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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4529 ]

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4529

Mr. King –– 4533

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4537

Mrs. Wallace –– 4540

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4542

Appendix

Appendix –– 4546

FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting with us today from Vancouver city is a

good friend of mine, Mr. Tod Manrell. I would ask the House to make him

welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to try and deal specifically with

this amendment and refrain from remarks of a more general nature that

would be more applicable in the budget area. I've no intention of

responding to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about items

not relevant to their own motion. But I will take the opportunity later

in this session, either in estimates or various ministries where it may

be applicable, to deal with such things as BCRIC, railways and pass

construction. I've no intention of dealing with the performance of the

past president of the railway, who is now the Leader of the Opposition,

or the president of the railway previous to that, W.A.C. Bennett, and

their disputes. I will have something to say on railways and pipelines.

Later in this sitting, I will defend the government's budget. For it

is our budget and I am prepared to defend it. I'm prepared to defend

those parts of it where spending involves programs. I'm prepared to

defend the programs that money will be allocated to, whether it be in

the area of social services, the important areas of health care and

education, or whether it will be part of the continuing development of

public transportation systems in this province to assist our people —

individuals or corporate citizens — in building the province.

However, in this case this motion belongs to the New Democratic

Party, and it is a motion that they must defend. It's not good enough

for them to come in with a motion that is both frivolous and

contradictory — and those are the only words that can be applied to it

until they give some rationale as to why they introduced it. The

amendment reads: "that this House regrets that the Minister of Finance

has introduced onerous, unnecessary and expedient tax increases." It is

contradictory in its terminology, poorly prepared. But let me say that

in trying to interpret what they felt they were saying, I guess we

could say, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said yesterday,

that all taxes are onerous. None of us likes paying taxes, but the very

function of government under the private enterprise system is to raise

money from the prosperity of our citizens — both from individuals and

from business — to pay for government services, those things that must

be provided in a public way.

Perhaps the socialists' answer is to take over industry and business and,

hopefully, improve on what has been a dismal record of socialism; that is, have

companies somehow make a profit, which has not been the case. But taxes are

the only way the private enterprise system works, and they can only pay taxes

when there is a measure of prosperity. Taxes will fluctuate, particularly where

we have an economy such as British Columbia's that is interdependent with

the international community, as our products are world products.

So let me get to the point of this motion and why I oppose it. No

compelling argument has been made on what programs the New Democratic

Party would cut which have called for the raising of over $600 million

in new taxes. No alternative, realistic tax measures that deal with

those amounts of money have been advocated by the New Democratic Party.

They have yet to comment on the third option available to government,

for there are only three: cut programs, raise taxes or go into debt. In

this case it would be increasing the debt that has already been left to

the people of this province from the three years of New Democratic

Party government ending in December 1975. A $261 million debt, with the

interest charges, was left and is now part of a budget. It's being

repaid at $26 million a year plus interest. That amount is much more

than $26 million. If we compounded that we might find that it would

almost be the amount of the new taxes that are needed this year.

The point is not to dwell on the past. We're dealing with the

realities today, and what a government coming in today can do about

financing the established programs for people, and what priorities and

choices we have in developing this province. I want to say now that

this government rejects increasing the debt. We reject that easy

solution that has been taken by other governments: it has only started

them on that slippery slide into increasing debt and a mounting

interest burden that is paid for by future generations. We've seen it

on the provincial level in other areas. British Columbians faced that

in the past and in 1952 embarked on a program of pay-as you-go. With

the exception of a brief period, British Columbians have not had to

deal with governments pushing us into debt and leaving the burden of

current-account expenditures for future generations. Really, that's

what you're doing.

We should be taking this message to every young British Columbian —

because it's their province in the future — and telling them that we've

rejected the option of paying for things on current services. I'm not

talking large capital projects that are strengthening the economy; I'm

talking now about current services like health care and education.

We're not going to not pay for those in the year in which they're

delivered. We're not going to borrow money for those services which we

receive today and leave them to pay the bill tomorrow.

It may be that in moving this motion the opposition, because we have

rejected that, will then consider that that is their policy option and

will advocate debt and plunging this government and the people of this

province, who the government represents, into the hands of the

money-lenders, and leading us down the path to the type of thing that

we see has happened to our federal government. Time after time they

have not been able to level with the people on the true cost of

programs. They are unwilling to share the cost with people, knowing

that they would find disfavour. So over the years they have embarked on

a borrowing program that this year, as the Minister of Finance has

stated, in interest charges alone will cost every British Columbia

family about $1,500, for which we get no value. It's money down the

drain, money evaporated and of no social use. It's gone.

It may be that the New Democratic Party may wish to advocate that.

It appears to me, if my memory serves me correctly. that in sonic of

the debates of 1976 some of them may have alluded to there being

nothing wrong with that. To me that debt for current account is the

worst sort of govern-

[ Page 4530 ]

ment management, and yet there is a legitimate case

for debt for economic development for capital expenditure. That is what

happens.

Those accounts are outside of this budget. We're talking now about

current accounts, for which we're not prepared to go into debt. It's

only a smokescreen to deal with those other areas where we do have

capital projects that are designed to help the economy of this province

and also to serve people. Hydro is necessary for not only the lighting

of our homes, which is the most obvious and convenient thing, but the

fuelling of our industries and creation of jobs. Our natural gas is

more than heating our homes; it's the fire industry to create jobs. The

development of roads and railways has always been a part of opening up

this province to develop jobs and also to serve people. That is the

role of government.

But in this motion we're dealing with this budget. So now we've got

a motion from the opposition that says that these tax increases are

unnecessary. If they're unnecessary, it may be that they're willing to

advocate debt; or they've got to tell us what programs they're going to

cut. To take $600 million worth of programs out of this budget is no

simple paring or criticizing the efficiency of government, because all

governments could be more efficient. I know our government could. We

attempt, and have attempted since we've become government, to provide

greater cost control and better ways in which to get more value for the

taxpayer's dollar in this province. We've not only brought in our own

controls, where we discipline one another; we've also created the

position of auditor-general, not responsible or captive to this

government, but responsible to this assembly and able to rule on

whether we're giving effective government. Certainly we want to heed

the auditor-general's advice. We want full value. But you're not going

to find $600 million there. You can only find it in whole programs, the

largest program being health care.

I want to say that the Social Credit Party as government has been

part of the problem in increasing the health-care costs in this

province. But I don't call it a problem. I call it part of our social

policy goals — our commitment to health care for the people.

I think it's time that we dealt with the myth that's being fostered

by the New Democratic Party, that they are the only people, when they

take out that membership, who have a social conscience or care about

the health and education of people, or care about our seniors. Perhaps

there was a time in this country when they could be called the

conscience. or one of the consciences…the time of the late J. S.

Woodsworth. But, you know, there has been a maturity in this country

since then, and many governments have made contributions to the social

programs which help our people. Oppositions don't bring in social

programs; governments do. In this province, I haven't seen…. I've heard

a lot from the NDP, but I did not see during their three and a half

years any major breakthrough in new social programs. Yet this province

has the best record of provision of health care and income support to

our elderly and the needy and the handicapped.

I'd just like to review, because you'd think they had invented

hospital insurance, but hospital insurance was brought in by the old

coalition government and made to work by the Socreds. The dollar a day

they established then in relation to incomes is just as consistent with

the amount we pay related to incomes and costs today. Perhaps we might

be giving an even better value to our citizens today.

We're proud of the hospital programs introduced by the coalition and

made to work by Social Credit. I saw no major change in hospital

programs when the New Democratic Party came in. I heard the rhetoric,

but I didn't see the results. It was left for us in December 1975 to

come in and play catchup on the construction of hospital beds. It was

left to us to deal with introducing the first major new hospital

program in this province in the seventies, to introduce long-term care.

They've talked about it but never did anything about it. To hear them

talk in perpetuating their myth, you'd think that somehow they had done

it. Yet it was this government that brought it in; and yes, it's part

of the cost implications we face today — the need for these taxes.

It is not an inexpensive program, but it was very necessary to

embark on a path of taking the pressure off acute-care beds, providing

this other alternative to meet the health needs of our people.

Hopefully, because of larger expenditures now in getting this program

underway in the last few years, there will be cost benefits down the

road. We knew full well when we brought it in that you don't provide it

for nothing, and I defend that program. I defend the fact that it is

part of the need that is increasing costs to increase taxes. The

provision of health services is not something you can slash. The bulk

of it is made up in wages of people and professionals, and a large part

of that cost was an increase in salaries to the nurses last year, not

by government but by third parties negotiating. We pay the bill.

The New Democratic Party want to, say that any of the professionals

or the nurses or those that work in the health care system are getting

too much. That's where they'll save the money. This is your motion; get

up and say so. But by the very fact that it's in the budget, you know

where we stand. It is not enough for you to just oppose and bring in

frivolous motions. I'd like to see you for once — particularly when the

burden of proof is upon you because it is your motion — prove it and

say how you are going to do it.

I'd also like to deal with that NDP myth that they are the only

ones, again, that bring in health care. You are very shrill in the

newspapers about medicare, but I want to remind you that medicare was

brought in in this province by a Social Credit government. At the time

it was brought in, the then Prime Minister, Lester Pearson, said that

in introducing the program British Columbia was one of the key reasons

they were able to provide a national medicare program. That wasn't some

program brought in in British Columbia by the NDP. It's a program that

costs money, and today we're facing difficult negotiations surrounding

the delivery of medicare. They can't on one hand say to the doctors

that they will give them everything they want — there's a limit on my

entering into the dispute here, because that will be settled by

negotiation — and then come in here and say that we have unnecessary

taxes that may well have to be increased again, should the negotiations

for the continuous provision of medical-care services be continued

without destruction or distortion of the program we are committed to.

What about denticare? That party that introduced this motion always

talks about dental care as though they were the only ones that cared

about the preventive provisions in the denticare program for children

and seniors. They were government for three and a half years. I never

saw them introduce a dental-care program. It was introduced by this

Social Credit government. We knew full well the cost of that program.

It is not enough to niggle at the columnists and say: "Oh, the Socreds

are cutting back on their own dental-care program."

[ Page

4531 ]

We've introduced it. It is there for the provision

of prevention, cure and maintenance of our people, and as we are able

to, we will improve that program. We brought it in knowing full well

that it would cost money. That cost can only be paid for by the money

that comes to government. That program is part of the increase in

taxes, and I defend it.

We're out to provide help, not rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. But if the New

Democratic Party wishes to say that the somewhat under $100 million

perhaps –– I don't have my estimates here in front of me — that dental

care is going to cost this year should not have been introduced at this

time and that we should not pay taxes, let them say so and not bring in

a frivolous motion — poorly drafted, not thought out, a motion they're

unable to defend or even rationalize to this Legislature. It's an

insult to the Legislature. I saw a motion introduced — a lot of

rhetoric, a lot of fanfare, a lot of personal attacks — but I saw no

rationalization for the motion and no alternatives to support its

introduction.

What about education? Again, the myth of the NDP. It's not a myth

with substance. They're still living on the memory of J.S. Woodsworth

those many years ago, trying to say they're the only ones who are

concerned about education. Come into the 1980s. We have an educational

system in this province of which I'm very proud, one that goes through

all aspects. Let me review it.

I can remember growing up in the interior when there was no

provision of post-secondary educational facilities in the interior of

this province. I can remember when the Social Credit government brought

in regional colleges. I can remember when they put vocational schools

into the interior.

MR. LAUK: Why didn't you use them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: And the first member for Vancouver Centre

says: "Why didn't you use them?" Those facilities were available in the

lower mainland for him, but not available to us in the interior during

my period. He displays that smugness and that disrespect he has for

anyone from the interior when he calls them "country cousins" and all

the rest of it. We're fed up with you; you're used to all the services.

"I'm all right, Jack; I got mine." Somehow the people in the interior

are second-class, but it was a Social Credit government that brought in

those regional colleges.

The New Democratic Party keeps talking about how they want to take the cost

of education off the local taxpayer. They were the government for three and

a half years and not once did they make a move to assume the cost of the regional

colleges, which until then had been shared by the government and the local taxpayer.

But this government took the cost for regional colleges off the local taxpayer

and we didn't need Stanley Knight to tell us how not to do it. It was this

government that took the cost off. That cost is now part of the cost we pay

within provincial taxation. Obviously it was the policy of the NDP to leave

it on. They left it on when they were government. Perhaps, in justifying and

supporting their motion, they wish to suggest that that's what they'll

do again. It is the policy of this government to pay those costs: it's part

of the budget. It's part of the cost to further enhance our universities

and public school system. Yes, it's part of our cost to fund alternate education

in independent schools — a measure that party opposed when we introduced it

in this Legislature. Perhaps they wish to stand now in this debate and say not that

"it's my personal opinion," but that "it is the party policy

of the NDP that that is one of the fundings that should not be in this budget

and is a reason for onerous taxes."

Well, I say we're committed to that funding. It's part of the reason

we have to increase taxes. But it may be part of their rationale that

they should be justifying and introducing their motion that once was

their policy. What they voted against, they will stand up in this House

and say: "Here's the $600 million worth of programs and things we want

cut, including independent schools." Because that's the only way you

can justify this motion and say that the taxes were unnecessary. Or you

can waffle and have the former Minister of Education saying that she's

still against it and have the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk), in times of election, meeting privately and saying: "Don't

worry, we'll never take it off."

It's about time you stopped, in your inglorious march to try to

return to power, saying one thing to one group and another thing to

another group, and came out and levelled with the public on where you

stand. It's not enough for the former Attorney-General, the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), to say in private meetings

in their newfound love-affair with the business community that he, who

introduced rent controls, is against them. Perhaps he'll make that same

statement to the tenant groups to whom another member of the NDP caucus

is saying: "Trust me. I have more influence than Alex with the first

member for Vancouver East." Because, quite frankly, taking this

position to this group and an opposite position to another group —

frivolous motions without substantive argument — is not causing the

public to gain great confidence in the New Democratic Party.

You may think that you don't have to say anything or justify your

reason for being in public affairs at all. If there's a reason to be in

politics, its not just to be negative it's not just to hope that you

can slide into power because the government, which is accountable,

takes all the criticism, some of it justified, and hope that's the way

you'll ride to power. I would hope that in the 1980s, when we have a

very aware public, you will feel the obligation to justify your

statements and advocate your policies and say how you intend to pay for

them. It's a good place to start. I had hoped you would start right

now, with the introduction of this motion, rather than resort to the

same old rhetorical tactics — speeches that I have heard. Thank

goodness I wasn't here more than seven years ago. Members who were here

then say they've heard the same old tired speeches, now worn out. In

this day of 33-1/3 they're still being played at 78 rpm.

It's no longer good enough — this type of frivolous motion in the

Legislature, where the public expect us to be conducting their business

in a sincere and responsible way. The style cannot make up for the lack

of substance. A lack of substance will only reflect upon that party. I

would expect that later in this debate more responsible members who

have not yet spoken to this motion — because it may be too late for

those others, no matter how much they had hoped to change their image —

can realize it takes more than a blue suit and a vest to change what's

inside, or whether there's anything inside — if there is anything

inside. In fact, there has to be some content.

Are you going to cut Education? I've gone through Health. I've gone

through this party's commitment in the introduction, development and

provision of health-care in this province, and what we see is that

every major health care initiative has been brought in — with the

exception of hospital insurance — by the Socreds. We've seen that the

major

[ Page 4532 ]

educational initiatives have been brought in by the

Socreds, with their regional colleges and technical schools. I saw no

new technical schools in the years between 1972 and 1975, or any

attempt to give training and skills to our young people, whether it be

technical or vocational. I saw no attempt to do what we're doing now,

and that is to develop an additional opportunity for more scientific

research and development in this province.

They are a party grown old in opposition. They talk about parties

growing old in government. A party grown old in opposition, caught with

slogans from the thirties, unable to adjust their mentality to the

eighties, taking credit for programs they never introduced, riding on

reputations they never helped to build; and their only way of attaining

power is not through their policies and programs but through an uneasy

alliance with a few labour bosses. Thank goodness that alliance isn't

with the ordinary working man and woman in this province. The only time

they get to put their signature to a political alliance is in the

secrecy of the ballot box, and they've made the mistake of signing an

alliance with that group but once.

I'd also like to ask: are you going to cut Human Resources — income

supplements for our seniors? I remember when the government of W.A.C.

Bennett brought in the first old-age assistance supplement, helped our

seniors who built the province. The NDP, quite rightly, increased it

when they were government. It wasn't their program, it was a program

for the people of B.C.; but they rightly increased it, as have we. But

we've brought in other programs to assist our seniors.

The present Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Municipal

Affairs, brought in programs to assist in the provision of housing. We

brought in programs to assist in making more land available for that

housing. It is not our policy that the government own the land and the

people have to lease it on 99-year leases and be tenants in their own

province as has been stated by some members of the New Democratic

Party. We want them to own the land and the house on it.

Are we going to cut from Human Resources? Are we going to remove the

SAFER program we introduced? No. That's our policy; that's part of the

cost of government that warrants these tax increases.

What about the other areas — reforestation and silviculture? I can

remember great speeches being made in this House by the former Minister

of Forests, Bob Williams, when the New Democratic Party was in. But

I'll tell you, his rhetoric couldn't even match the solid performance

of the commitment to reforestation of this government that's in this

budget. Are you going to stop planting trees? Is that part of the

reason you brought in this motion and one of the ways you'll save

money? It is our policy to continue improving our forests for a

sustained yield. Improved silviculture is in the budget and that's part

of the tax increases. Will you cut there? Not at all. You talk about

"them," and you haven't identified the programs you'd cut. It would be

substantial, because you're talking about $600 million being

unwarranted.

So then we may go to the taxes you may want to impose if you're not

going to go into debt, and I'll expect you to make a very clear

statement on that. Are you going to bring back succession duties? Are

you going to cancel the exemptions we've made in the sales tax?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, the sales tax has gone up. But you

know that since we've been government — five years — we've tried to

give assistance in those items that could be called necessities to end

any imposition on those who can't afford those items of necessity. The

list has been included by the Minister of Finance. Are any of those

items that are exempted from the sales tax — which the New Democratic

Party was unwilling to bring in — the ones that they would put back to

raise money? We're not willing to. We're looking for the day when we

can remove additional items from the sales tax.

My colleague, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis),

speaks eloquently against the capital tax — as I have done, because I'm

against it in principle. I look forward to the day that we develop the

type of tax regime that we want and don't have to depend…. Even though

we've raised exemptions for small business twice against that evil

capital tax introduced by the NDP…. And I don't care who they say they

copied it from; it's their tax…. I tell you I'm not happy that part of

it still remains, but at least small business has been removed. I look

forward to the day that it's removed. Are they going to increase it?

Are they going to bring back the onerous mining taxes that they

introduced when they were government, that drove the mining industry

out of the province? I believe the system of taxation that we've put in

for mining is both just and fair, without all the rhetoric of, "The

coal companies are robbing the people of B.C.," because it's a tax on

profits. Before our regular income taxes we do not create a high fixed

cost for products in what is a volatile market that goes up and down,

one that would make companies face the possibility of shutdowns or

remove the possibility of workers getting their fair share of the

value. You've got to remember that government competes for the same

dollars that profits are competing for and that workers are competing

for when they ask for wage increases. Government's hand should never

get so large at the table that it leaves no money for either profits or

wage increases. That's what a high fixed-cost type of royalty does.

Rather, when management and labour bargain, they know their fixed

costs; they know the extent to which they can go and the extent to

which they can make requests. They know that after that they're going

to make a profit and the government's going to get its share. It's

going to get a fair share because we have that profits tax before the

other income tax is shared by both federal and provincial governments.

It's penny wise and pound foolish to suggest that you would drive the

industry out with taxation that goes beyond the ability to pay, or for

people to be paid, with the resulting unemployment and the resulting

decline in the economy, and expect that somehow these services could be

continued. Why, you'd have a shrinking economic base.

I hear the shrill giggle from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who finds that amusing.

MR. COCKE: He wasn't laughing, or even listening to you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't find it amusing. Those of us who

live in the interior know what it took to build the economy of this

province. We saw it. We didn't live down in the first settled parts of

the province where the living was easy — and get a job with the federal

government where the pay cheque was easy. Most of us had to be involved

in the productive side of the economy, producing the wealth. We

[ Page 4533 ]

know what it takes, and it's not easily developed,

It takes a lot of vision and courage. So part of this budget and part

of this government's commitment is in industrial strategy — roads and

rail and all the rest.

I've got to tell you that I took a trip up Vancouver Island to some

of the more traditionally settled areas. Their concern is for the

environment. Their concern is that they don't want new development

forced on them, and I am sensitive to them. So where must new

development take place? In the great unreached hinterland of the

province, the northeast, where people will not be disrupted. That's

what this government has done. We're sensitive to the already settled

areas. We're opening up areas in which we do not frighten people and do

not disturb their environment. Mr. Speaker, that's what this budget is

all about. I defend the budget — both in its social measures and its

economic measures. I reject the motion. Above all the motion rejects

itself, because nobody on the other side has had the courage to give us

any substantial fact why it should be moved at all. Really this motion

is a non-confidence motion in the opposition.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I'm not

sure of all the far-flung responsibilities that he does hold, but he is

a very perceptive and a very bright individual. It was he who observed

with devastating accuracy that the Premier does not sparkle in debate.

The Premier this morning has set out to make a prophet of his own

minister; he has demonstrated that the minister was perceptive and

accurate. It was another former minister who indicated that the Premier

lacked the qualifications that would ignite the imagination of the

province. He was the former Minister of Health and we, of course, know

where he is now.

I've listened to the Premier with great attention this morning. He

has categorized our motion of non-confidence as frivolous; he's

categorized it as inconsistent. I want to indicate at the outset, Mr.

Speaker, that I rise in support of our amendment to the budget.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Oh, I'll deal with the difference in economic

philosophy between the official opposition and the government. Don't

get too excited. The motion reads: "…that Mr. 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. Just

precisely what were those tax increases contained in the budget which

we object to? They were massive increases in the tax on cigarettes and

liquor, the sales tax, income tax, corporation tax — and these

increases followed large increases which bad already occurred in

virtually every other area of the government service and which were not

brought before the House for debate, Mr. Speaker. There were increases

in ICBC rates of between 40 percent and 70 percent in British Columbia

within the last year. There were increases in the ferry rates,

increases in bus fares, increases in business tax and licence fees,

increases in medicare premiums, and all of these occurred during the

last year without the benefit of debate in this Legislature as

government dictums. They were decisions made in cabinet — in secret

without debate — but nevertheless decisions that exacerbated the very

difficult economic times that the average person in the province of

British Columbia is experiencing.

We now have a budget which heaps additional burden on those

hard-pressed taxpayers, and we think it's unfair. That's why we have

moved a motion of non-confidence. And the government's response is:

"Okay, so you think it's unfair. What would you cut?" You know, that

reveals a very simplistic, if not simple, mind that feels that there is

only one economic avenue to take — either hose the taxpayers or cut

programs.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition indicated that

there were other methods of relieving the burden of tax on the

taxpayers of British Columbia. He made specific suggestions of where

cost savings in the large bureaucracy of government could be achieved.

He pointed out that the government had failed to increase the royalties

on coal shipments to Japan from southeastern British Columbia. Indeed,

they cancelled the announced increase that was to take place in the

spring of 1976, and the taxpayers of British Columbia have consequently

lost in the area of $50 million.

He didn't point out that the cost of the office of the Premier has

doubled in the short term that the new Premier has been in office, He

didn't point out that the Premier has just hired himself a new flack to

try to improve his flagging image in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it is significant or not that the name of

that individual is Mr. Heal. I'm advised that there are two kinds of

heel. Mr. Speaker: one is a rubber heel, and the other is a kind that

I'm not at liberty to describe in this Legislature — but I would

observe that I see neither the Premier or his flack doing any bouncing.

The motion is not frivolous. The motion is serious. We think there

is another way to raise the revenue necessary to run the business of

government. We believe that the resource wealth of the province of

British Columbia should carry a greater portion of the revenue-sharing

requirements to fund the functions of government. We don't believe that

the public should subsidize the development of northeast coal when

there is not an iota of chance that that coal is going to bring a fair

return to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the opposition who say that. Virtually every editorial page in the Province

is crying out that this is a bad deal for British Columbia. Their own

government backbencher, the one they demoted, who probably has more on

the ball than anyone in the executive benches at the moment, the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour, a former Liberal cabinet minister, an

engineer and a Rhodes scholar in his own right — here is w hat he has

to say about the coal deal. These are words uttered right here in this

chamber. He said: "Our gas bubble…has burst, timber sales have slowed

down, metal prices have softened, and coal, on balance, looks as if it

will be a cost item rather than a revenue producer for another decade

at least." That is what their own member said. It is going to be very

interesting to see whether that member will have the principle and the

consistency that the Premier talked about to stand up and back up his

observations when it comes time to vote on this issue. It's going to be

very interesting indeed.

The Premier put on an extremely lack-lustre performance this

morning, one of the poorest performances I have witnessed from the

Premier of the province of British Columbia. It was a pathetic defence.

It was a defensive posture, crying out against the opposition as if

they were the architect of the government's troubles. Mr. Speaker,

nothing could be further from the truth. The government are the

architects of their own problems, both in terms of public image and

faltering eco-

[ Page 4534 ]

nomic initiatives, the few that they have taken.

They are totally committed to the big ticket, the big monument. They

are totally committed to a questionable deal in northeast coal — and I

say questionable because, as their own member observes, it's not going

to produce revenue and relieve the taxpayers of the province from any

tax burden. It's a project that comes in competition with an area of

the province — the southeastern part of British Columbia — which is

already developed, largely by private capital.

I think it was the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) who talked

about the cost of the rail lines to service Fording and Kaiser. Well,

Mr. Speaker, not one cent of government funds went into those branch

lines. It was all private investment. It is true that Edgar Kaiser

raised some of his money for the development of the mine on the B.C.

market, but it was in the private sphere, not the public. Now, after

the infrastructure and rail-line improvement, paid for by private

capital, has all been put in place under a stiff competition for the

coal sales from British Columbia, what does this government propose

doing? It proposes a massive public investment in the order of over a

billion dollars to subsidize a new coal supplier in competition with

that portion of British Columbia which is intact and which now creates

jobs in the province of British Columbia and should be creating revenue

for us as well.

We are delivering to our customer, the Japanese steel industry, the

ability to whipsaw one portion of British Columbia against the other,

the ability to play off southeast coal against northeast and gain

advantageous prices. Lord knows we have enough competition for the

supply of coal already coming from Australia and the United States. Now

this government that call themselves a group of entrepreneurs and

businessmen propose to deliver to that customer a lever on which to

manipulate the supplier, our own province of British Columbia. I say

that is absolutely stupid. To top it all off and to add insult to

injury, they are asking the taxpayers of British Columbia to subsidize

that shockingly stupid deal at the expense of social programs, at the

expense of programs that should be brought in by this government

dealing with the needs of people.

We've heard a great deal from the government about their concern and

their regard for not going into debt. The Premier likes to get up and

pontificate about "those terrible socialists who put us in debt," and

"we are a government that believes in paying our way and balancing the

books." Anybody with half an ounce of brains understands that when you

guarantee borrowing authority for a Crown corporation you are liable

for that debt. The fact of the matter is that we have a British

Columbia railway system $700 million in the red and that debt is

guaranteed by the government of the province of British Columbia, and

they tell us that they are not in debt. Is he going to go back to the

old euphemism that that's a contingent liability? The people of the

province of British Columbia are a bit more sophisticated than to

believe that nonsense in this day and age.

What about B.C. Hydro? What is the debt of B.C. Hydro? If my memory serves

me correctly, I think they have borrowing authority of somewhere getting close

to $8 billion guaranteed by the province of British Columbia. Is that not a

debt? It was the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), when he was chairman of the

Crown corporations committee, who came out with a scathing indictment of B.C.

Hydro and their accounting policies. Yet he sits there along with his fellow

silent backbenchers and, sheeplike, votes for an ever-accelerating debt volume

with B.C. Hydro, despite the fact that he has issued an indictment of them showing

that their accounting procedures, their cost-control procedures, are woefully

inadequate. That's a debt to the people of British Columbia. We are paying

fantastic amounts to service those debt loads by these two major Crown corporations.

They would try to dupe the people into believing that we are debt free in this

province. Nonsense!

We are in favour of development of our resources in the regions of

the province of British Columbia. We would like to see a coal

development in northeast British Columbia if and when it makes sense to

do so, if and when the project pays for itself, if and when we start to

receive revenue from that natural resource that will ease the tax

burden on the backs of the ordinary taxpayer in the province of British

Columbia — not before. What kind of business sense is that? They would

not run their own business in that fashion. They are only prepared to

do so because they understand that the average working person and the

average homeowner in the province of British Columbia carry the can for

their wastrel tendencies.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The other ruse that this government likes to come up with as a

scapegoating effort to hide their own responsibility for their own

dilemma and their own conduct is Liberal- bashing: "Oh, the NDP is in

bed with the Liberals. Oh, those terrible Liberals are stealing revenue

from us. Oh, we don't get any money from the Liberals." Well, I can

understand and I can have some sympathy for their hatred of the

Liberals and their distrust of the Liberals.

I understand why they have some hostility toward the Liberals and

why it's now manifesting itself in such hatred of those terrible

federal Liberals. They know what they're all about now. They understand

the federal Liberals, because they imported the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm),

who a few years ago ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, the

former Minister of Health (Mr. Mair), now departed, the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) — all active Liberals.

There are two Liberals consulting together on the back bench there.

I suppose. Mr. Speaker, what they're discussing now is how they are

going to override the decision of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District board, which by democratic vote decided that they were not

going to allow a certain Mr. George Spetifore's land to come out of the

agricultural land reserve, so that he could profit to the tune of $100

million. Both of those ministers have indicated they're going to

override that democratic decision now. They're going to flex their

government muscles, and they're going to deliver alms and patronage to

their friend and political contributor, Mr. Spetifore. They wonder why

the public has no confidence in them. Patronage, patronage, patronage!

It smells to high heaven, Mr. Speaker.

Why do they bash the Liberals? They're the ones that clutch them to

their bosom. They are the ones who now have their cabinet riddled with

Liberals who once dedicated themselves to all of the principles and the

policies of the Liberal Party — not us. It was not us who drove those

Liberals over to the Socred benches.

[ Page 4535 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, yes, it was.

MR. KING: That's an admission. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs said yes, it was us. He never went over there out of

conviction. He never went over there out of belief. He went for

political survival. That must be a commentary on integrity and

principle, Mr. Speaker — a commentary, indeed. Sometimes the truth has

strange ways of coming out, Mr. Speaker.

But what about these people? They continue to condemn and to blast

those terrible Liberals in Ottawa. The Leader of the Opposition didn't

tell the Socreds to hire Mr. Manning to try to get B.C. Place going and

the stadium. He was the Prime Minister's right-hand man a couple of

years ago. Liberals are hated in the ranks of Social Credit, but, by

golly, who did they hire? They hired Paul Manning. Then they got into

the northeast coal deal. Who are they negotiating with, and who are

they offering preferential freight rates to? Mr. Andras, a former

Liberal cabinet minister. Well, you can't trust those terrible

Liberals, they tell us — they're stealing from the province of British

Columbia. So, by golly, as a defence against this terrible Liberal

cabinet minister, Bob Andras, what do they do? They hire another

Liberal cabinet minister to negotiate with them — Ron Basford.

I know why they hate the Liberals now. They figure they're the

intelligentsia of the nation, and they feel inferior. They hate them,

but when they're in trouble they feel that their only alternative is to

go and get a Liberal to negotiate for them. What are we paying Mr.

Basford? Sixty-two thousand dollars a year or eighty thousand?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Oh, $600 a day, plus lunch. Does he have a right to

come down to the subsidized restaurant in the parliament buildings and

eat on his $600 a day? Those people ask if we're frivolous about our

motion of non-confidence. My god! We've got a make-up artist for the

Premier at $54,000 a year. We've got a flack for the northeast coal so

we can subsidize the giveaway of our coal to our Japanese customers,

and we hire a federal Liberal at $600 a day to preside over the export

of this resource in competition with that member's security in

southeast British Columbia — in competition with the interest of that

man's constituents, Mr. Speaker. What a mess! They're in total

disarray, and because they are they point their guns at the New

Democratic Party and say: "Because you were in office for a brief three

years out of the last one hundred all of the sins and problems we have

today are on your shoulders."

AN HON. MEMBER: And we don't have any Liberals with us, so it's our fault.

MR. KING: We don't have any Liberals with us, so we must be to blame.

One of the marks of a decaying government is when they circle their wagons and

start shooting inward, flaying out in all directions at imaginary enemies. Perhaps

I've got that wrong. Maybe they'd be better if they did circle the wagons

and start shooting inward, because the enemy is within with this government

That's where the enemy is. It's a government in decay, a government in disarray.

It's a government without leadership, credibility or integrity. It's

a government that's lost the confidence of the people in the province of

British Columbia; and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I might say, would

be remiss in our duty if we failed to move a motion of non-confidence in this

sorry lot. Indeed we would.

I find it amusing when I see the Premier rise and attempt to take

credit for medicare and health standards in the province of British

Columbia. Most people remember when the doctors and their Conservative

cohorts in the province of Saskatchewan were attempting to kick the

legislative door down because the NDP premier of that province had

introduced, for the first time in the nation, medicare. There was going

to be a strike and a mass exodus of doctors from the nation. Oh, we

couldn't interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Who were the

ones in opposition? All of the right-wing ilk in western Canada. Funds

were coming up from the U.S. to fund the anti-socialist campaign that

would dare to try and deliver prepaid health care to the people of the

province and the nation. They were all part of it, and now that it's

paled into the distance, in some peoples recollection, they have the

colossal gall to stand up and try and embrace it and take credit for

it. You talk of hypocrisy; that is the epitome of hypocrisy.

What would we cut? We would cut the costs of the Premier's office,

because we have a leader who doesn't need artificial make-up jobs and

doesn't need prompters to get his message across clearly and coherently

in the province of British Columbia. We have a leader who we all have

confidence in to articulate our programs and policies without

prompters, facial powder, $600 for a make-up person and $62,000 for

some flack to make sure he doesn't falter when he's enunciating policy.

Look at what's happened to the cost of that office and tell me you're

protecting the interests of the taxpayers of the province of British

Columbia. Nonsense!

MR. LEA: The best Premier money can buy.

MR. KING: The best Premier money can buy, but I wouldn't want to make that investment, my friend.

Talk about saying different things to different people. We're

accused of being inconsistent. We just have the simple belief that the

natural resources of the province of British Columbia should bear the

burden of the cost of government services; it's as simple as that.

Because we disagree with the onerous taxes contained in this budget

that doesn't imply that we want to cut programs. No. there's another

alternative. There are some programs we would cut. We don't believe in

make-up men for politicians. We don't believe in junkets abroad,

first-class. We'd cut back on some of that. But, more importantly, we

believe that the natural resources should bring adequate revenue to

pick up the cost of many of the social programs of government. We

believe in fair royalties on coal and that the forest industry should

bear a fair return to the province of British Columbia. When the

Premier talks about inconsistency…. I don't know whether he's a

financial genius or whether his Minister of Finance is or not. but

here's what the budget says, on page 8, about revenue from the forest

industry: "While forestry revenue declined as expected, log prices have

held up better than anticipated." Forest revenue declined, the budget

says. so therefore we had to tax people to make up for that deficit.

Well, yesterday. or the day before, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) introduced his five-year plan.

In the deputy minister's message on page 1 it has this to say.

[ Page 4536 ]

Interjection.

MR. KING: The annual report, yes, along with your five-year plan. That was a brilliant interjection.

Here's what the report has to say: "The year 1980 was a mixed one

for the province's forest industry. The timber harvest declined

slightly to 75 million cubic meters, approximately one million less

than the record harvest of 1979." — one million cubic metres less cut —

"But forest revenues to the province increased to $540 million,

surpassing the 1979 record by $55 million." Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't

know whether someone's fibbing or not. I don't believe that the

Minister of Finance would tell a lie, and far be it from me to accuse

him of lying in the Legislature. And far be it from me to accuse the

Minister of Forests of lying in his annual report. I don't believe he

would do that. In fact, I don't know whether he even knows what the

annual report is. There it is, and the Premier of the province gets up

and accuses the opposition of inconsistency.

This brings me to the conclusion that my colleague, the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), was absolutely correct when

he categorized this budget as a cynical document that is calculated to

hide but amass surpluses by taxing the people of the province in

punitive fashion, so that one, two or three years down the road,

whenever this government musters the courage to go to the people again,

they will have vast surpluses available to try to buy votes to sustain

their tenuous grasp on office. That's the purpose of it.

The Premier even had the gall to brag about their wonderful

silviculture program. I'm going to have a lot more to say about the

Minister of Forests' activities when we get to his estimates. But he

talked about the wonderful increase in the allocation for silviculture

and he asked if the opposition would take that away. I find there's an

increase in the ministry's estimates this year — in the total budget —

of $5,708,974. Do you know where the biggest increase is? It's not for

silviculture, fire prevention or expansion of nursery capacity. The

largest increase is in building occupancy and computer consulting

costs. Do you know what the increase is? It's $10.5 million,

whereas

the total increase in that ministry's budget is $5.5 million. That says

to me that there is an overall reduction in the administrative costs

for the important silvicultural programs in the activities of the

regional offices.

There's a $5 million reduction in those programs this year. The

minister is going to have some explaining to do, but for the Premier to

stand up and say that we're inconsistent and that they've, increased

all these allocations for these wonderful programs…. It doesn't stand

up under examination.

I want to tell you that the Minister of Forests is going to have

some accounting to do with respect to the special fund set up last year

of, I believe, $146 million to fund intensive forest management for the

years to come. There are some very interesting anomalies with respect

to the administration of that fund which we'll be examining much more

closely when we're considering his estimates.

The Premier says that the opposition should accept the government's

policies and accept its direction without votes of non-confidence, and

he says that we should quit saying different things to different

people. We're inconsistent; we go out and make different statements of

policy in different parts of the province.

I would be prepared to promise the Premier that we'll make a very

sincere and honest attempt to be fully consistent with respect to our

policy, if he will get the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to come

before this Legislature and apologize for her claim, some years ago,

that the New Democratic Party had set up a secret police force with

caches of arms and ammunition all over the province. She knew that

wasn't true, Mr. Speaker, but she has never, to this day, stood up in

the House and apologized for that kind of downright untruth which was

propagated out there among the public by the Deputy Premier of this

province.

Mr. Speaker, the lovable Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) made

an interesting speech the other day, but I wish people would be totally

honest when they make speeches and when they make claims. One of the

things the minister said which shocked me a little bit was that during

the course of a railway dispute on BCR in 1975, the then Minister of

Labour, yours truly, wouldn't even let him into my office. Now, Mr.

Speaker, he must know better than that; surely his memory serves him

better. He came down with a group of mayors from up and down the north

part of his riding and had an audience in my office for one hour. Now,

you know, he gets up blithely in the House and says I wouldn't even let

him in the office. He knew that wasn't true when he said it, and if we

want to talk about being consistent, then I think we should be fully

consistent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Did you give him an audience? You were "the Pope."

MR. KING: Well, it was his terminology, and when it comes to

pomposity I think that the Minister of Health, being so hotly in love

with the member for Richmond, could give us all a bit of a history

lesson in pomposity in this House.

MR. LEA: But the love is returned; the member for Richmond loves the Minister of Health!

MR. KING: As my colleague observed, the member for Richmond

is a self-made man and he's wildly infatuated with his creator — and I

think that's an apt description.

Mr. Speaker, those are the little things that rather annoy us. And then the

Premier gets up and says: "Look, be consistent. Tell the people of the

province the same thing all over the province." Well, I'm prepared

to go to any part of the province and discuss our policy, and I've frequently

done so in all parts of the province.

The Premier said we didn't bring in any social programs when we were

in government. Well, Mr. Speaker, he wasn't here for all that period of

time. There was a very active period of our administration before his

father had donated his seat to the son, and perhaps he's not aware of

the many social policies that were introduced in 1972 before he held a

seat in this House: air service ambulance, Pharmacare, all kinds of

programs that benefited the people. Pensions were brought up to $200,

consistent with the cost of living in 1972 — a major increase which the

former government had denied — and many of these programs were brought

in.

I get a kick out of the Premier. He says. "I'm not going to get into

personalities," and then he starts talking about the Leader of the

Opposition's wearing apparel. "Oh," he said, "he puts on a blue suit."

Well, I suppose maybe he's cross because you can't afford a suede one

like him, I don't know. I can understand him being pensive, I can

understand him

[ Page 4537 ]

being petty, and I can understand him being

jealous, because he has a major image problem in the province of

British Columbia. It's been acknowledged by his own cabinet members;

it's been acknowledged by his own party riding associations — they've

got a major problem. It was the Premier who, hard on the heels of all

the dirty tricks, stood up at their convention and said: "I'm going to

bring in a code of ethics for the party to live by." Whatever happened

to that code of ethics? I think that would have been a wonderful social

program for the government to bring in, and it wouldn't have cost the

taxpayers any money.

AN HON. MEMBER: And George Spetifore is working on the first draft! [Laughter.]

MR. KING: George Spetifore is working on the first draft of

the Social Credit code of ethics! And I suppose. Mr. Speaker, he's not

going to complete it until his agricultural land is finally removed and

he has gathered in his hundred million dollars in his hot little hand

and run away. Then he'll deliver the code of ethics for Social Credit

to live by.

Really, they are the architects of their own problems. They haven't

been frank with the people: they're heaping incredible taxes on the

taxpayers, the working people of this province; there is a housing

crisis now in the lower mainland and in Victoria of proportions never

seen before in the nation; rental guidelines are coming off; rental

regulations are coming off. I can tell you that many senior people on

fixed incomes are living in deathly fear that they are going to be

bounced out of their accommodation because they can no longer afford

it. In my own constituency in the city of Revelstoke the homemaker

service has been abolished. People who are now coming back from the

regional hospitals in the Okanagan after serious surgery are no longer

able to get home care for the changing of dressings and so on. And they

brag about their social programs! When people see the erosion of these

kinds of people services in the face of massive tax increases, no

wonder they want an election, and no wonder they want to get rid of

this gang.

One of the hallmarks of a political party that's in trouble is that

they huddle together and they point the finger in every direction

trying to find a scapegoat to relieve them of their own culpability and

their own ineptitude. If this government would start levelling with the

people — being honest, being open — and start relieving the people of

some of the onerous taxes that they have placed on them, then they

wouldn't have to be as defensive with the opposition as they are today.

There are many inconsistencies in this budget. There are

inconsistencies in the revenue claims from the forest industry. There

are conflicts between the forecasts from the Forests ministry itself

and the Finance minister. In light of that, we believe that our

amendment is absolutely necessary, and I'm very pleased to support it.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: It's a pleasure to join in the debate on this

amendment, which is couched in terms of criticism of the budget on the basis

that the tax increases in it are onerous, unnecessary and expedient. In looking

at that amendment, I must say I was taken by the research and the analysis of

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

remarks yesterday. I think he pointed out to the assembly the real reason why

the opposition should choose to couch this amendment in these terms.

We've now learned that the Opposition, the New Democratic Party, is

into the hotel business in a big way in this province. In Nanaimo

they're building a luxury political palace in the sky — a luxury hotel.

We're advised that the room rates are $80 and up. Therefore we conclude

that that part of the budget dealing with tax increases on hotel rooms

is of particular concern to these hotel developers across the aisle.

Since that time, I've had the opportunity to glean just a little bit

more about these NDP hotel plans in Nanaimo. I want to address myself

to some better understanding of the thinking of the opposition behind

the amendment. Perhaps if all of us in the assembly understand to a

better degree why the opposition — now luxury hotel developers — are

concerned about the increase in taxes on room rates, we'll better

understand the attempt they're making today.

It is a surprise, I must say, when we learn that the Leader of the

Opposition has now embarked on a program to become the Conrad Hilton of

Canadian party politics. It's a bit of a tipoff, because if the Leader

of the Opposition now wants to become the Conrad Hilton of Canadian

politics, it's probably the case that deep down the opposition knows

they're going to be there for a while, and they're casting about, we

suspect, for some alternate part-time employment.

I've come across some information that suggests some of the

potential jobs available in this new political hotel in Nanaimo. For

example, I'm advised that the former Attorney-General has put in to be

the house detective. There is going to be valet parking, I understand,

with the former Minister of Highways in charge of that. The member for

New Westminster, I gather, has filed application to be house doctor. My

good friend, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), the

former Minister of Human Resources, I gather he has applied to be chief

night auditor. I'm told there's an application for social director from

Yvonne Cocke. I'm told that there is a line-up among members opposite

for the position of head bellman. Why do you suppose that is, Mr.

Speaker? Because when Jim Kinnaird checks in they all want the chance

to carry his bags.

I've heard something of the plans for this hotel with a luxury

restaurant. The main restaurant is Going to be called Panco's. As you

might expect, there's nothing but chicken on the menu, with lots of

free lunches and evening specials on left wings.

The plans for the plumbing are fascinating. In this new luxury NDP

hotel the public facilities are not going to be a men's room marked

"men" and a women's room marked "women," but on each floor just one

room marked "persons."

Now it's a Vancouver Island location, and the planning of the NDP

caucus for their hotel…. Mr. Speaker. I'm aware of your concern about

the amendment. but again this relates to the background of the

opposition amendment framed with concern about the tax increases on

room rates in this luxury hotel. If you can imagine. this group

opposite, now doing a luxury hotel in Nanaimo, is the same group which

is against gas to Vancouver Island, against hydro to Vancouver Island,

and for no growth on Vancouver Island. How can they can be doing a

luxury energy-consuming hotel? I understand that they've taken some

advice from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), their energy critic.

The elevators are going to be run by a windmill on the roof of the

hotel. The kitchen is going to be heated by tidal power: that may

explain the preponderance of cold cuts on the menu. The rooms will all

have candles.

[ Page 4538 ]

In the rooms there will be not just a Gideon Bible but a personally autographed copy by the Leader of the Opposition of the Waffle Manifesto on top of the Gideon Bible . The parking lot will be all gravel with some planned pot-holes.

There's going to be a bar and, as you might expect, pink gin is

going to be featured. You know, bars today in hotels have themes; this

one's going to be the Bob Williams Lounge. It's fitting, I think, for

the Nanaimo NDP to pay recognition to one of its favourite

personalities. They've got an interior decorator. There's not going to

be a feature wall. You know, many decorators these days take a room and

do a feature wall, but in the Bob Williams Lounge instead of a feature

wall there's going to be a feature seat. I understand that it is a

reproduction of one of the seats in this assembly. I'm told the cost of

this feature seat is in the order of $80,000; it seems to be a

phenomenal figure.

The doors in the hotel on every level will all open to the left. In

keeping with the spirit of the members opposite who planned this hotel

there will be only cold water, not even lukewarm — the cold-water

party; cold water for everything.

Finally, not in Panco's Restaurant but in the main dining room they

thought that, as happens in major luxury hotels, they'd have a

prominent feature theme: they're going to call it the Constitution

Room. I understand they've asked members of the NDP across the country

to help plan a menu that would reflect this wonderful country, its

diverse regions and many points of view. I gather that the Leader of

the Opposition, Mr. Notley next door, Premier Blakeney, Mr. Pawley and

Mr. Broadbent have been huddling for some weeks, but they can't get

together to produce a menu and agree on anything of a national scope.

Mulligatawny stew, I think, is the only thing they've agreed on so far

which bears some reference to the constitutional position.

If those are the real reasons why members opposite are concerned

about the room-rate increases, we understand the concern a little

better. I echo the views of my colleague the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser): for a group who so frequently talk

about social housing and low-income housing, it's fascinating when they

step to the mark as developers and we find them in the luxury hotel

business with, I gather, no percentage or proportion of the plan

providing for social housing or luxury housing.

In terms of the budget more directly, it's often helpful when we're

faced with an amendment that's critical of the budget to step outside

party politics in the province and to see what some independent

commentators have to say.

The Toronto Globe and Mail on Wednesday had an editorial on

the budget of the Minister of Finance. It's interesting that this

editorial comes as the Ontario provincial election moves to a close.

It's a brief editorial, an envious editorial, and I'd like to read it

into the record. It is entitled: "B.C. Tries Balance," and it reads:

"British Columbia's Social Credit government certainly

has the courage of its convictions. Unlike most Canadian governments,

it has balanced budgets. To continue this record, Finance Minister Hugh

Curtis has, among other things, raised the provincial sales tax from 4

to 6 percent — still 1 percent lower than Ontario's — and will spend

$26 million to retire more of the debt piled up by the New Democrats

while they were briefly in power. At the same time, there will be new

income tax credits for 40 percent of B.C. families, a drop in tax for

small businesses, tax benefits for people who buy fuel-efficient cars,

and big investments in new coal fields that will provide many jobs. A

government that is not spending huge parts of its revenues to pay

interest on its public debt can afford to create jobs."

From a leading national newspaper in a province with a serious

unemployment problem, a province that has not had a balanced budget,

this closing sentence is worth repeating:

"A government that is not spending huge parts of its revenues

to pay interest on its public debt can afford to create jobs."

On Wednesday in Toronto, the leader of the Ontario NDP, Mr. Cassidy,

made a very interesting statement in the Ontario provincial election

campaign which bears upon the approach taken by members opposite. It

reflects in part the continuing disarray of the New Democratic Party on

matters of policy across this country, because members opposite have

inferred through their debate on this amendment that there should not

be tax increases if they are necessary to maintain social programs and

balance a budget. But the Ontario leader of the NDP adopts a tone in

the Ontario election campaign that is strangely different from that of

members opposite. The Ontario NDP leader on Wednesday of this week

promised a denticare program, less attractive than the one in British

Columbia, and to finance it he proposed an increase in provincial

taxes. The program that he proposes for denticare does not include

seniors. It is not as comprehensive as British Columbia's.

From the Globe and Mail , page 8, Wednesday, March 11: "Mr.

Cassidy also announced yesterday that an NDP government would introduce

free dental-care programs for school children, which would be paid for

with provincial revenues and an increase in provincial taxes." Well,

part of the remarks of the Premier and the Minister of Finance this

week have been to the effect that if we're to balance our budget in

this province, and if modest tax increases are necessary to maintain

important social programs, that's the approach we're going to take.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: That wonderful fellow, the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), has been a career socialist. Let me

just pause here, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, it's my point. Indeed I haven't, but

you fellows across the aisle…. I'm just delighted to pause here. We

heard late yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition about political

claim-jumpers. My friend — to the second member for Vancouver East —

I've changed parties in my life. You've changed parties three times.

You belonged to the CCF. You changed all that to hoodwink the public to

the NDP. Then you all joined the Waffle. Then you jumped away from the

Waffle, and now you're back somewhere else. Don't talk to us about

political claim-jumping. You've been all over the map, and you know it.

You talk about political claim-jumping. The Leader of the

Opposition, when it was fashionable, belonged to the Waffle. He signed

the Waffle, and now ten years later: "Oh, I just signed it so they

could debate it." That's not political claim-jumping? The Waffle didn't

work for you. The change of name to NDP didn't work for you. Your

marriage with the

[ Page 4539 ]

labour bosses isn't working for you. What are you

going to do next when you jump claims politically, those of you across

the aisle? Don't give us that.

The budget of the Minister of Finance referred to the fact that some

$28 million of further revenue would be provided by way of increased

liquor distribution markups. I would like in my remarks on the

amendment this morning, because the amendment is couched in terms of

tax increases, to indicate the general direction that this ministry

will take in raising that $28 million. I hope, in announcing that

general direction, that some members opposite might be inclined to

reject the amendment on the basis of the positive and appropriate

policy thrusts we will pursue in raising this additional revenue.

The Minister of Finance has, as I say, left to this ministry and the

liquor distribution branch the precise determination as to the manner

in which the $28 million will be raised, bearing in mind that today the

liquor distribution branch, in terms of listings, has in the order of

1,500 from which to choose. For very broad discussion purposes we can

talk about the beers, wines and hard liquors. Those, I think, are the

easiest categories to describe the choices. The general approach we

will take is very simple. In approaching markups we wish to pursue a

policy of encouraging moderation in the use of alcohol and encouraging

the consumption of the more moderate alcohol content products. That's

our first principle in determining the application of markups: the

principle of moderation in use and persuasion of products with a

moderate alcohol content. Our second principle is to maintain the

existing relative preference for British Columbia wines. We deem that

to be an important policy principle.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: My good friend the second member is going

to have to just be a little calm and hang onto his seat. In the

fullness of time all these things will happen. Let's not get too

excited. I know that perhaps the prospect of some modest increase in

liquor prices may excite you, but if you'll just give me a little time

we'll try to make the picture more clear.

First of all may I say that I will not be announcing today the

precise particulars of which specific items and by how many cents. I'm

proposing to announce the general guidelines we're going to apply. The

precise determination of which particular product by which particular

amount, and the precise date of timing, is still being worked on by Mr.

Bob Wallace, the general manager of the LDB.

First of all may I deal, within that framework of moderation, with

the beers, both imported and domestic. There will be no hike in the

price of beer in this province as part of the $28 million revenue

project that we're proceeding with.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Member, you should know this and listen

to this: by virtue of not proceeding with any increase in the price of

beer, British Columbia will continue not to have the most expensive

beer in Canada. That honour belongs, my friend, to the province of

Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan today does not have the

highest-paid brewery workers in the country but has the highest price

of beer. British Columbia today, my friend, has the highest-paid

brewery workers in Canada and not the highest price of beer. There will

be no hike in the price of beer in terms of implementing this revenue

program.

The absence of any further price hike to beer will apply to both the

imported and domestic beers. Ninety percent of the imported beers are

from the United States. They have a lower alcohol content than the

Canadian beers, and because we think that's an important principle —

the principle of moderation — we include the imported beers.

Turning to the wines, there will some increase in the markup on

wines, although significantly less of an increase than that applied to

the hard liquors. Again, the wines are a drink of relative moderation

and within the wine increases the preference in favour of B.C. wines

will be maintained. So the wine increases will be less than those for

hard liquor. There will only be a modest increase in terms of B.C.

wines. In other words, the lowest of the increases will be in B.C.

wines.

Now turning to the hard liquors, not the drinks of moderation.

MR. MACDONALD: Hit the scotch drinker again.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Member, we're going to put the

biggest part of the increase on the hard liquors. That's correct.

That's a policy decision, and we can stand and be counted occasionally.

If you don't like the idea of the price of beer not being hiked, stand

up and vote for your amendment, but if you'd like to vote to keep the

price of beer not the highest in the Canada, come on and vote with us.

Take a stand for beer; it will be good for you.

MR. MACDONALD: Just don't expect the scotch vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all members please come to order. And the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would assist the Chair by

addressing the Chair. Would the second member for Vancouver East also

please come to order.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The hard liquors will carry the brunt of

the increase, on the basis that. If we're to encourage moderation, and

some people choose to exercise a preference for higher alcohol content,

they're going to have to carry the biggest part of the load.

A final word on the pricing of beer. As a matter of policy and it's

a very novel thing in this country — the government of the province of

British Columbia freed the price of beer in the pubs and the beer

parlours last year. We are pursuing that program. and we hope that the

price of packaged beer — the case, half-case — is going to see some

variation and competition. As a matter of policy, we are freeing the

price of packaged beer. We are no longer as government going to be in

the business of approving or regulating the price of packaged beer.

Our policy goal is very simple: for the benefit of the consumer, we

want to encourage competition amongst the brewers. The brewers are very

competitive among themselves in other than price ways. For historical

reasons across this country, the brewers usually have to come to

government for some form of approval as part of a beer-price increase.

We can see no rational need for that in 1981, and therefore we are out

of the regulation of the price of packaged beer. Henceforth, changes in

the price of beer will not be determined by way of government

regulation in this province; rather, it will

[ Page 4540 ]

be determined individually by the breweries on a

periodic basis as they see fit. We hope that will promote, for the

benefit of the consumer, some competition in beer-pricing in the

province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, those aspects of the budget

are hopefully of interest to members.

In concluding, I would be remiss if I didn't spend a moment or two

on the topic of the budget and the amendment, in respect of tax

measures necessitated by fiscal policies of the federal government.

Again, we've heard from members opposite in the last several days

suggestions that this government is Canada-bashing. It would seem that

anybody — including four of the seven members of the federal New

Democratic Party from Saskatchewan — who attempts to legitimately stand

up for the economic interests of the people of western Canada is

accused by this particular opposition of Canada-bashing.

I think it would be instructive if members opposite refreshed their

memories with some of the words of the member opposite for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea), who had some things to say about Ottawa and

Ottawa-B.C. relations in a fiscal context just last year when we voted

interim supply. He gave the government some advice. It would appear the

government's been following that advice, but it now appears some of his

colleagues opposite differ. The member from Prince Rupert, on April 2

last — in Hansard — had, among other things, these words of advice to government in the supply debate. He said:

We have had nothing but problems with the federal Liberal government for over 100 years…one broken promise after another.

When I grew up in the interior of this province, Mr.

Speaker, I woke up every morning feeling I was a Canadian. The more I'm

around government, the more I see the workings of the federal

government as it pertains to Liberalism, the more convinced I am that

every morning I wake up I'm feeling less of a Canadian and more like a

British Columbian.

All you ever get out of the federal Liberals are

promises, promises, promises; but after the election, they don't keep

any promise to the west — none.

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly vote for interim supply if

some of this money is going to be used to try to convince the federal

Liberals that the west needs the opportunity to produce so that we can

better our lot as a people. In this particular area I have faith that

the minister and the government are going to act properly on our behalf

as citizens. But boy, you've got a rough road to go, because I have

lost all faith in the federal Liberals.

And the member opposite from Prince Rupert concluded with this advice to this

government:

Through this interim budget I urge the government to

take the hardest, most severe position it can take with the federal

Liberals, because it won't be enough. As far as I'm concerned, they've

sold us out and are going to continue to sell us out.

Mr. Speaker, that was the member opposite for Prince Rupert last

April in the supply debate. That's the kind of advice which he gave to

us. It's advice echoed by four of the seven New Democrat MPs from

Saskatchewan. It's a position echoed by Mr. Notley, leader of the

Alberta NDP, and by Mr. Pawley of the NDP in Manitoba. And now for this

last couple of days we've heard suggestions that we're Canada-bashing.

Well, your own Democrat

magazine tells you, members opposite, that three of four callers to

your offices are against your position in bed with Mr. Trudeau and Mr.

Broadbent. The member for Prince Rupert differs with you as to the

approach taken with Ottawa.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Some of the tax increases in this budget are necessitated by the

insensitive fiscal measures of Ottawa. Perhaps the member for Prince

Rupert before voting for the amendment will pause to realize that the

kind of sentiments he echoed in this House last April have been

reflected in the time since by the actions of this government.

In watching the members opposite grapple with the fact that they're

now stuck in bed with Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Trudeau, while many of

their NDP colleagues around the country have jumped out of bed, I'm

reminded of the fable of Buridan's ass. Mr. Speaker, I know you well

recall the fable. A man named Buridan once had an ass. Come lunchtime

one day, he walked his ass into the farmyard and unhitched him, and

there Buridan's ass stood, as it turned out, precisely equidistant

between two bales of hay. Poor Buridan's ass stood there so long

wondering which bale of hay to go nibble on that he starved to death.

Well, members opposite, it's slowly falling apart for you. You

rushed out and jumped in bed with Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Trudeau. In the

debate in December I quoted to you some of your federal colleagues, the

ones who have now broken rank. Mr. Notley, your leader in Alberta, has

rejected the Trudeau package. Mr. Blakeney has rejected it; Mr. Pawley

has rejected it. Mr. Broadbent is now fighting with your colleagues the

Labour Party in Great Britain. And you're stuck in the middle —

equidistant. You've got to take a stand sooner or later. You're dancing

around the asparagus patch.

You know, you're dangerously close to becoming intellectually

bankrupt on the issue. Why don't you stand up and take a clear stand?

Tell us today, if it's the reason, that this amendment is here because

you agree with Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Lalonde: what they're doing is

right; therefore what we have to do in our budget to counter that is

wrong. Tell us that. We'll at least respect you for your frankness, if

you're still supporting them, and that's why you differ with our

budgetary approach. Alternatively, if you've thought about it, and you

don't want to be the only remaining NDP group in western Canada still

supporting Lalonde and Trudeau, stand up and tell us that. Agree with

us, that we've had to take some tax measures because of what Ottawa has

done to us. We'll respect you for that too.

You can't have it both ways. Remember the fable of Buridan's ass.

You may starve yourselves to death intellectually. You're offering the

people of this province no clear policy choice in this field. You're in

danger of becoming intellectually bankrupt. Think about that before you

vote for the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: It seems we wander a long way from the topic

that we're talking about in the course of our debate. The last speaker

certainly was a bit humorous. He had spent a lot of time writing some

parables, fairy-tales. Perhaps that's what that side of the House is

really noted for — writing fairy-tales. It was interesting to listen to

some of his comments.

I was very interested in his comments on the liquor tax and his

division of that tax. I don't have any real argument with that. When he

makes the point that he's not going to increase the tax on beer, and at

the same time frees the price of beer so it's set by the suppliers, and

then builds in a little protection in the marketplace by increasing the

price of wine and hard liquor through tax measures, I'm wondering

whether or not that free market situation relative to the sale of beer

isn't going to mean that the price of beer is going to

[ Page 4541 ]

increase to fill the pockets of the manufacturer,

rather than that extra amount going into the taxpayers' pockets. Making

through taxes the alternative choice more expensive to drink seems to

me a bonanza to the manufacturers of beer, and an opportunity for them

to increase their prices.

This discussion today on the amendment, which speaks of our concern

about the taxes that have been placed on the people of British Columbia

in this budget, has related that concern to three reasons. I was

prompted by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he quoted a

dictionary definition of "expedient" — and got dictionary

definitions

of the other words as well. Incidentally, my dictionary definition of

"expedient" doesn't match his, but we'll get to that later.

"Onerous" — the Attorney-General said when he was speaking that all

taxes are onerous. According to the dictionary which I consulted in the

library, "onerous" means burdensome or oppressive. That's what the

opposition is saying these taxes are — burdensome and oppressive. There

is no tax, the Attorney-General said, that isn't onerous, and I

disagree with that. It's a quote from that side of the House that

there's no free lunch. If we're going to have government services, we

have to pay for them with taxes. But some taxes are more palatable than

others some are more fair. The taxes that this government has raised in

this budget are not fair or just. They are onerous because they're

burdensome and offensive.

The increase in sales tax, for example, which represents the largest

return to government coffers, is considered by economists far and wide

as a regressive tax. It's a tax that doesn't take into consideration in

any way, shape or form the ability to pay. A 2-cent increase on every

dollar for articles purchased by people with incomes of $2,000, $3,000

and $4,000 a month is nothing. But when you add that increase onto the

price of articles purchased by people on fixed and low incomes, the

working poor, retired people and the people on social assistance and

handicapped pensions, it becomes a very burdensome, offensive and

oppressive tax, and it's not fair or just. That's why we very much

regret that this government has seen fit to take that step in

attempting to balance its budget, in attempting to pick up that $625

million shortfall, in attempting to recoup some of the reserves it has

depleted. It's an unfair, burdensome and oppressive way to go.

It's particularly difficult for some groups, as I mentioned earlier.

The increase in the gasoline tax — many people on this side of the

House have talked about that. It poses difficulties for people in rural

areas and in certain industries such as the agriculture industry, which

is a heavy consumer of energy. To increase, over and above the increase

that the general public is being asked to pay for gasoline, the amount

being charged for gasoline used in the production of food is certainly

burdensome and oppressive as far as the farm community goes. The farm

community has been caught in the cost-price squeeze for some time.

Costs keep escalating and market prices at the farm gate are lagging

behind inflation. They're caught in the cost-price squeeze, and now

this is just one more item that has been put on the backs of the

agricultural producers in British Columbia. It's an onerous tax,

burdensome and oppressive. That's why we on this side of the House are

opposed to the measures the government is taking.

An expedient tax. Well, no, let's do "unnecessary." I'm going

to save that "expedient" until the end, because I want to differ with

the Attorney-General's definition. An unnecessary tax: "not absolutely

needed to accomplish a certain result." That's the dictionary definition.

The result that the government tells us they're trying to accomplish is

to maintain services at a level — somewhat below previous levels. Incidentally

— just to maintain those services. No particular improvements, nothing else,

just to maintain them — that's what they say they're trying to do by

these taxes. We say it's unnecessary, that it's not needed to accomplish

that end. They say: "Well. what would you do?"

I wonder. Mr. Speaker. have they ever thought about saying to the

public of British Columbia: "Look. we are going to have to change our

plans about the convention centre. There just isn't enough money to

build it." How many millions of dollars would the add to the social

service programs if that particular monument was not constructed? Have

they ever thought of saying to the taxpayers of this province: "Look,

we don't really think that the government can afford to get involved in

a professional sports stadium. We think that probably that would be

better left to private investment." Have they ever thought about taking

that step, Mr. Speaker'? And have they ever thought about the millions

of dollars that that would return for the use of the human services

programs, the needed programs, the routine estimates for the ministers

of the Crown of this government? Have they ever thought about the

amount of money that that would make available?

Transpo '86. Are they so determined to rush headlong into that

program and perhaps repeat the Montreal fiasco and find B, C. taxpayers

faced with the kind of situation that's facing the people in Montreal

and Quebec? Have they ever thought about looking at that instead of

socking it to the general public on sales tax and gasoline tax and all

the other moves that they're taking to increase the amount of money

that they say is necessary just to maintain those services?

Have they ever thought. Mr. Speaker, about getting some different

approach to the development in the northeast? If they are so determined

to give away an energy resource at a price that is below the return

that they can get from that resource or are able to sell it for, have

they ever thought about asking for some assistance from the people

they're selling it to? I'm not supporting that kind of an approach, but

certainly that is what is happening in Australia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It is not.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

says that that's not happening in Australia. I have here a copy of the

Australian Financial Times which indicates that the Japanese are begging the

Australian government to take some financial assistance to build port facilities

and other facilities to get coal out of Australia. In any of these jaunts that

that minister takes all around the world, has he ever thought of talking to

Australia about this? Australia

is not buying; they want to keep that coal; they want to use that coal

to produce an alternative energy source in Australia; they're not

making that coal available to the Japanese. But because the Japanese

want it so badly, they're prepared to put up some of the costs — and

here we're asking the taxpayer to foot the bill for those things. It's

a very strange approach.

As for the other idea — that it's absolutely needed to accomplish

certain results — I wonder if it is really needed. We have seen that

happen so often with Social Credit governments: the old approach of

overestimating your expenditures and underestimating your revenue. It's

a great way to build up

[ Page 4542 ]

a nest-egg. Is it really necessary to put these

taxes on the backs of the citizens of British Columbia just to maintain

present services? Is it really necessary or is it just a way of

building up a nice little nest-egg? There are strange things happening

when you compare the figures in the budget with the estimates.

The budget talks about $17 million for roads in the northeast —

maintenance, upgrading and construction. Yet if you look at the

estimates, as my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) pointed out,

the budget of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) for highways maintenance and construction is up by nearly $100

million. Is that holding the line? Is that retaining the present

standards? If in fact that $83 million is going to roads around the

province, that's certainly an increase, that's not holding the line.

Where is that $83 million? How much of it is going to wind up as a

hidden subsidy to northeast coal? Will we ever know? I doubt it. The

whole change in the approach of financing that development by hiding

the costs within the estimates of the various ministries has removed

from the scrutiny of this Legislature something the Legislature has a

right to know: how much that northeast coal development is really going

to cost us.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know, nor does your department know.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, I know.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says he knows.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for

Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. I would ask all hon. members to bear

that in mind. They too will have an opportunity for debate.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says he knows. If he knows, why

has he been so reticent to answer questions in this Legislature that

have been put to him time after time? Why is he so reticent to file

backup information? Nothing has been made public. We just have his

word, and we will never know how much money the taxpayer is actually

pouring into that development.

Now let's go to "expediency." The Attorney-General dealt at some

length with that particular word. He had a dictionary definition, but I

failed to find his dictionary definition. The first definition given in

Funk and Wagnall's in the library is this: "Expedient: serving to

promote a desired end." That's exactly what we're saying this budget

is. It's expedient in that it's serving to promote the desired

political end for that particular party and for that government. It's

expedient in attempting to build up a reserve to build monuments to

themselves and to utilize taxpayers' money for unnecessary

expenditures. That's where it's expedient. It's building up a slush

fund, if you will, for pre-election. It's moving to accumulate money

out of the economy of this province — because whenever you increase

taxes you take money out of the economy.

People on fixed incomes, low incomes…. Working people only have so

much money and they spend it on consumer goods. If the government takes

some of that away from them and hides it in some government sock, then

it's taken out of the economy and that starts the spiral on the

downturn. That $625 million that is supposed to be raised by increased

taxes is taking $625 million out of the economy of the province of

British Columbia — dollars that could be invested in cars, clothing and

all the things that people use and need to have a comfortable and

pleasant life. For that $625 million that you remove directly, the side

effects of that have an economic effect that turns down the whole

economy.

I suggest that this budget is extremely expedient in that it is

using dollars that should be left in the hands of the people of British

Columbia to fill their reserve funds, ready to use when they want to

bring on a budget of handouts before they're prepared to face the

people of this province. I suggest it's an old trick and it won't work,

but I do suggest it is politically expedient. That is why this

resolution is on the order paper; that is why we object to the

high-handed, tightfisted policies that have been outlined by this

government.

They are looking in the wrong places and at the wrong time for the

kind of funds that they're asking for. They are not taking a

responsible approach to the problems that they appear to be facing. How

they ever got there, I don't know. They seem to have frittered away a

$500 million reserve in one year. My colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) pointed out that the forest industry's returns are not down,

they're up. The economy, according to the Minister of Finance, is

booming. Why then is the provincial government in such dire straits?

Complete mismanagement is the only explanation. I just don't understand

how a government of supposedly successful business people could ever

drive a province into such a supposedly desperate situation in one

short year. Five hundred million dollars of reserves have disappeared

and a $625 million would-be overrun on this year's budget has to be

covered by excessive tax increases onerous, unnecessary and expedient.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this amendment. It's a sorry day

for the Legislature, a sorry day for British Columbia, when we face in

this House a debate that is causing us to have to look at the absolute

disaster that this government has brought to this province in one short

year. I oppose the budget and I support this amendment. I would

certainly hope that some of the government members, some of the

back-bench members, will consider what they are doing when they stand,

if they stand, to oppose this amendment. They are opposing a move that

would attempt to take from the backs of the people of British Columbia

this $625 million burden that has been placed upon them by this

particular government that seems determined to go ahead with its

self-perpetuating monuments. Perhaps that's a sign of the future.

Somehow they have to perpetuate their own memory, because they know

that come the next election they will no longer be sitting in these

seats in the House.

MR. GABELMANN: I was expecting that the government would have

a speaker in turn, but obviously no one else on that side wants to talk

against this amendment.

A number of references have been made by members on that side of the

House to the fact, from their point of view, that there is no reason

for such an amendment. We in this House can divide quite predictably on

that question, and I have no illusions about those mavericks on that

side who when outside this chamber speak on our side of the issue but

inside speak on the other side of the issue. But where the real vote

should be taken is out there in the public. If the public had an

opportunity to divide on the question that we have put before this

House on the amendment, there's no doubt, not just in our minds as

partisan New Democrats, but no doubt in the

[ Page 4543 ]

minds of active Socreds and active members of other political parties around this province, that we would win the vote.

The taxes that have been increased on the people of this province by

this budget are not only onerous, expedient and unnecessary, but they

are in fact deceitful, because the increases in the taxes people have

to bear this year are simply there to buy their votes next year. I

resent that kind of politics and I know it's no longer the 1950s and

1960s in this province. In these 1980s, the public will no longer be

deceived by that kind of political chicanery. No longer will that work.

For a government which is trying to invoke memories of the 1950s and

1960s with the big-ticket, big-project items and deceitful bookkeeping

methods in an effort to try to bring back those glory days of

successive election victories, they have misjudged the mood of British

Columbians.

If the cabinet ever wanted any evidence of that they should have

picked it up on their tour of Vancouver Island in January. In January,

on Vancouver Island, in a blatant, political Social Credit tour — paid

for by taxpayers, I might add — what did the members of this government

find, when they went into community after community, but opposition to

various programs. Where was that opposition coming from? Was it coming

from the weirdo environmentalists off in left field? Was it coming from

active New Democrats with a political axe to grind? No. Some of the

demonstrations were led by chambers of commerce. In Campbell River, for

example, the major protest against government policies was led by the

establishment business leaders of the community. If that doesn't tell

this government something, if that doesn't give them a message, then

they have thicker blinders on than I ever thought they had.

What the government is saying in economic terms, in my judgment, is

two things. I've alluded to one. Nineteen eighty-one is a year for

taxpayers to dig deeper to finance giveaways and goodies, and I

suspect, an increase in the homeowner grant in 1982, should you survive

that long. God forbid! Taxes are also increased deliberately to assist

in this illusory big-ticket, big-project, desperate grasp for electoral

return.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) a few moments ago

talked about the increase in Highways' budget. There is a significant,

major increase in the Highways budget. I doubt very much whether that

significant increase in the Highways budget is designed for problems in

transit in urban areas. I doubt very much whether that significant

increase in that Highways budget is designed to improve the highway

system on Vancouver Island — the needed four-laning from here to

Campbell River. I suspect that just as in the sixties with the Columbia

River, when costs for the Columbia River policy were hidden in

forestry. highways and hydro expenditures — to name only a few of the

budgets that carried some of the costs of that massive hydro scheme of

W.A.C. — just as the taxpayers paid hidden costs then, so too today are

we paying hidden costs, at least in the Highways budget, because that's

where that money is designed for. It's designed to subsidize those

corporations that can't make a go of it in a free enterprise way.

One of the ironies of political life in British Columbia now and in

recent years is that the true free-enterprisers are on this side of

this House. We believe that business should be able to make a go of it,

or it shouldn't go. If it doesn't go financially, if it doesn't go

economically, it shouldn't go. This is something that doesn't go.

I have no objections to governments providing infrastructure and a variety

of services that are required to open up the province. In fact, when we were

government, we were beginning those kinds of things not just for the northeast

but for the northwest too, and for the southeast and various other parts of the

province. But when we do it, Mr. Speaker, it should be done openly and honestly

so the public has an opportunity to judge whether or not those expenditures

are legitimate. How can the public make a judgment about whether or not now

is the time to develop northeast coal when they don't have all the figures

in front of them, they don't know what the costs are, they don't know

what the hidden subsidies are, and they don't know the contribution that

B.C. Rail — already $700 million in debt — is going to make to this kind of

project? And they talk about free enterprise. It's not even private enterprise,

as I prefer to characterize it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We are in a province that has serious problems in a wide variety of

concerns about human life. We live in a time when our health-care

system is probably more threatened and in more danger than it has ever

been before. We live in a time when the poor people among us — mostly

children — are actually and literally going hungry. If any evidence is

needed of that, you are welcome to come to my riding and visit a lady

who wrote to me recently: she gets $331 a month total income, $280 of

which is rent; that's $51 a month left to live on — not even $2 a day

after she's paid her rent and her heat.

We have this preoccupation with the big ticket; we have this

preoccupation with northeast coal, with football stadiums, with glass

slippers, with Pier B-C — and there are people absolutely literally

starving in this province. And that government has the gall to proceed

with billion-dollar programs — probably in the next five years or eight

years it will be $10 billion worth of capital expenditure — at a time

when we have been unable to distribute our wealth in this province at

all equitably, and at a time when divisions between people in our

society in terms of the income they receive and the wealth they possess

are growing even greater as the result of the housing policies of the

government.

It is a when those who were fortunate enough to have had a home or

an investment in land or property prior to the last few years are now

exceedingly wealthy, if not in income at least in property, in assets.

But those people who come behind, those people who come now, are

without any of the assets they may have gained by having property in

earlier years, and as a result of the phenomenal increases in wealth

that are given to those people, including myself, in this society who

happened to own prior to these insane escalations in prices — not in

values, but in prices — those people are hit with extra rent increases

and an extra cost of living, particularly for their housing, simply

because of the increases in value and wealth that the other side of

society has managed to gain for itself.

Rents of $400, $500, $600 or $700 a month in the lower mainland for

a two-bedroom apartment or two bedrooms in a house are not uncommon; in

fact, they are the rule. How, in a society that has a starting wage of

$5.80 an hour for a woman in the city of Vancouver, are they going to

be affording $700 or $800 a month — or more, if they happen to have

some children? Where in the budget is there any attention given to

these kinds of problems? Nowhere. It's a millionaire's budget designed

by car dealers who have never known a day of hunger in their lives.

[ Page 4544 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister who's supposed to be in charge of

developing an energy policy for this province is yapping again. He's

just as irrelevant in here as he is when trying to explain energy

policies for his government. A man who wouldn't even conduct a public

inquiry as to the route for a gas pipeline to this island, but rather —

not even allowing his free enterprise friends a chance — giving it to

B.C. Hydro and a pre-selected route without public inquiry, and without

any concern whatsoever for possible environmental impacts of that route

that's been chosen….

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't going to talk about the alienation of

farmland. To start getting into all the issues that have not been dealt

with by this government in the budget, each of us would probably

require half a dozen hours just to get through all the issues.

I talked about the question of poverty and the fact that the welfare

rates for those people in this province who cannot earn an income in

any other way, most of whom, may I remind this Legislature, are

children…. Well over 50 percent are children, and bringing it up to the

90-95 percent figure are women and children. Most of those women, 15

and 20 years ago believing the North American myth about getting

married, owning a home and living happily ever after, and therefore not

learning any trades or getting any training, are unable to get into the

job market — were there jobs available; I note unemployment is up again

this month in this province. They don't have the training because they

believed the myth that's peddled by those people in our society who are

reflected on the other side of this floor. But even if they did have

the training, even if they did have the capability of moving right into

the job market, and even if there were jobs to go to, what would they

do with their small kids? Day-care facilities in this province have

become a joke in the last five years. There is no attention and no

concern. What is there in the budget for those people?

Wouldn't you think that a government made up of private enterprisers

who believed in the worth of the individual would allow those

individuals to develop some worth by allowing them to go out and work

and become productive members of the workforce and of society, so they

could contribute something to society rather than just taking from it?

To do that you have to provide things like day care, but you're not

interested in doing that because you don't really believe the

individual has any worth. You peddle that line simply as a cover, as do

the Reaganites in the United States, for those people who want to make

a million bucks or more — the George Spetifores of the world and half

the people across this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The member needs to return to his seat. Would the hon. member please continue to address the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to address the Chair, as I have done throughout my speech.

We talk in this budget about health care — the blame and the

scapegoating. The guy who is responsible for that terrible increase in

government expenditures is Rafe Mair, now that he's gone. There was a

$200 million overrun last year in health care. Why is that? Not because

more money is being spent on health care for good purpose, but because

more money is being spent on health care in the wrong way, where better

service could be provided for less money. We have in this province

hundreds, and I think I might safely say thousands, of acute-care beds

that cost a significant amount of money every day. They are being

occupied by people who do not need to be in acute-care beds, who do not

want to be in acute-care beds, and for whom doctors and people in the

public are trying to find extended- and long-term care beds. There

aren't any. Those beds would be cheaper. The cost of running our

health-care system would be less expensive were those acute-care beds

not occupied by long-term patients.

Mr. Speaker, that kind of lack of government planning and attention

to the way in which we deliver health-care has led to, we all agree, an

amazingly increasing budget for health-care services. Why don't we

develop extended-care facilities? Why don't we develop and expand the

home-care program, so that people who are recuperating, who need some

attention — perhaps only to do some of the housework and make sure the

meals are prepared — have those services provided in their home at a

fraction of the cost of acute-care beds? But no, we have a health-care

system badly in need of overhaul which, rather than being controlled by

the government, is controlling the government. It is not in fact a

health-care system; it is a sickness-care system. Until we recognize

that the only way to deal with people's health and their personal

welfare is to treat them when they're healthy and to help keep them

healthy, rather than waiting until they're sick and dealing with

problems, the cost of health care will continue to escalate at the rate

it is now. Future Finance ministers will have even more difficulty in

making ends meet if we do not now, as late as it is, address ourselves

to the problem of health care and the way the service is delivered. And

let's talk about health care, not sickness care.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) was talking, I think

it was yesterday, about the Fraser River cleanup program. Whether he

meant to or not, he said something to the effect that it was the only

additional money he was requesting for his ministry. He was pleased

that he was able to get it, because the cleanup of the Fraser River was

an important project and he wanted to get on with it. We all applaud

that. We should have gotten on with it years ago. It's the major

salmon-producing river in the world undoubtedly, and one that's on the

verge of dying. Any efforts that the government takes to improve that

river, to bring it back and to make it again the major food-producing

resource in this province, will be applauded by all people in this

province.

He said, though, that that was the only allocation that he asked

for, and he was glad that he got it — of course, apart from the normal

increments that all ministries would be asking for. Yet we experienced

in this province last December 26, and in the weeks following, a series

of floods, unusually devastating floods which not only wiped out

significant portions of the salmon in my riding and in the ridings of

the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and undoubtedly the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — not only wiped out significant future stocks

of salmon — but cost significant millions of dollars. One small river

in my riding has already cost well over a million dollars to clean up.

Why did we have to spend not in all cases but in many and in

particular, the one I'm talking about at the moment was a $12 million

program, if my memory is correct — these

[ Page 4545 ]

millions of dollars of both provincial and federal

money? Why do we have to spend those millions of dollars? Because the

Ministry of Environment last year only had in its budget a figure of, I

believe, around $400,000 for stream maintenance, clearing log jams and

clearing gravel buildups we get out of the flash-flooding because of

the kind of logging practices that go on. The figure was in the

neighbourhood of $400,000 for that stream maintenance. I m not talking

about dyking and I'm not talking about some of the other programs that

go on, but I'm talking about the maintenance.

If we had spent the kind of money that is required to keep those

river channels flowing properly and to keep them free of debris, we

could have saved millions of dollars this December and January. It's

those kinds of preventive programs that the government seems totally

unable or unwilling to spend any money or any time considering. Why

don't we spend some money ahead of time to save a lot of money later?

It applies in all aspects of government, and I select specifically the

question of stream maintenance. Because of the way in which logging has

gone on in the upper reaches of many of these rivers and streams they

are now more subject to flashflooding than ever before. Not only does

it cost us millions and millions of dollars in joint federal-provincial

money to repair the damage, it costs homeowners and people who live

along these riverbanks untold personal costs and suffering, I might

add. It also wipes out millions of dollars worth of one of the major

resources in this province, which is the salmon fishery.

That kind of lack of planning and approach to government, in my

judgment, Mr. Speaker, has been found wanting by the public and has

already — even though we haven't had the writ yet — has already been

found guilty by the public. You only have to talk to a wide

cross-section of people in any community in this province to discover

that.

I stay again with question of the environment. Many people around

the world come to British Columbia and go to Campbell River and that

area of this province, drawn to that location by the salmon and the

possibility of a good fishing holiday and the almost certainty of it

being successful. Yet we have a government which in this budget has

failed again to deal with an issue that will wipe out that salmon

fishery in the Campbell River area, that has the potential to wipe out

the tourism that's drawn not only to that area but also to all of this

province, and wipe out the money that's gained in exchange from foreign

tourists, and on and on.

We find that in that budget there is no additional money in the

Ministry of Environment for studies and action on the Buttle Lake

pollution. There we have a famous lake in one of British Columbia's

major parks — a lake that in 1966 was allowed to have a major mine

located on its banks and be used as the site for the tailings. The lake

is at the head of the source of the drinking water for all those people

who live in Campbell River. That lake has indisputably been poisoned by

the mine. All the initial studies have proven that conclusively. What

everybody involved in those studies has said is that we need more money

to do the conclusive studies that can demonstrate to the company, once

and for all, that it is their fault that the lake is poisoned and that

our drinking water is threatened. The staff in the ministry, the

consultants hired in the ministry and the people in the professions

that are affected by it in the community are all saying let's, once and

for all, clean up this mess and solve this problem. To do so requires

some funding from the ministry, and it's not there.

So what are the possible effects. apart from eventually poisoning

everybody who drinks the water? One possible effect is killing the

river that produces the major salmon fishing sportsground in this

province — one of the most attractive fishing spots in the whole world.

Not only — and this is just in passing; I'll get onto this in more

detail during the estimates — not only is the government continuing to

ignore that problem, they're proceeding with the idea of an open-pit

coal mine right between the rivers that go into Campbell River. What

must Roderick Haig-Brown think, looking down from where he is now, and

seeing the actions of that government — their mad desire to please

corporations whose only objectives are to make a few more bucks for

their shareholders, most of whom don't even live in this country'?

I'm going to have a lot more to say about a variety of issues during

the estimates. I particularly want, during the Attorney-General's (Hon.

Mr. Williams') estimates, to talk about rural fire protection. I'm

going to do that in some detail next week perhaps, or the week after

next, when the budget debate is over and presumably the

Attorney-General's estimates will be up. I'm going to talk about a

variety of other issues, such as the inequities that exist for

municipal funding between those municipalities with large industrial

bases and those without, and a variety of problems in delivery of

services to poor people, to women in particular, in remote and rural

communities in my riding and in other parts of the province. We will

all, on this side of the House, have a great deal more to say about the

budget of this government during the coming months of debate in this

Legislature, because that's what the debate on the estimates is. It's a

debate on the budget. although it's a bit of a sham debate. I might

say, because it takes effect on April 1, and we won't have come close

to proving it. We will have a great deal more to say.

I think, in the debate on this amendment, we have demonstrated on

this side of the House that the taxes that have been imposed are not on

the resource side of our society or the resource corporations in any

meaningful way, but are on the ordina