1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1421 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Archaeological sites. Mr. Hanson –– 1421

Professional grant lobbyists. Mrs. Dailly –– 1421

Administration of justice. Mr. Macdonald –– 1422

Budget debate.

Mr. Ritchie –– 1424

Mr. Passarell –– 1425

Mr. Davis –– 1429

Mr. Cocke –– 1432

Mr. Segarty –– 1436

Mr. Hanson –– 1440

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1444

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed, hon. members. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Shuswap.

MR. KING: Shuswap-Revelstoke, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a different place? Please proceed.

MR. KING: I have in the gallery today visitors from the very

fair city of Salmon Arm, Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds, who are visiting the

capital, and I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would like to introduce two residents of

Ucluelet who are visiting the gallery today. Would the House welcome

Ted and Lynn Walker.

MR. DAVIS: In the gallery this afternoon we have students

from Argyle Secondary School, and their teacher Mr. Maxwell. I would

appreciate it if the House would make them welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: We have two very distinguished visitors in

the gallery today from Beijing: Dr. Hou Ren-Zhi, who is the head of the

geography and archaeology departments at the University of Beijing, and

his wife, Mrs. Zhang Wei-Ying, who is a historian from the Academy of

Social Sciences in Beijing. I'd like the House to give them a very warm

welcome.

MR. LAUK: We have a visit today to all members of the

Legislature from persons representing the British Columbia Students'

Federation. I understand they have visited most, if not all, of the

MLAs and asked them certain questions. I want to name the executive

members who visited with our caucus: Malcolm Elliot, Jean Bennett, Jean

Kirk and Russ Collier.

MR. RITCHIE: I am pleased to introduce to the House today

Miss Janissa Wilson. Janissa is president of the Burnaby Campus

students' union of the Pacific Vocational Institute. Would the House

please welcome Janissa.

MR. LORIMER: We have a number of members of the United

Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union with us today. They are over here

to speak to the Social Credit caucus as well as to our own caucus. I

hope their visit proves worthwhile.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery are two members

representing the East Kootenay Community College who are in Victoria

today: Ron Metcalf and Evelyne Perrouault. I would like the House to

make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an introduction today

on behalf of the member for Mackenzie. Visiting in the galleries today is a

group of girl guides from Powell River, with their guide leader, Wendy Sketchley.

I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to question period, please permit me an observation.

The first order of business on our Orders of the Day — today and on each day — is listed as Prayers. We would invite all hon. members to be present for that ceremony.

Now unaccustomed as I may be to the conventions which surround that

ceremony, I would like to suggest that perhaps a little dignity might

be added if we had less noise in the Speaker's corridor during the

ceremony. All members are invited to attend; none are compelled. But of

those who wish to wait outside, may I please request that we have

silence in the corridor. If it's not possible to arrange for silence in

that way, then perhaps we would have to close off the corridor in order

that we not embarrass the visiting clergymen. I think that would be

your wish.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the British Columbia

Steamship Company

(1975) Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1979.

Oral Questions

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways. In view of the fact that only

four major archaeological sites representing the Indian history of the

Fraser Valley are still intact, and one of these sites dated at 5,000

years before the present happens to be situated on the approach to the

Annacis Island bridge, and another site dated at 8,000 years is

immediately adjacent to the north, my question to the minister is: what

action has your ministry taken to either protect or retrieve the

information from this important site?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of this. I'll

certainly take the question as notice. We have in our ministry people

who look after these things. I'll get that specific site and report

back.

MR. HANSON: I have a new question for the same minister.

Arising from concern that the Duke Point development was in conflict

with archaeological sites in the past, and the funds requested were met

by only one-third of the funds granted — in other words, they only paid

one-third of what was requested to do the job properly — my question to

the minister is: will your ministry provide the funds necessary to do

the job properly?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and report back.

MR. HANSON: On March 5, 1980, Mr. Speaker, I asked the following question of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair)....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here.

MR. HANSON: Is there a backup acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 1422 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not aware.

MR. HANSON: I'll wait till he shows the courtesy of coming to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

PROFESSIONAL GRANT LOBBYISTS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial

Secretary. In view of the B.C. Wildlife Federation's attempt to use a

former Social Credit MLA, Mr. Kerster, as a paid professional lobbyist,

could the minister tell the House what specific steps he has taken now

to ensure that public funds will not be granted to professional

associations for the hiring of professional grant lobbyists?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thank the member for the question. I think

the matter that she is referring to, having to do with funding of

agencies, where the inference was made that incentive funds might be

paid to lobbyists, etc., has been dealt with adequately through

statements that I've made since that time. All funds appropriated to

such agencies are under the auspices or recommendation of an advisory

group which makes recommendations in terms of their funding based on

their application having been received in good order.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary. Are we to understand then that

the minister not only does not condone the use of professional

lobbyists but has actually issued a statement to all associations in

this province that his ministry will not fund them if they so use them?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a future action, Mr. Minister, but you may wish to answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I wouldn't want to comment, Mr. Speaker, on

the adequacy of their request. I just want to say in terms of that

particular agency that as long as their application is in good order,

their fears may be groundless as far as the funding being provided. But

the use of professional lobbyists for government grants, in general

terms, would only indicate that an organization was relatively less

needy than others. Therefore I don't think we would support a policy of

incentive paid to lobbyists for the sake of the grant obtained, but

certainly these recommendations are strictly approved on the basis of

adequate advice.

MR. LAUK: A question to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). Actually, several questions.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, he's not here. Could it be he's a scaredy-cat?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. LAUK: I wonder if Mr. Speaker could call his name in the hall three times.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further questions?

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Transportation and Highways: in

two recent Labour Relations Board hearings, the British Columbia

Telephone Company provided confidential information to the B.C. Ferry

Corporation about the telephone accounts of members of the B.C. Ferry

and Marine Workers' Union. No notification was given to the individuals

concerned that this action was taking place. My question to the

minister is this: can the minister advise whether he had knowledge that

such action would be taking place at that period?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, no. I didn't.

MR. LAUK: Is it government policy to permit the breach of

privacy of individual government employees in disputes which are not of

a criminal nature? Will it be government policy?

MR. SPEAKER: Neither question is in order, but maybe another question would be.

MR. LAUK: To the Premier: has the government decided that it

will permit the breach of privacy of individual government employees in

disputes which are not of a criminal nature?

MR. SPEAKER: Has the government taken steps? The question is in order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am not sure what the member is referring

to, but the government respects the rights of all the employees of the

government at all times.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Finance: in view of the fact

that the government has allowed its agencies to obtain confidential

information from telephone accounts, what steps has the minister taken

to prevent government agencies access to confidential information

contained in B.C. Systems Corporation files, which include medical

records, pay records, driving records, and a wealth of other personal

data on B.C. Individuals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The hon. member advances at the start of his

question a premise with which I am not familiar. I cannot assist him at

this point. I'll take the question as notice.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I would ask that minister, in

connection with the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie), of whom an RCMP investigation was requested, whether that

investigation was requested by him or by his officers with his

knowledge.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like your guidance on a

point here. I think that if it does take a couple of minutes, question

period should be extended; I think that is only fair.

[ Page 1423 ]

MR. SPEAKER: If it is a point of order, we can perhaps extend question period by a minute or two.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, it is a point of order. We have a

ruling of the Speaker of this House dated February 28, 1977: "Questions

without notice must be urgent and important...supplementary questions

may be allowed by permission of Mr. Speaker. No debate shall be allowed

during questions. The decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final on

allowing or disallowing any questions."

Then the hon. Speaker gave some examples of supplementary rules.

First of all, there should not be a short speech. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, I refer you to this one: "A question to an ex-minister with

regard to transactions during his term of office is inadmissible."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, this is what the rules are, my dear friend.

Furthermore, "dealing with the actions of a minister for which he is

not responsible to parliament" is inadmissible. That is the situation

here. I refer you to Beauchesne, fifth edition, 1978: "The minister to

whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his

present ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous

portfolio."

So I would submit with the greatest of respect that the question is

not in order. And I would say that applies not just insofar as this

question is concerned, but also to questions of a similar nature to

other ministers of the Crown in their new portfolios and relating to

experience or actions taken by them in their past portfolios.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I have your point, hon. minister.

MR. BARRETT: If you'd only spoken to Vogel as much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point that is made is simply

this: is a minister, having been transferred from one portfolio to

another, responsible to parliament? The question is not: is he

responsible? The question is: is he responsible to parliament for those

decisions made in his previous portfolio? I have to tell you that the

authorities give every indication that the answer is no. A minister is

only responsible to parliament for decisions made in the portfolio in

which he presently has responsibility, and I cite Beauchesne's fifth

edition, the most recent, at page 132, if members wish to have further

authority.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, and I understand the time is not being counted...

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. MACDONALD: ...the Minister for Intergovernmental

Relations answered a question of a similar nature, although it involved

his past duties to the province of British Columbia, last week. Now

having, as he thought, in an exculpatory way, defended himself in

answer to that question, why should he not, in an inculpatory way,

answer the simple question that I've asked today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think, hon. members, that the

guideline needs to be the rules that we have. Ministers have chosen, on

many occasions, to answer questions which may not have been in order,

and I think that should be allowed for in the House; otherwise,

following the guidelines strictly, hon. members, there's hardly a

question that is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Well, that's the point.

MR. SPEAKER: We will continue with time then.

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Attorney General. The Attorney-General

said that he had a conversation re the Ritchie case — and I'm referring

only for the sake of brevity to the name of the individual — with the Deputy

Attorney-General on November 26, 1979. That answer was received when he answered

notice questions on December 10, I believe. What was that conversation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't give the member a

verbatim answer to that question, but I can tell him that that

conversation took place during the briefing I received when I was

appointed Attorney-General of the province; and it was to the effect

that the police investigation, with respect to the case to which the

member refers, was nearing completion.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General also stated that he had a

conversation re the Ritchie case with the Deputy Attorney-General on

December 17, 1979. Could he relate what that conversation was?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What day of the week was it?

MR. LAUK: December 17 was Monday — the day before.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, late in the afternoon on

December 17 I was advised by the Deputy Attorney-General that over the

weekend the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General had reached his decision

with respect to the laying of a charge.

MR. LAUK: Would the Attorney-General confirm that he has

instructed lawyers in private practice to investigate the CBC

allegations into the Vogel case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the review

I have undertaken to look into these matters, as I announced in this

House on Monday. I have engaged lawyers in private practice to assist

me in that review.

MR. LAUK: Could the Attorney-General indicate on which date he retained the services of the said lawyers in private practice?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One on Friday of last week and one yesterday.

MR. LAUK: Could the Attorney General reveal to the House what their names are and what their instructions are?

[ Page 1424 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to advise the

member of the names, but not of the instructions. The first lawyer

retained was Mr. Thomas Braidwood, and to make it absolutely clear, I

met with Mr. Braidwood yesterday. He indicated that he believed he

would have a conflict of interest and therefore declined a retainer.

Yesterday I engaged the services of Mr. John Hall.

MR. LAUK: On March 11, 1980…. By the way, I have circulated

copies of the Blues; I don't know whether they are on the

Attorney-General's desk. I'm sorry if I haven't....

On March 11, 1980, the Attorney-General, in answer to my question

"Who is conducting the review?" replied: "I am conducting the review

personally, with assistance from my staff." The 11th was Tuesday. The

Attorney-General did not disclose that he had retained the services of

outside counsel. Why did the Attorney-General not disclose the full

truth when I asked him the question on March 11 ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Certainly there is no imputation of wrongdoing by virtue of the asking of a question — surely not.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I see the honourable and learned

first member for Vancouver Centre shaking his head in the usual

indication of negative to the imputation. I gave a full answer, and it

was the truth, when I responded to the member on March 11. While I had

arranged for the assistance of Mr. Braidwood on that date, he had not

at that time embarked upon the review with me. It was arranged that he

would come to Victoria for that purpose yesterday, and I have already

told him what took place on the occasion.

MR. LAUK: On March 3, 1980, the Attorney-General was asked a

question by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) as

follows: "Did the Attorney General have a conversation with officials

from his department relating to investigations into allegations which

might involve the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie)

prior to December 18, 1979?" The Attorney General rose on that day and

said: "The answer to the question is no." Again, Mr. Speaker, in reply

to another question taken on notice, the answer to which was delivered

on March 10, the Attorney-General replied that he had a conversation

with his Deputy Attorney-General about the allegations on November 26

and December 17. Does the Attorney-General wish to now change any of

the answers he has given on the Ritchie case or the CBC allegations?

MR. SPEAKER: The bell ends the question period.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be happy to answer.

MR. LAUK: Shall leave be granted for the Attorney-General to answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that we've extended the question period by I don't know how many minutes....

MR. LAUK: I asked that leave be asked for.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I gave to the question on March 3, appearing on page 1196 of Hansard

— and I thank the member for making the copy available to me — is

accurate. The question was: "Did the Attorney-General have a

conversation with officials in his department, or officers of the RCMP,

relating to the investigations into allegations that might involve the

hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie)?" The answer was

no, and that's correct.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. RITCHIE: I'd like to start out today by asking the

opposition to look at this budget on its merits and not prejudge it.

They can start by joining the ordinary people of this province in

appreciating the cash surpluses the government has built up.

Money in the bank, as any responsible person knows, is good news,

not bad news. The accumulated surpluses are the result of good

management, and it's completely silly for the opposition to attack

them. Those surpluses are making some terrific benefits possible

without a nickel's increase in personal taxation. The very surpluses

the opposition will no doubt continue to attack today are going into a

$146 million fund for reforestation, a fund that will promote long-term

growth in the forest industry so crucial to British Columbia. The

surpluses under attack by the opposition will also go to help small

businesses, refugees, our senior citizens and our young people. It's

the people's money, and it's going into people programs.

Why can't the opposition face up to this budget? Why can't they for

once admit that they are being asked to consider measures which are

exciting, positive, forward-looking and, above all, sensible? Frankly,

I cannot understand their attitude.

You should not think me unsympathetic towards the members opposite,

because I realize theirs is not a very easy lot. Being a member of the

New Democratic Party isn't the best start for a constructive approach

to criticism. It is not an ideology that promotes individual thought or

constructive reaction.

The party is divided even within itself. We have already heard in

this House the curious tale of the signing of the Waffle Manifesto by

the leader of the opposition party and by some of its members. We have

also heard of the rejection of the same socialist manifesto by his

present House Leader. But I will not dwell on that.

Consider the issue of uranium mining. The New Democratic Party

members opposite have long been condemning such mining in British

Columbia. But they have conveniently forgotten to mention that their

colleague the Premier of Saskatchewan has given the green light to

uranium mining for massive development in that province. I guess the

contrast between our government and that of the NDP government in

Saskatchewan is just too striking for the opposition to ignore now.

[ Page 1425 ]

What do they say about party solidarity now? It's very hard to be

open-minded in debate when you're shackled by ties to that kind of

thinking.

Let me return to my main message to the opposition today. I call on

the opposition to return to some intelligent and honest criticism of

the government's policies before it's too late — before someone moves a

motion of non-confidence in them and before the people of British

Columbia lose confidence in the ability of this House to debate as a

legislature. Let the opposition show once and for all that they do not

agree with the famous definition of an opposition given by Lord Derby

in 1841, when he said: "The duty of an opposition is very simple: to

oppose everything and propose nothing." The people who elected them, I

believe, expected a lot more than that.

Let me conclude by saying a few things about the thinking behind

this budget. I guess the old idea of stewardship best describes the

philosophy in the budget. We're only spending what we've got, and we're

spending it wisely. In an era of deficit spending and massive

government borrowing, the Minister of Finance has placed a balanced

budget before the House. I think that is tremendous. Does anyone have

any doubts about what kind of budget we would have in 1980 if the

opposition had not been removed as government in 1975? Can you imagine

the deficits that would be burdening British Columbian taxpayers? It's

really a bit frightening to even think of it.

Perhaps most impressive of all is the long-term approach of this

budget. The government has shown that it's prepared to invest our money

in our future through such things as reforestation and energy research

and development. That's the kind of stewardship British Columbians want

to see. This budget isn't designed to help just you and me but your

children and our grandchildren too.

There are also two measures in this budget that I want to comment

on. The first is the announcement that the government of the province

will now pay interest on all accounts left unpaid after 60 days. This

appeals to me as a businessman; it is a good business practice. It

gives some small businesses a real break when they deal with the

government. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to see our government run as

efficiently and as effectively as a well-managed company.

Unfortunately, I know the hon. members opposite don't share this view.

A second view the opposition doesn't share with me concerns our

government's strong backing for independent schools. These schools are

a valuable part of our overall educational system, and by assisting

them we acknowledge that. It's great to live in a province where we can

promote diversity. The budget commits $11 million to these schools — a

hefty sum considering there was no help at all until this government

provided that help. But the $11 million isn't even 5 percent of the

total public school budget, which shows how wrong the members in the

opposition were in charging that the Independent Schools Support Act

would be the ruination of a fine public-school system. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that this move to support the private-school system will make

for a much stronger and healthier public school system.

As I near the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate

the Minister of Finance. His decision to show confidence, both in our

immediate economic prospects and in our future, is clearly evident in

the budget. This is not a budget prepared by someone who shares the

pessimism and negative outlook of the opposition benches. The

minister's confidence in British Columbia will, I know, pay great

dividends this year and in future years.

Finally, I suggest to you and to all members of this House that a

vote for this budget is a vote of confidence in the future of British

Columbia. It is a vote of confidence in our ability to work together,

to continue building a strong and dynamic province on the excellent

foundation with which we have been blessed.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, at the onset of my speech I would

like to introduce a few guests in the gallery. They are members of the

Native Brotherhood, and I'd like the House to welcome them to our

Legislature.

Starting off my speech today I'd like to refer back to a newspaper clipping and it says: "Bennett's Last Days." This is in the Province

newspaper, June 12, 1900. I'm quoting from this article: "Looking at

the thriving burg of Bennett today, built as it is upon the sand and

looking as it is three or four months down the road; it is as pictured

by those who claim to know what the near future will bring. One sees a

sad but true case of a fitness of things. The little city is doomed to

sink from view."

Well, things haven't changed much, Mr. Speaker. This budget

demonstrates the lack of concern for the hard-working people of the

north in the province. It's a shame the Premier has left. History is

telling us that the future of this budget will bring upon himself and

the party the same doom that Bennett, B.C., found in June, 1900.

I found it ironic, Mr. Speaker, watching television the other day —

I'll try to keep television programs out of my speech today — that the

Minister of Finance was explaining his budget. The interviewer asked

him: "How can this be a budget for the people?" He said: "Oh, it's a

budget for the people. Look at the picture of the people on the front

of the cover." Well, you need much more than a picture on the front of

the cover of a book to make it a people's budget.

The Minister of Finance stated in the budget speech: "The

government's commitment to high-quality service and facilities is

expressed clearly in this budget." The second quote I'd like to deal

with is: "The medical care system is working well in British Columbia."

In my speech today, Mr. Speaker, I will demonstrate how both these

statements are fantasy in regard to the north, and offer some solutions

on how they could become a reality. The member for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), I think, mentioned that the opposition never

offers any solutions or alternatives; I will try to offer some

solutions to this budget to help the people of the north.

Last year when the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was the

Minister of Health, I related problems concerning northern health care

in three communities: Dease Lake, Cassiar and Iskut. To take Dease Lake

specifically, I'd like to mention what has happened since I brought

this up on July 17, 1979. Three days after I brought this up, Mr.

Speaker, the then Health minister said that he agreed with what I was

saying, that there were no health facilities or staff in the community

of Dease Lake, that he was going to hire a nurse effective August l,

1979, and that he was going up to Dease Lake on approximately August 17

to dedicate a health facility, a trailer. The minister did hire a

nurse, but he never did make it to Dease Lake on August 17. He made it

as far as Cassiar, where he showed a film slide to six people in the

community. The trailer never

[ Page 1426 ]

arrived at Dease Lake. The nurse is still working

there at approximately $190 per month, providing 24-hour medical

assistance to a community of 300 to 400 people, the only medical

assistance in the surrounding area. I find it unacceptable to pay

someone $190 a month to provide 24-hour medical assistance in a

community of 300 people.

One of the nice things that the ministry has done for this nurse is

to provide her with a plastic tablecloth. The nurse often operates off

her table; there's no facility. So the ministry has provided her with a

plastic tablecloth to move before dinner or after dinner, as the case

may arise. I think this nurse has provided an excellent quality of

care, depending on the conditions of the payment — for $200.

Concerning the health facility in Iskut.... I would certainly hope

that the Speaker would restrain the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet). When a doctor comes to Iskut, maybe once a month, he spends

two or three days there. He comes up from Vancouver and can see between

250 and 450 people in two or three days. At times the man has worked 18

or 19 hours a day seeing people. I wonder how much this provincial

government has given to the assistance of the community of Iskut,

mainly because it's a native reserve, and the loggers and the people

who live in the area also have to use the reserve. I wonder what kind

of quality care we're providing in health facilities, when a doctor has

to fly up from Vancouver to see that number of people in two or three

days.

AN HON. MEMBER: And half a billion surplus.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. And half a billion surplus. In

Cassiar, a totally different story, the company provides a first-aid

station — it's a private first-aid station to a certain extent — for a

community of 250 people. Many of the residents of Cassiar and the

surrounding area, Good Hope Lake and Dease Lake to a certain extent....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing it to my

attention; it helps out. You're very good, at times. To correct my

original statement on the number, 2,500 people. There is a first-aid

station in which the company provides for three communities in which a

doctor is sometimes present. They do have a fine nursing staff, but at

times a doctor.... Because of the conditions of the north, they come in

for two or three months and then they're gone, and by the time they

hire another doctor there might be a lapse of two or three or four

weeks. The nurses pick up a lot of the problems, but the major problem

is that in the entire northern part of my constituency the Cassiar

first-aid station is the only medical facility. The only hospital I

have in my constituency, which is made up of 160,000 square kilometres,

is in the municipality of Stewart, approximately 550 miles south of

Cassiar. So with the limited funding that's provided for the Cassiar

first-aid station, many of the residents have to be flown out of the

province, to either Whitehorse or Edmonton, to receive medical

attention when they are sick. I find it unacceptable that resident

citizens of our province have to go outside British Columbia to receive

medical attention.

This government has once again displayed, to a certain extent, their

ignorance and lack of concern for the residents of the north. With

surpluses galore, one suggestion could be a hospital in Cassiar — build

a small, public hospital with maybe six or seven beds in the community

of Cassiar to provide medical attention for the northwest

section of

British Columbia. This would be a start. We don't need a fancy 200- or

300-bed hospital but maybe a six- or seven-bed public hospital funded

by the provincial government.

Secondly, a promise was made in this House concerning a medical

facility in Dease Lake, a trailer. Studies have been done concerning

the cost of the trailer to the residents of Dease Lake. We are talking

about $10,000 to bring a trailer into Dease Lake for the nurse who is

already there to work out of. I do not find $10,000 unacceptable to

provide a trailer so this nurse could work out of a trailer located in

the community instead of off her kitchen table.

Doctors and nurses. There is a drastic need for both professions in

the north. I think the Ministry of Health could do some type of program

to encourage people, maybe through subsidiaries, to go up there and do

some type of work for the people of the north.

Denticare. I find it supportive, favourable and good for the

province. But it is not good if only $30 million is allocated for the

program. This works out to about $11 per person in the province. I

still have my teeth; I have been to a dentist before. But to go in to

see a dentist costs maybe $16 or $20 just for him to even look into

your mouth. Then if there are any problems after he has looked into

your mouth and he sets up another appointment, that is a further

expense added on. I find it very difficult to see the government

providing a denticare system for the province out of $11 per person.

We must also take into consideration whether you can find a dentist.

It is very difficult to find a dentist in the 160,000 square kilometres

of northwestern British Columbia. They are almost an endangered

species. You don't seem to find them.

I will skip the issue of health at this time and refer to it later in my presentation.

One of the most disturbing things I found concerning the Speech from

the Throne as well as the budget speech was the lack of mention — not

even one sentence — of the words "Indian" or "native." Once again we

have ignored the first citizens of this province.

I was surprised that the word "Indian" or "native" did not appear in

the throne speech or so far in the budget debate. It resembles to a

certain extent the booklet that was presented during the mini cabinet

shuffle. This government forgot to include in that booklet who was

responsible for native affairs. At one time it was the Minister of

Labour, but when that Minister of Labour transported himself to the

position of Attorney-General, native affairs seemed to slip along with

that. I found it unacceptable that there was no mention made.

I have feelings as to why this was. It was to ignore and conquer to

a certain extent. This is similar to government aspects on native

policy to the Talthans, the Kasska; the Tlingit, the Iskut and Nishga —

to conquer, to flood and to eliminate.

In regard to employment programs, there has been $4 million

allocated for youth employment — $4 million across the province. I just

wonder how much of this money is going to be filtered up into the

north. Many of the communities up north are running at between 98

percent and 99 percent unemployment for youths in the communi-

[ Page 1427 ]

ties, almost very similar to the unemployment rate

in many native reserves and small communities up north. It's

unacceptable — $4 million.

In regard to labour benefits — I'll keep my major thrust of concern

for the estimates, where they belong, for the Forests and Labour

estimates. But I found it ironic that I received a phone call the other

day from a small independent logger-operator up in Stewart. He's a man

who has mentioned many times to me that he doesn't believe in our

philosophy, but we've always had good conversations anyway —

conversations that could be used to the benefit of this Legislature,

without the yelling, even if we differ on different aspects of

government. This gentleman told me that he was being priced out of the

market, that there was no help for the small, independent logger. I

certainly hope that through this budget there might be some type of

help for the small, independent logger up north.

The next aspect I would like to talk about is an aspect I found

enlightening, and that was the lower mainland stadium. If you remember,

Mr. Speaker, when this came up last summer I was the only one in this

House to stand up and vote against it. I voted against it because I'd

asked for 1 percent of that original $25 million to be allocated for

playing fields in the north. I met with the appropriate ministers after

I voted against the lower mainland stadium fund, and things were

promised. They haven't happened yet; I certainly hope that they will be

happening in 1980, but I won't hold my breath for too long on that. Now

this year another $25 million has been allocated for a football stadium

in Vancouver, and I will be dealing with that matter when the bill is

presented to the House for debate. The north suffers again — the north

that, to a certain extent, subsidized this province through the mining

royalties, the mining tax per se, personal income tax and others; but

still it is placed in the closet by this government.

B.C. fishermen are affected by foreign fishing intervention. This

budget, to a certain extent, is not protecting the B.C. fishermen. They

need protection and they should be covered by provincial bargaining

rights to a certain extent. B.C. should be first.

I'll be covering some figures out of this budget at this time, Mr.

Speaker. The first is out of the agricultural budget, and that was aid

to developing countries. There was $393,000 for aid to developing

countries, but not one of these eight communities in my constituency

received any provincial government medical facilities: Good Hope Lake,

Dease Lake, Bob Quinn, Meziadin, Lower Post, Centreville, Mile 48,

Haines, Nass Camp. Four additional communities are sponsored by the

federal government without major funding from the provincial

government. They are Telegraph Creek, Iskut, Aiyansh, Canyon City and

Greenville. The community of Atlin is sponsored by the Red Cross. There

was $393,000 allocated for developing countries in the agriculture

budget, but not a penny was allocated to help these 11 communities.

Mr. Speaker, costs from the Premier's office last year were

$245,047. This year it has been increased to $551,612 — an increase of

100 percent. The Premier's furniture in his office has been increased

from $1,447 to $15,000. This is up 1,000 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. PASSARELL: It's been increased from $1,447 last year to

$15,000 this year — furniture for the Premier's office. That's an

increase of 1,000 percent, and still there's not a penny for medical

health in Iskut, Good Hope Lake, Glenora, Canyon City — 11 communities.

In the criminal justice division — and I notice the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) has left — with an estimated staff of 280,

allocations for furniture alone are $123,262. Just to go over that

again, that works out to $440 a person, and not a penny for medical

attention in eight communities with a population of 962. It's a shame,

Mr. Speaker. We're spending money for furniture and we can't provide

medical assistance for those residents.

In the post-secondary student aid program, with an estimated staff

of 18, furniture allocation was $3,300. That works out to approximately

$185 a person for just furniture, and not a penny for the playing field

at an elementary school — Good Hope Lake elementary school — where I

taught, which has 36 students. We spend $185 per person for furniture

in this one department, and not a penny for a playing field.

In another section, in the executive management of the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — and I

notice that hon. minister has also gone — with an estimated staff of

ten, the allocation for office furniture and equipment is $7,000.

That's $700 a person for furniture. The Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources has $700 per person for a staff of ten in his

office, and not a penny for a public medical facility for the community

of Dease Lake, with a population of 350-plus.

MRS. WALLACE: He could have done it when he was Minister of Health.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. He's gone from one ministry to another and is not even thinking about these people.

In the agent-general's office, with an estimated staff of nine,

allocation for salary and expenses is $434,535. That works out to

$48,281 per person, and there's not a penny to build a bridge that

would eliminate 60 students in the community of Greenville from walking

across the ice of the Nass River to get to school. There's $48,000 per

person in the agent-general's office, and 60 students have to walk

across the frozen river to get to school.

In the Government House activity, with an estimated staff of six,

allocation for operation is $226,743; that works out to $37,780 per

person, and there's not a penny to supply Band-aids to adults and

children in the community of Good Hope Lake. We spend $226,000 for

Government House activities, and there's not a penny to provide

Band-aids for children and adults in the community of Good Hope Lake.

In the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications — he's

another minister who has seen fit to leave and has gone — with an

estimated staff of 16, allocation for advertisement is $150,000. That

is $9,375 per person, and not a penny is allocated to clean up the PCB

spills in the north or to hold a medical investigation into what really

happened in those communities where PCB was put into the environment or

into future medical aspects upon those workers who were contaminated

with PCB.

In the information services of the Ministry of Agriculture, with an

estimated staff of seven, moneys allocated for advertisement were

$19,000, which works out to $2,714

[ Page 1428 ]

per person, and not a penny was allocated to

provide radio or television to the communities of Iskut, Centreville,

Glenora, Nass Camp, Mile 48, Haines or Kitsault, with a total

population of 562. These communities are not receiving any type of

communication, and we spend $19,000 for advertisement in the Ministry

of Agriculture.

In the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, under the

executive and staff — a staff, mind you, Mr. Speaker, of two — money

allocated is $188,980. Right out of their own budget, it works out to

$94,490 per person. That's not a bad job — $94,490 per person in this

ministry, and not a penny allocated for running water or sewer in the

communities of Good Hope Lake, Glenora, parts of Telegraph Creek, Lower

Post and Mile 48. We can pay someone $94,490 in the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, and still the people of these

communities up north do not receive any type of running water or sewer.

Senator Foghorn said in the Vancouver Sun ,

dated March 12: "In British Columbia's contention, sir, there should be

one system of health care for its citizens, regardless of race, colour,

creed or location." This is what the minister said yesterday, and it is

a shame that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is gone. The member

for Kamloops should come down to reality, Mr. Speaker. There is no way

that the residents of the north receive the same type of medical

assistance that the residents of the lower mainland and the south of

this province receive. In his own statement there should be one system

of health care for citizens, regardless of race, colour, creed or

location. It appears in this province that there are three types of

systems of health care, and these are listed in priority listing: the

south, the north and native care.

One of the interesting aspects that I found going through the

1978-79 budget, in its relationship to this budget, and one of the

positive notes that we could put forward to help this government fix

this dilemma that the people of the north are facing in medical

assistance, is from the standard classification number 40. These

figures were taken from the Estimates of 1978-79 and Public Accounts of

1978-79. This, Mr. Speaker, is what these ministries underspent. The

following deputies underspent in their budgets: Ministry of the

Attorney-General, $328,343 — he underspent part of his budget by 96.6

percent; Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, $86,567 —

this deputy minister underspent his budget in advertising and

publication by 87.9 percent; Ministry of Environment, $51,957 — this

deputy minister underspent his budget last year by 54.7 percent;

Ministry of Forests, $243,646 — the underspent portion of his budget

was 99 percent. I notice the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

is also gone. It seems to me that there must be a cabinet meeting here.

Ministry of Human Resources, $242,686 — the underspent portion was 40.2

percent; Ministry of Tourism, from the minister's program to promote

B.C., $161,745 — the underspent portion of the budget was only 4

percent.

When you add these up, Mr. Speaker, what this government underspent

last year was $1,114,944. Instead of hiding this money in surpluses, it

could be used to dramatically improve health care, roads and conditions

for the people of the north. These moneys should have been allocated

for these specific purposes.

A reasonable suggestion to offer that government would be items for

the north which could be logically and reasonably asked for. Twenty

nurses at the cost of $17,500 each — working out to approximately

$350,000; six doctors at approximately $50,000 each — amounting to

$300,000; three dentists, support staff and mobile trucks — amounting

to $450,000; and playgrounds — amounting to $300,000. That works out to

approximately $1.4 million. If we could under spend advertising and

publications last year, we can certainly provide for these small and

token aspects to help people up in the north.

These moneys are derived from the deputy ministers' advertising and

publication budgets which this year increased by 16.31 percent. All you

need to do is cut 5 percent from the 1979-80 level and you've got it.

You can get this money back to help the people of this province instead

of just squandering it as surpluses to make it look nice in a fancy

publication with a picture of people on the front.

The member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) yesterday spoke on

the enlightenment of legislation introduced on economy vehicles. If the

member spent more time in the north, he would be aware that many of the

residents up in the north do not need small, economic vehicles for

their livelihood, but drive around in pickup trucks — not foreign

imports — for their livelihoods. If you take into consideration the

weather conditions and the road conditions — like Highway 37 and parts

of the Alaska Highway — a small, foreign car would be illogical to use

up north.

MR. LAUK: Another penalty for the north.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. It's another penalty for the

north for having to have a four-wheel drive or a pick-up truck. Many

residents of the north need pickup trucks for their livelihoods. Their

reward for this is to be penalized and taxed extra. They have no use

for a small, foreign compact. If this government had the foresight,

they would realize that the residents of the north shouldn't be

penalized and denied tax concessions because of their need to own a

pickup truck or a four-wheel drive. It is utterly illogical not to give

the same tax benefits to people up north who are paying 25 to 50

percent more in some small communities for gasoline.

MR. REE: Pickup trucks are exempt.

MR. PASSARELL: I would hope that the member would look at his budget.

There are some topics I would like to cover quickly, Mr. Speaker.

Hydro — this year there's an additional $709 million for Hydro's

debt. Last year this government passed an additional $750 million to be

added on to this debt — two budgets in less than a year. The interest

was $1.4 billion for Hydro. It's going to be increased to $6.4 billion.

What do the people of this province get for their indebtedness of Hydro?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Member, there are many communities in my constituency that do not receive electrical power.

After increasing the debt by $709 million and $750 million a few months ago, which is $1.5 billion, what do

[ Page 1429 ]

the people of this province receive? A rate

increase in the next few weeks. But Hydro's debt is $6.4 billion. It's

getting out of hand. It's a monster. Who controls Hydro?

Hydrogate. Ah, the famous Hydrogate. Some of the reports that have

been released on the Stikine, Iskut and Liard dams were the famous

reports of which Hydro at first said: "Hey, they don't exist." Just to

remind the hon. minister who's responsible for Hydro, SD 1020 was a

secret report; SD 1013 was a secret report; the minutes of the April 25

meeting were secret; the Stikine future plan was another secret report;

the Nass future plan was another secret report. All of them were about

the effects upon the northern rivers of British Columbia.

In the Speech from the Throne these rivers were mentioned as running

unused into the ocean. The waters were wasted, running into the ocean.

What does this government say? "Hey, we've got to look at putting some

type of dams on this." Dams will be built on the Stikine-Iskut and

Liard Rivers which, even in Hydro's wording on page 3-2 of secret

report SD 1020.... They said that northern communities, townsites,

sawmills and developments will not receive one volt of power. In

Hydro's own statement in report SD 1020, page 3-2, they say that

northern communities will not receive one volt of power from these

northern dams.

Why is Hydro building these dams? Well, we know that the Premier of

this province sent a telegram to Governor Hammond two weeks before the

May election asking that the north side of the Stikine River become a

protective transportation corridor. Kaiser Resources have made public

statements concerning the need to put in a copper smelter in the

panhandle of Alaska, a distance of just over 60 miles from the proposed

Stikine-Iskut dams.

What type of idiotic statement was that made in the Speech from the

Throne saying that too much water rushes unused into the Pacific? The

native people who live on these rivers know the use of the river; their

livelihood comes from fishing.

In a report I read last June, Power Perspectives '79 ,

the minister said: "It's just a report; nothing to worry about." More

than two years before that report was published Hydro had already put

it through their brain trust and decided to go ahead and build these

dams. The report said that any dams built on the Stikine-Iskut and

Liard River systems would have an effect upon the migration of the

fish. What kind of a statement is that by Hydro?

Health. At the beginning of my speech I elaborated on some of the

problems faced by the residents of the north. I spoke about the former

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) from Langley, who said he was

going up to Dease Lake to help the people. He never got up to Dease

Lake; he got to a place called Cassiar and showed film slides.

Unbelievable!

Highways. There have been some good improvements on highways. This

summer there will be some paving between Stewart and Meziadin; I have

to congratulate the government for going ahead on that. It was a good

suggestion, which they took up from my speech last June.

I'd still like to know why the children of Greenville have to walk

across the ice to get to school. There was supposed to be a bridge

built there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because you're against development, that's why.

MR. PASSARELL: Against a bridge? No, not when children have to walk across the ice.

Another good suggestion by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) — I'll be bringing up more problems of my constituency when the

Highways estimates come up — was to provide television service to some

of the northern communities. I think it's a very good step by this

government to provide television to small rural communities in the

north. For an additional $3,000 amplifiers could be placed on these

earth satellite transmission stations, and people in the communities

where transmitters are located could pick up television.

They need a ferry service. That will be covered when the Highways estimates come up.

Education. I'd like to welcome the British Columbia Students'

Federation. I understand they have met most of us. Their requests have

been reasonable and thoughtful in regard to a minimum program for

student financial aid for post-secondary education. On behalf of the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the official

opposition, we wish to state our full support for these reasonable

requests, and we urge the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to make the necessary changes this

spring. We will be pursuing these matters during the estimates of both

ministers.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a slam against the native

people of this province, with a specific intent to cause extinction.

This budget is also a slam against the residents of the north who have

developed the north. They're facing hardships, continually being placed

as second citizens of this province. One of the solutions of value that

this government might consider is setting up a Ministry of Northern

Affairs to look specifically into the problems of the north. We are all

one people in the north and let's start treating each other with

dignity; one of the the best ways is to start in this House.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on the way he introduced this

budget. I like his style. He speaks clearly and he speaks with

authority; he was easy to follow on Tuesday afternoon. And the

supporting documents which he tabled gave us a great deal of

information on the present financial position of the government and its

fiscal plans for the future.

I welcome this budget for several reasons. It's a balanced budget —

income essentially equals outgo — and it is placed properly in its

five-year setting. We can therefore look ahead with this information to

the mid-1980s and see what the government's latest initiatives are

likely to do to our provincial finances in the years immediately ahead.

Traditionally budgets have been one-year shots in the dark.

Background material — if there was any — was historic and statistical

in nature; it related solely to the past. No attempt, in other words,

was made to look ahead, certainly to look ahead more than 12 months.

New programs with increasing long-term costs were discounted in this

way. They looked good; at least they looked good in the short run — we

couldn't see their longer-term consequences. They therefore looked

better than they should have done, because their longer-term results

were hidden from the members of this Legislative Assembly and we

couldn't assess them properly. In other words, I'm thanking the

minister for his stewardship and his frankness. He's not running us

into debt and he's showing us all of the government's programs, showing

[ Page 1430 ]

how they can be financed without significant tax

increases in the early 1980s — not simply over the next 12 months, but

for as many as five years to come.

I think he's also to be congratulated for placing the correct

emphasis on people programs. I notice on page 34 of his published

budget statement that, for example, the Municipal Affairs budget for

the next 12 months is up 55 percent — that's a very substantial

increase. Human Resources is up 17.4 percent. Health is up 17.1

percent. Education is up 15 percent. These are all double-digit

increases; they're above-average increases for a budget which, in

itself, sees some remarkable increases in spending.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

So much for the compliments, Mr. Speaker; now for the criticisms.

The hon. Minister of Finance tells us at the top of page 14 of his

published budget statement that the government's spending estimates for

the fiscal year 1980-81 "do not represent the beginning of a new

trend." I think they do; in fact, I know that they do. For some years

now government spending in this province has been lagging behind the

growth of our gross national product. Now, with this latest budget, it

is gaining suddenly and rapidly. In 1980-81 we will be approaching the

exceptionally high level reached by the NDP in 1975-76. Last June, when

the previous Minister of Finance, the hon. second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), presented his "sunshine

budget," government expenditures were down to 15 percent of our gross

provincial product. In 1980-81 they'll be up to 17 percent. That is

getting uncomfortably close to the 18 percent figure which the

government, headed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett),

who is not in the House today, reached five years ago.

Perhaps I should put these numbers in their longer-term perspective.

In 1972, when the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett was still Premier of this

province, the provincial government took a 12 percent bite out of the

total provincial purse. By 1975, after three years of NDP government,

that bite had become a savage attack; government spending amounted to

18 percent of our total provincial outlay on goods and services. This

trend was reversed in 1976 when the present Social Credit government

came to power. The 18 percent figure fell to 16 percent two years ago

and 15 percent last year. But now the spending is up dramatically. It's

rising faster than gross provincial product; it could be of the order

of 17 percent in 1980-81. I hope that this sudden reversal will itself

be reversed again in the following years.

MR. LEA: What year was 16 percent?

MR. DAVIS: In 1977 it was 16 percent, and in 78 it was 15 percent.

I would like to ask the hon. minister why the government has not

released its estimates of our gross provincial product for 1979-80 and

1980-81. Why didn't it include these figures in its background document

entitled "British Columbia: Medium Term-Economic Outlook and Fiscal

Analysis, March 1980"? I can't imagine a provincial economic document

worthy of the name ignoring such an economic indicator as this. I've

made my own rough estimates and I believe that the gross provincial

product for 1978 for the province was of the order of $25 billion; 1979

was $28 billion; 1980 was $32 billion, all indicating rapid growth

under this government, and for that it's to be congratulated. I'd like

to know whether my estimates are in the right ballpark and I'd really

like to know fairly soon what the official government estimates are in

this regard.

Mr. Speaker, as I've said repeatedly in this House, I'm opposed to

big government. Not only do I think governments should live within

their means, as this one has certainly done, but I also believe that it

should encourage the private sector to grow as fast, or faster, than

government does. I must say that I liked the previous Minister of

Finance's sunshine budget. It contained significant tax cuts and it

reduced the provincial government's share of the provincial economic

part. This spring's budget, by comparison, has its cloud patterns. It

is reversing a trend towards less government, which many of us have

welcomed in recent years, and is moving abruptly, and I hope

temporarily, in the opposite direction.

There's another aspect of the present budget which bothers me.

Government revenues have shot up unexpectedly; they've gone up

dramatically — nearly $1 billion over last June's budget forecast of

$4.5 billion. This could only happen under a free enterprise

government, certainly one pushing resource development; but in effect

we've had a welcome, but to some extent unexpected, windfall. We've

taken many more dollars in than we thought we would get 12 months ago.

Now I see we are also going to spend many of these dollars and I'm not

so sure that we should be spending most of them in this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, what would you do if you received a sudden windfall of

$1 billion? Would you save it, would you spend it or would you give it

away? Would you give it back to the people — mainly the taxpayers of

B.C. — who gave it to you in the first place? Like the present Minister

of Finance you would perhaps do a bit of all three. You would save some

for a rainy day, you would spend some on worthwhile government programs

and you would give some of the newly found wealth back to your fellow

British Columbians in the form of tax cuts of one kind or another.

Personally I would put tax cuts at the head of the list. Instead of $50

million of tax cuts I would allocate several hundred million dollars to

tax reductions both in the people category and the corporate category.

Last year we reduced personal income tax in this province from 46

percent of the federal take to 44 percent. I would like to see it

reduced to 42 percent next year; I would target on 40 percent as a

maximum rate for the early 1980s. That would certainly put us below

most other provinces — indeed all other provinces except Alberta with

38 percent.

In the corporate sector I would have dropped our general income tax

rate from 15 percent to 12 percent, with 10 percent as my longer-term

objective for business in British Columbia. After all, B.C.'s current

general corporate income tax rate is the highest in Canada at 15

percent. Alongside Alberta with 11 percent and Quebec and the Maritimes

with 12 percent, we don't look as attractive to business as we should.

Bear in mind that most corporations are able, certainly in the longer

term, to pass on any of these kinds of tax imposts to the consumers

anyway.

I certainly would have done away with our corporation capital tax.

It was brought in by the NDP; it taxes all kinds of assets including

bank loans and inventories. It's a tax which many businesses have to

pay whether they're making a profit or running at a loss. It hurts

firms most which are trying to update their plant and equipment, and it

is particularly onerous in a period of high interest rates. Why should

we be making capital more expensive in British Columbia when the

[ Page 1431 ]

cost of money is continuing to go up here and

elsewhere? Of course, I welcome the reduction in the small-business

rate of income tax to 10 percent; now we're on a par with Ontario. I'm

glad to see the government take its 4 percent sales tax off electricity

and natural gas used for residential purposes. Only Quebec, to my

knowledge, has a tax of this type. We will put all forms of energy on

the same zero-tax basis by doing so.

Yes, we should encourage, as this budget does, the processing of

minerals in this province; so I welcome the moves which the government

is making by way of amendments to the Mining Tax Act and the Mineral

Resource Tax Act. But I would also urge the Minister of Finance to have

another good, hard look at mining taxation as such. We in this country

now tax mining much more heavily than we tax our other resource

industries; indeed, more than we tax all other industries, certainly

including manufacturing.

So I would urge the minister, in his upcoming discussions with the

federal Minister of Finance, to have Ottawa back off a bit. I know that

it was as a result of federal initiatives in the early 1970s that we

got into this impasse. It is part of the continuing debate as to which

level of government really owns our resources and has the power to tax

them. But surely an agreed sharing of a profit-based tax on mining

which is also in line with taxation imposed on other industries, such

as secondary manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec, makes a great deal of

sense in a vast mineral-rich country like ours.

I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I was concerned about the windfall

nature of a large part of our current provincial income. Resource

revenues have trebled since 1977. They have gone up from $400 million

three years ago to $1,200 million now. I have said that this is the

kind of thing that could only happen under the present kind of

government. It isn't the kind of problem, if I can call it a problem,

that the NDP is ever likely to face.

While our resource revenue has trebled in these recent few years,

tax revenue from our conventional sources such as the provincial sales

tax, income taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes and so on has only gone

up one-third. One has trebled; one has gone up one-third. This is

unusual. In other words, we shouldn't count on our resource revenues

increasing rapidly, at least at this exceptional rate, year after year.

Those revenues are bound to level off. They could indeed, under some

circumstances, drop by several hundred millions a year in the early

1980s.

As an aside, and I'm repeating, I'd say to the members of the

opposition that this is the kind of problem that they wouldn't really

have to struggle with if they were ever again to form the government of

this province. Resource revenues were dropping sharply in the years in

which they were in power. They would have continued to be depressed had

an anti-business, anti-mining, anti-oil company party continued to be

in power in B.C. in the latter half of the 1970s.

I think that the present government, even with its favourable

policies for resource development, has to be careful. It has to watch

natural gas in particular. What if the federal government decides to

levy an export tax on natural gas? This invasion of provincial

jurisdiction alone could cut $100 million a year, perhaps more, from

our provincial revenue column. The field price of natural gas has to go

up. It has to match the field price levels in Alberta, or we won't

maintain a high level of exploration and development in our provincial

north. That will cut into our provincial revenues.

Then there's the question of exports of B.C. gas to the United States after

1989, when the current contracts run out. If it is federal policy to deny any

further export applications, then we face two additional problems. One is the

disappearance, nine years from now, of several hundred million dollars a year

of revenue generated by way of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. That's simply

the equivalent of tax revenue from the industry.

But the other and more immediate consequence would be a decline in

drilling activity in northeastern B.C. This would almost certainly

happen if the oil and gas industry thought that continuing export

business in the 1990s would be denied to it. Its markets would be cut

in half in 1989, and that prospect would discourage further exploratory

activity here in the relatively short term — in other words, in the

1980s. That's a worry. It calls for some hard decisions insofar as

energy exports are concerned. They may be good or they may be bad as

far as income generation for government is concerned. But I for one

wouldn't take a simple projection of our recent history of increased

lease, royalty and export revenues for granted. Certainly I wouldn't

take them for granted and use them for projections of income in the

early 1980s unless I was confident that the federal government would

have a firm export policy regarding natural gas.

Revenues from our forest products side also present a problem in the

sense that they vary. They vary from year to year; they go in cycles.

They have varied from a low of less than $100 million five years ago to

more than $500 million in 1979-80. And now, with mortgage interest

rates at an all-time high, we're likely to see another drop of

unwelcome proportions. True, the Minister of Finance has made an

allowance for this in his 1980-81 estimates, but we are pumping more

money into reforestation on the expenditure side, so I have some

difficulty really knowing what the net income to our provincial

treasury from forestry will be. In the long term the trend,

undoubtedly, will be upward; in the very long run it will be much

higher. But I don't envy the Minister of Finance his task in trying to

forecast what revenue from the forest industry is likely to be 12, 24

or 36 months from now.

Revenues from hardrock mining should and will undoubtedly increase.

Our revenue from coal mining should rise. But as these revenues are

currently less than 10 percent of all our tax take from the natural

resource sector, I don't see them solving a large part of our overall

budgetary income problem in the near term.

Finally, on the income side, I would worry about contributions from

other governments. Ottawa is presently paying the province about $1

billion a year, but Ottawa is in financial difficulty: it has a massive

deficit on current account to contend with; it is taking in $100 for

every $120 it spends now. And with high interest rates eating into

Ottawa's revenues, we're not likely to see the federal government

launching new initiatives in such provincial fields as housing, health,

education and social security. Federal taxes almost certainly will go

up instead, and that will reduce the share of the provincial pie

available to this government and, even more important, to the private

sector in British Columbia. Don't count on a 10 percent annual increase

in federal payments to our provincial treasury, in other words. Don't

expect Ottawa's contribution to our overall budget to go up; it may

well decline percentage-wise rather than increase.

This, together with a cautious approach to forecasts of resource

revenues in the province, suggests that there is a limit to tax cuts

which our British Columbia government can make at this time. There is

definitely a limit to the new

[ Page 1432 ]

programs it can initiate. And there is a need,

above all, for a provincial revenue stabilization fund of the kind

which the minister describes on page 14 of his budget statement. We

must take the long view, in other words; we must rely on our strengths

to shore up our weaknesses. I'm glad to see that the minister is aware

of this need, and I trust that his spending programs will continue to

be shaped accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying shift in emphasis away from

subsidies to industry, and toward better programs for people. Health

has a much larger budget, as I said. Education and Human Resources are

more than holding their own. Our municipalities are getting more funds,

directly and indirectly, through Municipal Affairs and other

ministries, like Transportation, Highways and Communications, and this

is all to the good. But what about such projects as, say, a new gas

pipeline to Vancouver Island, a proper, adequate refinancing of B.C.

Rail, and certainly the re-equipment of our new Urban Transit

Authority. Altogether they will involve us in expenditures running into

many hundreds of millions of dollars — additional expenditures which

are not listed in the budget, or included in the "Economic Outlook"

document which the minister has tabled in this Legislature.

The Ministry of Finance's economic document tells us: "Over the

five-year period to 1985, budgetary revenue is forecast to grow at an

average annual rate of 12.2 percent," slightly below the rate of growth

of the gross provincial product. "Over the medium term, projected

expenditure growth exceeds projected revenue growth, but the cumulative

budget deficit implied by these projections amounts to less than 0.6

percent of total budgetary revenue for the period." This tells me two

things: we could experience budget deficits in the 1980s unless we

change some of our present spending habits; and provincial government

expenditure, as a percentage share of our gross national product, could

remain at its present relatively high level, or even rise, over the

next few years. This, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, disturbs me. Both

of these possibilities bother me.

I hope that the Minister of Finance, when he rises to close this

debate, will allay these fears. I hope he can tell me that it's still

government policy to contain government in this province and to budget

wisely for our longer-term future. I'm on this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, because I believe this party stands for less government rather

than more government. I'm on this side of the House because I believe

that the private sector needs more room, rather than less room, to

breathe, to live, to flourish as it should, to support and enrich our

people in the future. This, essentially, is why I'm going to vote for

this budget; but, as I've said, I have some misgivings. I hope the

minister, by giving us more information on such matters as the size of

our gross provincial product and possible future actions in the area of

tax cuts, will allay my concerns later in this debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a marvellous opportunity here to shoot down a a Tiger Moth — that's a very small airplane, not a 747.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were in the wrong war.

MR. COCKE: I was in the right war, thankfully — less

government — and that kind of insulting comment from across the floor

is quite unnecessary, particularly coming from a right-winger.

I just want to talk about right-wingers for a second or two,

following that particular speaker. "Less government rather than more

government." That's what he said, and he indicated that this right-wing

government is certainly the government that will give less government

rather than more. The only example I can show you of where you have

less government in this country is in the province of Saskatchewan. You

have more government now than this province has ever imagined it would

have. The increase in staff, the increase in bureaucracy, is

incredible. When we read those estimates, when we read that budget, we

say to ourselves: "Who are these businesslike people that came to run

our province?"

Well, I can't imagine, having heard the speech from the member

across the way, who talked about us being anti-mining, anti-resource

development, anti-oil, uncle-I don't know what, but anti-everything he

could think of.... And then he failed to recognize the fact that we

saved this province over a billion dollars with our BCPC, the Petroleum

Corporation, whose revenues were nil — at least from natural gas we

were getting nothing with the old Socreds. Then our government came in

and found a way to get those resources paying for themselves and paying

the people in this province. They haven't gone back on it, Mr. Speaker.

This province has earned well over a billion dollars in that short

period, just because of our farsightedness, and you're not going to

back off on that one.

Mr. Speaker, they voted against it....

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a tactical device.

MR. COCKE: A tactical device, he says, Mr. Speaker. Anyway,

the fact is — and if the very erudite member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) would care to read some of the facts at

the time we

were government — there was a strike of capital, not in British

Columbia, but across this entire nation. Out of Alberta, oil rigs were

going to Montana. All across this country we enjoyed that kind of

blackmail from the oil companies. Oh, yes, I must confess, we're not

all that happy with the behaviour of these corporations.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I have just been corrected, Mr. Speaker. It's $1.5

billion that we've earned in those few short years from the British

Columbia Petroleum Corporation that our government was thoughtful and

farsighted enough to set up.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the budget. I'd like to

conjecture why it's suddenly so large, and then I sort of thought I

should do a count before I did that. I know that they're going to

require a lot of money, and let me tell you why they're going to

require a lot of money. They're going to require a lot of money to pay

for all of these inquiries. Do you know how many governmental inquiries

we've had since they've been government? Guess, and guess high.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five.

MR. COCKE: Twenty-five exactly. You win. You're marvellous.

There's a list of them. I'm not going to go through them all, but I am

going to give you an offer that you can't refuse. I'm going to offer to

make as many bumper strips as you like — "Inquiries — B.C.'s Number

One Industry" — and I hope that the Socreds will put them on the backs

of their cars, because that's what we've got going for

[ Page 1433 ]

us in this province with this businesslike government — inquiry

after inquiry after inquiry. We've had eight set up this year — yes,

eight.

How to keep your friends busy is the word from this government. Mind

you, you've got to get into a lot of trouble in the first place in

order to get reasons for those inquiries. How many of them? Allegations

of kickbacks, that's May 16. Advisory committee on medical...no,

that's no kickback. There's the Delta police probe...no, that's not

it. On July 6, 1979, there was a probe by Mr. Justice Seaton; I think

that was fairly recent. There was the dirty tricks investigation by the

RCMP in the fall of '79. And on and on we go.

I am concerned, but I will lose some of my concern provided I see

this nice orange and black burnper strip appear on the back of the car

of the member for Vancouver South and on all the Cadillacs etc. that we

see across the way. I notice that the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) isn't driving his Cadillac anymore. I urge him to put this

on the back of his new car, whatever it might be.

In 1975 the NDP government of the day decided to embark on a dental

program for this province, after having given it a great deal of

thought. They had commissioned and received a first-class report from

health economists. This report was commissioned not only by my office

at the time but also in conjunction with the College of Dental Surgeons

— believe that or not. We had in our hands the report that gave us many

of the answers this province required before embarking upon a dental

program. It wasn't a political runaround. It wasn't an on-again,

off-again proposition. It was a very carefully thought out plan that

was working to its culmination. Unfortunately, there was a loss of

government at the time. That loss of government created a loss of the

dental program for this province.

We had made a deal with the University of British Columbia whereby

they would assist in the training program required to back up the

particular dental program which was the result of that report. The

report said, in effect, that dental care was not available to all in

the province. It was also evident that children's care was particularly

inadequate. Northern communities, such as in the description we heard a

little while ago from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), were being

deprived of dental care, as were other rural communities.

Obviously there was a need for more dentists and a geographical

placement of those dentists, or there was the need to go the route they

went in Saskatchewan, New Zealand and elsewhere: a school-based plan

for the children and another kind of plan for senior citizens. We also

saw the need for seniors.

We made the agreement with the university to train the aides. The

dental program was announced. The election came, and suddenly there was

quiet. Everything was cancelled. Okay, I can understand there being a

wake, but I would have appreciated it if the members of the new

government had taken the trouble to read that very thoughtful report.

Obviously they didn't.

So when the election campaign occurred in 1979 I announced that if

re-elected we would proceed with the plan. Immediately the Socreds

replied: "So will we." How did they reply? They replied in this way

"Denticare. The cost of dental care is a major concern in

many families, and Social Credit is moving to meet that concern. In a recent

budget your Social Credit government announced its commitment to develop B.C.'s

first provincially operated denticare program. With the legislation to be announced

during the next session of the Legislature, the new comprehensive denticare

program will provide an important measure of protection for those British Columbians

who are not covered by an existing dental plan. It's one more way...."

During the next session of the Legislature they announced no

plan — just a little talk. I suggest to you that they've announced no

plan now. They've said: "We're taking $30 million out of surplus, and

we're going to give you a dental plan" — one that the minister admits he

hasn't even decided upon yet. But in any event, that's what we expect.

Mr. Speaker, the government is totally disorganized, bumbling here

as they have elsewhere — the kind of bumbling government that requires

25 inquiries in order to keep abreast of things, in order to keep up

with all their problems. British Columbia is in the hands of a

government that has absolutely no idea of where it's going. I say that

they have no leadership, and that's their problem.

In 1976 there was a brief put forward by the Social Planning and

Review Council of B.C., along with the B.C. Teachers' Federation, B.C.

Federation of Labour, Consumers Association of Canada and the

Registered Nurses Association of B.C. And what did that brief say in

part? It said as follows: "Our organizations welcome and support the

decision that a dental-care program for children will be a health-care

priority of the provincial government." Weren't they a trusting lot?

That was in 1976.

I can't blame the present minister. I know that the other minister

was so preoccupied with a heroin treatment program that has caused them

no end of embarrassment....

MR. KING: Abortive.

MR. COCKE: Abortive is correct. Mind you, I notice that they've spent millions and millions and millions on that abortiveness.

"A number of provincial organizations in addition to

ourselves have endorsed the proposal, including the B.C. School

Trustees Association, the B.C. Association of Social Workers, Indian

Homemakers' Association, B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations

and Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. Without undertaking a major

campaign we've also received support from 4,482 individuals, and others

have written directly to your office.

"A public dental care program for children will bring

immediate and long-term improvements to the health of British

Columbians. The present need is clear. Each year about 40 percent of

our children receive no dental care at all; at the age of 15, 95

percent of the children have untreated cavities, with an average of

three teeth per child needing restoration; 27 percent of 7- to 15-year

olds have severe malocclusions and 30 percent have gum disease."

Mr. Speaker, if the minister would only even read this brief — old

as it is — he would find arguments for that kind of a dental program,

as opposed to the rumoured one that we hear about. I'm not sure that

the minister has made up his mind entirely; but we certainly know that,

whatever he's going to do with the $30 million.... If it's a dental

program for the numbers of people he's talking about, then

[ Page 1434 ]

we suggest that it's either totally inadequate or it's going to have a tremendous amount of patient input.

Now where are we? Well, we're in a position now where we're dealing

with the dentists. Dentists, incidentally, have come to a lofty

position recently. They get a lot of time off, they work not bad hours,

and yet they have become the second highest income group in our

country. I notice their college is fairly influential. The minister, I

suggest, could have been influential himself, if he'd really been

interested in this dental-care program, because this top group of

income earners have recently announced a fee hike of 12 percent. Now

that's a general hike. Then there are other associated hikes that go

along with that with, according to some economists whom I have spoken

to, will roughly increase the increase in the cost of dental care in

this province to about 25 percent. When we are in the process — if, in

fact, we're not a bungling government — of trying to develop a dental

program, they come out with this announcement.

Well, the minister says: "But I have no power." Can I quote, Mr.

Speaker? "Mair Has no Power to Act on Dentist Fees: Health Minister

Rafe Mair said Thursday the government can do nothing to prevent the

latest round of dental fee increases in B.C." Wow! He can do nothing?

And yet he was supposed to be negotiating something on our behalf with

this group of practitioners, so that we have a denticare plan.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if he isn't talking out of both sides of his

mouth when he makes this statement. He can do that rather easily. We

saw him doing it the other night. Let me read to you from the B.C.

Dental Bulletin . The president, Ted Ramage, said: "Negotiations with

the government in December and January included fees to be paid for

dental services under the government program." Does everybody note

that? Yet what did the Health minister say beyond what I read to you at

the beginning? He said: "Reports that there was a 'sweetheart deal'

between the BCCDS and the government are absolute rubbish. Our

discussions with the dentists were on the type of dental plan they'll

put in. We weren't discussing money." That's a bit contradictory, isn't

it?

Ted Ramage says: "We're talking about money, and we suspended those

discussions. We talked about money in December and January." The

minister says: "We weren't discussing money." Holy doodle! Do they

carry on with this kind of performance in every field of endeavour? You

know, if I were not a fair, thoughtful person, I would suspect that

somebody was kidding the truth here; somebody was not telling the truth.

I don't know whether I should suggest that Ted Ramage, the president

of the College of Dental Surgeons, should have his work reprinted here.

Or I wonder whether the minister was misquoted in his Vancouver Sun

report of February 15: "We were not discussing money." Surely the

government, now in this moment of riches, has discovered an

embarrassing surplus.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) said this billion

dollars just came out of heaven, and they didn't quite know what to do

with it all. So they said to themselves: "How can we spend some of that

money? Well, let's allocate $30 million for dental care. We haven't

come up with a program yet, but let's do it anyway." Someone probably

asked: "Why $30 million?" And the reply was: "Well, why not $30

million?" This is good, solid, businesslike government.

MR. LEA: They're not going to spend any of it anyway.

MR. COCKE: They may not. But this is the kind of solid businesslike government we have.

Do we know where we're going? I'm here to tell you that obviously we

don't. My problem is: who's going to design the plan? I suspect the

B.C. College of Dental Surgeons will design the plans because this

government is too lazy to do it for themselves. They're too lazy to

read a report that they've already had before them to give themselves

an opportunity to design a plan that's needed in this province.

Seniors and children — that's where we should start. You have a

limited resource. We know that. You should start in the area of

prevention among children and work on those children to keep their

teeth sound, and also in the seniors' level where they have very little

income and fixed incomes for the most part. Those are the two areas

that we should be working on instead of this broad brushstroke plan

that isn't going to help anybody a great deal. If my feelings are

correct.... I feel that the College of Dental Surgeons is deciding

the kind of plan we need, and I've had a number of those arguments with

that group.

I don't believe this government has any administrative ability. They

get up today, almost five years later, and in every speech spend

virtually all of their time condemning a government that was in power

for three years and four months. They can't extol their own virtues;

there's no virtue for them to extol. They have nothing to boast about

except to try to condemn a government that was there for a very short

period of time and cleaned up a lot of rot while they were there, I'll

tell you.

Mr. Speaker, why do I say that minister doesn't know what he's doing about

this plan? He said so himself yesterday on "Webster." Good old Jack

Webster. The minister said: "I don't know when it will start." He

doesn't know when it will start. So I suggest that he call the College of Dental

Surgeons and ask whether or not he can go ahead with it, and what he should

go ahead with.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to discuss something that the government was

involved with, and that's the Burrard drydock. B.C. has high

unemployment, regardless of this budget and regardless of the fact that

in some pockets we're better off than elsewhere. But we have

unacceptably high unemployment. Yet Burrard drydock, the government of

Canada and the government of B.C. deemed it propitious to build a new

drydock in Japan — by Mitsubishi. It's a big dock. It's going to take

boats up to 36,000 tonnes, and as a matter of fact it can go up to

40,000-odd if they expand it.

The Mitsubishi bid was $26.8 million, plus $5 million for insurance

and towing across the Pacific, because the whole drydock is going to be

totally built over there. There was a bid from a local consortium of

$40.6 million for a better dock, a reinforced steel cement drydock. One

included taxes and the other didn't; the Japanese was stripped and ours

wasn't. A local bid would have given 500 direct jobs in this province,

plus thousands and thousands of spinoff jobs. Yet our government was a

party to that. Now I condemn far more the Conservative government of

the day that perpetrated that act, but our government was party to it

because they are part of the price — the one point five, which is an

equivalent; it's a waiving of taxes, I would think. In any event, the

taxes from the income earned on the construction of that drydock would

have so far made up the difference and given us a healthier economy

than we have, particularly in view of the number of people in the

buildings trades that are unemployed.

[ Page 1435 ]

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I can quote anybody better than a

Conservative bagman. This particular Conservative was part of the

consortium trying to persuade the government in Ottawa and, obviously,

the government here and Burrard drydock to have it built in this

province. I'll quote Ken Stevenson, in a press release that was

suddenly withdrawn before it saw the light of day; it didn't get out to

the poor old newspapers. Mysteriously it got picked up, but a copy of

it got into my hands. "I find it incredible that a government that

promotes a shop-Canadian policy could award a contract involving almost

$30 million of taxpayers' money to a foreign country," said Ken

Stevenson, president of Stevenson Construction Co. Ltd., the Canadian

firm to bid for the contract jointly with Dywidag Canada Ltd.

Incidentally, I had a discussion with the president of Dywidag,

trying to find out what was going on. He is absolutely furious that we

should have such short-sighted governments in this country, both

provincially and federally.

I want to go on and quote a little bit more from Mr. Stevenson. Mr.

Speaker, I think this is important: "Under an agreement with Burrard

Yarrows, the federal government will contribute $28.8 million to the

$50 million project." Incidentally, that's gone up considerably,

because they found that it's going to cost them more anyway. "If our

bid is not accepted," said Mr. Stevenson, "Canada will have lost $25

million to $35 million that the project would generate in jobs and for

the Canadian workforce, if it were built here."

Now, from that day to this, we'll have actually lost a great deal

more because the cost is up marginally. His vice president, Mike

Degelder, says: "If we lowered our bids by 10 percent we could come

within 5 percent under the Japanese bid." And don't forget the Japanese

bid was price-stripped; both federal and provincial taxes were stripped

off that bid, and that's why it was relatively inexpensive.

I want to go just a little bit further and tell you why I say that

the concrete would have been better: "Our main reason for bidding the

concrete alternate is because it doesn't require much maintenance.

Steel rusts, and the water-covered part of a steel dock would have to

be raised periodically for expensive maintenance which wouldn't be

necessary in a concrete construction." I think this boondoggle, which

has had hardly any coverage, hardly any discussion, in our community,

is one of the biggest boondoggles in this country. Lloyd's of London

preferred the Canadian bid; Lloyd's of London thought it was a better

way to go.

But the minister of the day — and I'm not going to give him all the

bad news — was a guy by the name of Mr. Huntington. He shares some

constituency areas with the member who sat down just a few minutes ago.

Huntington had a fat cat theory. He said: "Canadians are fat cats whose

expectation levels exceed their work output." Mr. Speaker, that's the

way he trys to weasel out of a situation like. We have one of the

highest productivity levels in the world — we have. We keep shooting at

ourselves all the time, but we really have. If you do a fair comparison

on Canadian productivity, you will find Canadian productivity rates

very very high. And I'll tell you right now there are a lot of people

who are very unhappy about this.

The political history of that boondoggle goes as follows. In the

major drydock on both sides of the country — one in Halifax, one in

Vancouver. It will be a government-owned drydock that may float from

shipbuilder to shipbuilder. Whoever bids on a major repair will be able

to use, providing it's not in use, that drydock." In other words, in

Vancouver there would have been four or five shipbuilders that could

have had access to that drydock.

But at that time the Liberals were the government, and I guess maybe

Burrard Yarrows has some friends in government. They made the

suggestion that they would like to put up a little bit of the money and

have it exclusively. Now, I'm sure the Liberals understand that they

made a terrible mistake, because they say they're not going to do the

same thing in Halifax; it's going to be government-owned back there.

But meanwhile, here, they pandered to Burrard. The Conservatives took

over and did nothing about it. Not a single solitary thing did they do

about it. They just came in and they said: "Well, I guess we'd better

award the contract." Naive Mr. Huntington looked at blank figures

without thinking in terms of consequence, and said: "Well, obviously,

this is higher than that, so therefore they get it."

I don't wish them any bad luck but, you know, they're going to have

to float that thing across the North Pacific. As a matter of fact, I

understand it may cost some more anyway, because they're going to have

to build up the sides to withstand the potential high seas in that

area. It'll have to be towed all the way over.

I think it's strange, Mr. Speaker, that we should put up with these

kind of free enterprise people over there that keep talking about free

enterprise. They bungle along, including the Ottawa free enterprise

government and this British Columbia free enterprise government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anyway, we're getting our steel back.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. We're getting our steel back,

and our coal. Incidentally, the Japanese intimated that we'd get some

more business. I imagine we're going to sell them some more coal and

some more steel as a result of this great deal. It's a dumping

proposition as far as they are concerned.

Let me tell this government who they gave the business to —

Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi is a hard-nosed corporation; they do the kinds

of things that many of these hard-nosed corporations do. I want to read

you a quote — or at least I want to read you just a little bit of

history here:

"The manager of a South Carolina industrial plant has

been sentenced to four years in prison in the first case of industrial

espionage brought to the U.S. Justice department under laws passed in

1970. Early in the seventies, Mitsubishi Corp. of Japan was

dissatisfied with the quality of the specialized films it was

producing. It tried to reach an agreement to purchase technology from

Celanese Corp. in New York. Celanese would not play, but one of its

employees did. One of its employees was Hal Farrar; he was manager of

the Celanese plant in Greer, South Carolina, and was hired as a

consultant by a Los Angeles consulting firm on behalf of the Chicago

consulting firm working for" — you've guessed it — "Mitsubishi. There

was an estimated value of $6 million in those secrets. Mr. Farrar got

$130,000 for himself, and there was another $20,000 paid out as well."

Anyway, he is doing a little time, but so are the people in this

province doing a little time. They are doing a little time on the

unemployment insurance lines because this govern-

[ Page 1436 ]

"Let's keep it here; let's keep it in this country." They haven't got

wisdom enough to do anything but read that bottom line, and that bottom

line they live by is so deceiving when you don't take all of the

considerations into your consideration.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that was just one of the finest

boondoggles of the day. And it was all done so quickly, all over the

new year. It was done at a beautiful time; the timing was such that I

can't believe it — over Christmas and New Year's. That is a

politician's delight. You make sure that everything happens when nobody

is listening to the news; all they are doing is Christmas shopping.

That is precisely the time all this broke, and nothing happened. Has

anybody in the House heard of it? If some of the Treasury Board over

there haven't heard about it they should hang their heads in shame,

because they've got a million and a half dollars of our money in that

program — shipping those jobs over to Tokyo, shipping those jobs to

Mitsubishi when we need them here desperately.

I am ashamed of that government under these circumstances. I am

ashamed of so many things that they have done. They are asking me to

vote for their budget? They couldn't budget their way out of a paper

bag. They couldn't budget for this province properly. The member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) said: "It's a balanced budget." Who

knows it's a balanced budget? Last year they were a billion dollars out

and this year they are going to be out a great deal more, likely.

Mr. Speaker, who could vote for this budget? I can't.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, since coming to this Legislature

last June, along with some members on both sides of the House, it was

my understanding that we were going to have a new start. The member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), after many years of experience in

another legislature, expressed the concern that the reputation of this

Legislature across Canada was a very robust one, and indicated a desire

for change. However, to my disappointment this has not occurred. When

this session was called, the NDP said they wouldn't come down here to

rehash dirty tricks. The personal attacks on government ministers and

government MLAs disgust me a great deal. I must confess that I was very

disappointed with the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), whose

personal attacks on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) were indeed incredible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Jack Kelly write that?

MR. SEGARTY: I heard he wrote yours. I heard he was working for you.

To have seen the member for Coquitlam-Moody associate himself with this sort of debate disappoints me a great deal.

On with the budget, Mr. Speaker — I don't want to say any more about

the opposition's conduct at this point. Perhaps before I do so I would

like to take a moment to express my good wishes and congratulations to

yourself along with the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), the member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and the

first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers), along with the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith). I wish these five

members of our caucus the very best in their responsibility to the

people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the budget manages to be a budget for today which

provides also for tomorrow. It is a budget that will keep my

constituents working for many years to come. It is a budget that the

citizens of the Kootenay constituency are going to welcome, not because

it has a lot of fancy promises and giveaways but because it provides

good management of our resources, critical to our community, because it

also provides support for the mining industry, and most of all because

they know it is a budget that will keep this province moving along the

prosperous road.

The citizens of Kootenay will also welcome the increased spending in

health care. This has long been a priority of mine, and I am pleased to

see that the budget recognizes the importance of health care in the

province of British Columbia. The expansion program at the Cranbrook

and District Hospital is well underway. It is part of a continuing

expansion that will bring that hospital up to regional hospital status.

I will be calling on the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) in the

1980-81 fiscal year to approve the construction of a 60-unit

intermediate-care facility in Cranbrook and the expansion of a 30-room

intermediate-care facility in Fernie. I will also be asking the

Minister of Health to include plans in his budget for expansion of the

Elkford and District Diagnostic and Treatment Centre. Along with those

plans for his consideration would be a fully equipped dental office

along with counselling space.

Education has received a fair share of the provincial revenue. This

reflects in the emphasis that this government has in this area. It also

shows the hard work of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). His

response to the community needs around the province of British Columbia

has been tremendous and we're grateful for it. Mr. Speaker, the

response from the minister to the Kootenay constituency in the past

year has been tremendous, and the $7.5 million East Kootenay Community

College core campus is scheduled to start construction this spring. It

is my hope that arrangements can be worked out between the East

Kootenay Community College, the city of Cranbrook and the Ministry of

Education to include in their construction plans a lecture hall and a

civic auditorium to be funded jointly by the three. This would be a

worthwhile community project, and enhance the cultural life of that

community.

The progress being made in School District 1 by the Ministry of

Education in upgrading the educational facilities in that area is most

encouraging. It is my hope that the people of Elkford will have a full

high school facility in that community in the very near future. This, I

hope, will stop the present unnecessary busing each day of 150 school

children to the already overloaded plant at Sparwood.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I am pleased with the response the Kootenay constituency has had

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

the past year with the upgrading of the Cranbrook and Kimberley airport

road. That project is well underway. However, much work remains to be

done, particularly in the Elk valley. I would like the minister to

include, in his 1980-81 budget, funds for the reconstruction of the

road from Elkford to Sparwood, along with the replacement of the two

wooden bridges on that road. I would also like to see funds included in

his budget for the construc-

[ Page 1437 ]

tion of an overpass across the Canadian Pacific Railway just north of Sparwood, otherwise known as the Sparwood north bypass.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) responded

to the needs of Cranbrook when he approved the $3.5 million

Wattsville/Slaterville sewer project. In 1980-81 we will again be

calling on the minister for assistance in providing $3 million for

upgrading the water and sewer facilities in Fernie. Such direct grants

to municipalities, as the Minister of Finance noted in his speech, are

a way in which the province plays a major role in keeping local taxes

down. The importance of municipalities to the province is obvious from

the 53 percent increase in the budget of the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs. This is a real commitment by our province to the small towns

and municipalities across the province of British Columbia.

The East Kootenay Library Society has been working to establish an

improved library service in the East Kootenays, under the direction of

Mrs. Mae Williams of Fernie. I will be approaching the Ministry of the

Provincial Secretary and Government Services for funds to set up this

system, once the program has been finalized. I'll also be calling on

this ministry for funds to construct a community hall at Hosmer and

senior citizens' recreation centres in Fernie and Sparwood. These are

just some of the ways in which the budget provides for better services

and living conditions to the people of my constituency. It makes one

wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) could

regard the free enterprise system as heartless. Well, I can tell the

member that this heartless free enterprise system has provided more

than $1.5 billion to put into the health care service of this province.

It sure makes the member for Skeena look silly, if I can say that, Mr.

Speaker, without being unparliamentary.

Let me talk a bit about the industries in the Kootenays, and how the

budget has helped those particular industries. As the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) stated in his budget speech, the driving

force behind such a historical prosperity has been our forest industry.

I would like to take that statement a step further. Not only has our

historical prosperity been the forest industry, but our future

prosperity will also be based on the forest industry. The forest

industry must remain a strong and vital sector of our economy if we as

British Columbians expect to prosper. Even if the tourist and mining

industries are at record heights, British Columbia will never fully

prosper unless we have a forest industry that is healthy. This

government has recognized this fundamental fact, and backed up that

recognition with the greatest commitment in forest management made by

any government in the history of this province. The sum of $1.4 billion

will be spent on a forest management program over the next five years;

$388 million will be spent in this fiscal year, and this is the kind of

commitment that I, as a person who worked in the forest industry for 11

years, understand. I ask the hon. members opposite what kind of

commitment they made to the forest industry when they were in

government, and I'm not surprised that they haven't much to say, Mr.

Speaker, about the budget. Everybody knows the forest industry was

booming when they gained office, but it was in a shambles by the time

they left.

Now, after a little more than four years, the government under the

Social Credit leadership, under the leadership of our Premier, has

restored the health of the forest industry. But even that, Mr. Speaker,

is not good enough for us; we want to ensure that the industry remains

strong in the future. So this government has committed $1.4 billion to a forest management

program which will guarantee adequate forest reserves for decades to

come. It's an investment in our forest industry; it's an investment in

our children and in their children.

Although the forest industry is of primary importance to British

Columbia, the coal industry is also an extremely important industry in

my constituency, and one that promises to grow in importance throughout

the province. In 1979 the coal industry provided many jobs for British

Columbians and $500 million in revenue for the provincial treasury.

Trade missions to Japan and Korea undertaken by our Premier last fall

have already paved the way for new major coal contracts with Pacific

Rim countries. Coal exports to Japan and Korea are expected to reach

nine million tons in the mid-1980s. These promising forecasts are

already evident in the recently announced expansion by Fording Coal

Ltd. of its plant in Elkford in the amount of $110 million, creating

400 new jobs and long-term employment opportunity and a continued good

standard of living for British Columbia workers and their families.

This week, Crows Nest Industries in Sparwood is starting the

construction of a new mine site in that community. During the

construction period this project will create 400 new jobs, and the

project will take two years to complete. When the project is completed,

it will provide 1,100 long-term jobs for Canadian and British Columbia

workers. This project, Mr. Speaker, has encouraged further development

of this province's vast coal reserves.

This government has provided $20 million for support facilities

associated with northeast coal development. This additional development

will increase job prospects for the people of the region and will

increase government revenue — revenue that can be used to finance

much-needed social and industrial programs in the province of British

Columbia. Past economic development and expansion in this sector has

been due to the sound economic and industrial policies of this

government, policies which will continue this year as a result of this

budget.

Along with resource expansion, the Kootenay region of British

Columbia is important to tourism. The city of Kimberley is a

single-industry, resource-extraction community. The municipality, in

its wisdom and in order to diversify its economy and get away from

being a single-industry, resource-extraction community, has tried to

develop a year-round, tourist-destination resort facility under the

theme of the Bavarian city of the Rockies. This has been done under the

aggressive leadership of His Worship Mayor Jim Ogilvie, and the

Kimberley city council. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of

Cranbrook, I support Kimberley's application to be designated a

year-round, tourist-destination resort area in an effort to diversify

its economy, and I hope that the city of Kimberley will receive some of

the $50 million that has been allocated for travel industry development

subsidy in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked at some length about the industries

within the province and about the record of this government during the

past four years and about the plans for the future. The province's

economic and industrial strategy will thrust British Columbia into the

eighties, and we shall be known as a very prosperous province

throughout the world.

Can the NDP make the same claim with respect to their term in

office? Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, not a chance. Let's take a look

at the NDP's record, of which they speak so

[ Page 1438 ]

proudly. The truth of the matter is that their record is much less

than impressive. When the session was called, I thought the NDP might

want to come to Victoria to talk about our energy or perhaps the

economy or our natural resources or employment, about uranium mining or

job training for young British Columbians or the new Ministry of

Environment Act or changes to the Workers' Compensation Board. But no,

Mr. Speaker, the NDP insisted upon disrupting government business.

I don't believe that the members on the other side of the House have

any understanding of the word "leadership" or policy planning. As you

know, after 20 years of criticizing the former government of W.A.C.

Bennett, the NDP in 1972 wanted to have a chance to govern, and the

people of British Columbia gave them that opportunity. The people of

British Columbia expected to see results. After all, they inherited a

full treasury of $498 million and a healthy economy, an economy that

was managed effectively and efficiently by the former government of

W.A.C. Bennett for 20 years. In 1974, two years later, British

Columbians expected the same sound economy. Yet if one examines the

figures expressed on the same accounting basis, the figures showed a

loss of $13.4 million, the first deficit in the history of British

Columbia since the Second World War. I ask you, was this the "new deal"

for the people? After all, that was the title of the 1972 NDP election

platform.

What about unemployment? That too came under the new deal for

people." One of their many promises was to reduce unemployment, which

in 1972 stood at 71,000 in British Columbia. In 1975, three and a half

years later, we saw the effects of the NDP government, with 109,000

British Columbians unemployed. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this the sort

of leadership the people of British Columbia need? These unemployment

figures represented 9.6 percent of the labour force. That percentage

rating, I might add, was higher than the 7.2 percent national average.

The blame for the high provincial unemployment rests solely on the

shoulders of the NDP for its moves against the private sector.

In addition, the establishment of the British Columbia Development

Corporation, funded at $25 million, didn't come up with one new job

other than the public servants to staff it.

Then there was the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in

1974. In its first fiscal year of operation ICBC collected $212 million

in premiums, which barely covered the claims it had to pay. The loss of

$34 million was attributed to initial starting costs. Yet in the second

year of operation the story became even more grim with the overall

losses estimated at $135 million. The ultimate deficit will be $181.5

million. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would concede here that such a

deficit hardly credits the NDP with strong leadership. I am thankful,

however, that the people of British Columbia saved the province from

future deficits by soundly defeating the NDP in 1975.

My disappointment with the NDP doesn't stop here. Other Crown

corporations also displayed red ink. For instance, in 1973-74 the

British Columbia Ferry Corporation posted a loss of $38 million on

revenue of $43 million. A similar situation occurred in the British

Columbia Transit Authority with a loss of $17 million in 1974.

Financial losses also must be noted when the NDP government decided

to go into the real estate business. Then it went into the purchase of

the Goodrich and Dunhill development. Then they moved into the

processing business with the purchase of Pacific Poultry and Panco.

Then they decided to go into the forestry business through the purchase

of worn out sawmills, plywood plants and Ocean Falls.

They also moved into the area of transportation through the purchase

of the Vancouver Coachline Company and the British Columbia Steamship

Company. All showed losses, which reinforced the need for sound

financial planning for the people of British Columbia. Such financial

planning is obviously provided under the capable leadership of our

Premier.

It was also during this time that cabinet ministers flocked to

exotic places. The NDP Speaker went to India to meet with Indian Prime

Minister Indira Gandhi. And the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs jetted to Australia to see how the leftist Labour government

looked after its citizenry. Then when unemployment was reaching new

heights, with the economy in a chaotic mess, the former Premier and

former Attorney-General jetted off to Japan to play rugby. Is that the

sort of leadership that the NDP is advocating? Then the transportation

minister jetted off to Stockholm to purchase some second-hand boats,

which cost considerable amounts of money to refit for British

Columbia's unique and rugged coastline.

Yes, those were the years when the bargaining process in British

Columbia was near anarchy. Lockouts and walkouts became the order of

the day. There were an estimated 60,000 idled by strikes, lockouts and

secondary boycotts. Where was the NDP leader during this time? He was

sunning himself down in California. That's sound leadership.

The truth of the matter is that there is no leadership issue in this

province, indeed the vote on the amendment proved this. This province

has outperformed every other province in Canada — it's second only to

Alberta — since the Social Credit government, under the leadership of

our Premier, took office in 1975. That's leadership.

Let's review some of the programs initiated by the Social Credit

government. Let's focus our attention on the programs made available to

the people of British Columbia by our Premier, programs that clearly

build confidence in this province's economy and reinforce the notion

that the business sector has the strictest confidence in the Premier

and government of this province.

In addition, the government's characteristics of sound management

and strong leadership are also evident in the area of health. In 1978

British Columbia was the only province in Canada to provide a major

health initiative through the implementation of the long-term care

program, a program which offers universal subsidization of health care

services at virtually all levels outside the general hospital.

The new program was aimed at three main sectors in society: the

elderly people, who need some help to enable them to stay in their own

homes, the mentally disabled; and coverage also includes care in an

institution and homemaker service. The direct charge for people in an

institution is $6.50 per day, and the provincial government continues

to pay a comfort allowance for those people who cannot afford the cost

while enabling children in extended care to stay at $1 per day.

Mr. Speaker, these are the results of capable leadership, good

government and sound economic planning — characteristic, I might add,

of what is the foundation of this budget.

In addition, those individuals are receiving care based on their needs as assessed by long-term care assessors in each of

[ Page 1439 ]

the health units throughout the province. This program has created a

more effective utilization of our tax dollar by enabling the province

to reduce the ratio of acute-care beds. However, the emphasis on the

program is to keep individuals in their own homes and communities as

long as reasonably possible — a factor made possible with the provision

of homemaker service. This program has been extraordinarily successful

in coordinating and supplementing service for those persons who are

unable to maintain their independence due to long-term health problems,

which include both mental and physical illness. Any individual who has