1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 4571

Mr. Passarell –– 4573

Mr. Ritchie –– 4574

Mr. Nicolson –– 4576

Mr. Lorimer –– 4580

Motion 16.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4584

Mr. Howard –– 4584

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4584

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday as we concluded the debate for the day I spent

some time speaking about the benefits to flow to British Columbia as a

result of this government's investment on behalf of the people in the

development of a tremendous resource-rich area covering about 10,000

square miles. We believe that the benefits flowing from northeast coal

development will not only benefit people in that area but reach through

all sectors of British Columbia, and Canada for that matter, and create

tremendous industrial development throughout the country. The negative

socialists opposite, of course, are always afraid to take any

initiative. They don't have enough faith in the people or the resources

of British Columbia to push ahead to develop things which people need.

The

development of that northeast coal is going to provide some tremendous

opportunities for the young people of this province to be gainfully

employed in a number of vocations and professions, and help us to

develop another frontier in our province. Some of the members opposite

are complaining that we're having B.C. Rail build an extension of their

railway into the coal-producing area, saying: "You shut down the Dease

Lake extension a few years ago: why are you doing this?" Well, that

party, when they were government, had no qualms whatsoever about

continuing the extension of a railway when, in fact, they had

eliminated the very reason for that railway to be extended. By the very

onerous mining legislation of their period in government they killed

the need for the railway, and then continued to build it in any event.

We will be building a railway into an area where there is a very well

assured freight commodity of coal. It will open up some other

tremendous resources as well.

The budget that our Minister

of Finance has brought in is a budget which pays for today's services

today and which provides for tremendous investments to assure our

future.

The socialists will complain that we are increasing

our gasoline tax. They have complained that it is an onerous tax, even

though we are making provision for refunding of taxes to those people

who can least afford them. But at the same time as the socialists are

saying that we shouldn't increase our gasoline tax in British Columbia

to provide services for the people of British Columbia, they are in bed

with the Liberal government which is increasing taxes in Canada so that

funds can be exported to Saudi Arabia, Mexico and many oil-producing

countries. It is of no concern to them that our Canadian tax dollars

are being used to subsidize high-priced oil imports which come into

this country as the dollars go out.

That party opposite is demanding that we increase services and the cost of

government in various areas and, at the same time, not increase taxes. If you

increase services, or even maintain them, without increasing taxes as the costs

of services increase, there is only one possible answer. That answer, of course,

is deficit financing — paying for today's services tomorrow — and leaving

that tax bill to future generations of British Columbians. That's the way

their partners in Ottawa operate — deficit financing, providing services today

and putting off the bill until tomorrow. Well, if governments continued on

that slippery path, at some point in time all of the tax revenue that could be

collected in this country would be going to pay for past services, and there

would be no revenue to pay for today's services.

our friend John Crosbie mentioned in the House of Commons a few days

ago, the red rump of the Liberal Party, the NDP, is bent on bankrupting

our country through deficit financing — buying votes today and not

making the people of Canada realize that every dollar that government

spends has to be collected. They would just as soon collect them

tomorrow and reap the political benefits of those expenditures today.

The

amendment to our budget debate, which was concluded yesterday, said

that this was an expedient budget. Yes, it is expedient. It's those

things which should be done — the right things. The things that are not

politically expedient for political expediency would mean that we would

not pay for today's services today but would pay for them at some

future time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I see we're having a bit of chatter from our brilliant member from the

north part of our province. As usual, he has nothing to say when he

stands in his place and continues to chatter across the floor in the

House.

Mr. Speaker, I remember a couple of days ago when the Premier was speaking

on the amendment, and he was remarking on the lack of colleges in the interior

of British Columbia when he was younger. There was a lack of that type of community

service for people in the interior. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) shouted across the floor: "It's a pity you didn't attend

college." Now, that is typical of the attitudes of those members. They

profess that they're all for the working man, and yet that member for Vancouver

Centre, who is seldom in this Legislature, sneers down his nose at someone who

didn't go to college and doesn't chase ambulances for a living. The

Premier has produced in this province and is running the best government that

we've ever had in this province. The type of people whom I have the greatest

respect for are those who go out and create and cause things to happen

either in the business community or in the trades and the professions that produce.

I have no more respect for any one in this world than I have for good, honest,

hard-working tradesmen. The mechanics, machinists, electricians, pipefitters

and the people who put together the industrial machinery are the people who

make this province go, and members opposite, such as the member for Vancouver

Centre, sneer down their noses because somebody didn't go to college.

It's shocking!

a part of the building of our resources, many members have talked

extensively about the northeast coal. Members on this side have done so

in a very positive manner, knowing what benefits will flow to British

Columbia as a result of this resource development. Of course, the

members opposite have done so in their true negative socialist approach

saying that it can't help the people of British Columbia, that it would

be of no benefit and that it will cost us money. I'd like to talk for a

few moments about another investment that is being made in the future

of British Columbia, and that is the moneys which are allocated through

the Minister of Finance

[ Page 4572 ]

my ministry to invest in our forest resource in British Columbia. The

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) stood up yesterday and said: "Those

members don't talk about their ministries' programs or their

ministries' budgets." He berated us for addressing things which are of

general importance to the people of British Columbia. But let me

address just for a few moments some of the things that will be

happening and have happened in my ministry as a part of our investment

in the future of this province.

A few days ago I introduced

our second five-year management program into the Legislature, which has

been approved and endorsed by the government. This program is the

second of annually required five-year management programs. Last year we

indicated to the people of British Columbia in this program that we

would be spending over the next five years, starting then, about $1.4

billion in investments in the forest resource. I'm very happy that this

year we have raised our sights and for the next five-year period we

have increased our objectives rather dramatically, and our investment

in the forest resource — through my budget expenditures directly,

through our

section 88 investments via the industry, and through moneys

provided through our Forest and Range Resource Fund — has been

increased again very substantially up to $1.8 billion over the next

five-year period.

This will mean that during that period of

time we will increase our capability of producing plantable seedlings

in this province from a level this year of about 97 million seedling

nursery capacity to 150 million plantable seedlings by the year

1985-86. This last year, Mr. Speaker, we planted for the first time

ever 75 million seedlings in this province and within five years we

will have doubled that capacity through the cooperation of my ministry,

the government and the private sector in British Columbia.

will be increasing the area that we plant in backlog reforestation —

areas which have not satisfactorily restocked through natural means —

from over 8,000 to over 41,000 hectares a year. We will be fertilizing

by that time about 40,000 hectares of forest land every year, as

compared to our plan this year of about 16,000. We'll be increasing our

thinning, our spacing, our fertilization, our planting — all of those

things which make our forests produce more fibre for our tremendous

forest industry in British Columbia. That is an investment in the

future, one that is recognized as necessary by our government.

know the forestry critic in the NDP, the socialist party opposite, will

stand up and say: "Why aren't you doing more? Why aren't you spending

more money? Why aren't you expanding at a more rapid rate?" We are

expanding at the rate at which money can be effectively spent and

invested in a forest resource. I always smile when he stands up and

says that, because nothing was done for the management or future of

that resource while his government was in office and had responsibility

for it. Yet he stands up each day that he has an opportunity and says:

"You're not doing enough; you should be doing more and more." Yes, we

will be doing more, but we'll be doing more as we develop the

capability and the knowledge of our forests so that we can do it

effectively.

Every cubic metre of wood that is harvested in

British Columbia provides exports valued at $70, labour income of about

$30 and about $9 in direct government revenue, and, of course, it is

responsible for the generation of about half our total government

because of the activity in that industry. Our harvesting program over

the next five years, which will be paid for by moneys allocated to my

ministry, including this year's budget, will maintain a level of

harvesting of about what we've had in past years. It will maintain our

ranching industry, our forage production and the number of cattle we

can graze at about the level we have now, with modest increases as we

invest more money in that range resource. But the real thrust of what

we're doing is in the programs for silviculture, for the ongoing and

intensive management of that forest resource over the next five years.

As I've said, this will amount to $1.8 billion of investment in our

future. I know that we'll have an opportunity during my estimates to

discuss, at great length, our program and the things that have been and

will be happening, and I sincerely hope that we'll have some meaningful

discussion about resource management in B.C.

As an

incidental benefit to all this investment in the forest resource.... I

don't think that many people in this Legislature realize that as we

invest in this forest resource we're creating a tremendous number of

jobs each year as we do that forest management work. By the year

1985-86 we will have increased our level of employment in the forestry

industry — not the forest-harvesting industry — to about 4,000 people.

There will be the equivalent of 4,000 people employed full-time in

forest management. That in itself is a tremendous benefit to the people

of British Columbia.

Our budget, which I am very happy and

proud to support, is a realistic budget. It pays for today's expenses

today; it doesn't leave a debt for our children in the future. Not only

does it pay for today's expenses today, but it provides for tremendous

investment in the future so that our economy will continue to grow and

expand as people move to this province as they recognize the

opportunities here. I am proud that our government is able to do that.

I am proud to be a British Columbian.

I am sure we all agree

that this is the most attractive part of Canada to live in. There are

more opportunities here for people. There are more recreational

opportunities in British Columbia. The scenic beauty of this province

cannot be matched anywhere in the world. Our major industries of

mining, forestry and tourism provide tremendous opportunities for

employment and for businessmen, for our elderly and our young people.

But it only does that because we have managed the affairs of British

Columbia in such a way that we can afford to make those investments for

the future and we can afford to pay for today's services today.

you had it any other way you would be running up the type of debt that

is taking place right now in the province of Quebec, where in an

election year they have chosen not to pay as they go, not to be

realistic with the people of their province. They are running a deficit

which, if translated into an equivalent budget in British Columbia,

would mean that we in this province would be running a $1 billion

deficit. If we ran a $1 billion deficit in British Columbia for three,

four or five years, our deficit would soon begin to amount to our total

provincial budget. Socialists perhaps believe that is the way to go:

spend today to gain votes and favour with the people, and don't let

them know that those bills have to be paid. That's not the way our

government operates, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased and

happy to support our Minister of Finance and the very realistic budget

that he has brought forward. As I have said, it is a budget that pays

for today today and provides investment for the future, so that the

young people growing up in British Columbia today can look forward with

confidence to having employment and business

[ Page

4573 ]

opportunities as they enter the workforce and the

adult world. Anyone who is at all realistic about what is happening in

North America and British Columbia must support this budget. I think it

would be a shame if people stand in this place and vote against it,

suggesting, perhaps, that we increase services and reduce taxes and

thus leave a legacy of debt repayment for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I will support this budget.

MR. PASSARELL: A happy St. Patrick's Day to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other members of the House.

Mr.

Speaker, this government has shown a total disrespect for the residents

of this province with this punitive budget that was brought down a few

weeks ago. We've heard the criticism from the opposite side concerning

what cuts this party would make. A good example to start off with would

be the use of government aircraft by Crown ministers.

Millions

of dollars are going to pay Crown ministers to fly around this

province. The amount from the last tabling of the logs was 1,389

flights a year. It appears this government doesn't need a light rapid

transit system; it's already got one in the commuter system of

government aircraft shuttling back and forth from Vancouver to Victoria

daily for some cabinet ministers. This is one of the most expensive

light rapid transit systems — and it's for 200 people in the province,

when you start taking into account cabinet ministers and their

assistants flying back and forth from Victoria to Vancouver to be sure

they hit dinner in the evening, as well as making the bingo meetings in

the evening. If you want to cut spending, cut down on some of the

cabinet ministers flying back and forth daily.

Second is the

government's use of commercial aircraft to fly around the world. It

would be a good example to start cutting back on flights over to Asia

at $100,000 a trip. It costs $100,000 to fly over to Asia to visit four

or five countries.

MR. BARNES: What does it cost to go home for dinner by jet?

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, it costs about $200 to $300 a night to go home for dinner over in Vancouver.

also see hydro increases. Last year they were $704 million; this year,

$950 million. Why is that? Is it because of the Stikine-Iskut dam

system that this government wants to put in at $7.6 billion, which is a

total waste of money? It will cost $7.6 billion for the entire complex

of the Stikine-Iskut. Just a few weeks ago this government was denied

the access roads into the dam by the Lands department. This was a

victory for many northern residents who are opposed to the building of

this dam, which would flood the Grand Canyon of Canada simply to sell

cheap power. Hydro's debt borrowing right now is approximately $8.3

billion. There has to be a total cutdown on the use of hydro and the

total waste of money that it's going through. We've seen another

example of the waste of money in Hydro in the awarding of the contract

for the gas pipeline to them over Westcoast Transmission.

Another topic that I would like to talk about is Amax. Never has a government

been so callous and short-sighted in using backroom politics as it has been

with the Amax issue by awarding two special permits to allow Amax to dump 100

million tonnes of toxic mine waste into an area of the ocean where the Nishga

fish for food. It has shown a definite lack of concern for the Nishga livelihoods

and for the other coastal communities in that area who use the fish from Alice

Arm–Kitsault for food.

was interesting to note that Amax has received an award from President

Reagan for being one of the best environmental firms in the western

hemisphere. This is a total joke. Giving Amax an award for

environmental safety is almost like giving Jack the Ripper the Nobel

peace prize. It's shown to be a poor corporate citizen in 16 countries

right across the world. It has destroyed land and has had no feeling

for the aboriginal people of the area it went into, specifically

Australia, and here this government, along with their friends in the

federal government who practised backroom politics by giving Amax a

permit in 1979 during an election campaign, has allowed it two special

permits. It is interesting to note too that the previous member for

Atlin has finally come out in the press attacking his own government

over the Amax issue.

Another issue is the sales tax

increase. We see that gasoline tax is going up by 42 percent, sales tax

by 50 percent and hotel tax by 20 percent. All in all this is causing

deep concern for many residents across this province. Bruce Pepper,

president of the Vancouver Board of Trade, stated in the Province

newspaper: "B.C. is one of the few places where a hotel tax is charged

and also increased. It can only be considered a further detriment to

tourism." We'll find out what effect it will have on the tourist trade

in the north when people have to start paying an additional 42 percent

for gas and 20 percent for hotel taxes. Also, we found that the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who is not in the House right

now, has put out a very poor brochure on the north, and I've contacted

the hon. minister to correct the brochure.

The other day the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) stood in his place and said that

the north subsidizes the south. I wonder if it's a subsidization for

B.C. Place. What he forgot to state is that very little comes back to

the north. We looked at Dease Lake, a community of 400 people who still

have no medical facility in this province. For two years I've been

asking the government to put in some type of a trailer, at a cost of

$15,000 so that the people in Dease Lake can have some type of facility

to go to if they're hurt. The callous approach by this government has

been to totally ignore the people of Dease Lake. They talk about

financing Stikine-Iskut projects at $7.6 billion, coal deals at

billions of dollars, but they can't find $15,000 so an isolated

community like Dease Lake can have a medical trailer facility.

Another

group this budget has ignored is the public health nurses. Last year

the community of Cassiar had a full-time public health nurse who worked

in a trailer. Then the government went and built a new government

building in Cassiar which many people are pleased with, including

myself, and I congratulate the government for building the new

facility. But what's happened since then is that Cassiar now only has a

public health nurse for four days a week in the new building. When she

was in an old trailer she was there all month. Now she's got a new

building and they've cut back her time to four days. This definitely

has to be changed. There's a total need for public health nurses right

across the north. The rural health corps also wasn't mentioned in the

budget speech. There was a big hoopla about it in the throne speech,

but since then we've heard nothing concerning the rural health corps.

It almost seems that this is another public relations gimmick.

There

is a definite need for full-time public health nurses in the Atlin

constituency as well as in the Peace constituency, and right through

the north.

Mr. Ken Bell, who is the editor of the business

section in one of the Vancouver newspapers, stated that personal in-

[ Page 4574 ]

come

tax is expected to go up a healthy 15.9 percent, rising to $1.578

billion. I haven't heard too many government members stand up and say

this is going to encourage northern residents who, besides having to

pay the additional sales tax, fuel taxes and hotel taxes, are now

finding their personal income taxes are going up 15.9 percent. We've

seen that in the last year ICBC rates in the north have increased over

60 percent, and at the same time ICBC rates go up we still have to

content ourselves with very poor highways up in the Atlin constituency.

The

British Columbia corporate tax is now the highest in Canada. I wonder

what kind of incentive this is going to be for development in the north.

All

in all, British Columbians will have to pay 35.5 percent more this year

in the way of personal, corporate, sales and fuel taxes. It seems that

it's simply to finance the northeast coal scam. In a sense it appears

that the people of this province are going to have to bankrupt

themselves to pay off the Japanese steel companies through this coal

deal. If this isn't the case I certainly hope that the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will stand

in his place and table all the documents and agreements, so the public

of this province can see exactly what this government has gotten us

into with this coal deal.

I certainly would like some

answers to some of these questions. Specifically, why can't the

government cut back on their 1,389 flights a year on the government

aircraft? The millions of dollars that are wasted on that seem a little

excessive. Also, why can't the residents of Dease Lake get a medical

facility for 400 people who are isolated, while this government is

talking about surpluses?

MR. RITCHIE: The previous

member talked about a waste of money by this government. I would

suggest that after having listened to their performance and watched the

interest, attention and attendance of the opposition members, that they

have to be the greatest waste of money in this province. The member

condemns promoting trade, and I wonder just where exactly we would be

in this world if we stopped promoting trade. I think it's about time

they broadened their views, started to think in terms other than

socialistic approaches to looking after the affairs of the province and

providing the necessary programs that we wish to provide. I would like

to refer them to the

article that appeared, just recently, in the Globe and Mail . The

article says:

"British

Columbia's Social Credit government certainly has the courage of its

convictions. Unlike most Canadian governments it has balanced budgets

and, to continue this record, Finance minister Hugh Curtis has, among

other things, raised the provincial sales tax from 4 percent to 6

percent — still 1 percent lower than Ontario's — and will spend $26

million to retire more of the debt piled up by the New Democrats while

they were briefly in power.

"At the same time there will be new income tax credits for

40 percent of B.C. families, a drop in tax for small businesses, tax benefits

for people who buy fuel-efficient cars, and big investments in new coalfields

that will provide many jobs. A government that is not spending huge parts of

its revenues to pay interest on its public debt can afford to create jobs."

As back-bench members, we've been taunted for not getting up to speak.

We have been accused of not being able to read. We've been accused of not

understanding balance sheets. I can sum that up by merely saying that there

is absolutely no substitute for truth, integrity or plain common sense.

would like at this moment to just do a little reminiscing and possibly

go over some of the records of the NDP. I'd like to compare the 1975

budget with that for 1981. It shows that people programs, especially in

Health, were less of a priority in the NDP government than they are in

the current government — by far. The NDP Health budget in 1975 was $712

million or 22 percent of the budget. The Health budget in 1981 is

$1,975 million, almost three times the NDP budget and 30 percent of the

provincial budget. The budget in 1975 for people programs in general

was $2,309 million or 68 percent of the total. The budget for people

programs in 1981 is $4,795 million or 72 percent of the total, and more

than double the NDP budget.

Economic programs have taken 16

percent of the budgets of both governments. I'd like to emphasize that,

because it seems to me that the greatest criticism our government is

getting is that we are spending too much money in areas other than

people programs. I consider that to be hypocritical and nothing else.

Aid

to local government in 1975 totalled $147 million or 4.3 percent of the

budget. Aid to local government in 1981 is $383 million or 5.8 percent

of the budget.

Then, of course, we have the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber), who said that the NDP are proud of not building

monuments. He said that they didn't leave us monuments. Well, I have a

few monuments I'd like to talk about. The ombudsman — they didn't leave

that. They promised it, but they didn't leave it. They promised an

auditor-general but they didn't leave that. A natural gas pipeline to

Vancouver Island — they promised it, but they didn't do anything about

it. Denticare was promised, and nothing was done. Aid to independent

schools, a massive five-year reforestation program — nothing done by

them. Apprenticeship training — nothing done. Crown land for

agriculture — nothing done. A balanced budget — impossible under their

administration. A triple-A credit rating, a moratorium on uranium

exploration — nothing done. The Knowledge Network of the West,

Discovery Parks. No, they didn't leave very many monuments of that type.

I'm

going to talk about a few monuments they did leave. The first one I

have here is the $180 million ICBC debt. That is a monument that they

left, but no $25 car insurance. We were promised $25 car insurance; the

folks of British Columbia were promised that. What did they get? They

got a $180 million debt.

Then, of course, we have the $261 million budget debt of Dunhill Development Corporation, but no mortgage program.

How about Tilbury Island's 700 acres of class 1 agricultural land?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

Our agricultural expert over there, who is so proud and so confident in

the way he attacks this government on our administration of the whole

question of the preservation of agricultural land.... You don't talk

about that monument, Mr. Member. That was 700 acres of land that was

not class 2, 3, 4, 5, but class 1 land. That was a monument left by the

NDP.

[ Page 4575 ]

Then

we have another monument. Unfortunately, I have to look at it almost

every day when I am at home. It is known as the Stirling farm. Here is

another farm with prime agricultural land. They wanted out of the

reserve, but the NDP said: "No, we can't do that, but we'll tell you

what we will do. We'll let you build houses on it anyway, if that will

keep you happy." Today we have the oldest, finest farm in Matsqui

Prairie that has been built on but is still within the ALR. Now who is

kidding whom here? What is it you're trying to do — control people on

the land, or preserve our ability to feed ourselves? I think you should

get off your high horse, smarten up and realize what we're really

intending to do. You don't preserve agricultural land just because you

have it in the reserve, and especially if you build houses on it.

Emigration

is another monument. People were leaving this province at a terrific

rate. We didn't have any real problems with housing then. We had a

totally demoralized mining industry because of the foolish royalty

formula. In 1975, 1,000,865 man-days were lost through strikes and

lockouts. That's four times the 1980 figure. Then, of course, we have

that member for Vancouver Centre who told his people that he cannot

agree with free collective bargaining. That's true. It has been

recorded by one of our major newspapers.

How about this

other monument? Railwest rolling stock — an $8 million blunder. Then we

have the other monuments, known as Can-Cel, Plateau Mills, Panco

Poultry, Kootenay Forest Products, Ocean Falls Corporation, Swan Valley

Foods, Imperial Tours, and B.C. Parlour Car Tours. These are the

entries that the NDP government made into the private sector in order

to generate the funds that they're going to need to pay for these

massive programs that we must provide for our people. And you're going

to be able to do it with such things as Panco Poultry and B.C. Parlour

Car Tours?

Then, of course, there were the natural gas contracts with no take-or-pay clause, costing British Columbia millions of dollars.

could also talk about monuments that they would have left, had they

been left in power: loss of provincial revenue from energy resources,

in exchange for nationalization by Ottawa. That's a very frightening

situation indeed, as we see what is happening throughout Canada today

under the federal government. We would have ended up with second-class

status in Confederation under Broadbent's deal with Trudeau on the

amending formula. Who is supporting Trudeau? Well, Broadbent is

supporting Trudeau.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Trubent and Broadeau, he says.

Broadbent

is supporting Trudeau. The NDP federal caucus is supporting Trudeau.

And the B.C. NDP caucus, as the records will show from our debate and

our vote in December, is also supporting Trudeau. It's frightening

indeed.

But then there is hope as I go down the list of

those who are opposed to Mr. Trudeau. We have the Saskatchewan NDP

government, Lorne Nystrom and three NDP Members of Parliament from

Saskatchewan, Grant Notley of the Alberta NDP, the Quebec NDP, the

Manitoba NDP, and the thing that gives me greatest hope of all: the

rank and file of the B.C. NDP — according to Yvonne Cocke, who has been

getting calls almost three to one against Broadbent. That gives me a

great deal of hope that things will come out as they should.

talk about monuments. This is an area where I find it very difficult to

really comprehend or understand what on earth they have in mind,

because I have heard nothing but criticism with respect to the proposed

trade and convention centre and hotel — all the terrible damage it is

going to do to the scenery and to the views, and all the rest of it.

Then we hear of a massive development going to take place in Nanaimo,

apparently, under the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. How

hypocritical can you get? You are saying: "No, don't do it. Don't do as

we do, do as we say." I think that is something we are going to learn a

great deal more about as time goes on, because as I look at it I find

it gets more interesting. To think that the socialist party of this

province is now saying: "It’s all right for us to do in Nanaimo what we

don't want you to do in Vancouver, because this is going to generate

funds for us. We're going to build ourselves a monument here that will

have rooms that are going to cost a great deal more than the average

working man can afford." I'm wondering if the average working person,

if they decide they'll have their conventions in Nanaimo, will be able

to afford the rooms that are going to be provided by the socialist

party there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I doubt it.

MR. RITCHIE:

Yes. I doubt it too. I don't think they will. In any case, we're going

to be taking a pretty close look at it, and as I look at it I find it

more interesting, day by day. They talk about low-cost housing. The

member for Vancouver Centre talked about the poor children, the sick,

the handicapped and the unemployed, while in the meantime they're

promoting the pack-rats to provide the funds that will enable them to

build a monument to the socialist party of British Columbia that's

going to be so rich, so costly and so dominating in that whole area

that the average person, the average working man, will not be able to

benefit from it.

Then, of course, the other monument that we

could have had was the bank known in the past as Barrett's bank, B.C.

Savings and Trust. I can just imagine what would have happened there,

Mr. Speaker, had that been allowed to go ahead, because my experience

with the opposition party tells me that they were prepared to go in and

undercut, as they did in Panco Poultry when they went in and overbid

local producers in order to acquire that facility. They would have done

the same thing here as far as the credit unions are concerned and had

that been allowed to go ahead, I think it would have spelled the end of

credit unions in British Columbia. I can tell you that this government

doesn't believe in going that route at all; we believe in strengthening

the credit unions of British Columbia. That was demonstrated by the

$200 million that this government provided for housing, and we asked

the credit unions to look after that and administer it. That's a lot

better, Mr. Speaker, than turning around and setting up a

government-controlled institute that would have put them out of

business without a question or doubt.

Then, of course, the

other monument that we could have had would have been brown-outs,

because that party over there had absolutely no serious interest in

developing new sources of energy for British Columbia. We'd have been

in dire trouble today. They're true reactionaries! Then, of course, we

had the labour chaos here when they legislated 60,000 workers back to

work while two of their members voted against it. We had a complete

collapse of economic development — I like to call it lock-jaw

development.

[ Page 4576 ]

Yes,

remember when Bob Williams pushed Hat Creek, but the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is afraid to talk about it today. He doesn't

want Kamloops voters to realize that what the NDP really stand for is:

No Damned Progress at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that d-a-m or d-a-m-n?

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, I'm not very good at spelling. Like the first member for

Vancouver Centre said, I can't even read, so I'm not going to attempt

to spell that word.

Mr. Speaker, we also have the first

member for Vancouver Centre who stood up and told the students that

it's insane to buy stocks. He was predicting depression. Then he tells

business that he would tax profits, not production. How hypocritical

can you get? He turned right around against the free-collective

bargaining process and against his policy in respect to gaining the

revenue necessary to pay for the programs of the province, and now he's

talking about taxing profits.

Then, of course, there is the

question of the independent schools vote. We received the letter

distributed by that same member, saying that they would have provided

funding for independent schools if they were re-elected.

course, they're against the opening of the northeast coal with

subsidies, and yet they screamed when a BCR inquiry wanted to cut back

its northern extension. Pure opportunism and hypocrisy.

Mr.

Speaker, I could go on, but I would like to touch on a comment that was

made by another member over there who referred to this party as being

involved in coverups. I'd just like to touch on a few coverups that we

could consider that party was involved in. The first one is when the

Burnaby-Willingdon NDP tried to put up a PC candidate, but when he

found out that he was being used, he was through.

I have

another matter here. I'm not sure if it would be against the tax laws

of our land or not. I have a letter here that I'd like to read a

portion of into the record. It was written on April 9, 1979, by Norm

Nichols and concerns the campaign funds of a particular member at that

time. The body of the letter goes on to say: "The tax credit is

allowable for federal contributions only. So to be eligible, cheques

must be made payable to the New Democratic Party. Any such contribution

will be shared 25 percent to the federal NDP, 15 percent to the

provincial NDP and 60 percent to Rosemary's campaign."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that against the law?

MR. RITCHIE: I'm not sure whether that's against the law or not, but it's on record there. It will be interesting to find out if it is.

Then,

of course, we have heard this great criticism about the tax on gas

today. On February 28, 1975, the NDP imposed a 2-cent-per-gallon tax on

gasoline. They said the proceeds from this tax would go toward

subsidizing transit.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What transit?

MR. RITCHIE:

Good question. The government earned an additional $24 million from the

gas tax in the fiscal year 1975-1976, but what did they do with this

money? It's a big question. Not one cent went to the metropolitan

transit subsidy, which stayed at the same $2 million as the year

before. I don't know what they did with it. Maybe somebody will stand

up and tell us one of these days. The provincial rapid transit subsidy

was increased by $114,000 — less than one-half of 1 percent of the

revenue earned by the tax increase. I find it very difficult, Mr.

Speaker, to have to sit here and listen to all of that nonsense about

the bad things that this government is doing and how hard we are on the

people.

We also have another item here that I'd like to keep

on the record, because I think it is important to do so. I felt this

way when I first came into this House. Frankly, I would much prefer it

if the opposition would really give us something meaty to get our teeth

into in a way of a debate. If they would come up and offer us some

alternative or tell us what their platform is and what they really

stand for so that we could debate that.... They don't do that. All they

do is say: "No, no." Negative, negative, all the time.

reminds me of a true story, if I may. Just recently I attended a hockey

game in a city. During the event I found it necessary to attend the

boys' room. There was another fellow standing by in there, and I said

to him: "Hi. How are you doing?" He said: "Not bad." So a few seconds

later I said: "Well, it's been a beautiful day, eh?" He said: "Not bad,

if it weren't for the rain." I said: "But it's not raining; it hasn't

rained all day." He said: "No, but they're forecasting rain." So he was

feeling very pessimistic about that. It had been a beautiful day, but

the forecast said rain.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have anything

really meaty to get our teeth into here for a debate, any one of us.

You keep taunting the back-bench members for not getting up to speak.

We're proud of this budget. We find it hard to get up and debate with

people who are offering us nothing to debate on at all. So I have to

keep going back to the record to talk about some of the things they did

like the board interference with the Egg Marketing Board and the board

offering to make private deals with resource companies on their

royalties.

Of course, they falsely spread the fear of

right-to-work during the 1979 campaign, while at the same time they

really lambasted their member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) because

he showed respect for other people and welcomed that particular group

to his constituency.

I'm going to close by saying that in my

opinion this is a common sense budget. It's a budget that not only

provides for the programs of today, but it's making sure that there are

going to be investments for tomorrow so that we're not going to be

asking our children and grandchildren to pay for the benefits that

we've already enjoyed. It protects and expands people programs of

today. It protects and expands the government's revenue source for the

future. It does not place any unfair taxes on future generations. With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud, indeed, to support our Minister of

Finance on his budget.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm

not going to comment on the previous speaker's remarks other than to

say that it's probably the most constructive speech he has made in this

House to date.

Unlike the previous speaker I will not be

supporting this budget, because it is unnecessary in its severity,

punitive and discriminatory in terms of the areas where the burden of

increased taxation has to fall. From this side we have made many

positive contributions in terms of what one might have done. As the

member for Nelson-Creston, I would urge the government to recover the

funds which are set aside for B.C. Place, the downtown convention

centres and such things which all the people of B.C. are being asked to

pay for in

[ Page 4577 ]

specified

locations of the province. I would suggest that we should take the kind

of time and prudence in the planning of northeast coal that was

suggested by Mr. Sandy Peel, the deputy minister, in his memorandum,

and not rush ahead prematurely by six months into contracts,

entanglements and things which are going to be a burden on the people

of British Columbia. They are going to make the Columbia River Treaty,

of which we are the victims in the Kootenays, look good. I'm going to

have a little bit to say about northeast coal and southeast coal.

This

budget, in the first place, could have been written by a computer, I

suppose, not by a Minister of Finance. It didn't require a government

to write this, because the information base for this budget was not the

revenues or what would have the least impact on the economy — would a

regressive tax slow down the tourist industry, or would a regressive

tax do this or that? Do you know how this budget was designed and

crafted? Not with an impact study or any kind of economic analysis.

This is the least unpopular as designed by Mr. Martin Goldfarb of

Toronto — project number 807104 of the Canadian Polling Institute, as

it's more properly known. This poll was sent out around December and

was rushed to be submitted to the government in January. This is how

the budget was designed. Not how can we get the province moving — how,

if there really is a downturn in revenues as the government claims, can

we best adjust for that, but by just going out and sampling opinion,

saying:

"Which do you think is the most unpopular tax in British

Columbia today — income tax, sales tax, local property tax, tax on liquor, alcoholic

beverages, cigarettes, gasoline or other? Think for a moment of all the various

types of taxes you pay. If you could reduce taxes in one area and increase them

in another, which of the following taxes would be the ones you would reduce

and which ones would you increase?" Same list. "Please tell me whether you think each of the following

groups does or does not carry their fair share of the tax burden in British

Columbia and who do you think is carrying more than their fair share?"

Then they talk about the property owner, non-property owner, upper income earner,

middle income earner, lower, middle, small business, professional people — the

engineers, doctors and lawyers; let's get them — mining industry, forest industry,

farmers, tourism industry. We can start to see then what happened in this particular

budget and how it came out as such a hodgepodge.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They

test the water in terms of so-called balance billing or overbilling by

doctors in the medical profession: "Do you think that the provincial

government should permit or prohibit this practice?" This was last

December and January. They say:

"Suppose the

provincial government has to raise taxes substantially next year. Using

the numbers 1 through 16 I'd like you to rank these different taxation

alternatives from most to least desirable. Put 1 next to the

alternative you favour most and 2 next to the alternative you favour

second most, and so on."

Of course, it included all of the

various kinds of things such as a tax on soft drinks, entertainment,

luxury goods, restaurant meals over $10, on books and magazines,

increased health care and hospitalization premiums, elimination of the

subsidy for residents on natural gas, and so on.

Mr.

Speaker, we see that the government has designed this budget not

through careful economic planning, not through supply-side economics,

not through Friedman or Keynes or any other kind of economics, but

simply by pure Goldfarb-polling and collecting a very random sample of

opinion and looking at what is the most politically expedient way of

solving the problem, not that which will be the best way.

also indicates, of course, that the government might be having some

second thoughts. It says there has been talk about building a light

rapid transit system, or LRT system, in the greater Vancouver area. It

would be an above-ground rapid rail transit for commuters. "Do you

think Vancouver needs such a system or service?" "Which of the

following best describes how you feel about building LRT?" And so on.

What

I find rather interesting is question 6(a): "There has been some talk

about building a trade and convention centre in Vancouver." That's a

little bit of an understatement. "Do you think this would be a good

idea or not?" Note that we are talking about a Vancouver trade centre,

not a Victoria convention centre.

"If a trade and convention centre is to be built in Vancouver,

what proportion or percentage of the financing do you think each of the following

should contribute: the city of Vancouver, the provincial government, the federal

government?"

is not really fair, Mr. Speaker. We don't give the people a crash

course in how the government has shifted the onus of taxation onto

local government, and in how their ability to pay has been diminished,

particularly by the combined effect of increasing the statutory

mill-rate levy for school purposes, which has to be raised at the local

level, and increasing assessments at skyrocketing rates.

"Have

you ever heard anything about a proposed development for Vancouver,

called B.C. Place? Based on what you have read, do you want to see it

go ahead? Which of the following describes how you feel about B.C.

Place: It's an exciting and important project for Vancouver and B.C.

that will be worth the investment; it is neither particularly good nor

bad; it is an unnecessary project that is diverting government funds

from more needed areas or programs."

Well, Mr. Speaker, my

choice is number three. The convention centre, B.C. Place, the

60,000-seat colosseum — and the questions go on and on.

Mr.

Speaker, I would have liked to have seen the Minister of Finance table

with his budget the response that he got from the public through the

Goldfarb poll. If we had anything more than lip service toward open

government, anything more than creating something like a Crown

corporations committee and then doing our best to throttle it in its

efforts to get to the bottom of things, if the government was

responsible in the way that they spend government — and therefore

people's — funds and tax moneys, then we should all be able to share

this information, because this is the information that went into making

up this budget. If we are to be able to look at this properly, we would

be better prepared to vote.

I think it would be rather

interesting to know how the people in Fort St. John.... There is a

question in here which asks for the locality from which a person is

making his report. So there are different areas around the province —

Prince George, Prince Rupert and others. Mr. Speaker, I think that

would be a very interesting thing. It might be

[ Page 4578 ]

helpful

to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to know how his

particular region tended to feel about some of these big-ticket

projects.

So there are areas in which we could recover funds

for this year if, as the Minister of Finance says, this is just a

temporary lapse in revenues, and if this year is an anomaly. He says

the economy is booming, but we have no revenues.

Another

area we could go into would be what has happened in advertising

revenues. I recall making a speech in this House.... I haven't looked

up the figure, but as I recall, I think I added up all the advertising

expenditures. One thing we can do is we can increase revenues, but

another thing we could do would be to cut down expenditures, cut down

the size of big government. I think, if my memory serves, that back in

1975 if you added up all the advertising and publications votes of all

the different ministries you got up to about $1.5 million or $1.2

million, something of that nature. Just in this past year the total

increase over last year in advertising and publications for a failing

government has been 31.26 percent, and these advertising budgets have

been outstripping the general growth of budget and revenue every year,

to the point where now they're totalling $19.7 million. That's up from

a figure that, just going by memory, might very well have been less

than $1 million in 1975 and might have been about $1.2 million or $1.5

million. But I know the year I made that speech there was about a 60

percent or 80 percent growth in advertising budget. This year there's

over a 30 percent growth in advertising budget. There's a constructive

suggestion. You can't sell a turkey government, and it doesn't matter

if you spend $1 million or $31 million, it's money wasted. Stop trying

to sell yourselves; it's wasted money, millions and millions of dollars.

Look

at some of the ones they're trying to sell. They're trying to sell the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). His budget is going up from $398

million to $565 million when you add up all those separate little

areas. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) — there's a

challenge. He's having to increase his budget over a quarter of a

million dollars for advertising, up from $975,000 to $1,275,000. And,

of course, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. McClelland), that's going out of sight — up from $492,000 to

$736,000. The Ministry of Environment has gone from $614,000 to

$840,000. The list goes on. And, of course, that Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) is up from $721,000 to $1.2 million.

this is fiscal management I would go for the kind of a Treasury Board

that would say that those advertising budgets.... I would go for the

rather unimaginative approach which would say to give a 5 percent

increase this year and not a dime more. Frankly I say you should take

it back to the level, as a percentage of government, that it was in

1973-74-75. You should look at how much the budget has grown since then

and increase it by a proportionate amount. We would probably save

ourselves darned close to $20 million in that one area alone. That's

where we could save some money by not spending, not pouring money down

a rat-hole to bolster a failing government.

But the one area

that I find the most intriguing, maddening and infuriating is what this

government has lost for the people in British Columbia in the area of

coal revenues from the extracting of our metallurgical coal — a

non-renewable resource — and simply shipping that coal to a foreign

country to fire a highly technological and advanced modern economy. All

we're left with is the hole in the ground, and now we aren't even

charging a reasonable cost for the extraction of that non-renewable

resource. I think that at one time the Premier said he was very

interested in bringing back the constitution because it's one of the

last vestiges of colonialism. He says it, the Prime Minister says it,

everybody who's preoccupied with that particular issue says that it's

the last vestige of colonialism. How wrong they are; how sadly wrong

they are. We are digging ourselves more and more into being a colony

every day. And every day that this government is preoccupied with

simply getting raw materials out of the ground and shipping them out of

this country, we become much more than a vestige of colonialism; we

become one of the last bastions of colonialism.

Since coming

to office the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) has been preoccupied with northeast coal development. He

has ignored some of the beginnings that we have in high-tech industry

in this province — little companies that may employ 20 or 30 people,

companies that build highly sophisticated electronic equipment,

companies that have been using INTEL 6800 and 8080 microprocessors

since they were first invented in 1975 and 1976, little companies

around British Columbia that have kept up and struggled but had really

no help from government, only their own ingenuity. The Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development has not looked to the future;

he has looked to the past and he wants to create a demand prematurely

for export coal.

One of the prices we have had to pay for

that is a loss of $102.7 million to this date before the ink was even

dry on any contracts. The northeast coal has already cost $102.7

million, before this budget came down. Before the $48 million was put

into this budget we had already lost $102.7 million, simply because the

minister could not afford to index the tax, the royalty or the revenue

that we extracted from Kaiser and Fording coal in the southeast — could

not keep up with the increase in prices, and the prices have increased

quite handsomely.

The price per tonne and the profit per

tonne have gone up enormously. The price per tonne has grown very

predictably — along with inflation and along with a more

energy-conscious world — and yet government revenues have hardly been

adjusted. There was an adjustment all right; they changed from a strict

royalty base to another land tax and a complicated formula. In 1975 the

royalty on coal was about $1.50 a tonne, when the Alberta government

had already made provision for a sliding system of coal royalties which

would go up to a maximum of $9 per tonne, depending on site-specific

costs. We had announced a $2.50 price, which I think was to come into

effect in February or March of 1976. Surprisingly, throughout that

election campaign in 1975, when a lot of people were taking potshots at

the government which was going through an election campaign, this was

one company that did not say that the coal royalty was going to shut

down the coal industry in British Columbia. They accepted it; they

realized that it was realistic. When one looks at their profits per

tonne, which have been increasing along with the market price, which

has gone from $35 per tonne in 1975 to almost $60 per tonne by 1979 and

is slated to go to $68 a tonne this year.... We haven't looked at that

little $1.50 royalty and its successor, which is a slightly more

complicated way of raising about the same amount of money.

we had indexed and increased the coal royalty in keeping with the

increase in the market price of coal, we could have realized $102.7

million in increased revenues. I

[ Page 4579 ]

think

that for this year it could have added maybe another $40 million to the

budget in terms of revenues. This government has ignored obvious

sources of revenue which, if they were to analyze them and arrive at

them not by a public opinion poll, not by the mass — you know, not to

deprecate the intelligence.... This is sort of a cumulative ignorance.

You're

asking people who haven't had the information spread in front of them,

haven't had a chance to analyze trends over a number of years. You're

just asking people to make very snap judgments. Somebody arrives in

their living room and starts taking a poll, asking questions. He seems

like a very nice, personable young person, so they give answers. If you

had looked at coal and thought about it for a minute, you would realize

that what we do in terms of an eventual selling price, or profit to

something like Kaiser or Fording — if it does increase the price of

coal — is going to be a price which is going to be borne not here but

offshore. But what we are doing with our tax increases is directly

inflationary here in this province, and will also have depressing

effects on tourism and many other things. There is no analysis of that

type.

What I find even more galling about northeast coal and

the way that we have ignored this is that now that BCRIC has bought

Kaiser Resources, and now that BCRIC shares trade for 50 cents less on

the average than they did when they were put on the market two years

ago, and now that the government is desperate to see BCRIC turn some

kind of a profit and some day, before the next election, pay a dividend

to its shareholders, they cannot look at this obvious place for

increasing revenues which we all share in — not just those who went out

and mortgaged to buy $30,000 worth of shares. We are all going to have

to dig deeper into our pockets in order to make both BCRIC and

northeast coal look good.

I'd like to talk a little bit more

about BCRIC. The life-blood of the community which I represent can be

found in its two largest corporations. That's Kootenay Forest Products

and Can-Cel. Can-Cel, as the only consumer of decadent hemlock and

cedar fibre in its pulp mill, is the life-blood even for the small

independent sawmills such as Slocan Forest Products. I spent some time

just recently looking at the woodland operations. In one decking in one

area which is going to be logged — and it was a pretty typical decking

we looked at these hollow-shell logs. Some of them did not even have a

four-inch shell. These were hemlock and cedar. That's getting to be

about all that's left in the area. The government scaler was there. He

said they were 4 percent sawlogs, 8 percent culls, and the rest was

pulp. What we do have in our area is a surplus of fibre.

have such a surplus, in fact, that in just a little informal

conversation with Mr. Knudsen of MacMillan Bloedel.... He found out

I was from the Kootenay area and he said: "That's the one area in B.C.

where there is some room for expansion in the industry." Of course,

tending to think more about things like sawmilling and plywood and

things like that rather than pulp, at first I wasn't quite with him.

Then he said: "Yes, you sure need more pulp in that area." Of course, I

had to agree with him, because we had started very definite plans to

double the pulp mill capacity at Castlegar even back in 1975.

But Can-Cel, Kootenay Forest Products, Plateau Mills and Westcoast Transmission

were placed in this instrument called BCRIC. I think BCRIC oversubscribed $600-odd

million of capital — to invest. So while I was maybe worried about the political

ramifications of the possible success of BCRIC — although it didn't worry

me too much one way or the other — I was optimistic that at least we would now

have some investment to utilize this fibre which I see rotting on the ground.

It has been left in the bush in many instances. In other instances it is being

shipped down on the Burlington Northern line, which comes up into Salmo and

Nelson, to be used in the United States — that which isn't left to rot on

the ground. I was, in fact, very optimistic when I was invited to a dinner with

Mr. Donald Watson and some of the directors of Can-Cel — I think Mr. Helliwell

was there — after they had been brought in under the fold of BCRIC, and they

were talking about a possible expansion, but more likely a greenfield mill.

As long as the greenfield mill wasn't in Harrop I wasn't too concerned

about that. I would be very happy about it as long as it was well located.

But

then what happened? Somebody got to the board. Of course some people on

the board had shares in Kaiser Resources Ltd. — a few million dollars

of shares. One person in particular made a great deal of money — Mr.

Edgar Kaiser Jr. In his defence, I will say that the one time I phoned

him he didn't put me off to some underling. He answered the phone and

talked straight to me, so he is a person I have some admiration for on

that point. Anyway, he got a good portion. If not all — well, not

personally all — of $600-odd million. Suddenly the greenfield expansion

was diminishing and more and more of this fibre and these jobs are

rotting on the ground in the Nelson forest region.

I was

even a little bit more chagrined when I heard of its new venture —

trying to take over control of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. — so that a

person who was once the second in command can become the first in

command, and the person who was first in command can be put into a

number two position. I don't think that this is why people in British

Columbia dug into their pockets and invested, subscribed and

oversubscribed some $600 million. I think that they were hoping that

the government would create employment opportunities, and so far all it

has done is create an octopus — a grabber. Where is our greenfield

pulp mill? I guess the final

chapter was when Mr. Kaiser bought a

football team. Our pulp mill is in Denver, Colorado! Instead of hiring

people in this province to utilize the raw material which is

rotting — the renewal resource which is rotting on the ground — the

government has seen our money end up in Denver, Colorado, where, I

guess, Craig Morton will maybe try one more season to bring the Denver

Broncos into the play-offs. Mr. Speaker shakes his head. no.

That's

what has happened with the investment money that the people of British

Columbia put into this province because they had faith in this

province. It has been squandered and now we have the Denver Broncos; we

have our pulp mill and it's in Denver, Colorado.

I guess I

don't learn and I don't discourage easily. I would like to urge this

government to look at the utilization of this fibre which is being

wasted in a wholesale manner, this fibre which is leading to management

decisions which are saying that.... We have already shut clown

shifts at Can-Cel and now they're talking about shutting down the

plywood plant.

Well,

we do have a way and a new technology.

Mr. Ray Williston has made some announcements about it concerning his

plans for Ocean Falls. There is a new technology called oriented-strand

board. The effect of oriented-strand technology would be to take

these rotten-core shells and convert them into an economic resource as

valuable as peeler logs, because the shells can be broken up and

oriented in a struc-

[ Page 4580 ]

turally

strong way using an electrostatic process. We can make building

material out of this which I think is going to replace plywood. We have

to look at that.

I think it's very threatening whenever

technology threatens old technology, one which has served us very well

in terms of producing jobs — technology which, I remember, put a good

number of my high-school chums through university, those that worked at

Pacific Veneer in New Westminster, which has been shut down. Now we

have competition from New Brunswick where they are manufacturing a

product using hardwoods called Norboard. It is selling for $2.25 a

sheet less than plywood. It has most of the structural.... It

might even be structurally superior to plywood. It doesn't have a large

core, it has no surface voids and it's free of knotholes. This

technology has already been tested, I think through Mr. Williston, and

the testing has been supervised by Forintek of Vancouver. There has

been a study done at a pilot plant in Lewiston, Idaho, using west coast

cedar logs. All indications are that this has been quite successful. We

have an industry and existing plants which could be adapted and

expanded. Indeed, one of the best things about this is that we might be

able to utilize fibre without the pollution of a pulp mill. Perhaps the

procrastination and delay in building a new pulp mill has led us to a

point where we might be able to make another intelligent decision in

terms of the best utilization of fibre.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The record of BCRIC to date has been dismal. I would like the government — and I will talk to the Minister of Forests

— to realize that the material they are allowing to rot on the ground

or to be shipped out in the form of raw logs to be chipped and

converted to pulp in other areas has the potential of being viewed as a

new resource. These shells, which are no good for sawlogs or plywood,

could, in effect, be converted in their value so that they could be

looked upon as being every bit as valuable as peeler logs, which are a

very scarce and valuable commodity that has been a prime feeder of our

industrial economic system in British Columbia. To give credit to Mr.

Williston, I would just say that this government has not even begun to

glimpse the potential of this kind of technology. If I could only get

across to you that that which was once a shell, a useless product, is

now as fully valuable as a solid peeler log, which has been one of the

most valuable things in the industry to date. Those are some of the

positive suggestions and ways in which we can cut useless expenditures,

raise non-inflationary revenues from resources and plan for an

industrial future and jobs in British Columbia.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Speaker, if I brought down a budget like this, I wouldn't have much

to say about it either, so I don't expect to hear too much from the

other side. The Minister of Finance spoke for some 2 1/2 to 3 hours

about a budget that will undoubtedly create a semi-disaster in this

province, certainly among those people who are of low income and are

unable to finance the moneys required. Those of us in this chamber can

probably afford to pay the increased taxes, but there are a number of

people on all levels in this society on whom this increased tax will

have a very telling effect.

I think the Minister of Finance

did a good job. He was able to speak for two and a half hours on this

day of reckoning. It seemed to me that he rather enjoyed the power that

he could display by adding taxes to the overtaxed public of British

Columbia.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

gave a speech. He indicated that he wasn't that much in favour of a

number of budgetary items; but there's no doubt that he will vote for

them. If you're a government member, that's about as much as you can

get out of this budget. You don't agree with it, but you'll vote for

it. I can assure you that there's not a member on that side who, when

he gets to his riding and is talking to his voters, will speak to any

great extent on the budgetary measures brought down this past week.

was checking over the different ministries, and I noticed that the big

increase goes to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), an increase of 149 percent. But with

all that increase, I also notice that small business services has been

reduced from $2 million to $1.2 million, for the benefit of the small

businessman — almost cut in half. But the increase in his budget is 149

percent.

Last year, when the increases were made, it was

generally the same figure throughout every ministry. It's rather

interesting to note that this year some have been favoured and others

have not been so well looked after.

The people in my

constituency tell me that the taxes are to pay for northeast coal

development. They believe it is the price we have to pay to export our

jobs. They believe it is the cost of getting rich off our non-renewable

resources. I have been trying to disabuse them of this thought, but I

haven't had too much luck in my argument stating that that is not the

purpose of these increases.

The first statement by the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour on the budget was that it's a

pay-as-you-go budget. In actual fact, it's a pay-as-you-went budget,

because last year was the time of the big spenders. There was a 20

percent increase last year over the year before in budgetary spending.

This year there's another increase of 17 percent. The increase over the

two-year period, compounded, is approximately 37 percent. That's over

one-third.

The Minister of Finance spent a great amount of

time Canada-bashing, telling us all that the federal government was

spending too much money. In actual fact they did give some grants, but

the grants came from moneys that were raised in the provinces. Of

course, that is very true, because all federal funds are the result of

federal taxation, and the funds are derived from the residents of each

province. In that case he was telling the truth.

He is

saying that Canada has shown no restraint in their spending — they're

getting out of hand with their deficits and their losses — and his

colleagues are going around demanding funds for their pet projects and

for their monuments. They want federal money for B.C. Place, a

convention centre, Transpo '86, the rail transit services, the

northeast coal projects; and it goes on and on. I would think that the

Minister of Finance should encourage the federal government to blow

their money, because with a shopping list like this, they're going to

have to show very little restraint to satisfy the hunger of this

provincial government.

In addition to the moneys being

raised for so-called budgetary purposes, the Crown corporations have

gone deeper into debt. The guaranteed debt in 1979 was $6.6 billion. In

1980 it was $7.3 billion. That's an increase in one year of over 10

percent. It might be of interest to note that in 1976 the provincial

debt was $4.56 billion. So in the past five

[ Page 4581 ]

years

under the Social Credit regime, the province has gone into debt by 60

percent more than in 1976. It's a sorry record for a group of people

who have always insisted that the province was debt-free. Here we have

a debt of $7.3 billion. It amounts to a debt to each man, woman and

child in the province of approximately $2,700. And we hear them talking

about being debt-free. The interest and carrying charges on the debt

amount to $238 per man, woman and child every year — going down the

drain in payment of debt.

We should look at the loss of

revenues in the creation of BCRIC. In 1977 the revenues in BCRIC were

about $26 million. At least, that's what's shown in Public Accounts.

With the value of the dollar depleted and the activities in the forest

industries, it's probable that the value of the assets previously held

by all the people in the province would be closer to the $40 million

range. I would suggest that the budget would look a little better today

if those revenues were still coming into the coffers of the province of

British Columbia. But no, you had to get rid of these purchases that

were made by the New Democratic government. You gave them away to those

who could afford to pay the price. The poor in this province got no

benefit from the BCRIC transaction. Not only did they lose the assets

they owned, but they found that they were given away and ended up in

the pockets of those wealthy enough to go out and buy BCRIC shares.

It's Robin Hood in reverse. They took it away from those who owned the

assets, the poor, and fed it to the rich.

Then we look at

what BCRIC has accomplished. About the only things we know about BCRIC

are the scandals of inside trading and its backward progress on the

stock exchange. It has made a few millionaires, but it has not created

one new job. This has really been a sordid story. It was a terrible

happening in the province. It will be long remembered as a disaster. It

was a very poor performance. We've lost all these assets — for what

purpose? It's straight fiscal irresponsibility by this government —

inept fiscal policies and the inability to carry out any policy they

feel they might want to bring about. Ineptness, that's what it is. This

government gets lost when it's dealing in business. In the financial

world it's like a babe in arms. This whole matter of BCRIC is really a

shame.

But I've been pleased to learn, by reading in the

press, that the Princess Marguerite is now a safe vessel again. I've

read in the paper that it's coming back to life. It was unsafe for a

couple of years, but now it's safe. And I'm pleased that the Minister

of Finance will be able to send his mother down to Seattle again.

There's no doubt that the Premier used to look out of his apartment and

office windows and all he could see was the funnels of the Princess

Marguerite. It reminded him of Bob Williams and he said: "I've got to

get rid of this." So he sent it out west to see if it would fall off

the edge of the earth, but it came back and now it's safe. So we've had

a very nice turnaround in regard to the Marguerite — the millions of

dollars spent on refitting the Queen of the North to bring all the

tourists in from Seattle; the disaster that the merchants experienced

with the tourist trade on Vancouver Island last year. The only port of

entry that lost numbers was the port of Victoria. In every other area

in British Columbia the tourist trade was booming. Only in Victoria did

the tourists stop coming.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: What was that — tourists stopped coming to Victoria last year?

MR. LORIMER:

The tourists didn't stop, no, but the number of tourists was reduced.

What I'm saying is that the tourist business improved in all other

areas of the province, but in Victoria it declined. The reason for that

was....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I

thought the hon. member might like to know, before he continues to

embarrass himself, that Victoria had a 17 percent lift in tourism last

year. They stayed long, spent more and....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LORIMER:

I think we have to accept the fact that some members on the other side

have very little knowledge about the rules of this House and also about

the facts. I want to tell the lady minister....

MR. HOWARD: She didn't even know that she wasn't getting paid last year.

MR. LORIMER: She was so surprised at her appointment that she didn't care if she was paid or not.

People

may have come to Victoria through other areas, but they certainly

didn't come through the customs area of the port of Victoria, and that

area has declined. However, with the Princess Marguerite coming

onstream this summer again, the fortunes of the merchants in Victoria

may well improve.

This was a very costly ruse for the people

of this province — so ridiculous, so petty, so small. But this government

hasn't had too much luck with ships and vessels. I can recall that the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was bringing in a ship

for some Captain Cook celebrations. On a bright, moonlit night it

ended up on a reef and, lo and behold, it was then taken over by

pirates. This government isn't really a marine government: they like to

travel in airplanes, especially the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He likes the airplane; he

doesn't go much for this shipping stuff.

These people are

handling the money of the province. They've got an increase of 17

percent on the budget to be handled. I don't think it will be handled

any more wisely than the money in the past.

The northeast

coal deal is an example of the type of government we have sitting

across the way. Although little information has been given out about

the coal deal, and whether or not in fact there is any agreement or

deal whatever — "Maybe you can have coal if we have it, and maybe I'll

buy it if it's there;" that might be the deal that's in operation at

the present time — what we do know is that the figures that have been

given out would indicate that the cost to the taxpayer of this province

will be in the neighbourhood of somewhat over $1 billion. That's a very

rough estimate — a billion dollars to get rid of our non-renewable

natural resources, selling the coal with the loss of opportunity for

creating secondary industry in this province at a later date. We're

paying a billion dollars to have this coal removed to Japan so they can

build Toyotas, which we can buy with one hand, and then subsidize

Chrysler with the other hand to build cars so that we can buy Chryslers

too. It's not very easy to understand this kind of logic. I'm sure that

that type of logic seems to fit in very nicely with the programs of the

government over there.

[ Page 4582 ]

We're

also worrying a lot about the price. In actual fact the major worry is

not the price but the philosophy of getting rid of our non-renewable

natural resources to offshore markets. If someone sells their house,

they normally buy another house or they put the money in the bank to

collect interest, buy investments or something of that sort. They don't

attach it to their budget and blow it the next year. What we've been

doing in this province with a number of our non-renewable natural

resources is terming the revenues from those resources as a budgetary

item. It should not be used as a budgetary item, in my opinion. It

should be used to purchase other investments in the province, the

creation of opportunities in the province and for capital expenditures,

and should not be thrown away on an annual budgetary method. The

receipts from the disposal of natural resources, as I say, should not

be used as a budgetary item.

But other areas of opportunity

should be looked at, areas to develop industries and so on that will

create secondary industries in the province and opportunities for our

young people and our working force, not just opportunities that will

last for a short period but lasting opportunities for employment.

There's no question that northeast coal, if it ever gets moving, will

create a number of jobs. There will be work building the townsite, the

railroad, roads, and the expanded port in Prince Rupert. That will last

for a few years, but once this building boom is completed, the number

of people left with employment will still be quite a number but a

relatively small number. It doesn't take too many people to operate an

open-pit mine. There will be extra shifts on the railway crews and

there will be more longshoremen. But the building boom and the large

influx of workers to that area will level off or slow down, certainly,

in three or four years.

In my opinion, what we should be

doing with the funds that we get from our non-renewable resources is

looking at opportunities which will last not just three, four or five

years, but down the road. Another method that could be used is the

building of a housing program. With the kind of money that you're

looking at in northeast coal, you can imagine the number of houses that

could be built, which would not only satisfy the social problems of

lack of housing, but would also satisfy the shortage in housing and

create employment through all the building trades in this province.

There is need in practically every town and city in this province for

more housing, and that would really stimulate the employment picture.

There

are also the other areas which were stopped by this government. Of

course, Railwest was a program which was stopped by this government —

the building of railway cars. The odd thing is that in 1976 B.C. Hydro

purchased some 400 railway cars and did not buy them from Railwest, but

purchased them in eastern Canada and in the eastern United States.

Since that time there have been a number of rail orders, and that

Railwest operation could have continued right through, creating

employment for all those people who were working at Squamish at that

particular time.

Selling our resources without using the

funds from those resources to build a network of secondary industries

throughout the province is, in my opinion, a very great mistake. This

is the road that I believe we should be going. Whether or not the

resources should be sold at all is another question. If it's felt that

there are more resources in that particular commodity, well then, it

may be an argument for selling it. But on normal grounds I would

suggest that most of these resources should be preserved for the

benefit of the people of this province.

It's interesting to

note that in addition to the taxpayers' money that went into the

budget, there was also about a quarter of a billion dollars spent on

special warrants — just under a quarter of a billion dollars for the

first ten months. I also remember the hue and cry that used to go up:

"Not a dime without debate!" Now there is no debate, as you all know,

in the issuing of warrants. That's about the same amount as the total

provincial budget was 20 years ago. "Not a dime without debate"! The

total amount of a 20-year-ago budget, spent by order-in-council

through the cabinet, was spent without debate. This government doesn't

seem to appreciate the fact that they are merely the trustees for the

people of this province, the trustees for the expenditure of their

hard-earned tax money. Every item of expenditure should come before

this House to be questioned and debated. In just this past year alone a

quarter of a billion dollars was spent around the oval table.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: There were no special warrants anywhere close to a quarter of a billion dollars — nothing close.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: Oh, yes, we bought a few vehicles, which were sold by this government, disposed of, mainly to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) please come to order.

MR. LORIMER: He's a very difficult person to bring to order, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, he should be handled more roughly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the member who has the floor.

MR. LORIMER: We had money to spend on special warrants...

MR. SPEAKER: Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), please come to order.

MR. LORIMER: ...but in actual fact our expenditures came through the House, and we

allowed you to debate on the expenditures that were made. Fourteen

hours by one member in one sitting. But he's the favoured one this

year; he had an increase of some 140 percent. He's the minister that

has a poor memory, if you remember. He's the forgetful minister, and I

hope he doesn't forget how he's going to spend this money. He's got

enough money there to last anyone for a long, long time. He's got an

increase of 140 percent over last year. Mind you, the small business

area has been cut back, but the big business area is moving right along.

There's

no doubt that the budgeting has been done on a basis of overestimating

expenditures and underestimating revenues. The question is whether more

piggybanks are going to be created to look after the surpluses that

will arrive at the end of the year or whether it will be spent by

warrant again. Maybe you'll try to beat the record of a quarter of a

billion dollars in warrants this next year. We'll watch this with some

interest to see what you are going to do. Someone

[ Page 4583 ]

suggested

that it might be a saving to pass out some goodies, pending the next

election. But I wouldn't suggest that that was in the works at all. I

wouldn't think that that would be what they're doing it for. I think

it's probably just a mathematical mistake by the Minister of Finance, I

think that's why he is going to end up with a large surplus.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is being disruptive.

MR. LORIMER:

As I mentioned, there will certainly be substantial jobs created if the

northeast coal project goes ahead, but my concern is the question of

how long those jobs are going to be there. I would think that the

expenditure of money might better be put to areas where there will be a

lasting payroll coming in.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: He's a fine fellow.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER:

Yes, he's a little dull in that area. We overlook these deficiencies

and look at their strong points. It's true enough that in politics he's

about as bright as some of the people across the way.

might say that I am quite pleased with the recognition in the budget

that there is a need for transit services. Some money has been

allocated for transit, and I'm pleased to see it. We did have

statements from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) that 250 new trolleys were going to be purchased. He mentioned

that in January last year; he made another announcement about it in

June, another one in July and another one in September. The 200 buses —

not 250 but 200 trolley vehicles — were ordered, I believe, in

November. So we've had three or four announcements of this great

increase in our fleet. Now, those trolley buses, of course, will not be

a new service. They are replacing the ones that were purchased well

back in 1945 or about that time.

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER:

I'll tell you about those. The Minister of Transportation wants to hear

about transit. He's in transportation, but as I understand it there are

a number of my colleagues who are questioning the services that some of

the back roads are receiving in some of their areas. Yes, we bought a

number of junkers. The purpose of the junkers was to take the motors

off the junkers for reintroduction into the new trolleys that were

purchased. Those vehicles were cannibalized; the motors were taken out.

They were purchased for $1,000 apiece, and the motors were reinstalled

in the new vehicles that were purchased. There was a saving to the

people in the province of British Columbia of about $20,000 per vehicle.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tell us again about the German....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Can we bring the House to order before the member continues?

MR. LORIMER: I'd like to educate these people, and if they have other questions, I'd like to be able to answer them.

Yes,

the DuWag was purchased, I think, in 1975. It was a demonstrator model

which was in North America demonstrating for the DuWag company of

Germany. We were able to purchase it for a price substantially less

than normal, about three-fifths of the normal cost of a new vehicle

which we purchased for, I think, around $250,000. If we had remained in

government, that DuWag would have been on daily duty between New

Westminster, Surrey and Vancouver. But because of the errors made by

the public of British Columbia in 1975 in voting the Social Credit

Party in, the DuWags were parked on the sidings. Since that time they

have removed the DuWag and it's now on the B.C. Hydro property at the

old Dominion Bridge site, locked up in a building there. If you want to

see the DuWag, you have to go down to B.C. Hydro and get a special

permit.

The problem is that the people over there have no

time for transit systems. They are the highway people, the car people

and the motor people. I can assure you that although the budget does

show funds for transit in two or three different spots, it takes more

than funds on a page of the budget to create a system of transit in

this province. I would guess that there will be some activity on a

system, but I'll talk a lot more about this later on. There will be the

possibility of a loop around the core of Vancouver, maybe from the

convention centre to B.C. Place. But I can assure you and the people of

this province that in the next number of years, as long as this

government is in power, there will not be a system out to the New

Westminster–Surrey lines. I think that without question, this is

factual.

Are there any more questions over there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where are we going for Christmas dinner?

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'll just talk about transit for another minute then.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the SeaBus?

MR. LORIMER:

Oh, the SeaBus, yes. The SeaBus is probably the best transit service

anywhere in the world. The interesting feature about the SeaBus was

that, although the ships were being built and the clocks planned, there

was a holdup by this government because they didn't want to go ahead

with it. They didn't want to do it. They couldn't sell it to Edmonton;

they couldn't sell it to Calgary; so eventually, after wasting about

seven or eight months, they decided that the development had gone too

far and they would have to proceed with it.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

It's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to support my colleague,

the Minister of Finance, and the budget that he presented last Monday.

There's just a word or two more I'd like to say on this subject and, in

the meantime, I move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4584 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move Motion 16 — a most happy occasion — the motion standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

On Motion 16.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

The substance of this motion is best summed up by the very sentiments

that it expresses. I'd like very much to read it into the records of

this Legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia.

"Whereas

the people of British Columbia have the greatest respect and the

highest regard for the Royal Family; and

whereas the marriage of His

Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer is to take

place on July 29, 1981;

be it resolved that this Legislature, on behalf

of the people of British Columbia, convey to the Prince of Wales our

warmest congratulations and to both of them our wish that they enjoy a

long and a happy life together."

Mr. Speaker, His Royal

Highness Prince Charles has visited our part of the world on various

occasions, and all British Columbians have been most impressed with his

charm, his capacity, and his general interest in the people of our

province and in our way of life. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that he has

enjoyed his sojourns here, and we indeed extend to him and to his

bride-to-be, Lady Diana Spencer, the warmest of welcomes to visit us as

husband and wife and spend some time in our province and partake of

some good old-fashioned British Columbia hospitality — with the caveat

that we would assure them some rest and lots of time together by

themselves and out of the limelight, because that is certainly

something to which they are much entitled.

I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, and it's a great honour to be able to move this motion.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I think an

appropriate indication of seconding the motion would show the unanimity

of the House in supporting it and in echoing the sentiments expressed

by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

Motions

usually don't have "whereases" in them, because that's debate and

argument. In this case there are two which reflect, I think, the type

of sentiments which would be expressed, if one wanted to take the time

to express them, and all I want to do is simply second the motion and

say that it is a decision of unanimity in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The motion does not require seconding, but the House shows no objection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to advise the House, in supporting the

motion about which I'm sure we're all unanimous, that upon the

announcement of the engagement and the wedding, on behalf of the

government and the people of the province of British Columbia, as

Premier I dispatched a message then. But I'm very supportive that a

message from the whole of the House and the Legislature be sent to His

Royal Highness Prince Charles, who has visited British Columbia not

only in his capacity with the Royal Family but also in his relationship

to the Pearson College of the Pacific, one of the world's very few

international colleges. He lends his support and patronage to that, so

he has a very special continuing role in British Columbia.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:26 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada