1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6921 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Provincial enumeration. Mr. Barrett –– 6921

Fish-processing plant licence fees. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6922

B.C. Packers. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6922

Auditor-general's report. Mr. Hall –– 6922

Overrun in office of Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Barber ––

Office expense of Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Mr. Gabelmann ––

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6923

Mr. Passarell –– 6926

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 6929

Mrs. Dailly –– 6934

Mr. Richmond –– 6937

Mr. Nicolson –– 6939

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1980-81.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6944

Auditor-general's annual report, March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6944

Ministry of Transportation and Highways annual report, March 1981.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 6944

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know

that all members of the assembly will be very, very sorry to hear of

the death of the very fine and well-respected former member of the

legislative press gallery of this province, Mr. Alan White. Alan, as we

all knew him, began his news career in 1967 as a reporter for the Victoria Times . In 1969 he went to the Canadian Press, and in 1971 he joined the Vancouver Province , where from 1972 to 1975 he served as assistant city editor. After that he moved to the Yukon and was on the staff of the Whitehorse Star .

He then completed his studies at Dalhousie University in McMaster,

graduating with a bachelor of philosophy, history and economics in

1977. He then came back to his first love, the gallery. He again served

there until 1978 and left the Province

to join the Ministry of Deregulation and after that the Ministry of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'd say without qualification that Alan

White enjoyed a good career. He researched well and was a most

fair-minded gentleman in all his endeavours and activities. I indeed

know that he will be very sorely missed. I am sure all members of the

House will join with me in expressing most sincere regrets to his wife

Cheryl, his three sons and all members of the family.

MR. BARRETT:

I, too, would wish to echo the words of the hon. Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs. What is particularly tragic about his

passing is that Alan White was really at the beginning of a career. For

one so young to be taken from us quickly always comes as a shock. Mr.

White's professional conduct was a credit not only to the press gallery

but a credit to this chamber as well. His leaving the press gallery and

going into government service was a wise decision by the government, to

pick up a professional with his skills and energy and the services he

provided all the people of British Columbia in that capacity.

wish more than anything else to express our sincere regret to the widow

and three sons, who, with some comfort we hope, understand that all of

us who knew Alan White and had the privilege of working with him, or as

a result of his work being known to him, will miss him as deeply as

anyone. As for his three children, they can be particularly proud of

the fact that their father had an outstanding reputation and is a

terrific model to follow.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that this expression be passed on to the family? So ordered.

MR. BARNES:

I would like the House to join with me in welcoming three members of

the B.C. Recreation Association: Mr. Mike Brow, president elect; Mr.

Doug Thring, past president; and Mr. Bob Vaughn, our provincial

director.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this

afternoon are several individuals: first, Mr. Colin MacPherson,

director of the Committee on Crown Corporations, and his good wife Pam;

Mr. Johan de Rooy, Mr. Ken Bayne, Mr. Yves Larrue and, although I don't

see her, our girl Friday for the committee, Pat Dexter. I'd like all of

the House to make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, I ask the House to welcome Mr. Gordon Bryenton, the executive

director of the College Institute Educators Association, who is over

here to get the bad news from the budget.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that gentleman is certainly in for a surprise — a pleasant one I would say.

our galleries today we've got the president of a newly founded British

Columbia corporation, Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which

has been founded to exploit the exciting new field of biotechnology.

The gentleman's name is Dr. John Armstrong, and I'd like the House to

bid him welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm privileged

today to introduce a well-known and beloved pioneer of British

Columbia. In the gallery today is Mr. Gerry Hill of Yellowpoint Lodge,

accompanied by his manager Ron Friend. I bid them welcome and ask the

House to join me.

MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today

is a fine family from Ollek Street in Kamloops. I'd like the House to

welcome please Ron Fawcett, his wife Joan and their two children Jason

and Kelly.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm sure all the members of

the House are aware of the fine people we have working in our

respective caucuses. One of our fine employees is a fellow by the name

of Mike Rogers. This afternoon I would like to introduce Mr. Rogers'

mother- and father-in-law. Would the House please welcome Bernice and

Vern Stewart from Lethbridge, Alberta.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to welcome Mr. Carl Tarkicker, his good wife

Jennifer and lovely daughter Johanna, who are today visiting the sunny

shores of the Pacific from the snowy climes of the Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, members of my family are here today: my brother's wife

Dianna and young son Jason, who is deciding today whether or not he's

preparing for membership in this place.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL ENUMERATION

MR. BARRETT:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. I would like to ask the

minister if he can assure this House that every citizen in British

Columbia who has recently been registered at the doorstep will be on

the voters' list and be eligible to vote prior to the next provincial

election.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in reply to

the Leader of the Opposition, I think he is well aware of the fact that

we're in the process of conducting a full provincewide enumeration of

all eligible voters in the province. The physical enumeration at the

door-to-door level has been basically completed. We want to remind

everyone, notwithstanding that, to fill out their registrations if they

weren't visited or called upon. The registrar of voters is presently

engaged in completing the list, which will probably take until the

latter part of June or possibly July. Until such time as that has been

[ Page 6922 ]

done,

with all due dispatch, the list cannot possibly be certified to be used

for the purpose of an election. So it's difficult to estimate exactly

the date upon which the new list would be the official list.

MR. BARRETT:

Did the Provincial Secretary not assure the people of British Columbia

that a complete enumeration would take place before the next provincial

election was called? Now that the enumeration has been virtually

completed at the doorstep — now that those cards are in the possession

of the registrar of voters — is the minister able to assure us that,

since that part has been completed, those people who have now been

registered at the doorstep will be included as eligible voters,

regardless of when the election is called from this day forward?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

We certainly wouldn't want to confuse anybody in terms of the fact that

there is presently a voters' list, which is the official voters' list

in this province. We're engaged in having applications received for a

completely new, provincewide voters' list, which will, we hope, be much

better than the one it will replace.

Anyone who was missed

in the process should not be confused that the new application removes

their responsibility to make sure they're on the former list in the

event that an election is called or writ is dropped. It will still be

necessary for them to make sure that they're on any voters' list. In

that event, as always is the case, there will be considerable public

awareness of the fact that it is necessary for people to become

registered after the writ is dropped to make sure that they're on the

voters' list. It is necessary at any time for a citizen to take his own

initiative to make sure that he is on a voters' list, whether it is the

former one or the new one.

MR. BARRETT: On a

supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker, as I understand what the

minister is saying today, if an election is called within the next day

or two or before the work of the registrar of voters is completed — as

you said, in June or July — everybody who has recently been registered

at the doorstep will not necessarily be a registered voter when that

election takes place, if it is before June or July of this year.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it would be a good idea for any member of

this House to try to scare the people of the province into thinking

that they may not be on a voters' list. There will be an official

voters' list at any time an election is called.

I might

remind the members of this House that this is the first full

enumeration which has been conducted in this province for many years,

including the years in which that member was Premier of this province,

during which period no attempt was made to upgrade the provincial

voters' list or to conduct any enumeration. I just want to make sure

that we're trying our level best to make this a good list and to give

all people every opportunity to have their names placed on the new

voters' list.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary to the

minister, it is true that this is the first full enumeration in many

years, but it is now in a position, as I understand it.... Perhaps you

can answer this question for me. It will be the first full registration

of voters in the history of British Columbia that will not count unless

an election takes place after the registrar of voters completes all of

his work. I've asked the minister this simple question: will the

minister assure this House and every citizen of British Columbia who

has been recently registered to vote, at the doorstep, that regardless

of the timing of the next election they will have that card recognized

and will be eligible to vote as a result of that card?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and any other member of this

House that any citizen of British Columbia who is eligible to vote will

have an opportunity to make sure their name is on any voters' list.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, might I remind the members that we've

already announced many times that there will be legislation to be

considered here which will provide for polling-day registration of all

voters. This is a new initiative in British Columbia so that citizens

who for any reason are not on the voters' list will have an opportunity

to become registered on polling day.

MR. BARRETT: The

minister has still not answered the question, and obviously he doesn't

care to answer the question. Will the minister tell this House whether

or not the statement he made on November 25, 1981, to this House is

still — in the words of the late president of the United States,

Richard Nixon — operative? Is the statement still operative, Mr.

Minister? "First of all there are three actions that are to be taken

about the voters' list. Firstly, there will be a full and formal

enumeration before the next election to establish a new voters list."

Is that statement made by the minister, given with his word as an

honourable member, still operative after the information he's given

today?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think I've answered the question.

FISH-PROCESSING PLANT LICENCE FEES

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Yesterday I took as notice a question from the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) about cold-storage licence fee

increases. The specific size I wanted to get was 80 cubic metres.

What

we have decided to do is increase the fees for inspecting plants to be

more reflective of the actual costs of inspecting the plants. Therefore

the fees for plants below 80 cubic meters has gone from $25 to $50,

which will better reflect the cost of inspecting the plant. It is not

our intention to raise the fees to a punitive level but just to have

them cover the cost of the services we provide.

B.C. PACKERS

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked a supplementary question

about British Columbia Packers consolidation at Prince Rupert, and he

suggested that they were going to move their operation to Vancouver.

That is not correct. It's a consolidation from their Port Edward plant

to their Oceanside plant in Prince Rupert. I wanted to take this

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to answer questions I took on notice

yesterday.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

MR. HALL: I have a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received the auditor-general's fourth report yet?

[ Page

6923 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it has just been received. It is my intention

to present it to this House at the earliest possible moment.

MR. HALL: Has he decided that "the earliest possible moment" will be tomorrow?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have answered the question. I received

the report a matter of an hour ago. I was in consultation with a member

of the auditor-general's staff, and because of the mechanics involved

it is suggested that it would be appropriate to table it later in

today's sitting.

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I want to be specific is that the statute does call for the

specific tabling of the report within a certain period of time.

OVERRUN IN OFFICE OF MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for a member of the overrun gang over

there. It is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who overran his

personal budget by $25,000 in the last year. On March 30 a special

warrant in the amount of $25,000 was passed to cover a spending overrun

in the personal budget of the office of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

The spending estimates tabled yesterday show a

further 10.1 percent increase in his office budget for the new fiscal

year. His office is up 10.1 percent, but the department itself is down

2.5 percent.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. BARBER:

What rationale, justification or explanation, if any, can the minister

offer having committed an overrun of $25,000 last year himself, for an

increase in his office budget of 10.1 percent while his whole

department is down 2.5 percent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to bring information to the House.

MR. BARBER: That's a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the question is in order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't see this to be a matter of urgency today, and certainly this can be fully discussed during the budget estimates.

MR. BARBER: That's not a satisfactory reply. It is urgent to us

and to the people of British Columbia, who look for consistency. We're debating

a budget, and these matters can be raised. But in question period it's an

urgent matter. Your overrun was $25,000, and you covered it up with a special

warrant on March 30. Your budget for your own office is up 10.1 percent and

your department's budget is down 2.5 percent. Can you explain this apparent

inconsistency to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sure that an explanation satisfactory to the member will be given in very few days.

OFFICE EXPENSE OF MINISTER OF LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

MR. GABELMANN:

On March 13, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing's office was the

subject of a special warrant in the amount of $11,000 to cover the cost

overrun for 1981-82. The spending estimates tabled on Monday appear to

show a further $30,000 increase over last year's estimated expenditure

in the minister's office. Can the minister explain the benefit to

British Columbians of more spending in his office in light,

particularly, of a total of 4.4 percent spending increase for his

department?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll be glad to respond

in full detail to that question, and possibly take up the full question

period tomorrow. Therefore I'll take that question as notice and bring

a reply back as quickly as I possibly can so all the details, pennies

and dollars, are enumerated so everybody in British Columbia will have

an opportunity to know where those dollars were spent on behalf of and

for the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister took the question on notice.

Before

we proceed, hon. members, I would like to take the honour of presenting

the report of the Legislative Library's activities for the year 1981. I

would like to table a reply over the signature of Dr. Soufy Abou Taleb

dated December 30 — this is my first opportunity to file — and also I

would like to file the statement of expenditures of the auditor-general

of British Columbia, dated March 31, 1981.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that

yesterday afternoon we had a debate between the negative, doubting

people and the socially conscious people. We had a lot of gloom and bad

news from the negative, doubting people. We've heard all of that

before. I've promised the House that today we would have a positive

message from the socially conscious people, something that British

Columbians could look forward to and not dread.

Of course,

one of the important necessities of being socially conscious is that

you be economically conscious as well. You can't eat a pie unless you

bake it first. If all your efforts are devoted to complaining, asking

for second and third helpings and complaining about the first helping,

you can't really be socially conscious. You've got to bake that pie

first. Of course, the greatest difficulty the socially conscious people

had was the mess that was left in the kitchen in 1975. There was a lot

of heat in that kitchen too, I can tell you, when it came time to clean

it up.

It is all very well for the people on the other side

to keep asking for these extra helpings and suggesting different

recipes — all of which, I might add, would ruin the pie. One of the

matters that our Minister of Finance and all of his assistants deserve

to be congratulated upon is the fact that they

[ Page 6924 ]

have

baked one dickens of a pie for the people of British Columbia. There

are lots of people in North America — how lucky we are in British

Columbia! — who are not getting a piece of pie at all. One of the

things that the Premier did with his restraint program, that all of you

negative, doubting people will have an opportunity to vote upon soon,

is apportion fair slices of that pie in a time of international

difficulty, but at a time when British Columbians, because of prudent

work in the kitchen, are still going to have a generous piece, an ample

supply, even though there aren't all those second and third helpings

that the negative, doubting people always want to have.

One

of the most important objectives of people in the kitchen is to be

thinking where the opportunities are going to lie in the future. There

is no point in trying to bake a pie if the necessary ingredients aren't

growing. But if the opportunity is there, if growth is possible, then

of course much more can be served to the people of British Columbia in

the future. That is why we look, in this government, to those areas

where we can anticipate extraordinary growth in the next decade or so.

extraordinary growth I don't mean industries that may grow 5 or 10

percent a year; I think of industries where one might anticipate growth

of the order of a thousand-fold, ten thousand-fold or more, in world

terms, so that no matter what the general state of the economy may be —

no matter what kind of recession may strike the established industries

— there will be others to take their place, where the growth will be

extraordinary and dynamic.

I want to speak about one or two

of those this afternoon and apprise you of the general policies that

we're putting in place to take advantage of those extraordinary growth

opportunities. Mr. Speaker, we're into a new age of information

transfer involving satellites and new techniques for

telecommunications. They offer to people in our province industrial,

commercial and educational opportunities that meet the criterion of

thousands-fold growth in the time-scale of 10 to 20 years. The reason

they do this is that satellites, once launched into stationary orbit

above the equator, place all people in an equal position in terms of

geography and commercial opportunity. Therefore, for industrial and

communications purposes, and educational and cultural opportunities, it

doesn't matter whether you live in the most remote parts of British

Columbia or in the heart of one of our largest industrial cities.

The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has suggested that I have just

flipped out, but I want to remind him that I'm not in orbit, much as my

ambition is to put the industry of this province into orbit. I want to

explain, if that member will have the patience to listen, why the

people in his home town can and will have those opportunities. It is

not a result of negative, doubting people.

A characteristic

of satellites is that they may be in stationary orbit or moving orbit,

as was Skylab. There were many negative, doubting people — not here in

Canada, but in the United States — who complained about the cost of the

United States' space missions which first put our satellites into orbit.

AN HON. MEMBER: You watch "60 Minutes."

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, I don't watch "60 Minutes." One of the responses to the complainers

was that the final mission of Skylab, which caused so much criticism

from the equivalents of the negative, doubting people in the United

States about the wasted cost, discovered in one of the least publicized

aspects of that mission a copper-ore deposit in Nevada worth many times

the total cost of all of the United States' space missions until that

point in time. So there's little doubt that one of the important

activities that can be carried out by satellites is simply prospecting

for mineral deposits, whether in British Columbia or in other parts of

North America.

As a result of forward-looking policy on the

part of our Canadian government and cooperation with NASA in the United

States, Canada has developed for its population a satellite capacity

that is truly extraordinary in today's terms. Canadians have pioneered

the uses of satellite technology demonstrating, in particular, the ease

with which ground stations can communicate with the transponders in the

sky. We've pioneered the capacity. We have established the

practicality. But if we don't change our policies — and I want to speak

briefly about that — we will be, in this nation, blowing the greatest

commercial opportunity we've had in this half century.

want to speak briefly about what I consider to be the areas of major

opportunity for Canadians and for British Columbians in exploiting the

lead which we have conspicuously established in this nation.

The

first of these is with respect to the development of hardware

components. I don't know how many of you realize that British Columbia

is the premier manufacturer in the world of the essential component for

satellite receiving devices which is gallium arsenide. It is

anticipated that world markets for gallium arsenide devices in the next

decade or so will run in excess of $10 billion. Last year's business

was, at best, a million or two. Because it is not in generous supply,

British Columbia will have an opportunity of controlling the precious

material which will be utilized for the hardware components in

television receiving stations from satellites all around the world.

You've

all heard of Silicon Valley. It would have been a term twenty years

ago, when I first entered this House, that would have caused the member

for Revelstoke to "flip out" as being absurd. Silicon Valley is

synonymous now with high technology and is the most successful and

wealthy industrial area in the world.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll

let the member from Revelstoke flip out on this one: one day — a decade

from now — there will be a gallium arsenide mountain looking down on

Silicon Valley. We don't know where it will be located. It is the hope

of the socially conscious people that it will be here in British

Columbia, because we know that one of the prime manufacturers of the

essential component is in Trail, British Columbia.

course, this is why we have an open-skies policy. Because we want every

single British Columbian to be able to take full advantage of the new

educational, new informational and new data systems that will be

transmitted around the world by satellite. Advances in technology have

already brought the cost of TVROs down into the range of $1,000 to

$3,000.

The next generation of devices, using gallium

arsenide as the basic receiving material, will be in the range of a

television set or less. And in the future, much of the information that

is transmitted into the homes of each of us in this room and every

British Columbian will come by satellite.

Because that

satellite is 22,400 miles over the Equator with its footprint extending

at a minimum to an area the size of British Columbia and Alberta and

the northwest States,

[ Page

6925 ]

and

at a maximum, the continental United States, Canada and Alaska, because

of that, each of us in a communications sense will be on an equal

footing — something that has never happened before in the history of

man.

For the purposes of those who initiate what will be

received all over North America from those satellites, it will not

matter whether the initiators are located on the roof of this building,

from the railroad station in Revelstoke, from the most remote community

in British Columbia, or from the heart of Times Square.

communications parlance, and in effect, it's all the same. But what

will matter, Mr. Speaker, is who gets into space first; who develops

the industries first; in what locations the first superstations begin

to broadcast, and so forth.

This is where our second

opportunity lies. The first to review is to be major participants in

the manufacture of hardware that will be as common in every home as

today's television set. The second is to be the initiator of those

communications services, whether it be access to computer banks, voice

transmission, teleconferencing systems or new data and information

services that have not yet been conceived. It will not matter where the

heart of that business commences from — it could be Victoria,

Vancouver, Revelstoke — but once those businesses have started, then of

course they will remain concentrated at their place of origin. The time

to do that is not tomorrow but now; that is why our business

opportunities are so tremendous.

Finally, the same applies

for entertainment, culture and education. In the past Canadians have

always been defensive about their culture, wishing to erect some kind

of curtain between themselves and our much more populous neighbours to

the south. But now we have a golden opportunity to have an

entertainment, an educational and cultural centre that any Canadian

city with initiative and determination....

All it would take to turn CHEK television here in Victoria into an international

network is merely putting one uplink on the roof of that building, at today's

cost of about half a million dollars and tomorrow's cost at a fraction of

that. Then, instead of broadcasting perhaps the budget debate from British

Columbia at some future time.... I know there will be many in North America

who will be in some wonder at the financial miracles that our Minister of Finance

is annually capable of providing, as a result of the wise management in his province.

So that would be a good international program. Some of the economists in the

United States and Canada, including the Bank of Canada, might be interested

in how one jurisdiction can manage its affairs.

I don't want to wax too eloquent on the opportunities, but I can tell

you this: in the future those areas that will become the centres for entertainment

and cultural development will be those that become superstations, those that

erect the first uplink and have access to the transponders. It's based upon

these opportunities that our socially conscious people have developed a set

of policies — not defensive policies but ones designed to make British Columbia

a major participant in what is going to be an industry that will grow a thousand-fold

in the future.

First of all, our policy is one of open skies. That means that we encourage

all of our people to make use of the many satellite signals which are now available

and the many more that will become available in the future. This carries with

it a determination on our part to be catalysts in getting TVRO — that is, television-received-only

— devices available to the pocketbook of every British Columbian. If we can

do it here, it will be done everywhere in the world. That is why we encourage

both the use and the manufacture of satellite receiving devices. It is our policy

to make it easier for Canadians to gain access to our own satellite transponders.

have a sad story to tell. While Canada is committed to putting up five

new satellites in the next three years, the national policies are so

restrictive that Canadians have been unable to use their own

transponders. Early this year Telesat Canada signed leases to turn over

16 satellite channels to American organizations. On behalf of the

people of British Columbia, last Friday I issued a protest about that

transfer. The eastern papers did not carry that protest. Instead, a

story appeared in the eastern press that Canada had leased four more

channels to yet another common carrier in the United States, giving

away even more of our future. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker.

Those transponders that Canada has sold down the river will be used by

American companies to start up new enterprises that we as Canadians

will be buying back at premium prices in the future.

The

difficulty with our national policy, which I believe must be changed

for the good of British Columbians and all Canadians, is one that fails

to recognize that the footprint from satellites does not respect

international boundaries. It is not possible for this country to erect

an electronic curtain between Canada and the United States, even if we

wanted to do it. But we shouldn't want to do it, because we have

established leadership in this new field. We have got the transponder

capacity. If these transponders are made available to Canadians, if all

the restrictive practices are thrown out and Canadians entrepreneurs

are allowed to use their imagination, then we won't be restricted to

small populations like British Columbia or northern Canada. We'll have

access to North America and the world. It is through the exportation of

our technology, our educational ability, our culture and our

entertainment that we will take advantage of these opportunities that

are before us now. Canadians will enjoy, in disproportionate measure,

the fruits of the new technology, and in the future we'll be able to

bake even a bigger pie than the Minister of Finance has been able to do

this year.

I want particularly to congratulate the Minister

of Finance on initiatives he has taken to encourage the utilization of

our British Columbian and Canadian fuel as opposed to the OPEC fuel. I

don't know how many members of this House realize that last year $6.5

billion, half of Canada's deficit, was paid to oil refiners in Canada.

Why was that money paid to oil refiners? That money was paid to oil

refiners so they could buy OPEC oil. They bought OPEC oil while British

Columbia and Alberta gas was shut in, where we had take-or-pay

contracts and where we paid because we couldn't take. Our national

government subsidizes OPEC oil to the tune of $20 a barrel, perhaps a

little less now. You get 20 gallons of gasoline out of a barrel, so

that $1 for every gallon of OPEC gasoline is paid by the federal

government in subsidy. At the same time, the federal government

introduces new taxes on Canadian fuel — we subsidize what the Arabs

have, and we tax what we have. Nothing could be more foolish or

counterproductive. That's why the moves made by the Minister of Finance

are so positive for British Columbians and for Canadians.

should warn, Mr. Speaker, that despite reduced consumption — the

so-called conservation move that has been developed in Canada and other

western nations — we are as dependent on OPEC oil as we were in 1973

when the first oil crisis started. The man with the most effective

weapon in the

[ Page 6926 ]

world

is not the President of the United States; it's Sheik Yamani of Saudi

Arabia. The person who sees the world energy situation most clearly and

expresses it most articulately is Sheik Yamani of Saudi Arabia. He is

in a position to do this because Saudi Arabia pumps a third of the free

world's oil. If Saudi Arabia ups its production to a maximum, there is

a glut of oil. You've all heard in our media, that analyze the world

situation with such fine precision, about the fact that we have a glut

of oil in the world. If Saudi Arabia's production is shut down

tomorrow, we will be on gas rationing along with the rest of the free

world in three months. There is simply not enough oil in the world

today to keep the automobiles moving, to keep the industrial machine of

the west functioning, without Saudi Arabian oil now being pumped at six

million barrels a day. You have to make your own judgment, Mr. Speaker,

as does every individual, how secure that supply line in Saudi Arabia

is, but if it's cut off, we will be on gas rationing in Canada because

we have not developed an alternative fuel program.

So, Mr.

Speaker, it's important for national reasons that we should develop our

natural gas alternative. If we do that, at least our part of the world

will not become dependent on Sheik Yamani, as is the United States and

every country that has dug its head in the sand and not listened to

what this world leader — indeed, world dictator — has had to say. He

has pointed out to Saudi Arabia and to the OPEC nations that they must

never increase either the price of oil or reduce its availability to

the point where western nations will seriously consider alternatives,

because if they do that, they will lose the oil weapon and thus their

opportunity to control world politics.

We have had much

distress in Canada because the Alsands project was cancelled. That's a

direct result of Sheik Yamani's policy. It was supposed that this would

go a long way to give Canada energy independence. In my opinion that's

baloney. The cost was so high, the output so low, that it would do no

more than look after 15 percent of the automobiles in Canada,

whereas

for the price of that Alsands project it would have been possible to

give away a conversion kit for every automobile driver in Canada,

freeing us forever from OPEC and turning us into oil exporters. That's

the sense of proportion we're dealing with.

It's my hope

that as a result of the incentives introduced by the Minister of

Finance and others finally introduced by the federal government, in

this province of ours we will develop an infrastructure which will give

us the opportunity before too long to thumb our nose at Sheik Yamani

and all of of the other oil-cartel gougers.

I just want to

conclude by mentioning very briefly the policy with respect to

universities, because the member for Comox was complaining about the

insecurity of our universities and the very difficult position that

they are alleged to be in as a result in reductions of federal transfer

payments to the provinces. How wrong that member was, Mr. Speaker, and

how wrong have been our academics in British Columbia to become as

nervous as their jittery eastern counterparts.

We had a

protest out on the lawns of this legislative building, and many of the

people there honestly did not know what they were protesting about.

They had been told to do something by the National Union of Students

and some of the nervous academics from the east; but when you have a

solid economy, when you have had sound finances, then it becomes

possible to serve your institutions and serve them well. That's why,

once again, the universities in British Columbia are the most favoured

in Canada.

She mentioned the time I first came to this

Legislature and alluded to the "Back Mac Campaign," in which some

250,000 students signed a petition for better opportunities. At that

time there was exactly one university and one college in British

Columbia. The system had been unchanged for over 25 years. In the past

20 years, while I've been in this House, post-secondary education has

gone through the most dynamic growth in its history, probably never

again to be equalled in British Columbia. Three public universities, 15

colleges, seven provincial institutes, the Knowledge Network and Open

Learning Institute — all there.

Our academics are among the

most highly paid in the world. We discovered, when somebody challenged

on the bet that I had made, that if academics in British Columbia were

paid the same as Harvard professors — assistant professors, associate

professors and full professors — and we gave them the 21 or 22 percent

exchange rate that applies — if we took all our academics, gave them

Harvard salaries and paid them the exchange rate — we'd be able to save

about a million of the faculty bill. So our people are well paid, our

system is the most comprehensive system today in North America, and

it's continuing.... I might add that the fees the students pay are

among the lowest in Canada.

There isn't as much money as we

would like to have to go around in all the fields. But certainly,

whether it's universities, hospitals, schools or colleges, or any

aspect of the social services to people in British Columbia, our

citizens can be proud and consider themselves fortunate.

Mr.

Speaker, it's because in all these years there have been socially

conscious people in government — those who knew how to bake a pie.

Those who only know how to eat the pie — they were rejected in 1933, in

1937, in 1941, in 1945, in 1949, in 1952, in 1953, in 1956 and '60,

'63, '66, and '69. Only in '72 did they put people who did not know how

to cook into the kitchen, and we had to clean the mess up in '75. The

pie was only 12 percent bigger in '79, but after the next election,

after the policies are put into effect, then the people of British

Columbia will have as much as they can eat and I hope then the

negative, doubting people will be satisfied.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, that's the nicest ovation the government has ever given me.

The

previous member spoke about pie, and it was an interesting logic he had

involved in that. But I think what he missed, Mr. Speaker, is that the

share of the pie is constantly being given to places like Point Grey,

Oak Bay and West Vancouver, and it's high time that the share of pie

started working its way into the rural and northern ridings of this

province.

The minister also spoke of a protest to Ottawa

about television. Now if we have our priorities for television now....

Why couldn't that minister, speaking for his government, make a protest

about high interest rates in this country, or about the hundreds of

thousands of workers in this province who are unemployed, or about tax

benefits for the residents of the northern part of the province? But

no, it's only on television.

On to the budget, Mr. Speaker.

We notice that revenues this year are $7.3 billion, expenditures $7.68

billion. Expenditures are up over $1 billion over last year. For what,

Mr. Speaker? To build football stadiums in Vancouver? To present a

world circus called Expo? Is that what we're spending money for while

hundreds of thousands of people in this province are unemployed? And we

notice that among the

[ Page

6927 ]

sources of tax revenues corporate income tax is

down $31 million while personal income tax is up $347 million. Revenues

from minerals and forestry are at all-time lows, but then the net

profit from liquor has increased $27 million to $365 million.

We notice an

article in the Province ,

April 7, 1982: "B.C. Hits Its Taxpayers More." It's a comparison of

individual taxes and fees paid across this country. The first paragraph

says: "B.C. taxpayers pay far more in fees and taxes than their

counterparts in Alberta and Saskatchewan."

Secondly,

Saskatchewan, with no hospital insurance premiums, is the lowest on the

list with $1,108. It appears that we're paying much, too much for

frills in this province.

We also looked at some of the

hidden taxes, Mr. Speaker. Free miner certificates are up 150 percent

since April 1, 1982, for corporations, and up 400 percent for

individuals. All placer mining fees are up 100 percent since April 1,

1982. Guide outfitters, assistant guides and angling guides: their fees

have been increased 100 percent since April. Fisheries: small storage

plant licences have been increased 100 percent. Fish-buying stations:

$50 to $100 for a new fee. Fish-processing plants: 100 to 300 percent.

We've

seen that B.C. Hydro has increased its rates by 300 percent. And then

on April 1, 1982, B.C. Hydro was granted a rate increase for industrial

users of 31.5 percent.

Those are for basic industries, Mr.

Speaker, and we can look at how it's battering our citizens. Medicare

in the past two years is up 76.5 percent for single people, 64.7

percent for couples and 50.6 percent for families. Driver's licence,

licence plates and vehicle inspections are all up.

Provincial

camping parks are up 17 to 33 percent on March 1, 1982. Angling

licences for B.C. residents are up 100 percent. Hunting licences are up

100 percent. ICBC rates in the lower mainland are up 21 percent. These

are all hidden taxes that don't come out in this budget.

Then,

Mr. Speaker, we see that the Premier's.... He isn't in the House right

now. The bunker is up 15 percent. But then the government can tell

school boards, BCGEU employees and school teachers to hold their wages

for restraint between 8 and 10 and possibly 12 percent. But the Premier

can increase his office to 15 percent.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, or something like that.

guess it's difficult for a government of millionaires to realize the

problems that hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed in

this province are facing.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: It's an oligarchy.

We have a

Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who came up

on a little jaunt to the north with a couple of other cabinet

ministers. They flew around in helicopters, had private luncheons with

people at taxpayers' expense, met with some communities for 30 minutes

and then got on their helicopters and airplanes and flew off. It was

almost like "Apocalypse Now" for some of those communities. But then

the Minister of Industry and Small Business was quoted in the Cassiar Courier in March 1982 as saying: "If you don't like the north, move south."

MR. BARRETT: Then he flew off in his helicopter.

MR. PASSARELL:

That's right. I wonder if that Minister of Industry and Small Business

is going to tell the thousands of workers for northeast coal in the

Chetwynd area to move south if they don't like the area. Move south to

what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Omineca.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, we could move them south to Omineca. The western separatist party would certainly like that.

Going

through the budget here, we see a cutback of $11 million in

post-secondary colleges and institutes. Cutbacks for what? To build

football stadiums? We're going to find it more difficult for

high-school graduates in the north to go south with cutbacks starting

at $11 million. Other cutbacks in education are affecting the skills in

the north particularly. School programs are down by $155,000, teacher

services are down by $335,000, and grants to reduce local school taxes

down by $500,000. We also see that post-secondary management, which

includes grants through the Canadian student loan program, provincial

grants and scholarships to students, is down by over $70,000. It's

funny and almost ironic that while this government is battering public

schools, they've increased grants to the independent schools by $4.9

million. They take away from the public schools to give to the

independent schools.

On to further constituency problems.

The north is built by people who are concerned about their environment

and their surroundings.

MR. KEMPF: How would you know? What part of it did you build?

MR. PASSARELL: Did you ever work in your life? All it is is grants, grants, grants.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Can you control the member for Omineca? That sounds like a racist statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Would the member who has the floor please continue to address the Chair to assist us in maintaining order.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing the member for Omineca

and the rest of the House to order.

see that the energy reserve division responsible for research in energy

is down by $1.7 million and water management is down by over $1

million. Why? Is it so this government can turn its back on the Nishga

Indians once again and not do a proper public hearing and study into

the surface-water management around Alice Arm? Why is this government

so afraid to hold some type of a public inquiry into the whole aspect

of Amax for the residents who live in the north? They've been awfully

quiet about that. Maybe that's why they've cut back on water management

by over $1 million.

I think everything we're discussing in

this House for the next four or five days is related to the Premier's

media blitz on television a few weeks ago. A stabilization program to

stabil-

[ Page 6928 ]

ize

things. Does it stabilize when you start cutting back in education the

way the government is? We see in the budget presented to us that this

compensation stabilization program that the Premier initiated on

television has a budget allocation of $882,890. The puzzling aspect is

that with $800,000 for this program the Premier is talking about, when

you look in the budget under "staff," it is blank. Maybe that tells you

something. You put $800,000 into a program that the Premier initiates

on television, but then you have no staff. Under the budget, where it

says "staff " it's a blank. Maybe it is a blank like the decision to

penalize public-sector employees in this province. It is blank.

Another

puzzling aspect is forestry. I am glad the minister is here. We will

just take our time on forestry for the time being. The Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. McClelland) isn't in here right now, but it might be

pertinent to ask him this question. There was a study done with a task

force by the federal minister, Judy Erola. An interesting aspect is

that the Minister of Energy has been included in this program to do a

study on single-industry towns. He has been very quiet about it. I

wonder what this cheek-to-cheek involvement is here with the federal

government, that nobody is making any statements about single-industry

towns. We are seeing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people

unemployed in this province. Why is the minister so quiet? When he has

a direct line to the federal government on this aspect, we hear

nothing, not even a press release.

Where are the

presentations in this budget for securing northern tax benefits? Here

the minister is cheek-to-cheek with Judy Erola, and we see nothing on

northern tax benefits. But the minister is responsible for this. He is

responsible for having a northern tax benefit secured in this budget,

and there is nothing. He likes to take the responsibility for new jobs

but he never likes to take the responsibility for the hundreds of

thousands of people who are unemployed in this province.

the aspect of forestry and the harvesting program, the budget discusses

the sale and disposal of Crown provincial timber and wood resources

under the heading of "Forest Range Resource Management." Last year's

figures were $54,183,000; this year it is $57,437,000. Then this year,

across the page from it, it has two different figures from last year

and this year. This year it is $41,346,000 and last year $51,116,000.

Are these figures based on recoveries from the Forest and Range

Resource Fund, a fund that appears to be taking away money that is

needed for silviculture in this province? How is this resource fund

benefiting the hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed in

this province? it appears not to be.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Another

aspect is in health. Community care, which has the responsibility for

many health services, shows on page 141 of the budget that the funding

allocation is down by almost $1 million. The dental plan is down by

almost $10 million and grants for services to seniors in Human

Resources are down by over $2 million. In Industry and Small Business

Development, economic analysis and research has been cut in the

ministry's budget. After what we heard from the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) this

morning, I wonder why he didn't get up and state that he was opposed to

this cutback in research. Program implementation and coordination has

been cut in half. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) cuts his

budget in half in these difficult economic times. Why cut the labour

budget in half? If there is anything I'd like to see cut in half, it's

some of the programs that fall under the Ministry of Municipal,

Affairs. Is that football stadiums and world circuses?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against Expo? Are you against B.C. Place?

MR. PASSARELL: As a northerner, you're right. I'm against them. I've put in Hansard

my record of opposing the football stadium while hundreds of thousands

of people are unemployed in this province. You build monuments to

yourself. This should be increased to provide jobs, this cutback in

labour.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have the peanut gallery roast here this afternoon.

to the cutbacks in the Labour budget — why not be positive instead of

cutting back? The government is so negative. It cuts back in Labour.

They make negative cutbacks while hundreds of thousands of people are

unemployed in this province. That's a joke. Single parents are being

cut back. The young are finding it more difficult to get jobs.

Another

negative aspect of this budget was that there was no mention whatsoever

of land claims. When is this government going to put some positive

solutions forward on land claims?

There has been a decrease of $1.4 million in the First Citizens Fund.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

Well, that's the policy I would think, after looking at some of the

statements the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) made concerning

land claims back in 1979. There has been no mention whatsoever of this

age-old problem we've been faced with concerning getting an equal

settlement for the first citizens of this province.

Manpower

has been cut from $43 million to $7 million at the same time that there

are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed in this province. This

program includes apprenticeship and industrial training.

Grants,

contributions and subsidies are down by 17 percent in Municipal

Affairs. What effect will this have on northern municipalities like

Stewart, Terrace or Burns Lake? You're putting the financial problems

of your government squarely on the back of the local taxpayers of this

province.Revenue sharing is down by $17 million. That's another cutback by the Social Credit government affecting northern residents.

Another

program that is of utmost importance to the north is the cultural

heritage and recreational program. It's been cut by 27 percent. While

we're cutting programs that benefit the north, we see that the Election

Act has been increased by 400 percent. We're cutting back on manpower

and educational programs, but we're increasing the provincial elections

budget by 400 percent. If we're going to increase it by 400 percent,

let's get on with the job.

[ Page 6929 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Drop the writ.

MR. PASSARELL:

We can't drop the writ. You guys get your leader to drop the writ.

Let's get out there. Come on. If you want to talk in this House, talk

to the Premier, and show some guts by dropping the writ in this

province and get on to an election.

MR. KEMPF: You'd be sorry if we ever did.

MR. PASSARELL: I'll be out there and I'll be running for a political party that's recognized in this province — not the western separatist.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, that's it. There will be two members in the west: Jack Kempf and Gordon Kesler. They can wear their cowboy boots together.

also see that there has been an increase of 20 percent in rural

property taxes which is going to have a drastic effect on northern

residents. It will affect every homeowner in the north. Communities

like Dease Lake have seen their assessment rates for property in their

community raised by 400,500 and 600 percent over the previous year. Now

we're increasing the rural property taxes by 20 percent.

number of the ministers who aren't in the House right now who went up

to Dease Lake would have known and understood these problems if they

would have stayed for longer than a half hour, meeting with the

community of Dease Lake and having a sandwich.

On to my old

friend, Highways. Paving construction is down by 41 percent. Road

construction and improvements are down by $16 million. Another aspect

is the air transportation assistance program, down by $2 million. I

wonder what effect these cutbacks will have on the north. As the

minister is quite aware from his travels on Highway 37, more money

needs to be put into this budget increase in service areas in the

northern parts of this province.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a

budget that penalizes northern residents through cutbacks in service,

restraints on public servants, service employees' salaries, increase in

rural property taxes and highway construction cutbacks. I won't be

supporting this budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're kidding.

MR. PASSARELL: That Minister of Municipal Affairs is quick.

Mr.

Speaker, once again, for the minister's understanding, as a northern

MLA I won't be supporting this budget. Hopefully the Premier will have

enough guts in this....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

Oh, I'll be sitting on the opposite side of the House as this party

forms government, once the Premier gets enough guts and drops the writ.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: You've got to be a lawyer, Mr. Member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty).

I'd like to leave my eminent friends across with this closing thought from the Atlin Ragtime newspaper. It's a little

article from the Sun shine Magazine .

AN HON. MEMBER: Written by Passarell.

MR. PASSARELL: No, it isn't, sir. Maybe if you read the newspapers every once in a while....

would like to read it. I think this is directed right to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), after seeing those

gorgeous pictures of that $2 million house he is building on the

southern part of the Island and another $100,000 house further up

north. The minister of real estate here....

"Ancient

Persia had a quick method of dealing with the inequalities of

property-holding among its people. In the year A.D. 996 that country

was visited by a devastating famine in which hundreds of thousands of

people died from hunger, while the possessions of the rich were far in

excess of their needs. The ruler, named Agu, proclaimed that for every

poor man who died of starvation, a rich person would be executed.

Therefore no one starved."

Thoughts for you, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And there we have socialist philosophy: kill them off if they accomplish something.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear my colleague call that socialist

philosophy, because I'm afraid I didn't detect either any thing or any

philosophy in that presentation. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that it's

not often I feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett),

but I have felt lately, and certainly since we came into this House and

listened to the debate, that he certainly has a lot of problems.

They're after his hide; they're split on leadership, on policy and on

positions. But to hear the threat that we've heard just now, the Leader

of the Opposition must be quaking to think that not only might he have

to go through an election with that member, but should he — and he

won't — but should he ever even in his own mind contemplate forming the

cabinet, to have that member in the cabinet! It's almost enough, Mr.

Speaker, to make you feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition.

He's

a nice young man, Mr. Speaker, but as I listen to him and I listen very

intently, as we always do — and as I got the reports that came back

from the economic development committee time in the Atlin area, I have

to say with all charitableness: no wonder he has never been a success

in his life. He simply can't understand that (

a) in life you have to

understand what life is about; (

b) it doesn't matter what your

education is, but you have to know how to work and you have to be

willing to work; and (c), above all, Mr. Speaker, mountains have been

moved by small people because they were positive. I have never yet seen

anything built by a knocker and by a negative person. That young man,

if he cares about his constituents, would do best to resign, because he

offers them no leadership, no constructive thoughts and no positive

representation in this Legislature. I would suggest he is not really a

credit to the NDP members at large.

Having come down here

last week with a great deal of enthusiasm for this session of the

Legislature and hoping to hear, as a minister. along with our

colleagues, some constructive suggestions from the opposition, to get a

feeling

[ Page 6930 ]

that

maybe the people of British Columbia could have some confidence in the

opposition — while they may not support this party or all of its

policies, that there would be representation for them in this

Legislature by responsible, prudent and factual people....

Unfortunately

we're all disappointed — and I believe, somewhat shocked — to find in

what complete disarray we find them; to find a continuing split on all

the policy positions they're taking; to find them making untrue

statements not only in this House but outside the House; to find them

so cynical, so terribly cynical. What has happened to what enthusiasm

there was in the NDP? A few of them used to have enthusiasm, but we

can't even see that. We've been treated — if that's the word — these

last few days to a lack of constructive thought in terms of acceptance

or criticism or discussion of the budget.

We've had no

positive suggestions in terms of what policies they might place before

the people, nor have we had any sense that within themselves they're

gaining in confidence in their own representation and their policy

development for the future. I suggest that this is very frightening for

the people of British Columbia and is really little short of an insult

to the traditions of this Legislature, and to the taxpayers who are

supporting them, as their representatives, in this Legislature.

Mr.

Speaker, I also must call to your attention the concern that the media

of the interior has in relation to that foolish, very foolish — if I

can be charitable — move by the NDP on opening day. We can stay here in

Victoria or in Vancouver and suggest that it was a travesty for

democracy. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the people outside of

the metropolitan area know what this is about for the first time. For

the first time, our interior media had an opportunity to plug into a

system whereby the traditional televising of the budget debate would be

available to them — not as the CBC or BCTV, who have always had the

privileged position, want to transmit it to them, but as it was taking

place, for their use in their selected way as they saw fit within their

charter areas.

Mr. Speaker, they are deeply disappointed and

very concerned, but feel that this, of course, is just one of the

classic types of moves that the NDP make. They don't seem to want the

people of the interior to know what their positions are. They don't

want the people of the interior to have an opportunity to learn totally

and freely what's going on in the province, and they don't want the

people in the interior to have free access to the media. It is this

government and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

who are bringing freedom of the airways into reality in British

Columbia. And what help has he had from the opposition?

The

example on opening day is very classic, but I must bring it to your

attention because the people in the interior asked me to mention it.

Mr.

Speaker, I also was very interested to note, in speaking to this

budget, which I feel is designed so that many will make minor

concessions so that a few won't have to carry the full burden of any

corrections that we must make — any stabilization that we must make in

British Columbia due to international economic circumstances.... In

listening to the debate, I think that we can now understand why the

people of Newfoundland have, in our headlines today....

mentioned that we've listened here in this Legislature to nothing

positive, to lack of confidence, to pie-in-the-sky suggestions. I have

to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland, who have very

serious problems — much more serious than ours — found they couldn't

afford the NDP and their pie-in-the-sky ideas, and they threw them out,

just as the people in British Columbia, after three years, found they

could not afford the NDP and threw them out. You cannot afford this NDP

anywhere, in any jurisdiction, unless you are very wealthy and are

prepared to put them in to squander for three years.

The

people out there who are members of their party are asking: "What

happened?" What happened to the idealism of the true socialists? What

happened to those policies that were melded together when the CCF

joined with the NDP in British Columbia to try and offer an alternative

— not born out of despair, not born out of a quest for power, but born

out of a sincere effort in their own philosophies and a belief in their

own philosophies?

What has happened to that party today, Mr.

Speaker? What has happened to those socialist people who went into this

with true heartfelt intent, when they find today they have a party that

is in a quest for power, whose word cannot be trusted, whose statement

after statement must be questioned for authenticity?

Mr.

Speaker, the people in the area that I represent are asking me why

they, if they believe in their union, if they want membership in their

union, should be in the position where they're finding themselves being

forced, through this party's leadership, to betray their own personal

political feelings. They don't like being forced by their union to

contribute to a political party, and they've asked me to bring this to

your attention, Mr. Speaker. They want to know why their affinity with

a union cannot be their choice, why their affinity as far as politics

are concerned cannot be their choice, why they cannot contribute freely

as they choose, and why they have to suffer harassment if they don't

want to follow the particular political affiliation of a few wildly

outspoken and somewhat radical labour leaders who are in bed with one

of the leaders of the B.C. NDP, and who are on a quest for power.

Kinniard and King — what a beautiful combination if you don't believe

in justice. They're not concerned about the true rights and

responsibilities of the average member of a union in British Columbia.

All they ask is their right to their union membership, to their

political affiliation, to a secret ballot and to freedom of expression,

whether at home, socially or on the job, and they ask not to have to

fear harassment because of those political expressions.

was mentioning and intend to mention a little more the confusion in

which the people of British Columbia find themselves when they listen

to the NDP. Do you wonder why they can't understand what their policies

are? Do you wonder why members will stand up in this House and pretend

to support or lean as if they are supporting a position for development

in this province and then say something different in their own riding?

have an example in Port Alberni, which is a one-industry town, as we

all know. It is a community and a riding in which this government,

through many ministries, including this ministry, has tried to help the

people design a new and wider economic base for themselves. Their own

city member has little more on his mind than a special self-supporting

alternate fuel development. When one of the future leaders of the NDP

opposition, the member-in-waiting for Coquitlam, went over and was

asked in Alberni if the NDP government would take over the mills if

they were shut down, he said they'd have to develop and manage it on an

individual basis.

[ Page 6931 ]

Their

own representative, a member of the NDP, said yes, they would take it

over. The current leader of the NDP has said quite clearly that the

socialist government would take over all natural resources if they

could be socialized. The people in Port Alberni are wondering just what

the policies of that opposition party are. They know the policies of

this government. They know that while their own member does not stress

any opportunities to broaden their economic base, this government is

working to assist them to broaden their economic base, and that we have

a plan.

It is important that the people of this province

know some of the suggestions that are coming out of the NDP conventions

in relation to their policies. I would just like to recite two or three

of them from the NDP convention in 1981, when the Capilano NDP said

they would mandate gas rationing throughout Canada. Is that a great,

positive policy for energy resource management in Canada and a great

policy for the development of tourism? I don't think so. I wonder if

the people of British Columbia know that Mission–Port Moody is calling

for massive naturalization of resource extraction, processing and

distribution. This is from the riding of the leader-in-waiting from

Coquitlam. That fits in with the Leader of the Opposition, who has made

it very clear in Ottawa, if not in British Columbia, that he does stand

for the nationalization of our natural resources, providing they are

socialized. Then, of course, the Vancouver Centre one would give UIC

entitlement to self-employed artists.

These are just tiny

examples of the consistent and continuing irresponsibility, lack of

planning and absolutely unaccountable policies of the NDP government. I

would like to recite another one for you that was presented, along with

many others, by the Leader of the Opposition in British Columbia. As

you know, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the health

critic, has been proposing a number of health programs for which there

has been no accountability in terms of dollars. In the last few weeks

we have heard of program after program for which there is no dollar

accountability. The one I would like to take as an example is when the

Leader of the Opposition proposed his $1 billion fund to assist

housing. That report states that the provincial government, if the

Leader of the Opposition were Premier, would immediately pump $1

billion into a fund to provide mortgages at 13 or 14 percent for

first-time home buyers. The money to subsidize such a program would

come from an added penny or two on the price of booze, so he said. He

said another penny on booze wouldn't hurt anybody.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, an analysis will show us that between 15,000 and 17,000

first-time home buyers come into the housing market each year. One

billion dollars would provide $50,000 mortgages to 20,000 people, so

the amount of the suggested fund is not too realistic, but bear in mind

that that would be $1 billion each year, as proposed by the Leader of

the Opposition. If we look at his proposed manner of funding we see

that from August 1980 through July 1981 the social service tax revenue

on liquor sold in the province was approximately $65 million. In order

to increase this amount by $1 billion per year we would have to

increase these revenues 16 1/7 times. As a result of this, Mr. Speaker,

the social service tax on liquor would have to increase from 7 percent

to 115.5 percent.

The credibility of the Leader of the

Opposition's programming comes into question many times. In terms of

his housing development program and proposal, it comes into question

when you realize that his source of revenue for his proposal would

increase one tax on one product from 7 percent to 115.5 percent per

year. That would mean that the tax on a $10 bottle of Scotch would

increase from the present 70 cents to $11.55.

Mr. Speaker,

this is what the people of British Columbia are concerned about in

terms of this opposition and the policies — or lack of policies — that

are being put forward. This is why the credibility of the opposition is

very much at stake, and this is why you can't seem to trust anything

that the opposition or the Leader of the Opposition say.

I'd

like to talk for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about tourism in British

Columbia. Once again we have an example of what happened to this

province when we had a fledgling tourism industry and the philosophy

and policies of the NDP came into effect. First of all, they blatantly

told the tourists to go home. I have a series of articles, which I

won't bring to your attention now, all headlining cabinet ministers who

told the tourists to go home. The then minister, a very nice gentleman,

effective in his portfolio, said that he would study the situation. Now

that I look through the records I find that he studied, and then he

studied the studies, and then he studied the studies again. There were

no policies and there was no planning not only for the province as a

whole but certainly for tourism.

Mr. Speaker, the capital

investment of the private sector in tourism in British Columbia under

the NDP went from approximately $39 million in 1973 to $33 million in

1975. So it dropped under the NDP from $39 million to $33 million. As

near as we can guess, the capital investment solely in the private

sector and all over the province under Social Credit and our policies

for tourism have gone from $19 million in 1975 to $52 million in 1980.

That does not include any of the major projects that are on the drawing

board at this time. The multiplicity of new hotels, not only in the

lower mainland but in all parts of the province — whether it's the

Peace River, the North Island, the Central Island, the Okanagan, the

Kootenays or the lower mainland.... It went from $39 million to $33

million under the NDP, and from $19 million to $45 million in capital

investment in the private sector in tourism in this province in 1979.

Do you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the tourism industry becomes

frightened and very anxious when they hear the NDP talk about tourism

as part of their interest?

Mr. Speaker, what did they do for

tourism? Well, not very much. They did decide that once they got out of

government they should learn more about this industry, and they made

their venture into what they call the hotel business. I would like to

bring to your attention the concern that was expressed by this side of

the House. First of all, how could a political party that was

government be involved in a business in which they were to be the

arbitrator, the catalyst and the mediator? However, the tourism

industry needn't worry, because not only did that party show their true

colours when they decided they wanted to go into business and show how

it was done, but they stood up and said that if it weren't for their

office hotel complex in downtown Nanaimo, the downtown core of Nanaimo

would die.

Mr. Speaker, after exceptions made for zoning

regulations, after exceptions made in terms of requesting the city to

give them special privileges for the design of the building,

[ Page 6932 ]

and

the poor judgment displayed designing a highrise building for a hotel

right on the waterfront — with the exception of the road, which would

preclude any development behind them in terms of tourist development,

or any developments behind them in terms of living and any view of the

waterfront — they asked the city to come together with them and develop

a common parkade, because in their eagerness to get into business they

hadn't acquired enough property to meet the requirements of the city.

After they were given all these concessions for the Hilton Hotel of

Comrades in Nanaimo, they then found they still couldn't, if you'll

pardon the expression, get it off the ground.

So then they

tried to go into negotiations with a major international chain, which

again concerned the tourism industry. How could a political party that

had wanted to be government, that couldn't make a success of business

itself, call upon an international chain and become a partner with that

international chain and still be able to adjudicate an industry within

this province on a fair and equitable basis? To this day their

adjudication can't be without bias, even though they're in opposition.

go by that development project quite often, as I do many others, and it

is just amazing. The other day I went by and looked, and I thought, my

goodness, the NDP have done a wonderful thing: they've combined with

the city of Nanaimo to develop a reflecting pool in the downtown core

as part of the redevelopment program. You can imagine my horror, Mr.

Speaker, when I found that it was much deeper. I looked and I thought,

no, it must be a swimming pool. But when I got up close, I found that

it was an excavation with no foundations, full of water.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the city of Nanaimo was forced to give the NDP an

ultimatum that either they proceed with their development or come to

terms with the city. In the meantime, what is most interesting to note

is that in spite of the NDP and their predictions, and their major

effort to revitalize the downtown core of Nanaimo, it has not died. In

fact, Nanaimo, in cooperation with this government, is developing a

thriving industrial base.

Mr. Speaker, tourism in British

Columbia under this government has this year reached an all-time peak.

With the philosophy of this government, the philosophy of the free

enterprise system, the work and energy of the industry in cooperation

with our ministry, and with the type of research, development and

planning needed in this province, which is shared by all ministries in

this government — and which could have been the opportunity of that

party when it was in government — we have brought tourism to the point

where our skills see us with our goal of $2 billion in revenues reached

this year.

We also have seen over the last three or four

years an increase in employment in the tourism industry from 65,000 to

75,000 people directly employed in this province. These are jobs, and

we in this industry can provide more opportunity for more people to

work with a greater variety of skills than any other industry possible.

That is our objective, Mr. Speaker: to develop tourism in British

Columbia; to create not only more jobs, but also more opportunities for

professional careers in this industry.

When the NDP were in

opposition, one of their ministers described those working in jobs in

the tourism industry as menial, as demeaned. We don't feel that. The

industry and this government feel that jobs in the tourism industry are

jobs to be proud of. We have a very professional group of people in

those 75,000 employees. Instead of knocking the industry, as the NDP

did, this ministry and this government came forth with a program — the

"Good Show" program — that has seen all people at all levels in our

industry develop a sense of pride in their work, pride in their job,

pride in their industry and pride in themselves, and a feeling of

professionalism about their jobs, about our industry and about their

future.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen a major increase in capital

investment by the private sector in our industry. The objectives which

we will carry forth this year will be to, among other things, increase

tourism revenues, increase travel to British Columbia by non-residents,

increase travel by British Columbians within British Columbia, increase

the duration of visits in British Columbia, improve facilities and

services and hospitality for our tourists, encourage the development of

four-season travel, promote British Columbia as a convention and

incentive-travel destination, and develop the film industry in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, every member in this House, every

section of this province, every individual in this province has an

opportunity to share in that development and to share in those rewards.

They will be possible because of the type of budget that we're debating

here today, which, of course, I'm supporting. Because the Minister of

Finance's budget has brought down the type of prudent and confident

management and leadership that this province and this economy must have

so that our industry, along with its talents, can see itself remain as

one of the major industries in which a person can find a job and a

career, but even more importantly, in which a person who has an idea,

who will give service and who will work, can get into his own

business.... Approximately 98 percent of our tourism industry in

British Columbia is family- and independently owned; we have only about

2 percent chains. We are determined, and this budget will assist us in

seeing that those opportunities are there for the future of our

citizens.

Mr. Speaker, it should be put on the record that

the yearly revenues for our industry are in excess of $700 per person —

man, woman or child — in this province now. We are one of the cleanest

industries; we offer great social advantages to our citizens; we offer

a great variety of opportunity for them, both for investment and for

recreation. We offer an opportunity for the development of cultural

activities, because tourists like to attend functions. A little theatre

or a music appreciation group, a private person who is a magician —

people who have something to share — whatever part of the province

they're in, they will tie into the tourist industry and can have the

opportunity of inviting tourists to attend. Not only will they have an

audience, which is sometimes rare on those occasions, but the tourist

is quite prepared to pay an admission fee. So not only can we see this

opportunity for testing cultural activities or our own talents with an

audience or having the fun of performing, but we can see cultural

activities developing a great deal of economic independence in the

province.

I would also like to draw it to your attention,

Mr. Speaker, that these revenues from the tourism industry — and we

market with maximum effectiveness with a minimum amount of dollars —

are the dollars that help provide the hospitals, the schools and the

human resource services to the people in this province. You will see in

examining the budget that that opportunity and that goal are very clear

for this coming year and for the future,

[ Page 6933 ]

I'd

like to mention just for a moment the trade and convention centre which

will be going ahead in British Columbia and which will be of tremendous

advantage to our own citizens. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that even

right here this afternoon we have heard members of the opposition speak

against such a development. There seems to be no understanding on their

part that you don't create jobs out of thin air, that you don't take

money and create a job for five days and consider yourself doing

anything to develop security for people. You develop productive

programs that have social and economic value and which can have a

rippling effect, not only for people but for investment throughout the

province. That's how you create jobs.

We've seen many of the

opposition being against the trade and convention centre. Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to put it on the record for those members who are still

against it or who play both sides against the middle and say one thing

in the Legislature or in the lower mainland — and we have a list of

these — and then go into the other parts of the province and say

something different. I would also like to draw to the attention of the

member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who was so depressed in his

presentation and who hasn't offered his constituents any positive

facts, what he can do for his constituents. The management of Pier B-C

estimates that there will be $642 million in revenue over five years

from the pier. The pier revenues pay $61 million to British Columbia

over those five years in direct taxes. The pier itself will pay $116

million to Ottawa in direct taxes in five years. Mr. Speaker, our

ministry has been very pleased to be involved in booking events for the

trade and convention centre, and we have approximately 130 which we

believe will move on and be part of that development.

think, Mr. Speaker, we have to remember the magnitude of the economic

benefits associated with the centre, but also realize that it is

difficult to estimate precisely what and where they will be. We

understand that there will be construction employment directly at the

centre as well as around the province, because other parts of the

tourism industry, other parts of the trade and convention interests,

will benefit, as they start to develop in the province. There will be

direct employment in the tourism and hospitality industries, not only

in Vancouver but around the province. There will be direct employment

in related supply industries. Over $100 million in annual expenditures

will be made in this province through that centre by the delegates and

their families during trade shows and conventions. That doesn't include

the spending by those families or those individual delegates at pre-

and post-convention meetings or pre- and post-convention holidays in

other parts of the province.

There will be over $50 million

in annual expenditures in that area. On top of this there will be

additional dollars of provincial tax revenues each year, through income

tax, through sales tax and through hotel tax. There will be millions of

additional dollars in federal tax revenues each year through

manufacturing taxes, through personal income taxes, corporate income

taxes, excise tax, harbour fees, and extra trade revenues from trade

shows. Of course, the city of Vancouver will benefit directly in

property taxes and business taxes, not just from the trade and

convention centre itself and not just from Transpo itself, but from all

the other capital investments that will come from all the other jobs

that will be created because of these two microprojects. Much of this

will flow to other parts of the province. I am not at liberty to

divulge details at this time, but there are millions of dollars not

only on the drawing board, but nearing completion of their planning,

for tourist facilities in Vancouver at this time. That will increase as

we move on to Transpo and to the fruition of our complex over the next

five years.

There are also millions of dollars in the

planning stage to develop capital construction again in other parts of

the province, because the great thing about our industry is that the

people, as I mentioned, who have a desire, who have a plan, who have a

willingness to work, who will give good service can develop hotels,

motels and restaurants around the province. But also the effect of this

investment will reach such people as cleaners in Fort St. John, shoe

repair people, people we don't traditionally think of as being in the

tourist industry. They will all benefit, and they will create jobs, and

again there will be room for other types of capital investment.

relation to the centre itself, I would like to suggest that

accommodation should bring in about $55 million directly to Vancouver;

meals, $45 million; retail businesses, $30 million; and entertainment,

$30 million.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to talk about my own

constituency, North Okanagan, which I have the honour to represent, but

time is passing and other members want to take

part in the debate.

would like to say in closing that the people of North Okanagan,

including our teachers who've listened to the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Smith) with great interest and are very pleased at the

suggestions that he has been making in terms of education in the future

in British Columbia, understand that part of the government's policy —

whether it's at the municipal level locally in the North Okanagan,

whether it's local school boards or hospitals or the teachers

themselves — is designed to assist all our citizens. It is designed to

assist as much the teachers themselves, to keep them all employed,

productive and sharing in the economy.

The response in our

area to the budget has been very positive from all levels. My

constituents have asked me to support the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), and naturally I intend to. The North Okanagan has seen

unprecedented growth over the last few years. We've seen the

development of two forestry research silviculture stations: one a

combination of private enterprise and government under the Ministry of

Forests and the other one a direct provincial government forestry

development. My constituents have seen the development of a brand new

regional college and an addition before it was opened, which was all

paid for by the provincial government. They see the development of an

ambulance centre in our downtown core. They are witnessing and taking

part in the development of our hospital — both acute-care and annex

extended-care. It is the largest contract that has ever been issued in

the North Okanagan — $27 million. They have seen responsible road

development and private-sector business development and have shared in

a stable economy of this province to see major private housing

development in the North Okanagan. They support this government and

they applaud this budget.

In closing, I would like to refer

to what the Minister of Finance said in his opening statement.

Essentially the budget framework for 1982 is one of restraint, but it

is restraint with a difference. It is restraint that serves the goals

of fairness and equity among all British Columbians. It is restraint

which serves the goals of continued financial responsibility in

government. It is restraint that creates rather than suppresses

opportunity by allowing us to do more with less and, I would add, by

challenging us all as citizens to be responsible and

[ Page 6934 ]

fair, to share and work together in the spirit of British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I take my place.... [Applause.]

I hope I will get the same applause at the end of my speech.

would like to start off and continue in this somewhat humorous vein,

but when one has to follow the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan),

who brought this House to a new low in debate, I find it very difficult

to remain humorous. I don't think this is the place to indulge in

personal invective, so I wish to say nothing more in reference to that.

that minister also did take some licence in moving off the debate on

the budget, I hope you will indulge me for just a couple of minutes to

do so and also respond to a couple of remarks she made which were

directed at this party. As she placed in Hansard just a few

moments ago the fact that the majority of the NDP members were not here

earning their money, I would like to make a point for Hansard

also. The majority of the NDP members who are not sitting in here at

this moment are in their offices trying to attend with volumes of mail

and delegations of people across this province who have had enough of

this government.

MS. BROWN: She's so stupid she can't even count.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. The hon. member for Burnaby North has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: The other comment referred to television, and I think I would like to place something in Hansard

that may straighten up some of the shall I say distortions that are

coming from that side of the House regarding the NDP action on the

opening day of the budget.

The NDP has believed for many

years that the whole proceedings of this House should be televised, as

in almost every other jurisdiction in Canada and, of course, in the

Mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, I think the public

should be aware of the fact that what the NDP was against on opening

day was an edited version of the proceedings. In other words, we did

not see why the television cameras could not feature the whole

proceedings, including whatever the opposition have to say, and

hopefully the public then would have a balanced view through the

Legislature of its proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, surely that is

only fair. We will continue to point out to the people of British

Columbia that we are not afraid to have our speeches recorded, so why

is the Social Credit afraid to have the NDP members televised as they

make their speeches? Apparently they only wish to see themselves

recorded for the province.

I will leave that now and get to

the budget, Mr. Speaker. When I analyze a budget, I always try to keep

it in simple terms, as I'm basically a simple person when it comes to

figures. I look at the people who have come into my office in the last

several years — and particularly in the last year — and I look at the

problems that they bring to me as their MLA. Then I look at this budget

and I ask myself if, when I go back to Burnaby North following this

budget, I can give any hope to those people that the budget brought

down by the Social Credit government in 1982 is going to give them some

hope that their problems will be relieved to some degree.

one expects any government, let alone the Social Credit government, to

perform miracles in these times. We're quite aware of the situation of

the economy which has many worldwide repercussions. So we cannot hold

this government entirely responsible. But surely, Mr. Speaker, as

members of the opposition we have a right and a duty to say to the

people of B.C. that we have analyzed this budget and we must point out

that we do not feel the present government is really capable of

producing a budget which will meet some of the basic needs of people

even in a time of great economic strain. I think of the people who come

into my office wanting work, particularly young people, Mr. Speaker, as

I know you must have in your riding, and I look at senior citizens, who

want to get out of apartments where the rents are getting enormously

high, and they have no place else to go. I say to myself, what has the

Social Credit budget done for them?

Well, when it comes to

jobs, housing and general cost increases, I really have to say that

this budget has failed miserably. The budget, once again, was read

admirably — may I say, superbly — by the Minister of Finance, but once

again it appears to be a budget that has far more style than substance.

a matter of fact, it was a masterful, miraculous budget when it comes

to the whole area of juggling and balancing figures around. It may have

a few moments of good PR, there may have been some good show-biz with

it for a while, but really when we get right down to it, as a logger

said on the CBC the day after the budget came out, "all I know is I

don't see that it's doing anything for me."

Therefore, we

have to say to ourselves, why not? What is wrong with this budget?

First of all, it's always a matter of priorities, isn't it? We have to

look not only at this year but at the history of the Social Credit

government since they assumed office, which seems interminable not only

to me but to many other people.

What have they done since

they assumed office that perhaps could have prevented some of the

tragedies that I see in my office every day and that I'm sure you do,

Mr. Speaker? One thing that certainly stands out is that this obsession

with balancing the budget seems to take over everything else. I believe

it was a Minister of Finance under the Labour government in England who

said — and I'm paraphrasing — let's get away from this obsession with

balancing the budget and let's look at balancing the whole economy.

Anyone

who sat in here yesterday and listened to our financial critic would be

well aware that to say the budget is balanced and then completely

ignore the fact of the tremendous debt, where over $2 billion more is

going to have to be borrowed, and get assent from this House to prop up

our Crown corporations.... Sure, it's in the books, but then why stand

up as Minister of Finance and say: "We have kept this budget balanced.

We are not incurring debt. We don't believe in debt." Yet everyone in

this House and many other people in the province know that the debt

outside of the general operating is growing enormously.

If I

may just repeat the point our speaker made yesterday on that, he said

that first thing one should note, despite what the Minister of Finance

said, is that the total spending under the Social Credit since the NDP

was in office has increased from slightly over $3 billion to almost

$7.6 billion. This is the government that is supposed to have been so

much more businesslike than an NDP government. Mr. Speaker, all you

have to do is look at the facts.

[ Page 6935 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There

has been a phenomenal growth in government spending under that Social

Credit government. In fact, the compound annual growth rate over the

past seven years, as pointed out by our opposition critic, has been

13.65 percent. That means that government spending has far exceeded the

compound growth rate in inflation. In fact, 144.8 percent compares with

an approximate increase of 90 percent in the consumer price index

during that period. I'm sure that government will go on the campaign

platform individually as members and say: "We must keep down government

spending. You don't want back that NDP." The irony of it is that

government spending, particularly in ministries that aren't really

benefiting anyone except that government's own image, has increased

enormously. The biggest growth in that government has really been in

those ministries which provide service to government itself. We're

trying to think, as we analyze the budget: is that helping the average

citizen? This is what we're all here for.

Well, let's see

what they've done for the average citizen in the last year. When they

go out and do their hotlines and so on, I really find it most

interesting when they're patting themselves on the back, saying: "We

brought in a budget without any increased taxes this year." Let's take

a look at some of the taxes that have been imposed by the Social Credit

government on the people of B.C. during the last year. Let's look at

the percentage increases. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the health

premiums and user fees in medicare have gone up 21 percent? Are you

aware that Pharmacare premiums have gone up 21.7 percent? If you have

to go into an acute-care hospital today there has been an increase of

15.4 percent. Are you aware that if you need emergency care, it has

gone up 100 percent?

I notice Mr. Speaker is resting his

head. I'm sure you're saying to yourself: "Is that really a fact?" It

is, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province have had these enormous

increases imposed upon them by that government during the last year. We

have ambulance fees going up 13.6 percent. We can go on and on. You can

look anywhere. Even to get married now you have to pay more; the

licence fee has gone up for marriage.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY:

Against marriage, I suppose. They're certainly not encouraging people.

Divorces have gone down. Miners' certificates are up. This is the group

that says they want to encourage mining. The Mineral Act: even for

recording documents, it's gone up 100 percent. Petroleum and Natural

Gas Act: increases in the drilling and production regulations are up

100 percent. It goes on and on and on. To get your motor licence and

licence plate there has been an increase of 38 percent; there's an

increase of 100 percent just to get your driver's licence. We accept

that as times march on certain things must go up. But the point I'm

trying to make here is that there has been a political falsehood

perpetuated by that government over there when they try to say to the

people of the province: "Look how good we are; we have not raised

taxes." At the same time they have placed upon the people of B.C. these

enormous user fees in almost everything, the services are going down.

So where is the balance there? Why is it necessary to put these

enormous increases on the citizens of B.C., who at the same time see

very little increased servicing?

I think that particularly

shows in the whole area of bus transit. The cost to ride a bus now, as

you know — I don't know of anybody in this place except the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who was attempting to drive a

bus on television the other night, so maybe he knows — is 75 cents for

a ride, even if you go a block. I thought it was very apt that someone

said: "Okay, we'll pay the 75 cents if we've got something to show for

it." But instead of increased service, the service has become worse

under Social Credit.

That Minister of Municipal Affairs not

only is arrogant, totalitarian and autocratic, but he is also causing

one of the biggest extravagances that any government has ever been

faced with, and that is in the whole area of his little pet baby ALRT.

I can't understand how the Premier, who is now in his seat, and the

Minister of Finance allowed that minister to get away with this massive

extravagance to play around with a little baby of his own. I'd cancel

it today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the bon. member please give me an opportunity to silence the House. One member at a time, hon. members.

MRS. DAILLY:

I think that for the money we've spent to date, and for what it's going

to cost us for this baby of that minister's, it might be better to stop

it right now. I ask the Premier to please take hold of that minister

and realize that he could be your albatross if you allow him to

continue with this ridiculous expenditure for ALRT.

Before

we get into the cost of it, remember how he brought it about. The GVRD

didn't want it. They were involved in very important studies for their

own area. Do you know what he said? He said: "We haven't got any time."

We don't have time for democracy. He doesn't have time for local

autonomy. That minister has decided to override everything.

I’ll

try to relate this to the budget. Why I'm speaking on this particularly

is that this government, who claim that they have to squeeze everything

out of the individual, particularly the lower income, because of the

economic mess we're in today, at the same time have allowed that

minister to embark on one of the most extravagant transit systems we

have ever seen. Millions of dollars are going for him to indulge

himself in something he thinks may help save him. I don't know from

what, though, because I think he's going to have great difficulty in

his own riding anyway.

Just to make my point a little

clearer, do you know that the latest estimates put the cost of a line

from Vancouver to New Westminster — just 21.4 kilometres — at $718

million? It is expected to reach that by 1986. Even if the costs don't

escalate, which we're sure they will, we will be paying almost $34

million per kilometre for that minister's pet project which he rammed

down the throats of the members of the GVRD. The Premier and the

Minister of Finance have allowed that minister to do it. It makes one

wonder why.

Just to compare figures, remember I said that it

would cost $34 million per kilometre. Do you know what Edmonton — I

hope the Premier is listening — completed their system for? They built

7.2 kilometres for $65 million. Calgary opened the first 12-kilometre

leg of its rapid transit system last May at a cost of $167 million.

That means that Edmonton paid about $9 million per kilometre for their

system and Calgary paid about $14 million.

[ Page 6936 ]

Even

if times were great and affluent, and money was pouring into their

coffers, one would have to question this extravagance. But can you

imagine? At a time when the schools are being told to cut back, school

boards are being warned that they have to watch their money and the

Premier brings in this restraint program for schools and public

servants, that member can go ahead and waste money on a system that

hasn't even been proved.

I'm not going to get into that

area, because I know our critic from Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer)

will be dealing with that extensively. I am particularly bringing this

up because, when this government says that everybody has to pull in and

watch themselves during this and that restraints are being put on

everyone, I want to know why no restraint was put on that minister.

That is my question to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance.

The

thing that has always troubled me greatly about this government — it

really hasn't changed too much from the days of the old Socred

government; they may have a few new faces and so on.... You notice that

when they're in difficulty the first thing to go are the services to

people who really need them. Yet the big megaprojects still continue. I

know we hear that line about, "Oh, but it's only through those projects

we will get money and the economy stimulated," but we can't really

answer whether that is correct or not because, as members of the

opposition, we have never been given an opportunity to fully sit down

with that government and go over the figures of northeast coal or the

other megaprojects. Look at B.C. Place. It is being rammed down the

throats of Vancouver city council with a great deal of arrogance. They

want a certain kind of housing. B.C. Place officials, through this

government, are insisting that it has to be their way.

If we

didn't doubt, we wouldn't be doing our job in the opposition here. That

is our role — to doubt for the people of B.C. The people of B.C. are

full of doubt about your government, Mr. Premier. This talk about

negative, negative, over and over again.... Unfortunately we don't have

time right here to deal with that, but there will come a time out there

on the platform when we will.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will come to order.

MRS. DAILLY:

All I am saying is: how can we really judge the value of these

megaprojects unless we as opposition have been included in the basic

discussions and know exactly what the costs are? Until that government

decides to treat the opposition in our role as we are — perhaps — in

the Crown corporations committee, which is a good example of where both

parties can sit down and analyze what is going on in Crown

corporations.... Why cannot we do that with things such as northeast

coal? I am just saying that if that government would set up that kind

of an all-party committee, perhaps some of the criticism would go, or

perhaps they would listen to us and we could come forward with some

positive ideas. But that is not being done, and therefore the people of

B.C. are not being truly given the correct picture. They are only given

what comes through the PR mouthpieces of the Premier's office.

What

we want to do is to be able to give them accurate figures on the costs

of these major projects. I don't see why certain people should be

singled out in this economy to be restrained when that government can

go ahead without any restraint in many areas. They have no right to

select a certain few groups for restraint, Mr. Speaker. Let's look at

their own restraint for a moment.

Travel budgets for Premier

Bennett and several of his cabinet ministers are well above — I am

quoting from the paper this morning — the government's spending

restraint guidelines. Isn't that great, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't think you did your own research.

MRS. DAILLY:

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) just said: "Why can't we do

our own research?" He missed my point a few minutes ago. I would like

very much to be able to sit down with that Minister of Highways and

help him with his policy.

I would like to get back to this

matter of travel. You know, really, to have the Premier go on

provincial television and tell people this is a time for restraint, and

yet we find that in his own office there has been very little

restraint.... If he wants everyone to set an example, he'd better set

the example first. The Premier's office has a travel budget 27 percent

above what was originally estimated for his office in the fiscal year

that ended March 31. The Minister of Finance, who just preached to the

whole province about restraint, gets 25 percent more for travel than

was originally estimated. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — can you imagine? — is going to get

another 59 percent more for trips. For what purpose? We've yet to find

out. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) — a 166 percent

increase, from $29,000 to $79,000, in his travel budget. At the same

time, out of the minister's office comes press release upon press

release telling the school boards and the teachers they'd better start

restraining themselves.

You know, a point is often made when

it comes to picking certain people out of our economy and singling them

out, as the Premier has done. I notice there has been a particular

point made by the Premier at times, Mr. Speaker, that the teachers have

security and so on and are not like people in the private sector who

can be laid off. I want to talk to the Premier about this for a moment.

I don't think that he can be aware that when the enrolments go down in

schools and schools are closed, which can happen not just because of

restraint but because of what's happened to the population.... Surely

he is aware that teachers have to be laid off anyway. Why should he try

to say that they never have to face that? He is not aware of that. You

are not aware of that, Mr. Premier. The teachers themselves often have

to face that. As you were saying, it's only faced in the private

marketplace. I'm sure we will have further debate on the restraint

program later this session.

There is one area that is very

difficult to discuss financially but I would really like to discuss it

because of the way the estimates were placed before us this year. I'm

very concerned about the whole area of day care, because I feel that if

there is one area this government really should be ashamed of, it's

their handling of day-care facilities in this province. Yet when one

looks at the estimates book it is very hard to break down how much

money has been given for day care this year. We are hoping that when

the estimates come we can get that from the Minister, but I just want

to make a couple of points on it.

[ Page 6937 ]

am bringing day care up at this time because it symbolizes to me the

weaknesses in the priorities of the Social Credit government. They have

sat back for the last five or six years doing very little about

increasing day-care centres in this province. Then suddenly the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) decides that most

single parents with babies over six months old should go back to work.

She has said that they should go back to work and put them in day care.

Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker, when for years the Minister of

Human Resources and the Minister of Tourism, who just took her seat,

have never endorsed day care. As a matter of fact, I remember way back

in 1967 when the Minister of Tourism, who was then a Minister Without

Portfolio, actually accused me, when I brought up the need for day care

in the province in those years, of wanting to brainwash all the

children of this province through the state. With that kind of an

attitude prevailing from that government it's no wonder that it wasn't

until the NDP came into power that we finally saw a real commitment to

the importance of day care.

Yet we have a budget brought

down and from reading it we are unable to say whether the services to

children, particularly in this vital area, are going to be increased.

As you know, more and more women are having to go to work — if they can

find work — to help out with the income when their husbands are not

working and vice versa. The husband is staying home so the wife can go

to work. At times day care — in fact many times — is essential, but

this government throws these women out. "No more welfare. Put your

child in day care." Yet they have done nothing about day care. That is

what seems to be symbolic of a government that doesn't seem to have any

real concept or real commitment to looking at the needs of people ahead

of trying to do a massive PR job to get elected.

Speaking of

that, Mr. Speaker, we notice again that the whole area of public

relations is still there and strong. Well over $20 million was spent to

promote this government's image for a future election, whenever it will

be. What about the whole matter of the government propaganda sheet,

"B.C. Today"? Are those issues going to be cut down at a time of

restraint? I think if we had heard the Minister of Finance refer to

cutbacks in those areas we might have said to ourselves, maybe they are

finally beginning to get the picture. There are more important things

out there than just building up your own PR. If you still emphasize

money for public relations first, it means you are more interested in

getting re-elected than in serving the needs of the people today.

could go on for a long time on the matter of jobs. The member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford) will be speaking on this in later debates and certainly

spoke on it yesterday.

It's interesting to note that despite

all the PR hype about this increased money for jobs in the budget, part

of that money has been brought together by simply amalgamating

job-creation programs from different departments. So again, as somebody

said, it is not really a straight budget; it is more a budget that is

questionable in its honesty. As far as the NDP is concerned, Mr.

Speaker, it most certainly does not give hope to the people out there

who are suffering from lack of housing, lack of jobs and unnecessary

cost increases imposed by their own government.

Mr. Speaker,

I hope I will have an opportunity to speak later, particularly in the

area of housing, which I consider to be one of the biggest disgraces of

this whole government throughout their whole tenure. I am looking

forward to getting into that debate later.

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the thousands

around this province who agree wholeheartedly with the budget brought

in by the Minister of Finance the day before yesterday. I would like to

personally congratulate the minister for producing a budget that is

truly in tune with the times, a budget that is in touch with reality

and does not have to make irresponsible promises, as is done

continually by the members opposite — promises such as buying up all

the mills and putting everyone back to work. It is a budget that goes a

long way toward ensuring that thousands of British Columbians will have

the opportunity to work. There will be 9,000 new jobs through special

funding provisions alone, 40,000 new jobs due to the foresight and

planning of this government, planning and bringing to reality projects

such as northeast coal, B.C. Place, Expo 86, Pier B-C and the new light

rapid transit system for the lower mainland — all projects which are

very necessary for our province and projects which will ensure these

thousands of jobs for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this

budget is in tune not only with the times but with the people of

British Columbia. It treats all British Columbians equally, with

special favours to none. It asks all of us to show a little restraint

to get us through these difficult economic times. It gives high

priority to those ministries that require additional funding, such as

the GAIN program, long-term care and of course the family services

mentioned in the minister's budget. These social programs will not be

held to the government's 12 percent restraint guidelines. This budget

also reduces spending in some ministries that are better able to manage

with less during these difficult times; they will be kept below the 12

percent guideline. But it does share the tax burden on private homes

equitably throughout the province; in fact, many homeowners will pay

less in the coming year due to the new educational tax formula.

Mr.

Speaker, it is much easier to run a government or a business when the

economy is buoyant than when it is not. When times are tough, some

tough decisions have to be made. Some tough decisions were made in this

budget, Mr. Speaker, but they were made fairly and with common sense

and foresight. They were made to provide the stimulation necessary to

create employment and to get us through the current period of recession

without asking British Columbians to accept less than the level of

service to which they have become accustomed. The decisions that were

made were made to ensure that no one in this province would share the

hardship of restraint any more than anyone else. I think the most

important aspect of all, Mr. Speaker, is that everything in this budget

— and it is considerable — will be done without additional borrowing

and without running this province deeply into debt and leaving that

legacy for our children.

The message I'm getting from the

majority of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, is: "Thank God we've got the

government we have in Victoria." Like me they shudder to think what

would happen if we had the NDP with their irresponsible policies, at

the controls of government. They would undoubtedly borrow this province

to the brink of bankruptcy and probably beyond. One has only to total

up the cost of some of their suggestions to see that with them at the

helm we would be hopelessly in debt in a very short period of time

without any doubt.

While I'm on the subject of

responsibility — or the lack of it — I cannot help, like several of my

colleagues, but point out the example that they showed the people of

British Co-

[ Page 6938 ]

lumbia

a couple of days ago in this House when they refused to permit the

taxpayers of this province to view the budget speech live, as is their

traditional right. But far beyond playing their little political games

of which they are so fond, they questioned the integrity of the Speaker

and of the Clerks of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have only

been in this House a short time, a far shorter time than many of them

over there, so I'm not as experienced in the ways of this House, nor

probably as articulate as many of them — or as I would like to be. But

the other day in this House I was embarrassed by their performance. I

was embarrassed to sit through their display with all of our invited

guests. It is the first time in my short tenure in this Legislature

that I have truly been embarrassed.

Interjection.

MR. RICHMOND: I guess I was only slightly embarrassed before, but the other day I was very deeply embarrassed.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to think that either the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) or the Leader of the Opposition or, surely, some member from

that party would stand in his place today and apologize to you and the

Clerks who work so hard on our behalf. Surely, I think one of them must

feel as embarrassed about what was said as I do. But I have my doubts.

In fact, I feel fairly certain, Mr. Speaker, that that will not happen.

So on behalf of the members of this House, and just simply as a

parliamentarian who is supposed to show leadership to the people of

this province, I am offering my sincerest apologies to you, Mr.

Speaker, the Clerks and the technicians for what happened here the

other day, and I trust you will accept this in the spirit that it is

given.

My constituency, like many others — like most others,

I suppose — is suffering in spite of the diversity of the industries in

that constituency and in our area. It is suffering along with the rest

of the province. The people who work in the industries in the

constituency of Kamloops don't have to be told or reminded that the

markets are tough. They know it. They also don't need the irresponsible

promises that come from the Leader of the Opposition when he's in my

constituency. And they don't need the so-called committees travelling

around this province holding out false hopes and magic solutions —

committees thinly disguised, I might add, as a committee of this House.

What

the people of my constituency are looking for is what they got, a

budget of which one businessman said to me: "I couldn't have written it

better myself." They needed and received a budget that shows leadership

and restraint, a budget that is truly in touch with the times and with

the people of this province.

My colleague from

Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) mentioned several companies that

will be employing thousands of people in the northeast because of this