on sale, it's going to sell

more games than your coal is selling in tonnes. Who's got the dummy?

You know where the dummy is, eh? He's sitting right over there. "Who's

Got the Dummy?" That's a new game, That's not meant in an unkind way,

Mr. Speaker. Dummy is not a derogative term really.

I want

to talk about one other thing. I want to address my remarks, indirectly

and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). If he hasn't already read it, then I think

he should read the report that his colleague, the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), put out in 1980. He has produced a

report which is excellently written by a man called Peter Stobie, who

is a research officer with the research branch, Ministry of Lands.

Parks and Housing. It deals with rental housing and public policy in

British Columbia. We've had a lot of debate about this.

The

greatest proponent of moving away from rent control is the Fraser

Institute. I've been on a couple of programs with Dr. Block, who is a

very interesting man. We don't share the same views on rental housing

or rent control but, nevertheless, most of the arguments that he makes

about doing away with rent control, interestingly enough, always

involve transfer payments to people who simply can't manage their

rents. You know, you can't have it both ways, You can't say that you're

going to take rent control off because it interferes with the

free-market system and then say that those people who have a hard time

paying the rents should receive a transfer payment. That's socialism.

That's the kind of thing that the NDP was so terribly accused of —

trying to support people in terms of their basic income.

It's

not easy to advocate constantly the business of the retention of rent

controls, but it's got to be. I want to point out to the minister that

he'll find a large number of statistics in the report. On table 3 is

what I think is the most horrifying statistic that the cabinet has to

pay attention to: the number of decontrolled units in 1980 was 70,000

in 1981 there were 105,000; in 1982 there were 154,000: and by 1983

we'll have over 200,000 decontrolled housing units in this province.

That's 63 percent of all the housing stock in the province.

What's

going to happen? That is going to compound the problem we already have

with people who live in those units because they can't afford to get

into housing. What is the government going to do about that? I put that

to Mr. Block: what are you going to do about transfer payments for

people to get into housing? "Well, we can't do that. That's public

housing and that's a no-no."

The government is faced with a

very difficult situation. You can't continue to move, as the minister

has suggested. And I don't know where he gets his information — that

sometime by the fall the housing vacancy rate is going to be up. Where

— in Tumbler Ridge. In Ponce Coupé? It won't be in Victoria or in

Vancouver or in my riding. Where, and on what do you base this? After

all, the government says: "We have the highest rate of immigration. We

haven't put up any barbed-wire fences."

MR. LEA: Who is the Minister of Housing over there anyway?

MR. LEVI:

There is no Minister of Housing. Nobody is concerned about housing over

there at all. They're only concerned about looking into the crystal

ball.

Now

we've got a new minister. It's like a passing

parade. I've been the critic since 1976: two have gone. one is now

here. I will make a prediction that if this government survives another

six months, he's going to be the Minister of Health. Because that's the

training ground for Ministers of Health. You've got to go to Consumer

and Corporate Affairs before you go to Health. When you finish Health

you go to the hotline. The first guy has gone to the hotline, The

present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was on a hotline. The

third guy has got the most loquacious voice in this House. You've got

to admit it. He's got a better voice than the Minister of Finance. We

had to listen to that guy for three hours the other day. He knows he's

going to be unemployed in six months. Three hours to audition — that's

what he gave us. The longest audition I ever heard.

But

this minister has something going for him: he's got a good voice; he's

new, frosty and ready to go. But the important thing is that he is

going to have to answer some questions. He has already gone out on a

limb and made the same mistake that his two predecessors made. He's got

information that nobody else has that somehow the vacancy rate in terms

of accommodation is going to be greater. Well. nobody out there

believes him. I don't believe him. I don't think many people in this

House believe him. Certainly young people out there don't believe him.

You simply have to go and look at the rents.

I faced this

problem myself last year and had to go to my two MLAs. They were very

helpful. We had to go and have a public hearing.

MR. BARBER: And we won; we got it lowered.

MR. LEVI:

We sure did. Ninety percent of the people where I live are senior

citizens. Their rents went up an average of $120 a month apiece. The

pitch that we made to the public hearing was: for God's sake, keep

these people within the controls; give them some time to breathe and to

look around. Well, to the credit of the rentalsman who reviewed it — it

took a lot of time to go over this: it was a public hearing — that's

the decision he made. That was a good social policy decision, because

he was looking at the people

[ Page 4516 ]

who

lived there. I know it's tough to make those decisions on every

individual unit and every individual apartment block, but at least he

had an understanding of the real effects of the housing market. It's

not that the minister of housing, lands, parks and gravel pits doesn't

have. He has all that understanding. He's got it here. Or where is your

heart? Is it over here?

Let me just say one other thing to

the minister. The important thing about the housing question is not to

suggest to people that the housing market is going to get easier

because the vacancy rate is going to get better. The only thing that

the vacancy rate does.... Unfortunately the market forces simply

don't work. You get the impression that when a few more houses come on,

somehow there is a greater competition and the prices go down. That

simply doesn't happen. That's the same kind of thing that's happening

with people flipping over houses. There is a time when that will level

off. Many people are going to get trapped. People who are investing in

housing with the expectation that six months later they can make a 20

or 30 percent profit may find themselves locked into prices that aren't

moving. But it's not the same with rents on apartments when a few more

become available. There is great competition for housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Name names.

MR. LEVI:

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing stood up in this House last

year and said: "There is no housing problem. I haven't received any

letters." Don't you know what the word is out there? "You can't write

to that guy; he can't read." So you don't get any mail. But to stand up

and say that you don't think there is a housing problem! You said that

last year.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No!

MR. LEVI:

Yes, you did. Are you calling me a liar? You stood up there and said

there was no housing problem, because you hadn't heard about it. Well,

I'm telling you, and you know very well that there is a housing problem.

MR. BARBER: How can people write him letters if they don't know his name? Who has ever heard of him?

MR. LEVI: Well, he used to work for the CPR.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

Look, you guys, it's my debate, let me do it. If I need any help I'll

call on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman).

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Well,

you've got to take a look at the back bench, because the front bench

looks very disinterested. You've got four ministers sitting back there

who control most of the power of the province. You've got one guy in

charge of garbage; you've got one guy in charge of gravel pits; the guy

on the right looks after matchboxes and things like that; the new

fellow, well, that's going to be the big test for him — liquor

licences, very important. If you have a visit from Mr. Olma, be sure to

call me and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). We can

help you. Don't pay attention to him, because he's a has-been.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Molly Hogan.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Molly Hogan, great place. Do you ever drink there? Don't you go there?

MR. BARBER: Will they let you in?

MR. LEVI: No way would he be let in. They have a rule.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No percentage at all. I wait on tables.

colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), made

reference to the corpse. He also came out with a rather exotic phrase,

"political nymphomania." We have another problem over there. We have a

bit of a rotting corpse with a little touch of necrophilia around the

edges, and that's not very good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. LEVI: It's no good you going " oh! " like that; you don't even know what it means. Do you know what it means?

The

minister could learn from the mistakes of his two predecessors. They

were both part of what was a gross misrepresentation to the public. I'm

talking about the first Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who

is now out of politics, and the second one, who constantly decided that

they would ignore the most serious question after the provision of

housing for young people. This was the whole question of people who are

scared to death that some of the rent controls are going to come off.

If you take rent controls off you're going to do as much damage to

seniors as any health problem they can get. You know as well as I do

that if you deal through your constituency office or you visit seniors,

it's a perpetual cloud of fear that they are under. They pay $250 or

$300, and once it gets to $300, it's game over. You've got to seriously

consider the business of raising these levels. It's absolutely

essential. If you've got to create a priority, then create it for them,

and move quickly in trying to convince your colleagues that you've got

to do something about the provision of housing for the younger people.

Those

are two solutions. The second one is dealing with housing, which could

do so much for the economy of this province. You had your first

tentative step last January, and you boasted — and you were entitled to

boast — about 5,300 houses. The question is: who got the houses? That

was the tragedy there. All those people owned some kind of land, They

had money in the bank — at least $10,000 to $15,000, because the credit

union wouldn't deal with them if they weren't debt-free. So the people

who could afford it got it, and the people who were just below that

level — young couples who maybe make between them $30,000, or the one

spouse is off work — can't sustain that kind of debt load, so you

brought in your mortgage subsidy program. You took $9 million and you

left it $200 million — it was good. There's no reason why you can't

take $90 million and leave $1 billion and create 50,000 houses and meet

the problem that your member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has because

he says he can't sell his lumber.

I've never understood, in

all the years I've lived in this province, why we have carpenters,

lumber and a housing need and somehow nobody puts them together. When

we were the government we attempted to. We had a ministry,

[ Page 4517 ]

created

12,000 units, and as soon as you guys came in you said: "We'll leave it

to the private sector," What did the private sector do? They rolled

over and played dead. You crawled down to Ottawa and said: "Please

bring back the capital gains; please bring back MURB." Well, who gets

into MURB now? Is it as successful? It's nowhere near as successful as

what you did last year.

Don't be afraid to be touched by a

little socialism. After all, you stood up this morning and bragged

about the medical plan. Well, that's where it started — in Saskatchewan

with Tommy Douglas. It's a piece of socialism. You're going to have to

walk around with your eyes closed, not to run into programs which have

a socialist content. It's there. It's going to meet you all over the

place. You can't avoid it. You're a new minister.

MR. BARRETT: Jack Davis can't avoid it.

MR. LEVI:

Well, Jack Davis is like Moses trying to cross the Red Sea and losing

his staff. I think what we're going to do.... He's over there! My

gosh, Jack, I didn't realize you were here.

MR. BARRETT: Don't worry — he's going to vote with the government, no matter what.

MR. LEVI: Do you know why he's going to vote with the government?

MR. BARRETT: Because he thinks he's getting back in the cabinet. Nobody told him!

MR. LEVI:

No, it's because they put him on the Crown corporations committee. He

gets more information there to write more letters than any other topic

he could write on. It's a new technique, but it's a good way to keep

your name before the public.

Mr. Minister of Consumer

Affairs, through you, Mr. Speaker — you've got an interesting

challenge. You may have to depart from these people, because in the

five years they've been back you haven't gotten one worthwhile

maverick. You have no Ernie LeCours. you've got no Cyril Shelford,

you've got Chabot, who copped out twice....

My God, he took.... I don't want to talk about him it'll spoil my dinner.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I took the high road.

MR. LEVI:

You sure did take the high road My God, he took the high road. Where

are the mavericks? Where are the people who speak up? They've all

gone. Old "Jobs" doesn't speak up anymore.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Waldo Skillings. Somebody said it. Waldo is one of the greatest

economic geniuses of this province. I think that if he comes into the

House....

MR. LEA: Hyndman was a maverick when he was in the back bench.

MR. LEVI: We've got a whole government full of political tourists.

It's a very bad situation. We've got the Speaker and we can't talk

about the Speaker because he's sitting in the chair, but if he leaves we'll

talk about him.

The

greatest challenge to anybody over there right now, now that we've

heard the Minister of Finance drop his horrible bundle, is the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. You can rake a lot of people out

there. Breathe easy with a sense of feeling that you are concerned

about them. You say something about rent controls. Say something to the

old people. Say that we are not going to take the rent controls off and

leave them at the mercy of the landlord. We're not talking about rent

gouging. What we're talking about is what you talk about — market

forces. Apparently there's nothing wrong with that from your point of

view. We call it gouging because it goes beyond people's ability to

pay.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm looking

at all of you. If I had three big eyes, I'd put them on all of you.

You're a foul bunch of people when it comes to this kind of thing. But

that's parliamentary; I looked it up.

The corpse is

beginning to stink. It is. You've been here for five years. You had

your chance and you're messing up pretty badly. I was out the week

before last picking up memberships. As one of my colleagues said:

"There's only one issue out there right now." There's one issue out

there, and you know it as well as I do. It's the Premier. He's the

issue. They say: "You've got to have an election. You've got to get rid

of that guy." Well. you guys better think about getting rid of him

before we get rid of you. or you're all going to go down the tube. I'm

not anxious to get over to that side of the House right now. I like it

here. so you better clean up your act. Is that the way I should put it

— clean up your act?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have three minutes. hon. member.

MR. LEVI: I did want to say a few words about the fire escapes, but I'm going to leave that for another debate. Thank you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a few brief words on the amendment, which I think is very

appropriate at this time. I'm somewhat surprised. though, that we have

not had a government speaker speak on this amendment and defend the

government's action on this particular matter. The reason for that, in

my view, could only be that it's impossible to defend this horrendous,

regressive budget that hits all of the working and poor people in

British Columbia today. There's just no way that government members can

defend this terrible budget.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote

for this amendment from my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), for a lot of good reasons. This particular budget, as was

pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo Mr. Stupich), is going to

cost every taxpayer and every family in this province about $850 a year

extra in taxes.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says: "Balderdash, " Don't

leave the House, Mr. Minister. I've got something coming up for you —

something about bridges and roads and Tumbler Ridges and things like

that. So just hang in there.

[ Page 4518 ]

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

He asked me to file documents. As soon as I get to that side of the

House, Mr. Speaker, I'll file all those documents. I guarantee it.

One

of the points I wanted to make was that above and beyond the tax

increases that we're faced with in this budget before us today, in

areas like mine and for people living on the coast of British

Columbia.... That minister over there, who just spoke out of turn

as usual, has increased ferry fares. He was on this morning about all

the people in the province subsidizing ferry fares. Well, let me tell

you, who do you think subsidizes highways into his riding? He has a

phenomenal budget. Last year alone $68 million was spent on the riding

of Cariboo. Can you believe that? It went to day labour and capital

projects, but that's another topic.

Furthermore he told us

last spring that there's going to be a further increase in ferry fares

this year. I don't suppose this matter has gone before the board of

directors. It doesn't matter. The board of directors of the Ferry

Corporation are just a front, in my view anyways. Decisions are made in

cabinet.

MR. BARRETT: That's why Rafe quit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

That's why he quit — the cabinet makes these decisions. So what I'm

telling you is that on top of the horrendous tax increases that we all

face in British Columbia, we have a further tax increase in that form

in my riding and the ridings of the people living on the coast of

British Columbia, where they're lucky enough to have any service at all.

can expect further payments, increases in taxes this year, aside from

the horrendous increase in ICBC rates imposed by this government, which

is mismanaging that corporation at an unbelievable level — further

proof of mismanagement of that government.

We can expect

increases in medicare payments this year; no doubt about it. Sooner or

later this government has to settle with the doctors. You think they're

going to take funds out of northeast coal to settle with the doctors?

No way. What they'll do is increase medicare payments to all the people

of British Columbia with the excuse that the doctors are greedy, they

want all of this money and are holding them up for ransom, and all the

usual twaddle that goes with it. As my colleagues from New Westminster

had suggested in this House, if they had sat down and bargained in good

faith with those professional people, the government would not be in

the situation it is in today on that particular issue. However, they

didn't, and they won't. It will be confrontation again.

The

other possibility that exists on that issue is, of course, a strike by

the medical profession. I rather suspect that it will not come to that.

But these are further costs over and above the tax increases announced

by the minister here the other day.

Mr. Speaker, remember

that the CPU, IWA, parts of the construction industry and some of the

biggest employers in British Columbia are going to the bargaining table

this year. They're now forming their negotiating strategy and will be

meeting in formal sessions very shortly. You think that Mr. Jack Munro

of the IWA is not aware of what this budget means? They may have

formerly considered settling at — I'm just guessing — a hypothetical

figure of a 14 or 16 percent increase in wages and salaries plus some

of the other items that they're bargaining for. But the fact is,

because of this horrendous tax increase, this year there is no doubt in

my mind that no labour leader in his right mind in this province will

not take this budget into account and suggest to management that rather

than settle for the 14 or 15 percent wage increase that they may have

normally, they're going to naturally wish to keep even during the

course of the next year or two, whatever the term of the agreement may

be. They'll demand a further increase in wages, up to 18, 19, 20

percent, whatever the result of this budget may have been in that area.

This will undoubtedly lead to long, hard bargaining and, hopefully not

but possibly, further labour strife in this province, which that

government over there is thoroughly incapable of dealing with.

The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) sent a telegram to Mr. Regan in

Ottawa demanding that he get to work and settle the B.C. Tel dispute.

But when he has a dispute in his own backyard, what does he do?

Absolutely nothing. He is a totally incompetent Minister of Labour,

unable to get the parties together at the bargaining table. Management

has lost faith in that minister; certainly the labour unions have lost

faith in that minister. I would strongly suggest today that the Premier

take steps to rectify that situation. I think there are one or two

people sitting on the benches opposite who would be far more capable —

in fact, yourself, Mr. Speaker; a little promotion, a little extra

salary to pay some bills.

The point is that the Minister of

Labour in this province is totally incapable of dealing with the labour

issues that face us today. No question about it.

I'm not

going to be long on my next topic, Mr. Speaker, but once again I want

to take this opportunity. Since my speech two or three days ago, I've

had dozens of phone calls to my office over this arbitrary and

regressive tax increase on tobacco, gasoline and liquor. The working

people of this province agree with the position that I've taken on that

particular topic, and not because everybody spends 24 hours a day

smoking and drinking — most of us don't. The fact is it is a regressive

tax. It hits the poor and the working people harder than anybody else.

I find it deplorable that this government, to build up a slush fund for

the provincial election coming up next year, is taking the money out of

the hides of the poor and the working people of this province. It

should be coming out of resource revenues. If this government had

managed the resources of this province properl