1979 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 31st 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 294 ]

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

B.C. Rail debt. Mr. Skelly — 295

Municipal budget increases. Mr. Stephens — 296

Expense accounts of crown corporations committee chairman. Mr. Cocke — 296

Sick leave for war veterans. Mr. King — 297

Adequacy of Grace Hospital facilities. Mr. Cocke — 297

Supply Act No. 1, 1979. Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 298

Mr. Stephens — 299

Mr. Barber — 299

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Cocke — 299

Report and third reading — 299

Budget debate.

Mr. Stupich — 300

Motion

Recommendation of the appointment of Dr. Karl A.

Friedmann to perform the duties assigned to the ombudsman under the

Ombudsman Act. Mr. Davidson — 316

Mrs. Dailly — 316

Mr. Cocke — 316

Mr. Lockstead — 316

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 316

Mr. King — 316

Mr. Lloyd — 317

Routine proceedings

Supply Act No. 1, 1979. Royal assent — 317

Budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 318

Mr. Cocke — 323

Presenting reports

Ministry of Education 1977-78 report. Hon. Mr. McClelland — 327

[ Page 295 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am pleased to advise you and the House

that we have in the gallery this afternoon a group of senior citizens

from West Vancouver. They represent 1,300 senior citizens who

participate in senior citizens’ programs undertaken by the Parks and

Recreation Commission of that municipality. They are here to see us in

action. I promised them they would be a restraining influence upon some

of the emotions that are often displayed in this House. Perhaps we

could welcome them.

MR. NICOLSON: Seated somewhere in the gallery today is one of

British Columbia’s authors and playwrights, Mr. Tom Elgie, author of

“The Bluebell Incident,” which took place in the riding of

Nelson-Creston in the last century. I wish the members would welcome

him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish the members would join me in

welcoming constituents from the mighty Peace River area today: Mayor

Arnold Dahlen, of the city of Dawson Creek, alderman Dave Leopke and

city administrator Jack Hardy.

I hope the House will make them welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mr.

Jim Duval, who may be a candidate in the riding of Vancouver South and

shake up the two senators who now have that riding.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We are all aware of the difficulties which

face you and your office in participating in the affairs of this

chamber. But we’re also aware that in your constituency you are ably

assisted in your responsibilities. I think the members would like to

welcome your constituency secretary, Geraldine Isaak.

Oral questions.

B.C. RAIL DEBT

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Finance. In view of

the fact that in the auditor-general’s statement B.C. Rail’s debts are

noted to be incorrectly shown in the public accounts as contingent

liabilities, in future will the minister instruct his staff to show

these liabilities in the public accounts as dead weight debt on the

province?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the Legislature is just now in

receipt of the first report of the auditor-general, which the

government welcomes, having introduced the legislation to provide an

independent appointment.

Having had a brief look at her recommendations and concerns, we

welcome them as a positive approach. We notice that the opposition have

made similar comments in terms of the expectancy of her observations on

the accounts of British Columbia and her wish to improve them as we go

along.

We welcome her recommendations. And until we have studied these in greater detail….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: That’s correct. I presume the member that

says “Oh, oh!” has read them in detail. Yes, no doubt. Have you read

page 129, Mr. Member? What does it say?

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In any event, the document is a positive

move. We have already acted on several of these recommendations and

will be looking closely at many others.

In terms of the comment the member has made on the debt of the

railway, this has been a part of the recommendation of the royal

commission which is also being studied by the government. A direct debt

is a direct debt and an indirect debt is an indirect debt.

MR. SKELLY: I don’t really know what the first answer was,

but the fact is that the minister has had a recommendation from the

McKenzie royal commission that the government assume B.C. Rail’s debts

of something like $652 million because the railway will be unable to

pay the debt itself. Therefore it’s incorrect to show that debt as a

contingent liability on the accounts of the province. Does the minister

support the recommendation that B.C. Rail’s debt be transferred from

the contingent liabilities

section of the public accounts to the dead

weight, direct debt

section of the public accounts? This would bring

the direct, dead weight debt of this province under Social Credit to

close to $1 billion.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the government is studying closely

the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the B.C. Railway and is

looking at the overall transportation policy in this regard. We have

already contributed funds toward the subsidies involved in certain

aspects of that railway. I think that with a view to the change of

railway administration

[ Page 296 ]

and particularly its presidency, it’s no longer in any dire need of falling into disrepute.

MUNICIPAL BUDGET INCREASES

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the

Minister of Finance, who has stated on a number of occasions recently

that he is going to limit the increase in budgets at the municipal

level to 5 percent. Today my office contacted several municipalities to

ask them what their understanding of this ruling is, and we’ve had a

different answer from every municipality.

I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to explain to me and

to the municipal authorities around this province if the 5 percent

limitation means 5 percent over last year’s budget, or if it includes 5

percent of the accumulated surplus or just one year’s surplus. Would

you clarify it for us, please?

HON. MR. WOLFE: For the benefit of the member, I can only

assume that his office, in calling different municipalities, asked a

different question on each occasion. This government has made the

intention and the details of this restraint policy very clear. I would

ask the member whether he disagrees with the need for restraint at all

levels of government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The direction of questions usually goes towards the executive.

The rules do not provide that we ask questions of private members.

MR. STEPHENS . I know it surprises the minister to

be asked a serious question. I don’t expect him to become defensive. I

simply asked the question because I want the answer.

Please, for my enlightenment, because I don’t know, would you just give me a straight answer? What is the ruling?

HON. MR. WOLFE: This is covered in great detail in the

release put out by the ministry in January. I’d be happy to supply the

member with a copy.

MR. STEPHENS: I don’t know why the minister will not accept

the fact that some confusion has been created. I’m passing on to him

the information that the municipalities do not understand his press

release. I’m asking on their behalf — and on my behalf — if he would

please take a minute or two to tell us what the policy is, so that I

will know and the municipalities will know. Don’t evade the question,

please. Just get up and answer.

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF CROWN

CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN

MR. COCKE: I’d like to ask a question of the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), as chairman of the Committee on Crown Corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this in order?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne, volume 5,

chapter 9, page 366 says:

"Questions may be asked of private members only under

strict delimitations. Virtually the only question possible would refer

to a committee of which the member is the chairman."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the precedent has been established in this House. Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if the member will continue the behaviour

of the past chairman, by providing expenses for himself in the

following manner. During a period when the Committee on Crown

Corporations met twice, the chairman of that committee recorded,

according to his expense voucher, 13 meetings between September 22 and

October 13 last year.

Is this going to be the behaviour of the present chairman? I

couldn’t care less about the past chairman; he has gone to his just

reward.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It was $720.59.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, for clarification,

questions that are directed to chairmen of committees must be strictly

relevant to the chairman’s responsibilities and duties to the

committee. As all members are aware, those matters which take place in

committee, whether they be the behaviour of committee or matters of

question before that committee, are only brought before this House by a

report of the committee which would otherwise not be able to be brought

here. Question period is not an avenue by which those things may be

brought to the attention of the House. Questions of chairmen of

committees must therefore be directly related to their activity within

that committee. I believe this question is in order. Please proceed.

[ Page 297 ]

MR. COCKE: During the fall of last year — and I would assume

that that happens regularly – the chairman put in expenses for 13

committee meetings. The committee actually met twice, on the 26th and

27th. And that was just for a three-week period.

I wonder if the chairman of our present committee is going to

continue that kind of activity. If he is, I think he owes it to members

of the House to tell them so.

MR. SPEAKER: The question ought best to be directed to the

person who was the chairman of the committee at the time of the action.

I don’t think that we can ask either the executive council or members

of the committee questions about accounts which pertain to a time

before their term of office.

MR. KING: It’s absolutely appalling that the members won’t account for their financial transactions.

SICK LEAVE FOR WAR VETERANS

I have a question for the acting Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Curtis). My question is: why did the government rescind

orders-in-council 617, 637 and 1927 by order-in-council 3013, dated

September 22, 1977? The order-in-council provided in

section 801 that:

"Where an employee who has served with the forces of

the Crown in any war is granted sick leave for the purpose of attending

a medical board or receiving diagnosis or treatment for a pensionable

disability in a military hospital or other authorized hospital, sick

leave may be granted to a total of 126 working days on the following

basis."

I want to know why the government is all of a sudden denying wounded

war veterans, who happen to be in the public service, the right to paid

leave to attend to those afflictions and those wounds they got in the

defence of their country. I want to know what the government’s

rationale for the rescinding of that order is.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On behalf of the Provincial Secretary I’ll

take the question on notice and advise him that the question was asked.

I’m sure he’ll provide an answer in due course.

ADEQUACY OF

GRACE HOSPITAL FACILITIES

MR. COCKE: I’ll direct the question to the Minister of

Health. Can the minister explain why it is that the new Grace Hospital,

before it’s even complete, has been condemned by many of the Medical

Association and other people who are very well equipped to decide on

such matters? Their view is that the facility is going to be totally

inadequate to meet the needs of expectant mothers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if the member for New Westminster would tell me who the people are.

MR. COCKE: The minister knows. He’s heard from them. But I’ll

go on to ask the minister in this context. It’s unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is away,

because we’re talking about his toy now. There are inadequacies in this

very important area, but there are no inadequacies at the university.

At the university we have a hospital that, when it comes on line, the

operating costs will be $400 to $500 a day — a great embarrassment to

the government — per patient day per bed. That’s compared to St. Paul’s

and BGH at maybe $185. I was wondering how the minister can treat

children in Grace in this fashion and yet let this opulence develop out

of the UBC.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That’s a tremendous question, Mr.

Speaker, and it’s framed so well. I’ll be happy to answer the question.

Perhaps the member for New Westminster will tell me who the people are

who have condemned Grace Hospital. This facility is hailed by many

throughout North America as the finest new concept of shared services

and shared care for mothers and children on a single site in all of the

continent.

When he sends me the list of the people who have condemned that

hospital, perhaps he will also file with this House the figures that he

has in his possession showing that the new hospital at UBC will cost

$400, $450 or $500 a day to provide care for the people of British

Columbia.

Once the member has filed that information, which I am sure he has

in his possession — and I’m sure that it is based on sound actuarial

values or some other kind of values — perhaps he will make it available

to this House. Then I’d be happy to answer his question, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

CLERK-ASSISTANT : Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 2.

[ Page 298 ]

SUPPLY ACT No. 1, 1979

(continued)

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at adjournment

last night, the purpose of the opposition in keeping this House sitting

last night was transparently obvious. A traditionally routine matter

which took all of ten minutes to pass this House last year was suddenly

blown up and grossly misrepresented by that opposition because they are

running scared from an outstanding budget which does so much for the

people of this province that even they, who can turn anything into a

disaster with their usual negative attitude, don’t know how to attack

it.

It’s a budget which reduces the burden of taxation on the people of

this province across the board, a budget which reduces the sales tax to

the lowest level in 25 years; a budget which lowers personal income

tax; a budget which raises the homeowner grant $100 and which removes

operating costs of community colleges from the property taxpayers. It’s

a responsible budget, Mr. Speaker, which holds the line at a 5 percent

increase, which fights inflation, yet which expands assistance to those

in need, and which helps our senior citizens hold onto their

hard-earned savings.

It’s a budget which expands health and education services to

unprecedented levels, a budget which provides incentives and

opportunities for the private sector and for individual initiative to

build this great province. It’s a budget which will continue to expand

employment in B.C. at rates which already lead this country. It’s all

this, and much more. The opposition don’t know how to deal with it, Mr.

Speaker, because it strikes at the very heart of what the NDP stood for

in government — irresponsible spending, extravagance, waste, deficit

financing, economic disaster and ultimately a threat to the fundamental

services which the people of this province worked so hard to earn.

Mr. Speaker, they’re running scared from this bill and from this

budget, and so they obstruct the fundamental workings of this House.

They stamp their feet and they hold their breath and they turn even

redder — if that’s possible. They obstruct and they distort, and in so

doing they abuse the people of this province who want to see this

outstanding budget implemented. They abuse the public servants and the

suppliers, who have a right to be paid while the debates of this

Legislature proceed — the little people, the people without whom this

province cannot function. They don’t want the system to work; they want

to tear it down.

They’re irresponsible. They want to take this province to a foreign

philosophy. Until yesterday they’ve been trying to force an election.

Jim Kinnaird has been running all over this province trying to force an

election, but along the way their ranks have become divided. The people

of the province have become confused as to who their leader really is.

The third member for Vancouver East is in Alaska — he’s been given the

Jim Gorst treatment. They’re confused and they’re scared after hearing

this outstanding budget. They think they can deflect the situation and

hurt the process of government by withholding interim supply. They are

wrong. Authority for the government of British Columbia to pass special

warrants is found in

section 25(3) of theFinancial Control Act, which reads as follows:

"If, when the Legislature is not in session, or has

been adjourned for a period exceeding seven days, or for an indefinite

period, an accident happens to a public building or work, which

requires immediate outlay for the repair thereof, or any other occasion

arises in which an expenditure not foreseen or provided by the

Legislature is urgently and immediately required for the public good,

then, upon the report of the Minister of Finance that there is no

legislative authority and of the minister in charge of the service in

question, that the necessity is urgent, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order a special warrant to be

prepared to be signed by the Lieutenant-Governor for the issue of the

amount estimated to be required."

While an instance of British Columbia using special warrants in lieu

of granting supply by a supply bill cannot be found in history, it is a

standard parliamentary practice in the parliament of the government of

Canada. Special warrants to provide funds for public use by the

on several occasions in the past, usually when an election is called.

This is, in fact, occurring right now. Canada passes the warrants month

by month to maintain the urgent qualification. Canada has a very

similar statutory authority to British Columbia — I refer you to the

Financial Administration Act.

Now we know there is no point for those people over there to keep up

their little charade any longer. You can stop your silly games. You

don’t dare put up any more speakers to obstruct the business of this

House. The

[ Page 299 ]

proper and reasonable conduct of the people’s

business requires sensible, responsible opposition — something which

they’ve proven themselves incapable of these past days. I say again,

they don’t dare keep up this silly game. The people of the province

will not put up with these irresponsible tactics. Face the facts. Face

this outstanding budget. Get on with the business of the House.

MR. STEPHENS: For two days I have listened to the government

and the official opposition blame each other for everything under the

sun. They are both blaming each other, particularly the government

blaming the opposition for holding up the business of this House. I’ve

just done a quick check through last night’s Hansard and today, and I calculate the official opposition has spoken for 18 1/2 pages, and the government has spoken for 27 1/2 pages.

Who is holding up the business of this House? You guys have no

credibility. Call an election! We’ll get rid of the both of them at the

same time. Let’s go. Call your election! What are you waiting for,

Bill? What are you afraid of? Let’s go.

MR. BARBER: Our finance critic made a commitment yesterday

which we intend to honour today. Closing the debate for the official

opposition, I wish to make two very brief comments.

In order that the House be fully informed as to who has taken time in this debate, having counted the minutes, courtesy of Hansard ,

including the remarks of the last speaker, the House might be amused to

learn that the government that worries about wasting time has so far

spent 85 minutes in debate of this matter. The official opposition has

spent 66. With my own it may go to 68 or 69 minutes.

The second and final point I wish to make is that the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) argued yesterday that with no notice, no

consultation, and no time for study, the official opposition was not

prepared to let interim supply pass until today. That day is here. We

have studied the bill, and we have no further debate to offer. Call the

bill now and we will pass it at once.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave of the House to refer Bill 2 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Supply Act No. 1, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Just as we expected, the Premier got jumping up in

this House and said: “See what you did? See what you did? Delay.

Delay.” And yet the member for Victoria proved that, beyond a shadow of

a doubt, they were the ones who delayed this whole thing. And now he

makes that charge.

I don’t know whether that Premier likes to grandstand, but I want to

remind everybody there was no suggestion from that side that this bill

would come forward. That was a break with the past, and if those are

the kinds of breaks you want, continue on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before I recognize the next

member in the debate, I should perhaps remind the members just once

again that the type of debate which we’ve just had is not quite

clause-by-clause study, which is the committee stage of the bill. I

think all members are aware of that.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Supply Act No. 1, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now that we have the cooperation of the

opposition, and because there are no Whips’ agreements now, and

business has to be brought up on the floor of the House because of a

breakdown in communication, we ask leave to pass technical bills.

I ask leave of the House to proceed to pub-

[ Page 300 ]

lic bills and orders — second reading of Bill 12,

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 —

so we can ease the minds of the people of British Columbia that this

distribution can take place.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, leave is denied. We therefore return to the other question, which is the ….

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn’t hear a no. Perhaps they

misunderstood. This is just a technical amendment to allow the

distribution to take place. Surely they want it to proceed.Or don’t you want them to get the shares?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is not whether hon. members heard noes. The question is whether the Speaker heard noes.

The member for Nanaimo adjourned the debate.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. STEPHENS: On a point of order, it’s become obvious that

there’s been a breakdown between the two major parties in this House. I

want it clearly understood that the government has failed to

communicate anything to me over the past two days. I’ve not been any

party to what they’re doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, points of order can only be raised

on matters that pertain to a specific standing order. Perhaps we could

keep this in mind when we seek the floor pretending to have a point of

order, when in essence we do not.

MR. STUPICH: One can only wonder why the government is so

unwilling and reluctant to discuss the budget now. Yesterday they spoke

about tradition and what has been the practice in the past. I cannot

recall an instance in the past when the government would prefer to

discuss legislation, particularly legislation that proposes to change a

bill to allow residents other than B.C. residents to buy into the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation.

One can only wonder at the Premier’s anxiety to get that particular

change agreed to without any discussion, rather than to go on, as is

the tradition at this particular phase in the session, to discuss the

budget address itself. I wonder why they don’t want to proceed with the

budget debate.

I have some things to say. Then perhaps we’ll find out a little bit more about the Premier’s refusal to discuss the budget.

As my remarks develop, I think the answer will be quite obvious. I

know sometimes it is very hard to determine from the government’s

speeches whether or not they are going to vote with the government. I

think it will be quite clear just how I intend to’vote, assuming that

we do get to the point when there is a vote on the budget.

The members of this House, and I in particular as the opposition

Finance critic, will turn to a detailed analysis of the budget. Those

on this side of the House believe it behooves us all first to examine

it from the point of view of the ordinary citizens of British Columbia.

We believe that examination will be focused on the three major issues

of the day. Most important is the tragic, record unemployment situation

in the province. Second is devastating inflation. Third is foreign

ownership, to which the bill the Premier wanted to discuss refers: loss

of control of our own economy. Those are the three most important

issues in our province today.

The accelerating loss of our ability as a people to deal with

unemployment, with inflation or, indeed, with any other economic

problem focuses the attention of British Columbians on their

government, especially at budget time. When will this government do

something to relieve the plight of the more than 112,000 unemployed in

our province? When will this government do something to aid the elderly

and others in the society who must exist on fixed, small incomes, in

defending themselves against devastating increases in the cost of

living?

When will this government do something to halt the ever increasing

sellout of our land, our natural resources, our capacity as a society

to govern ourselves? The answer given in this budget by this government

is that apart from some idle braggadocio and apart from agreeing now to

spend sums of money taken heedlessly from B.C. taxpayers over the past

three years, this government not only intends to but is determined to

do absolutely nothing about unemployment, galloping inflation and the

continuing, frightening loss of our capacity to deal with such problems.

There are 112,000 people officially listed as unemployed in this

province. Millionaires can have little understanding of unemployment,

so it is important for us to pause to emphasize the magnitude of the

human disaster. One hundred and twelve thousand people are looking for

jobs and not finding them. Thousands more are given up by the

statisticians and listed as “discouraged.” Thousands more are

underemployed. For the month of February 1979, the

[ Page 301 ]

latest month for which we have figures, the actual

unemployment rate was 10.3 percent in the Kamloops area — I see the

minister for Kamloops is not here, but I’m sure he knows how bad it is;

10.9 percent in the Okanagan — the Premier is absent, but perhaps he’s

heard something about it; 11.5 percent on Vancouver Island; and 12

percent in Prince George — the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), I’m

sure, will back up these figures. My colleague, the member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford) has estimated the total of officially unemployed at

146,000 plus. All that is despite a forest industry which is generating

record employment, thanks to continued high U.S. demand and the

plunging Canadian dollar and, let me emphasize, no thanks at all to

this or any other government.

The members of the opposition have pointed out on many occasions in

this House that the record of the Social Credit government in dealing

with unemployment is bad. There is a record of failure to act or care.

Since Social Credit came to power in 1975, the average unemployment

rate has been 8.5 percent of the labour force. Each month that average

moves higher. When this statistic was pointed out to the government and

it was noted that, by comparison, the average unemployment rate under

the New Democratic Party administration was 7.1 percent, the

government’s propagandists objected. They said it was not a fair

comparison. They would rather compare the British Columbia statistics

with the national statistics, as part of a general pattern of

propaganda intended to show that British Columbians are better off than

other Canadians. I’m afraid that on that comparison too they fail, for

the statistics show that in all but one of the years since Social

Credit has been in office, the average provincial unemployment rate was

higher in British Columbia than it was in Canada as a whole.

In 1976, the average provincial unemployment rate in B.C. was 8.6

percent of the labour force compared to 7.1 percent for the whole of

Canada. In 1977 the rate was 8.5 percent compared to 8.1 percent for

all of Canada. In 1978 the B.C. rate was 8.3 percent, 0.1 percent

higher than for the rest of Canada. But only a month later the pattern

was reestablished, and in January of this year B.C.’s average

unemployment rate was again moving ahead of the national average.

It seems that no comparison will serve the Social Credit government

well. No comparison can be used to hide the embarrassing reality that

this government is doing a shamefully poor job of providing jobs. There

is no honest way of hiding the fact that Social Credit is creating only

28,000 new jobs each year, while in other provinces, and in some of the

states of the United States, the record is better. In B.C., with the

previous NDP administration, the number of jobs created each year

averaged 43,000 compared to the 28,000 for the present administration.

But there is another comparison and such comparisons offend the

government. Perhaps they’ll be interested in these as well. Actually,

those of us who present such comparisons are being quite charitable. We

have allowed the government of British Columbia to try to wriggle off

the statistical hook by including in its comparisons the resource-poor

Atlantic region. If the opposition were not so charitable, they might

ask Social Credit to compare its record of job creation with the

comparable statistics for the United States, where in the past three

years unemployment has fallen from 8.5 percent to 6 percent. You’ll

note from my earlier remarks that B.C.’s rate was actually lower than

the U.S. rate some three years ago. The vigour of the U.S. recovery and

especially the continued, very high demand for our forest products,

coupled with the tremendous advantage to our exporters from the

devalued Canadian dollar, should have resulted in a steady decline of

unemployment in B.C. from 1976 onward. No such decline occurred. In

fact, more British Columbians are now cursed with this tragedy than at

any time since the great depression of the thirties. Why?

From the moment that this government took power in December of 1975,

it began to unleash on the people of this province a devastating series

of savage tax increases and user rate increases for government

services. ICBC went up from 200 to 300 percent, sales tax up 40

percent, ferries went up more than 100 percent, and so on all along the

list of government taxes and user rates, and I’ll have more to say

about that later.

Not content with that damage, this government went out and took a

direct and open

part in the loss of B.C. jobs. You’ll recall that

although the Premier promised to visit the workers before he made any

decision about Railwest, he closed that plant down without visiting it,

with the loss of 260 direct jobs in that one plant alone. He was afraid

to meet them and discuss it, yet willing to sit here in Victoria,

comfortably ensconced in his penthouse, and shut down an industry that

was directly employing 260 men.

B.C. Ferries. You recall the argument between the provincial and the

federal governments with respect to safety on the ferries and to the

staff needed to run those ferries safely. In part because the ferries

weren’t

[ Page 302 ]

needed nearly so much — because of what they did to tourism in this province in 1976 — 420 ferry employees were laid off.

BCR extension. Again there was loss of jobs and employment. Extra

money was paid to contractors because we quit working on BCR, closed

down the Dease Lake extension, and threatened to close down the Fort

Nelson extension. That threat is still hanging over the heads of the

people of Fort Nelson.

It is very difficult to assess the damage of these brutal policies.

A working person earns — let’s say — $16,000 annually before taxes.

With a taxable income of $12,000, the loss of his employment withdraws

$12,000 from the private economy. The 112,000 unemployed together

represent losses of something like $1.3 billion per year to our

economy. The provincial government loses about $1,000 per year in

provincial income tax from each one and perhaps something like $300 in

lost sales tax revenue. There’ll be a reference to that later, too.

As an aside, perhaps the ordinary British Columbian will pause to

reflect about the reduction of the sales tax to 4 percent. This is the

government that increased the sales tax to 7 percent — a hike of 40

percent — and left that increase in force for more than two years. It

was

an act of political revenge. We warned them at the time about the

depressing effect this would have on the B.C. economy. We warned them

at the time about the effect that this would have on the cost of living

in the province. Yet, for political reasons, they were determined to go

ahead; and they did. They increased the sales tax by 40 percent for

more than two years, brought it back two points at the behest of the

federal government, and with federal government financing, and are now

bringing it back one more point.

Perhaps this is welcome in the economy, but even there I have some

questions. This morning I talked to an employee of the Nanaimo Regional

General Hospital. That employee is one of those who is going to be kept

on, not one of those who is going to lose his job because of the 5

percent limitation imposed by this government. But in a telephone

conversation with me that employee said that he’s going to think every

time that he saves one cent on a dollar purchase that what he is doing

is contributing to the layoff of some of his fellow workers. That same

thing will be happening to school board employees, to municipal

employees, to regional district employees, to everyone upon whom or

every organization upon which this government has imposed a limitation

in spending of 5 percent — a limitation which it professes to live

within itself; but I will have more to say about that later.

There is a question for the 112,000 officially unemployed, and for

the unofficially unemployed and the underemployed. Those 112,000 paid

you a 200 or 300 percent increase in ICBC in order to build the greater

glory of the minister responsible for ICBC, “Stick-it

in-your-ear-McGeer.” They created a surplus of $500 million.

The taxpayers paid this 40 percent increase in sales tax, the

unconscionable increases in all other taxes and user costs, including

even health care costs. Those people are entitled to something more

from this government, this minister and this budget than the tiresome

reiteration of the government’s philosophy that, having wrecked the

economy, it must now simply stand aside and wait for the private sector

to repair it. Those people are entitled to more from this government,

this minister and this budget than yet another silly rehashing of

charges about what the previous government did more than three years

ago. I would remind you this government has been in office four days

longer than was the NDP administration. It’s time they accepted some of

the responsibility for what’s happening in this province, and not

continue to hide behind what they profess to be some of the bad moves

made by the previous administration.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The unemployed, official and unofficial, the underemployed and the

business people who rely for their livelihood on working people having

wages to spend all have a right to demand more — and they do demand

more. Specifically, they have a right to demand and do demand action.

It is possible for a government to protect existing jobs, as the

previous government did. And in the process it created BCRIC assets.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned previously that when we

arrived in office in September of 1972 we were faced with the threat of

some 1,000 jobs being lost in Ocean Falls. Roughly half of the

population had already left the community. It was much more than a

threat; it was actually happening. We couldn’t stand by and see 1,000

people lose their jobs, so we acted. You will recall that when we

arrived in office in September of 1972, Canadian Cellulose assets in

the province were in the process of being sold to Weyerhaeuser, who had

announced their intention to close down Prince Rupert, with a direct

loss of some 1,500 jobs in that community.

Other plant shutdowns were threatened, and

[ Page 303 ]

the NDP government acted. This government has stood

idly by to see plant after plant close. It has, indeed, contributed to

some of the closings. It is possible for a government that is genuinely

dedicated to the well-being of its citizens — instead of a nineteenth

century dogma — to create new jobs. It takes imagination, energy,

courage, capacity to focus on present responsibilities. As an

illustration, the Leader of the Opposition is not here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. STUPICH: Well, I’d like to tell the House just where he

is. Today he is addressing a joint session of the State of Alaska

Senate and House of Representatives, to pursue the proposal for

construction of a major north-south rail link through this province.

One would not expect the Leader of the Opposition to be undertaking

this kind of a project. One would think the Premier would be interested

in doing it. The Leader of the Opposition is doing this because such a

project would create jobs. Jobs are desperately needed by the people of

British Columbia. This project offers development of the northern areas

of the province, a fundamental and stabilizing addition to the

industrial infrastructure of the province, and many permanent jobs. It

could be a great thing for the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How many?

MR. STUPICH: The minister opposite interrupts to ask how

many. I would suggest that he let his imagination run in the same way

that the former Premier of this province did. I’m talking about two

former Premiers now, W.A.C. Bennett and David Barrett, who had the

imagination to see B.C. grow. Both were determined that the BCR would

be a railroad that would really serve the needs of the people of this

province. This government is the government that has shut down

construction of that railroad. This government is the government that

is determined that B.C. will not grow because it would be government

enterprise and it would be wrong for government enterprise to be

successful.

Even in opposition there are ways to find jobs for British

Columbians. All seem to elude the government, which is led by a man who

would rather slander the Leader of the Opposition and insult the

legislators of Alaska and of Washington state. They see possibilities

in this rail plan. They are prepared to talk to anyone about it. The

Premier of this province is simply not interested. He will not be

moved.

So the Leader of the Opposition is in Alaska today, at the

invitation of the Alaska state representatives and senators, trying to

get jobs for British Columbians, while the Premier sits. Where? Not in

the House. Perhaps in his penthouse suite in the Harbour Towers,

packing for a junket to Kamloops, where he can take yet another couple

of days off, surrounded by his political cronies, in an exercise of

self congratulation.

Such a project can, and must be, undertaken if, as a society, we are

to avoid the terrible suffering and terrible waste of unemployment that

is condoned by the drafters of this budget. It is just plain silly, in

the face of that obvious and urgent fact, to prattle on about the ills

inherent to big government. The assets of the B.C. government and Crown

corporations, not including the immense value of the government’s

natural resources, currently stand at about $15 billion — much more

than the combined assets of the 50 largest companies operating in the

province of British Columbia.

Government is big business, Mr. Speaker, and for government to stand

by and say that it’s up to the private sector when government has such

an influence on the economy is simply to abdicate its responsibilities

to govern. To suggest to people that the only role of government in the

face of this staggering situation is to shrink from it, as this budget

does, is simply to insult the people of this province and especially to

insult those who most need and deserve some action, some

responsibility. For those people this budget extends the meaning of the

old phrase “adding insult to injury."

Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to inflation, the second problem that I

mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. It’s a human problem in which

this government, this minister and this budget equal their record for

inactivity in the matter of providing employment. Indeed, setting aside

for a moment their own additions to the problem, this government’s

response to inflation has been total paralysis.

First, there are some very general and very severe problems. To

illustrate, let me refer to page 178 of the report to the Legislature

by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. That report both sets

out some of the very grave problems and amply illustrates the reasons

for the concerns voiced by the NDP members of that committee.

Page 178 of that report reveals that the cost of food to British

Columbians more than doubled in the seven years between 1971 and 1978.

The cost of food increased 14 percent

[ Page 304 ]

more rapidly during that period than all items

taken together. The phrase "all items" includes provisions for things

like tobacco, alcohol and entertainment. But food is a different

matter. Everybody has to eat.

My colleague, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), has

dissociated herself from the committee report because this profound

problem is dismissed with the facile observation that British

Columbians don’t spend a much higher proportion of their income on food

than do most Canadians.

Well, Mr. Speaker, two years and $3 million later, that’s the

conclusion. One of the problems is that a great many British Columbians

have been reduced by the paralysis of this government to the incomes

associated with welfare and unemployment insurance. Page 155 of that

same report reveals that for the first time since 1957 the working

people of the province of British Columbia are now experiencing a

steady decline in real income; for the first time in 22 years there’s a

steady decline in real income.

That is something against which to measure the economic performance

of this government. It is something against which to assess this

minister’s idle boast about benefiting people in this province.

Finally, it is something with which to compare the Socred campaign

slogan "Get B.C. moving again." Do you remember that slogan, Mr.

Speaker? How many British Columbians do you suppose understood that

that is what he meant when he was sloganing in 1975? How many British

Columbians would have voted for this curious coalition of people who

don’t remember from one day to the next what political party they

belong to if they had known it would result in a decrease in real

personal income of 2.5 percent in the calendar year 1978, the first

decrease since 1975?

That’s just the beginning, Mr. Speaker. They had more of the same in

store for the province. Take, for example, the forest industry workers

of this province. These are among the most fortunate of B.C.’s workers,

because they are represented by vigorous labour unions and because they

work for an industry that, owing to circumstances which, thank

goodness, are beyond the reach of this government, is enjoying an

unparalleled period of prosperity.

Those workers signed collective agreements in mid-1977 calling for

what seemed to be reasonable increases but, as at January 1 of this

year — 18 months into those contracts — the full amount of those

increases for the entire two-year period has been consumed by

cost-of-living increases. That means every increase in the cost of

living in British Columbia for the first six months of this year will

represent a loss in the purchasing power that those workers enjoyed in

June 1977. It is estimated that the cost-price index will rise by

almost 9 percent in 1979. They expect that the purchasing power of

their June 1979 paycheques will be 4 or 5 percent lower than their June

1977 paycheques.

It is important for us to emphasize that we are talking about

decreases in living standards of people who work for the province’s

most prosperous industry, people whose physical productivity is

constantly increasing, people who are represented by vigorous trade

unions.

What of less fortunate people who earn less to begin with and do not

have annual increases? There are 146,000 unemployed who, if they are

still receiving UIC benefits, are getting not a nominal increase, but a

nominal decrease. Last year these people experienced an increase in

food costs of 21 percent. So far this year food costs are increasing at

an annual rate of 21.3 percent.

Effective April 1 of this year, recipients of GAIN in this province

received an increase of something less than 4 percent in their

allowance for food, clothing, medical care and transportation. These

people do not have to deal with just the 21 percent increase in food

costs that the rest of us experienced last year. As my colleague, the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), pointed out to us in the

throne speech debate, the Ministry of Health has recently advised us

that GAIN recipients have experienced increases ranging from 21 to 61

percent for what the ministry describes as "a moderately low-cost food

plan" — Victoria prices.

Those are the data against which we must measure the minister’s

boast of economic recovery: 112,000 officially unemployed, ranging up

to 146,000; continually declining real purchasing power; an overall

inflation rate of over 8 percent and, in the most important of those

categories, food increased by 21 percent; the incomes of many standing

deathly still and in real terms disastrously declining; and GAIN

recipients receiving less than 4 percent to handle increases of up to

60 percent.

Did you know that this was what they bad in mind when they talked in

the fall of 1975 about getting the province going again — food costs

increasing from 21 to 60 percent, GAIN income increasing at 4 percent?

In delivering his budget yesterday, in a rare but entirely fitting

burst of modesty, the Minister of Finance declined to take credit on

behalf of his government for the sustained high world demand for forest

pro-

[ Page 305 ]

ducts, for the recovery of copper prices and for

the windfall revenues that have been derived from the disastrous

decline in the value of the Canadian dollar. But this minister and this

government have a good deal to do with the health of small businesses,

because the prosperity of small businesses — retail, professional and

the like — relies directly upon the prosperity of the other British

Columbians discussed previously.

What of the record there? In 1975-76, according to the Ministry of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, there were 197 business bankruptcies.

That number has increased each year since then, and for the year

1978-79 that figure stands at 684, more than three times the 1975-76

rate. They have the nerve to say it is because more incorporations are

taking place now. That might provide employment for lawyers, but it

doesn’t deal with the serious problem of the 114,000 unemployed.

Those are the data against which we have to measure this

government’s economic and fiscal performance. And, like the unemployed,

the people who have been suffering this disastrous inflation have a

right to expect better.

You will recall that an election promise of this government was to

extend the NDP’s food price freeze beyond January 1976. Remember that

promise, Mr. Speaker? They promised a new look at the high cost of

living in the north; they promised subsidized mortgage rates to some

groups; they promised a "home within reach" for every British Columbian

within the near future. As an absolute minimum, the people who have had

to bear this disastrous inflation have a right to expect delivery on

those promises. These people paid the unbelievable increase in ICBC

rates, the 40 percent increase in sales tax, the two point increase in

income tax, the ferry increases, the medicare increases; they did

everything this government demanded of them. They deserve, in return,

as an absolute minimum, delivery at last on this litany of broken

promises. And that brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the third point I

mentioned in the beginning, the everincreasing foreign control over our

land, our natural resources and our economy. The people of this

province are profoundly concerned about this fundamental matter, Mr.

Speaker, because unless and until we are able effectively to grapple

with it, we will be unable to deal in a satisfactory and lasting way

with inflation, with unemployment, with the absence of secondary

industry, or with any of the range of economic problems that confront

us.

Let me illustrate. The B.C. forest industry over the past couple of

years, owing, as I’ve said, to the collapse of the Canadian dollar and

to the unexpected duration of the U.S. housing boom, has been the

recipient of very large windfall profits. Speaking of the Canadian

scene, Weyerhaeuser profits in 1977 were $304 million, $413 million in

1978 — an increase of almost 36 percent; Domtar, $27 million in 1977,

$63 million in 1978 — an increase of 135 percent; MacMillan Bloedel,

$61 million in 1977, $101 million in 1978 — an increase of 66 percent;

B.C. Forest Products, $35 million in 1977, $69 million in 1978 — an

increase of 96 percent; Crown Zellerbach, $25 million in 1977, $36

million in 1978 — an increase of 47 percent; Pope and Talbot, $12

million in 1977, $17 million in 1978 — an increase of 41 percent;

Triangle Pacific, $8 million in 1977, $12 million in 1978 — an increase

of 48 percent; Weldwood of Canada, $13 million in 1977, $31 million in

1978 — an increase of 134 percent.

But there is a long-term problem with the B.C. forest industry,

especially on the coast. As we harvest the last of the virgin stands of

the very large original timber, we move closer to the time when the

coast industry will depend upon the production of smaller, second

growth timber. A number of observers, including the Pearse commission,

have commented upon how slowly the coast industry has taken up the

challenge of investment in the new plant and equipment required for the

smaller timber.

The question arises: will the windfall profits be reinvested in this

province? I’ve described the windfall profits, and my point in

describing them is to ask: will they be reinvested in this province

where they were generated, or will they be channelled to some other

country, perhaps to establish or improve a competing plant in some

other part of the world? The concern here of ordinary British

Columbians across the province is not a narrow or negative nationalism;

it is the concern of a mature people seeking to establish a mature

economy.

What has been the record of this government in this vital concern?

Foreign takeovers increased from 9 in 1976, to 26 in 1977, and then to

39 in 1978. You’ll recall these stories about the Foreign Investment

Review Agency and the attempts they have made to stop foreign takeover

of Canadian resources. You’ll recall the stories about the pressure

this government put on that agency to try to make it easier for B.C. to

sell off ownership of its resources and corporations. You’ll recall the

Premier of the province presiding over the sale to foreign owners of

quite a large number of B.C. industries, at the same as he was saying

B.C. is not for sale. Crows Nest Indus-

[ Page 306 ]

tries was taken over by Shell Oil of the

Netherlands; Salmo Forest Products was taken over by Louisiana Pacific,

U.S.A.; MK (Canada) Natural Resources was taken over by Elco Mining of

Germany; Brameda Resources was taken over by British Petroleums of

England; Northwood Properties was taken over by Weyerhaeuser, U.S.A.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is asking

what I mean by "taken over." Yes, certainly they were purchased. The

purpose of the FIRA was to stop the sellout of Canadian resources.

It was the attitude of the NDP administration to stop the sellout

and indeed, when opportunities presented themselves, to reacquire

ownership of British Columbia resources, so that the people of British

Columbia would own them. We took several steps to make sure that

happened.

I mentioned earlier that when Ocean Falls….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Finance listens to selected

parts of my speech; he doesn’t recall what I said about how badly they

have handled the economy. I suggest he listen to the rest of it and

maybe he’ll learn something.

We stopped everything cold. We were the ones who kept Ocean Falls

going. We bought those resources for the people of British Columbia.

It’s operating to this day. Even this government hasn’t had the nerve

to shut that one down. We were the ones who bought Canadian Cellulose

for the people of British Columbia for $1. It has since been sold to

B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Canadian Cellulose is still

operating. It was our government that bought Plateau Mills when it was

in the midst of being sold to American investors. We were the ones who

bought Kootenay Forest Products when it was in the midst of being sold

to foreign investors. This government has presided over one foreign

takeover after another, and the Attorney-General asks what I mean by

"takeover."

They took them over by buying them. We stood idly by or even

encouraged foreigners to buy our resources and our industries. The NDP

administration did not let that happen during its terms in office

nearly to the extent it has happened under the present administration.

Those are the concerns of ordinary British Columbians. The broad

context against which they are judging the performance of this

government is in the three most vital areas of concern — unemployment,

inflation and foreign control of our economy.

There are, of course, a great number of concerns relating to

individual aspects of this budget. To begin with, there is the oft

repeated boast about staying within some self-imposed limit of 5

percent — that magical figure of 5 percent. In fact, they have not

stayed within 5 percent. If you include the $220-odd million in surplus

funds, the $70 million in B.C. Ferries construction costs, the $55

million in B.C. Buildings Corporation capital costs, plus whatever

overruns — they had the nerve to criticize us about overruns, but they

sure set some records in their three years of administration — if you

take all those things into account, we’re not talking about a 5 percent

increase in the provincial budget, we’re talking about a 12 1/2 percent

increase in the budget.

The municipalities of this province would far prefer to have the

freedom to budget within a 12 1/2 percent increase. At least they

wouldn’t have to consider laying off hospital and school workers. This

budget is a cruel and cynical joke for those people who are laid off

and even for those — although the Attorney-General scoffs — who are

compelled to lay them off.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Attorney-General will have ample opportunity to participate in this debate at the proper time.

MR. STUPICH: The Attorney-General is a man of good humour and

likes to be considered a humanitarian. Does he really want to stand up

and support a budget knowing full well that that budget is going to

create unemployment for hospital workers and school workers? What’s

even more serious is that it is going to withdraw services from

patients in hospitals. It is going to require some decrease in the

level of services.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not true. Wait till you hear….

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Attorney-General, I’ll come to that too. The

Minister of Finance spoke yesterday and did nothing to reassure me that

the people who are going to be laid off in the Nanaimo Regional General

Hospital will not be laid off. He did nothing to reassure me or the

people there that the people who are going to be laid off by the

Nanaimo School Board will

[ Page 307 ]

not be laid off.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is asking: "How many are going to be laid off?"

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, you asked the question. I’ve heard the

question; I’ve acknowledged the question. How many are laid off in

Nanaimo? The layoff has not hit them yet, and I appreciate that there

is a $35 million slush fund included in the budget speech yesterday

that the minister is going to be able to allot to those hospitals that

he thinks warrant it. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister of

Health, who is asking me questions now, how much of that $35 million is

going to go to the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. How much is going

to go to St. Paul’s Hospital? How much is going to go to Lions Gate

Hospital? How much is going to go to the Vancouver General Hospital?

Let’s hear what is going to happen to that $35 million.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many have been laid off at the Nanaimo hospital? Answer that one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please.

Will the Attorneys-General come to order please — past and present?

There may be an opportunity during estimates for these questions to be

raised and for the Minister of Health to respond. But I would suggest

that during the budget debate is not the appropriate time, and to

attempt to gain the floor by standing up as if to answer a question ….

We’re not in estimates now. We are on the budget. Will the member for

Nanaimo please continue?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if past experience is any guide,

the minister will not be nearly so ready to answer questions when his

estimates are up.

However, he keeps coming back to the question of how many have been

laid off. If he’ll listen, I’ll say again for his benefit — I think

perhaps the others have heard me, but he didn’t hear me, obviously —

that the layoffs have not hit yet, but they do know that if they’re

going to have to live within a 5 percent budget there will have to be

some curtailment of services within the hospital, within the school

board, within the municipality and within the regional district. How

many? That figure isn’t set yet. There is still some hope that some of

this $35 million slush fund that has been awarded to the minister will

come….

AN HON. MEMBER: It’s $25 million. You haven’t read the budget properly.

MR. STUPICH: Well, $25 million isn’t enough; $35 million

isn’t enough; $55 million might be enough to cover the current deficits

of the hospitals. But I’ll come back to the hospital budget.

I’m referring now to the highlights on the printed sheet in the

beginning of the budget, and I’d like to just comment on a few of

these. First with respect to the sales tax cuts, you will recall the

history of the sales tax. You recall the increase that was imposed on

the people of British Columbia that very political budget of 1976, a

budget that was so embarrassing politically that the government was

obliged to withdraw it and to reprint a new version that was

circulated, perhaps, around the world. You will recall that very

embarrassing political document that the government was warned should

not be distributed because it would do incalculable damage to the

reputation of British Columbia around the world. They withdrew it but

they did not withdraw the increase in sales tax by 40 percent, an

increase that did incalculable harm to the economy of British Columbia,

as we predicted it would.

In 1978 it was rolled back two points with federal government

assistance. Now it is being rolled back one further point effective

midnight last night.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It’s the lowest in 25 years.

MR. STUPICH: It’s the lowest in 25 years, but I ask you, how

long will it take to make up for the extra $250 million per year that

they took out of the economy — something like a half a billion dollars

that they took out of the economy, that created unemployment in the

province, that effected dramatic increases in the cost of living? How

long is it going to take to make up that one cent on the dollar for the

damage done by the original increase by 40 percent in sales tax?

It reminds me of a story that the Attorney-General — this

Attorney-General — reminded me of yesterday when we were talking about

this. It was a story about Boy Scouts walking up a hill. When they got

to the point where they

[ Page 308 ]

couldn’t go any farther, they loaded rocks into

their packsacks and struggled along a little farther and kept loading

rocks. Finally, when they couldn’t go any farther, they started to take

the rocks out. It was so easy then to get to the top of the hill when

they took the load off.

MR. MACDONALD: They only took some rocks out.

MR. STUPICH: In this case they’ve taken a few. As I suggested

earlier — when the question came up as to whether or not it is an

election budget — they have taken some of the rocks out of the

packsack. I suggest the government is now going to wait to see whether

or not the public opinion polls reflect that this government has done a

good job in the minds of the voters. If the public opinion polls are

not attractive enough, then they’ll take a few more rocks out of the

packsack, and they’ll keep on taking those rocks out of the packsack

until, finally, the public opinion polls tell them they’ve gone far

enough and they can now go to the people with some hope of being

re-elected. But their time may run out; there may not be time, at the

rate at which they’re taking the rocks out of the packsack, for them to

have the election within their five-year period.

Another item in the highlights is assessment on farm and

agricultural reserve land. I heard the Minister of Finance being

interviewed about this. The following question was put to him, a

question that I had wondered about myself: What is going to be the

effect of this reduced assessment on farmland on municipal budgets,

regional district budgets and hospital district budgets? Who is going

to pick up the load? The Minister of Finance said it will be spread out

among the other taxpayers. Well, that’s great, Mr. Speaker. One of the

highlights in this budget is to shift the taxation load from the

farmers to their neighbours. That’s great for the farmers, but awful

tough on the neighbours. They are shifting part of the property

taxation load from the farmers to their neighbours, and we’re supposed

to stand up and say that is great, that is wonderful. I think it’s

terrible.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Do you really want to find out what we’d do

about it? We’ll tell you when the time comes. There are other

solutions, yes, but the solution is not to shift it from one group of

property owners to another group of property owners — not in our minds.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The third highlight which I have marked is that no low-income person

will pay more B.C. income tax than federal tax. The budget speech tells

us this will benefit 65,000 taxpayers, with tax reductions ranging up

to $89 each. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is a good thing. But the tragedy of

this budget, at this time and in this province, is that while there are

as many as 65,000 income tax payers to whom the saving of up to $89

will be extremely important, many other taxpayers, who are paying so

little tax now that they are not paying more in provincial tax than

federal tax, and many others who are not paying any income tax at all,

will not be affected by this. How many are there in those two

categories, Mr. Speaker? The tragedy is that this bonus of $89 per year

to that group of people would be so important to many of our citizens.

Here’s another gift, and the next one I’ve marked — special dividend

tax credit to B.C. residents on dividends from B.C. public

corporations, which is approximately a 5 percent reduction on B.C.

income tax. For how many people? I heard one news broadcast yesterday

evening, I think, which said that this would affect quite a few people.

If you have $3,000 in dividend income — and there are quite a few

people in that category — look at the tax relief you’re going to get.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, well might you raise your eyebrows, because I suggest

you’re not one of those who are going to get the benefit of the

reduction, to the extent of 5 percent income tax on $3,000 worth of

income. I wonder just how many people in the province are going to feel

that the government has done something for them in this particular

provision. A 5 percent reduction in their B.C. income tax on the

dividends they receive from B.C. corporations is a great gimmick.

Here’s another highlight — a new type of investment company, one

which is going to get involved in special high-risk enterprises. Well,

I think this is a corporation which will probably never see the light

of day. It’s in the budget. Members opposite will likely talk about it

during the budget debate and that’s likely the last we’ll ever hear of

it.

It’s a new investment corporation that will presumably be trying to

do some of the job that the Federal Business Development Bank is not

doing, and they look at risky operations. So that means they are going

to be looking at operations that are even riskier than the ones that

the "court of last resort" currently looks after. Who is going to

invest in a corporation that is lending money to a risky

[ Page 309 ]

operation that the FBDB will not lend to? What

interest rate would have to be charged for the investors in that

company to make anything at all, if we’re dealing with high-loss

operations? A new type of corporation is promised to the people of

British Columbia, one that will do the job that the Federal Business

Development Bank is not able or is not willing to do, one that will do

the job — and this would not be nearly so difficult — that BCDC is not

willing or is not able to do. It’s got to be easy to find something

that would do that — one willing to do the job that the Ministry of

Tourism and Small Business Development is not willing and not able to

do. The corporation that is going to move into the gap left by those

three organizations, I suggest to you, is going to have very little

impact on the B.C. economic scene.

Personal income tax deductions: two points. I suppose we should all

welcome that. It will be effective July 1, 1979. We should remember, I

suppose, in the same way that the rocks were put in the packsack, that

July 1, 1979, is exactly three years to the day since this same bunch

of coalitionist-opportunists increased personal income tax in the

province of British Columbia by those same two points. Three years

later they’re promising to relieve us of the burden they imposed upon

us three years ago.

Accelerated write-off on income tax credit for the cost of adapting

buildings to the needs of the handicapped. We can all welcome that. One

cannot help but wonder just how effective it’s going to be in getting

buildings changed. I suppose, generally, we’re dealing with buildings

of a class where the write-off is probably 5 percent at most, talking

about a depreciated value. They’re going to get some reduction of the

provincial portion of their income tax for making these changes. They

might make the changes, but I think the incentive will be because they

want to do something for the handicapped people rather than because of

the incentive offered in this particular gimmick in the budget. I hope

they do make the changes. I doubt very much that this will be the straw

that tips the balance in favour of making any appreciable changes.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister interjects that they’re asking the

federal government to make changes as well. I appreciate that. It is in

the budget speech. There are a number of instances in the budget speech

where the Minister of Finance hedges his promises by saying: "We’re

asking the federal government to participate in this program for some

of the grants. We’re asking the federal government to participate in

several of the tax changes."

If they come back, it’s not necessary to get federal government

participation in the gifts. It’s necessary to get federal government

agreement in the collection of the income tax. I agree with that. But

you don’t have to get the federal government to participate in the

gifts, or to participate in the tax credits. We’re pursuing an argument

here that perhaps is of great interest to the Minister of Finance and

myself, and loses everybody else. I hope we get the changes. I hope we

do get our buildings and walkways and stairways changed for the

handicapped. I don’t think this is enough to accomplish it. I think the

government will have to go further than….

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Well, you weren’t listening. My point is that

the financial incentive is not nearly important enough to do it. There

have to be some other reasons for people wanting to do these things. I

hope the other reasons will be sufficient for them to so act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It’s good motivation.

MR. STUPICH: I agree. I’m afraid it will not accomplish its

desired aims. But that’s fine. In other words, it isn’t going to cost

the government anything to do it because nobody will act on this

particular promise — at least, not because of this promise.

Homeowner grants are increased. That’s good too. There’s been no

general increase in the homeowner grant since 1975. Now the government

is increasing the homeowner grant by $100. Four years — that’s $25 a

year, a much lower rate than under the regime of W.A.C. Bennett and a

much lower rate than under the NDP administration of David Barrett.

We’re certainly not going to say it shouldn’t be put into place.

It’s nice to get this $100. But one cannot help but suspect the motives

of a Minister of Finance and of a government who for four years load an

increasing share of the cost of education, to say nothing of other

government services, on the homeowners; who for four years load these

additional costs on homeowners and then say: "We’re going to give you a

break. We know taxes have gone up much more than $100. But we’re going

to reduce them $100 this year. Aren’t we good?"

There are grants for the Vancouver trade and convention centre, the

Victoria convention centre, and a sports centre or a stadium in

[ Page 310 ]

the lower mainland. These are great projects.

Unfortunately these are some of the ones that are hedged with the

possibility of getting federal government participation, which is not

too likely at present.

There are a lot of commitments the federal government has entered

into that we’re all kind of wondering about right now. We’re wondering

about one in Nanaimo; we’re wondering just exactly where the federal

government commitment is. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) will be aware of that one.

The next point to which I would like to refer is $5 million for a

low-interest loan program to help small- and medium-sized businesses in

metropolitan areas. I simply ask the question: why metropolitan areas?

I think it’s unfortunate to pick on certain areas and provide special

programs and then have to decide whether it’s a metropolitan area or an

outside area. Why not make the same programs apply to all parts of the

province? Perhaps there will be opportunity to get into that later on.

There are $7.5 million for the purchase of additional BCDC shares.

Doesn’t that really grab you? I’m not sure whether you have had an

opportunity to look at the BCDC balance sheet. Under the heading "Share

Capital" on the assets and liabilities side of the down sheet there’s a

heading "Authorized and Issued" — 250,000 shares at a par value of $100

each. All 250,000 were authorized and issued at a par value of $100

each for a total capital value of $25 million. We know we’re going to

buy some more shares. We’ve got to do two things. We have to increase

the authorized capital of the company so that BCDC can issue 7 1/2

million more shares — that is, create more paper. Then we have to put

the $7.5 million into the company.

I would suggest that we’re watering the stock to some extent. Those

shares currently have a book value of $25.825, because of surpluses

that have accumulated in BCDC. So if we’re buying some more shares at

$100 a share, we’re getting them too cheap. We should be paying more

than that per share.

One I’d like to comment about is $26.1 million for debt retirement

that they attribute to the government that was in office between 1972

and 1975. That’s what the Socreds say, but it’s not what the accounts

of this province show. There is no debt showing up in public accounts

until after this administration was in charge of the financial affairs

of this province for a full year — indeed for 15 1/2 months. I have the

evidence in black and white figures, dollars recorded in the

government’s own documents, illustrating clearly that this

administration of coalitionist opportunists can no more make an honest

budget presentation than a leopard can change its spots.

British Columbia citizens are not as stupid as the Socreds like to

think. More and more of them are coming to realize that the distasteful

deceptiveness of this administration’s gimmicks and statements is an

inherent and inevitable product of an artificial political coalition

that is founded not on common principles but purely on personal hunger

for power at any price. The public, instinctively, is coming to

recognize that a group of politicians who desert their original parties

for the sake of opportunistic power will eventually and inevitabaly

betray the public itself.

A politician who has no personal commitment to principle will sooner

or later betray his own honour and his own province. Sooner or later

the spots will show through. With this government they showed through

sooner rather than later. Here we have an administration — yes, the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) might well get in on this

discussion — that bitterly opposed and condemned the acquisitions made

by the NDP to bolster and strengthen our provincial economy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, I wonder if you would

consult your references, sir; I think the use of the word "betrayal" is

unparliamentary. I think the inference of "betrayal" is perhaps

overstating the case in terms of parliamentary language. The member for

Nanaimo is noted for a moderate tone; he is most uncharacteristic

today, I might say. I wonder who the author is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Would the member withdraw the word which the minister finds unparliamentary, the word "betrayal"?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. I can appreciate that that particular individual would like me to withdraw.

Here we have an administration that bitterly opposed and condemned

the acquisitions made by the NDP to bolster and strengthen our

provincial economy. Yet when the Socreds came to power they did not

hesitate to milk those NDP assets and even to sell them off in order to

raise money for vote-catching gimmicks, without themselves adding one

jot of improvement to the structure of our economy.

While unemployment soars to 112,000, they divert attention with

gimmicks instead of creating the structural changes necessary to

[ Page 311 ]

cope with the present and future unemployment

problem their neglect has created. With soaring inflation they have

refused to protect the vulnerable on fixed incomes by indexing. This

administration has treated its public responsibility to present and

future generations like one of their political rallies. Wear some funny

plastic hats, blow some horns, throw out some streamers and say, loudly

enough to drown out the cries of anguish from suffering citizens:

"Happy times are here again."

I ask people to reflect on the contrast between the NDP and the

present Socred administrations. Despite being reviled, our

administration year by year invested public money in adding to

provincial assets to create more jobs and security — purchasing

Columbia Cellulose and a significant position in Westcoast

Transmission, creating a B.C.-run insurance corporation; setting up the

B.C. Petroleum Corporation. These had a major impact on our province’s

economic infrastructure. In a sense, we were buying geese to lay golden

eggs for the people of British Columbia. But this government, after

cashing in the golden eggs, is now rushing to sell off the geese as

well. They think it’s good politics, because they believe it will bring

them votes now. We think it’s bad government, because it’s betraying

our citizens tomorrow.

It only means there will be no end to the terrible trends of higher

unemployment, higher prices, higher bankruptcies and higher foreclosure

rates that have become the real hallmarks of this coalition of

opportunists. If you look beyond the funny hats, the fixed grins and

the phony figures…. Mr. Speaker, there was some scoffing at my remarks

to the effect that there was no debt in the public accounts — 3 1/2

months after this government came to office, March 31, 1976. It so

happens that I have photocopies of page A3 of "Public Accounts," dated

March 31, 1977, and they show the figures for 1977 and the figures for

1976. Mr. Speaker, I have additional copies of these and, with your

permission, I would like to ask the Page to deliver them so that every

member might be able to refer to them and be aware of the truth in my

statement to the effect that 3 1/2 months after the election there was

no net direct debt in the province of British Columbia. Members will

have an opportunity to read this when they get their copy.

Under the heading "Liabilities, General Fund, 1976" it lists the

outstanding cheques, accounts payable and other current liabilities,

and then it comes to unnmatured debt. Under it there is a line saying

"Deficit repayment." In 1976 there was not one penny. "Other debts"

were $41,639,332, less sinking fund investments of $41,639,332.

At March 31, 1976, the figure at the bottom of this column — the

total of unmatured debt at this date in time, 3 1/2 months after this

government assumed office — shows not one penny of debt. Would the

government members disavow public accounts? Would they say it’s not

worth the paper it’s written on — in this case, photocopied on? The

debt does appear by March 31, 1977. Oh, indeed, they did manage to

create a deficit by March 31, 1977, but it took them some time after

that period — 3 1/2 months after the election — to cook this debt and

have it show on public accounts.

Getting back to the list of highlights, now that we’ve gone through

that question, now that the members have had an opportunity to read

from public accounts, there is the $14 million for reconstruction of

the Fort Nelson railroad. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether that $14

million will ever be spent. This government shut down the Dease Lake

extension. This government had the people in Fort Nelson living under a

cloud for a while, wondering for three months whether or not the Fort

Nelson extension was going to be closed down. Finally, in anticipation

of an election in the fall of 1978, the Premier announced that the Fort

Nelson extension would not close down at this time. The royal

commission said that it would take something like $40 million to

upgrade that line. We now have in the budget $14 million, much less

than the amount required to do the job. One wonders whether or not this

promise will ever be implemented.

Another item in the budget is $10 million for an intensified

reforestation program. This isn’t public accounts, but I question

whether that statement is worth the paper it’s written on. I would like

to review the history, a little bit, of reforestation, because I think

this is an extremely important issue. It’s an issue in which I’ve been

interested ever since I…. Well, I was going to say since I read the

first Sloan report, but even earlier than that I read a manuscript for

a book that was written in the 1930s, a book that could see ahead to

the day when we would have cut our first growth of timber and would be

looking at the second growth, a book that tried to impress upon the

minds of the readers the importance of getting involved in a serious

program of reforestation. That was written 45 years ago.

The Sloan commission reports both pointed out the need to do

something about reforestation. When we arrived on the scene, the budget

with which we had to live for the first eight

[ Page 312 ]

months of office — that is the budget for the year

ended March 31, 1973, that had been passed by the Legislature in the

spring of 1972 — provided the grand and glorious amount, out of a

budget of $1.5 billion, of $5 million for reforestation. Now isn’t that

really something?

In the budget that was presented to the Legislature in the spring of

1975 by the NDP administration, that figure had increased by 300

percent to almost $20 million. That was not nearly enough, not nearly

what we should have had, but it was 2.34 times what it was in 1973. It

takes time to grow trees. It takes time to prepare the ground, it takes

time to collect seedlings, it takes time to plant them to grow. There’s

a limit to the rate at which you can grow in a reforestation program.

Nevertheless, we did increase the expenditures in this period by 2.34

times between 1973 and 1976.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I’m sorry, the budget increased by 2.34 times in

that period. The provincial budget went from $1.45 billion to $3.2

billion initially, and then there was a revised budget that increased

it to $3.4 billion. Even taking the higher figure, the increase in the

provincial budget between 1973 and 1976 was 134 percent — 2.34 times

what it was. But in that time our provision for reforestation increased

four times, much faster than did the provincial budget in total.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What’s the record under the Social Credit administration, Mr.

Speaker? Remember, the budget for reforestation in 1976 under the NDP

administration was $19.8 million. In 1978 — two years later — the

budget for reforestation stood at $19.8 million. It was still the same

figure. There had been absolutely no progress. However, as part of a

job creation program last year when they thought it was going to be the

election year, the budget did have an extra gimmick in there — another

$10 million for reforestation. If you look at the estimates alone, in

the years between 1976 and 1978, when the provincial budget increased

by 35 percent, the provision for reforestation increased by only 5

percent. If you include the extra $10 million, then it increased by 55

percent, a little more than the increase in the budget, but not nearly

the same rate of increase as was provided for under the NDP

administration. But even then, Mr. Speaker, the fact that it was a

little bit more than the increase in the budget is encouraging, if one

could have any faith in this government to spend the money that it

voted for reforestation.

Look at the interim financial statements. On page 10 we see that in

the first ten months of this fiscal period, of the money that was voted

for reforestation, $5 million remains unspent and is not going to be

spent, because the time for reforestation is over for this fiscal year.

Out of a niggardly provision of $19.8 million, they have not spent $5

million. Then you look at the special $10 million that they put in,

this great job creation program they announced last year. There’s $10

million for special reforestation, and goodness only knows it needs it,

because that extra $10 million simply brought their 1978 figures up, in

terms of real dollars, to what we were doing in 1976. When you look at

that you find that they have underspent there as well by $3.8 million.

So out of their total provision of less than $30 million, almost

one-third remains unspent, and they will, in fact, be spending very

much less in terms of real dollars than we spent in our last year, and

even less in terms of inflated dollars. If the people of British

Columbia needed any reason for throwing this bunch out of office, that

reason alone is sufficient — the way in which they have mishandled the

largest resource of this province, the most important resource.

There’s a job experience program costing $5 million to prepare

people for work. What work? There are 112,000 unemployed and they’re

going to spend $5 million training students to create more

unemployment. Think of the construction trades. This will really grab

them. With so many unemployed tradesmen in the province, let’s spend $5

million creating some more unemployed tradesmen.

They have proposed $25 million for the stabilization of health and

hospital costs. This is something to which the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) was referring earlier, and he is right. I did have the

wrong figure; $25 million is the figure.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Someone asked me if I’d ever been right. I prefer to be left rather than right.

I wonder if the Minister of Health recalls that last year in the

budget the provision for hospitals was reduced by $6 million, from $616

million down to $610 million. It is up this year to $649 million. So in

the matter of hospital care we have provided for an increa-

[ Page 313 ]

se, over a two-year period, of $33 million. That’s

a 5 percent increase over two years. They didn’t impose the 5 percent

increase a couple of months ago for hospitals; they imposed it two

years ago. At what cost to human suffering?

For new recreational facilities there is $5 million.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about the $120 million for long-term care?

MR. STUPICH: That’s another program: It’s a good program. I

welcome that, but what about hospital care? The Minister of Health will

possibly have an opportunity to tell us about that when he speaks

during the budget debate, and if not, we’ll ask some questions during

estimates. The facts of the matter are that for hospital care there has

been a 5 percent increase in two years, at a time when — except for a

period of about a year and a half, when more people were moving out of

B.C. than were moving in — generally the population of B.C. has been

increasing and the need for hospital care has been increasing with the

increase in population. I know you did scare people out of the province

for a while, but they’re coming back in spite of you.

There is $5 million for new recreational facilities. At a time when

unemployment was much lower, as I pointed out earlier in my remarks,

Mr. Speaker, the NDP spent $7 million in 1974 on this kind of a

program; $16 million in 1975; and in our part year of 1976, $14

million. That’s an average expenditure of over $12 million.

With unemployment as high as it is, this government boasts about a

job-creating program that is providing for this particular program, on

the average, something less than a third of what we spent.

There wasn’t a community in the province of British Columbia —

certainly none that I have visited, and I have visited a lot of them in

the last three years and three months — where they did not make good

use of the community recreational facilities fund program. It did

create employment. It did call upon the municipalities to initiate the

projects. They’re the ones who had to match it with $2 of their own for

every $1 the government put in. It did provide recreational facilities

that are being used all over the province. The minister says it’s

pouring money down a rathole, and that might be his understanding of a

recreational program. I pity him if that is the case.

To come back to another item in the budget, the denticare program,

I’m sorry it’s not in the budget: Why not? Could it be that they

dreamed up this scheme too late to include it in the budget, that they

were desperately looking for some new gimmick with which they could

approach the people of British Columbia? They thought of denticare, but

by then the budget was so far along in preparation that they couldn’t

amend the budget to include it. Could it simply be that they don’t know

how much it’s going to cost? They don’t want to provide any amount for

it in the budget because this would push them over their magic 5

percent limit, a limit they have ignored. They wanted to be able to say

that they had kept some of the figures within 5 percent, and if

denticare were included, then of course they would go over that limit.

The last comment I want to make on this particular part of the

budget is about the equity of the provincial tax system. The Premier

had something to say about equity and individuals — the equality of

individuals. I’m reminded of a quotation from Anatole France: "The law

in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep

under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."

In some respects the budget is equal. The budget gives all of us the

same opportunity to buy 5,000 BCRIC shares at $6 apiece. So 2.4 million

people in the province have the same opportunity to apply for $30,000

worth of shares in BCRIC. I think even MLAs can. Everybody has the same

opportunity to make use of the provision in the budget that gives us an

additional 5 percent tax credit on our B.C. Income tax if we invest in

B.C. corporations. Isn’t that great? That’s real equality. That’s the

kind of equality that grabs the millionaires in the Socred coalition

cabinet, but it’s not the kind of equality, I suggest, that would

appeal to the people who are living on low, fixed incomes.

I have a copy of a Social Credit ad that was used in the last

campaign. I think with all the rumblings and rumours that are going

around, maybe it is a good time to remind them of something of what

they said in 1975. It’s Tuesday, December 16, five days after the

election. The Daily Colonist

thought it wise to print in one editorial the collected promises of

this particular group — the promises on which they were elected. I

marked some of them.

"An anti-inflation freeze on taxes." In the last six years in this

province we’ve had two Premiers. One Premier went around the province

campaigning in 1972, promising not to increase taxes on people but to

get more money from the natural resources of this province. PremierDave Barrett kept that promise. One Premier

[ Page 314 ]

went around this province promising an

anti-inflation freeze on taxes. This Premier, while he was in office,

kept the promise he made to the people of British Columbia when he

campaigned in 1972. That Premier broke faith with the people of this

province. He proceeded, very shortly after the election was over, to

increase almost every tax that was under his authority to deal with and

to increase the user rates for almost every government service. This

Premier kept his promise to the people. That Premier broke his promise

the moment he was elected.

"An anti-inflation freeze on all government spending." The previous

Premier was accused of having three or four people working in his

office,

whereas W.A.C. Bennett got along with one and a half. How many

does the present Premier have? If it’s spending out of lottery funds

that is calculated to win seats for government members or to save seats

for government members, then there’s no freeze on government spending.

The freeze in government spending is on needed public services such as

hospital care and school boards. That’s where the freeze is. It’s a

freeze that’s hurting the citizens of this province, not the people who

are running this government.

"A means-tested program to end property taxes for low-income senior

citizens and for the handicapped." Remember the programs initiated by

the former Premier of this province, who went around promising to do

something for the needy, for the elderly, for the handicapped? Remember

the introduction of the Mincome program in the fall of 1972? This

Premier made that promise, and this Premier delivered on that promise.

That Premier promised to do something for the elderly. He promised to

take property taxes off completely for those over the age of 65. As I

pointed out, property taxes have gone up steadily for four years.

This year there has been some increase in the homeowner grant. But

let’s look at the actual increase. In the years between 1973 and 1976,

when the NDP controlled the finances, the homeowner grant went up

across the board from $185 to $280, a 58 percent increase. Under the

Social Credit administration the homeowner grant goes up from $280 to

$380, a 36 percent increase.

This Premier promised to reduce property taxes. That Premier

promised to reduce taxes. This Premier, when he was in office, effected

his promise. He made good on his promise. He reduced property taxes.

That Premier promised to reduce taxes for the elderly. And what did he

do? When we were in office the homeowner grant for the elderly was

increased from $235 to $380, a 62 percent increase. In a comparable

period under the present administration, in light of the Premier’s

promise to do more for the elderly, the homeowner grant has gone from

$380 to $580, an increase of 53 percent. Our increase was 62 percent.

Their increase is 53 percent. This Premier kept the faith with the

people who voted for him. That Premier has broken faith with the people

who voted for him.

The Mincome program, the first ever of its kind in Canada, was

promised by this Premier and delivered. As I pointed out earlier, there

has been an increase of 4 percent in the GAIN program by today’s

Premier in the face of a cost-of-living increase in the neighbourhood

of 10 percent.

The Pharmacare program, promised by Premier Dave Barrett and

delivered by Dave Barrett, has been emasculated by the present Premier

of the province, Premier Bill Bennett, who said: "Let’s give it to

everybody, but let’s give them each less. Let’s take away from the

elderly so that everyone, even those who have absolutely no need for

it" — such as many of us who could get along very well without that

Pharmacare program — "will have to pay $100 more so that we share in

the benefits of the Pharmacare program."

Premier Dave Barrett promised increased aid to school districts. The

local mill rate and the local property taxation rate was reduced when

the NDP were in office. This Premier Dave Barrett kept that promise.

That Premier Bennett promised the same thing. The mill rate for

educational purposes on the local property owner has increased every

year that Premier Bill Bennett has been in office.

Two years ago this government under the present Premier promised to

take off the local taxpayers all the operating costs of community

colleges, and brought in legislation to effect that promise. For two

years the people of British Columbia have been waiting for that

section

of the legislation to be proclaimed, and for the government to keep

that promise. After waiting two years, yesterday in the budget speech

we were told that the government was finally going to act on that

promise. One wonders at the timing. Having waited two years, why not

wait three years? Or why wait two years. Why not do it in one year? Or

why not do it when they promised to do it in the first place?

Another item I’ve marked in this list of Socred promises: extend the

NDP’s food freeze beyond January 1. When we were faced with the

wage-price program, announced by the Prime Minister, the government of

British Columbia acted by freezing the cost of food, energy, drugs. On

behalf of the people of British

[ Page 315 ]

Columbia, this Premier said he was not prepared to

stand idly by and see wages frozen while the cost of food and energy

rise out of all proportion to the increases that were being provided in

the wage-price program. This Premier argued that at federal-provincial

conferences, and he acted to protect the people of British Columbia.

The man who now occupies the Premier’s chair promised during the

1975 campaign to extend the food price freeze beyond January 1. This

appeared in an editorial in the Colonist

on December 16, 1975. And that’s the last we ever heard of that

promise. If it weren’t so serious, one could almost laugh at it: it was

a serious promise by the person who is now the Premier of this province

that he would extend the NDP food price freeze beyond January 1. I

wonder if he even remembers it, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if he even

remembered it the day after he said it. He certainly didn’t remember it

the day after the election. The Premier who now sits as Leader of the

Opposition, acted immediately on behalf of the people of British

Columbia. I attended federal-provincial conferences and was told by

senior civil servants that they wished that the federal government had

shown the intestinal fortitude of the NDP administration in B.C. led by

Dave Barrett, had frozen prices as did the government of British

Columbia. But that intestinal fortitude was lacking on the part of the

federal government and has been lacking ever since on the part of the

administration that is, at this moment, as far as we, know, still in

office in the province of British Columbia.

They also promised to take a look at the high cost of living in the

north, by dusting off a four-year-old study. Well, maybe this

government did look. If they did look, they kept very quiet about it.

I’ve had an opportunity to visit the north quite recently and have

found out that while they may have dusted off a four-year-old study,

they’ve certainly done nothing about the cost of living in the north.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about the record of the NDP

administration, the efforts we made to maintain employment in the

province, the new revenue we generated for the province. I didn’t deal

with B.C. Petroleum Corporation, but I think it’s worth recalling to

ourselves that that organization, just five years old, is an

organization that has provided hundreds of millions of dollars for the

people of British Columbia, hundreds of millions of dollars that would

have gone out of the province had it not been for the NDP

administration in B.C. Had Premier Dave Barrett not led his government

in establishing the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, those hundreds of

millions of dollars would have been extracted from the people paying

for natural gas and would have gone to the international oil companies,

as are the tremendous windfall profits now being made in the Peace

River area of this province because of this government’s approach to

the international oil companies.

I think it’s worth noting that there has been one industry, if you

like, in the province of British Columbia that has always been way

ahead of any other in making a profit. In Public Accounts it’s called,

perhaps euphemistically, a government enterprise, and the amount of

revenue coming in from this government enterprise is shown annually

under that heading. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, it’s the B.C. liquor

distribution branch. This has always been the most successful industry

in the whole province in terms of making profits – always until 1978,

when it was surpassed by a corporation established by the NDP

administration of Dave Barrett, a corporation established for the

people of British Columbia, a corporation which even this government

has not yet dared to tinker with. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation, for

the first time in the history of any corporation, earned more money in

1978 than did the B.C. liquor board — $181.1 million against $172.5

million. But don’t worry, Mr. Speaker. They’re increasing liquor prices

much faster than they’re increasing gas prices, so I’m sure that will

soon turn around. I haven’t seen the 1979 figures yet. The

Attorney-General who sits on my right tells me that it’s up to $215

million in the estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve had quite a bit to say about reforestation,

because I think it is the most serious problem in our province, one

that has been neglected by the Social Credit administration during its

first 20-year term in office, one that we did our best to deal with in

our short three years and 99 days, one which the present administration

has been marking time on in its three years and 103 days. I remind you

that in the year ending March, 1976, $19.8 million was earmarked for

this vital program. In current dollars, that would-be about $28.5

million.

The budget we are dealing with now allots $20.6 million, plus a

special $10 million, for a total of $30.6 million. That is despite the

disastrous news we’ve been hearing from Fort Nelson and other areas of

the province, and despite anticipated revenues direct from forestry —

completely leaving out the corporate and individual income tax from the

industry — of $223 million, an increase of 55 percent over last year.

The real increase over

[ Page 316 ]

the 1975-76 figure is only marginal.

This government is, of course, as I have said before, not the first

government of B.C. to fail in this matter of reforestation. However, it

is this government which continues to fail, despite the clearest and

most frequent warnings.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget which, apart from returning to

taxpayers a tiny fraction of what was needlessly taken from them by

this government, does nothing for the three very grave problems that

beset the British Columbia economy. It does nothing and attempts

nothing to alleviate the disastrous unemployment problem; it does

nothing and attempts nothing to alleviate the increasingly severe

inflation problems which so viciously gnaw at the income of the elderly

and of our poor; and, finally, it does nothing and attempts nothing to

halt or even to slow down the rate at which our land, our resources and

our economy fall into the hands of giant foreign corporations. It does,

of course, finally and as

an act of deathbed repentance, spend the sums

of money which were senselessly taken from B.C. taxpayers in the

earlier years of this government and which, if spent then, might have

prevented some of our present problems.

This budget does nothing, Mr. Speaker. After three years of fiscal

strangulation by this government, the people of this province

desperately needed a budget of vision, a budget of imagination, a

budget of courage. Rather, what we have is a budget of fiscal deceit

and economic paralysis, and a budget which will not be supported by the

official opposition.

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Phillips, Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would like to move Motion 2, standing in the name of the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd).

Leave granted.

On Motion 2.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, the motion reads:

"That this House recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor

the appointment of Dr. Karl A. Friedmann, the person unanimously

recommended by the Legislative Assembly for appointment as ombudsman by

the ombudsman special committee as an officer of the Legislature to

exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to the ombudsman

under the Ombudsman Act."

Mr. Speaker, in making this motion I would like to take the

opportunity to express a sincere vote of thanks to all members of the

committee who dedicated themselves to searching out and unanimously

recommending a candidate of Dr. Friedmann’s calibre, integrity and

quality. The province of British Columbia and, indeed, the people of

British Columbia will be well served by this most outstanding

individual.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee I,

too, wish to endorse the recommendation made by the chairman, and say

how very pleased I am that we reached a unanimous decision. I am sure

British Columbia will be well served by the choice of Professor

Friedmann.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask if we could

delay this for just one second. I know the member for Revelstoke-

Slocan (Mr. King) would like to say a word, and that’s all we have.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps there are other members who wish to talk while he is arriving.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As a member who served on that particular

committee, I too would like to add my support to the motion presented

by the fine chairman of this committee. The chairman congratulated the

committee but he didn’t congratulate himself. I think he chaired the

committee meetings very well. I think all of the meetings were amiable.

I think that considering that the committee processed in excess of some

500 applications individually, the work was expedited. and I would like

to wish Dr. Friedmann the very best of luck and success, and let it be

made known publicly at this time that I have some 18 cases for him when

he assumes office.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would just like to say, as a member of the

committee, that the committee worked well and functioned well because

of the astute chairmanship of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). I

would like to compliment him on his chairmanship, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: As a former member of the ombudsman committee, I

would just like to briefly make a few comments. Number one, I want to

congratulate and thank all members of the committee and the chairman on

conducting a committee function that was well organized. It was

harmonious; it was dedicated to achieving

[ Page 317 ]

a much-needed goal in the province of British

Columbia. It is not too frequent, either in this Legislature or perhaps

in the political life of this province, that all-party committees

function with a degree of good will and the degree of dedication that

this one functioned with. I think it should be noted. I would also like

to express my thanks to a former member of that committee, the former

Liberal leader, Gordon Gibson, who attended many of the meetings and

made a significant contribution to the discussions.

Finally, I would like to say how much I am gratified at the

selection that the committee made. I think Dr. Karl Friedmann is an

eminent Canadian. I believe that his background and experience in the

field of studying ombudsman work and writing books on the subject and

understanding the human needs of people where there is a gap in the law

and in the system of redress now will make a significant contribution

to the democracy and to the guarantee of individual rights in this

province.

Our party was very pleased to serve in that process and I wanted to state that for the record, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LLOYD: I would just like to add my remarks, as the

secretary of the committee. I found it a very interesting committee.

One of the things, of course, that we had to ascertain was exactly what

we were looking for in an ombudsman. I think our trip to Alberta to

study Dr. Ramdall Ivany’s office was a great experience for all of us.

One of the most encouraging aspects of that, I believe, Mr. Speaker,

was what he said it had done to correct abuses in Alberta. Apparently

when people are running into the same frustration on legislation, the

ombudsman’s actions and reports have done a lot to correct it so that

it wasn’t continued in the future.

I think the ombudsman office being established in B.C. and the

proposed legislation for a bill of rights for our citizens will go a

long way to protect the individual in our society. I wish to join the

rest of the committee in congratulating and wishing the best of luck to

Dr. Friedmann in his position.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, having piloted the bill through

the House and having advocated this measure since 1966, I’m really more

than delighted to see the historic and great progress that we have

made. I, too, would like to join with the sentiments of the House and

express my very best wishes to Dr. Friedmann and wish him every success

and every fulfilment in the discharge of his duties.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just note for the record, and for Dr. Friedmann, that it was unanimous today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to make a very brief statement by way of a correction in yesterday’s remarks.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yesterday, during the budget speech, in

referring to the revenue measures, the first one I described was the

new change in the assessments covering farm lands and agricultural land

reserve properties, in which I referred to a new exemption of 50

percent covering those properties for school and general purposes. The

correct answer to this or description of it is that it applies only for

school purposes, not also for general purposes. Therefore I refer

members to page 41 in the printed copy of the budget speech, the

paragraph which now reads on page 41: "This change will come into

effect on December 31, 1979, and apply for purposes of the 1980 and

succeeding years’ assessments for general and school purposes." So you

should remove the words: "general and". It should apply for school tax

purposes only.

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of the correction, or the effect of the correction, is to make the spoken word agree with the written word.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would ask for a short recess. His Honour is in the vicinity, I understand. We have some business to do with him.

MR. SPEAKER: I’m advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be approaching shortly. I declare a short recess.

The House took recess at 4:45 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:48.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. Shall we all rise.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

C LERK-ASSISTANT : Supply Act No. 1, 1979.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

[ Page 318 ]

thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud to stand and

take my place in this budget debate, because it is, bar none, the best

budget that has ever been brought down in the province of British

Columbia. I listened, with interest, to the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), the financial critic for the socialist party this afternoon.

He had a very difficult time attacking this budget, going around in

circles, reminding me of a hen thrashing around in a straw pile, trying

to find something he could really condemn the budget for. But he didn’t

succeed. There was no mention — none whatsoever — of comparing the

records of, for instance, the Insurance Corporation, BCBC, the

Development Corporation, the railway or the operation of the ferries.

Was there any mention of labour-management relations during their term

of office and during our term of office?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one word.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not one word. Was there any mention of the

record of their Minister of Education against our Minister of

Education, in their three years and our three years?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a line.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not a line. Was there any mention of the

services that we have provided to people in the three years we’ve been

government as compared to theirs — better hospital care, long-term care

and better services for everybody? Was there any mention of the

economic performance of their government versus ours?

Before they came to power they promised nothing and they delivered

less. Compare the record. We said we would give good sound management

and good government, and we have. We said we’d balance the budget, we’d

give good fiscal management to the affairs of the people, and indeed we

have. We said that we would get the province rolling and get the

economy moving. We have.

It’s easy, my friends, to sit here in this stone building and pass

rhetoric across the floor, but go out there in the province and talk to

the people. Travel to the northwest, to the northeast, to the

Kootenays, up island, any place you want to in this province and the

people are happy with our performance. I want you to stop with me for

just a moment and think of the confidence there is in the province

today.

I want to take you back to those dying years of the socialist regime

and the despair, futility and the lack of confidence there was in this

province, and I want you to compare it with what is out there today.

They won’t compare it because our performance has been so great that

there is no comparison.

This budget comes encased in a bright yellow folder. I don’t know

whether it was prophetic or not, but it is really a sunshine budget for

the people of British Columbia — for the small businessman, the

elderly, everybody. Due to the good management and the fiscal

responsibility of this government, there is something in this budget

for everybody. But this budget did not come about just by us

floundering around and flaying our hands and talking a lot. This budget

is the result of three years of hard, solid work and good management.

It’s not the result of talk, but solid, hard work.

I’ve listened to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) speak before.

His oratory this afternoon was the weakest I’ve ever heard him make in

this House. They have a great deal of difficulty realizing that indeed

we have turned the economy of this province around, that it is moving

again. They have difficulty accepting that fact. From the downward

slide that the economy was in at the end of 1975, when the rest of the

provinces were increasing and Canada as a whole was moving ahead …. The

province of British Columbia, I’m ashamed to say, was heading down the

hill to financial disaster and economic ruin under their management.

What has happened now? We have turned the economy of this province

around in one of the most difficult economic times the world has ever

known. While the rest of Canada has either been going down, or

increasing at a very slow rate, the province of British Columbia has

taken off because of the leadership of this great government.

During their term of office, when things were great in the rest of

Canada, when things were good in the rest of the world, when there was

a high demand for the products we produce, when prices for minerals had

never been higher, they somehow mismanaged the economy of this province

so badly that it was going downhill when it should have been rising at

a great rate. How could they do it? It took skill to go against the

economic tide of Canada and the rest of the world. It must have

[ Page 319 ]

taken great skill. No, it didn’t take great skill.

It didn’t any take great skill at all. They just didn’t know how to run

the economy of this province.

There was some mention this afternoon that maybe the lumber industry

was good. But I want to compare the revenue they took in from 1972,

when they became government, to 1975. They practically doubled the

budget. They were running around saying: "We don’t know where the

money’s coming from. It’s rolling in so fast we’re going to have to

keep extra busy to keep it shovelled out. Otherwise the building’s

going to fill right up with money." And they tell us that we’ve had

good times. They doubled the budget in that time. Did they reduce taxes

to people? No, they increased taxes to people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: My friend, you just sit there and listen. You might learn something, although I doubt it very, very much.

I remember, when I was sitting over there, telling them the error of

their ways. They talk about trying to help the small businessman. When

their revenues were increasing at a fantastic pace, what did they do?

They put taxes on the small, little independent businessman. They

brought in the capital tax employment Act to tax the small businessman

that they purport to help.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The capital tax employment Act; you know what tax I’m talking about, my friend.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The corporation capital tax employment….

Do you want me to draw you a picture? I know you want to forget. I

know, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, that you’d like to forget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, let’s allow the member who has possession of the floor to make his own speech. Please proceed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What I’m trying to do is to draw you a

picture. When the revenues were increasing faster than they ever

anticipated, did they reduce taxes to people? Did they give any tax

relief? No. They increased taxes to the small businessman. They

increased taxes to the forest industry. They increased taxes to the

mining industry. They practically drove those industries out of the

province.

I want you to compare those years with the last three years. I want

you to compare the economic trend. What is happening now in the

province, and what happened then. I want you to compare the tax

increases they brought in and the tax decreases we brought in. I want

you to remember they drove investment out of the province of British

Columbia.

There was some talk yesterday about the travelling expenses for the

Ministry of Economic Development. I had to travel the world, and we’ve

still got people travelling the world telling them that British

Columbia is no longer the Chile of the north, telling them they should

have confidence. We had to repair our image in the international

market. When that