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 10, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4435 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 4435

Mr. Lauk –– 4436

Budget debate

Mrs. Wallace –– 4437

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4439

Mr. Lockstead –– 4435

Hon, Mr. Hewitt –– 4448

Mrs. Dailly –– 4452

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4456

Tabling Documents

B.C. lotteries branch annual report, April 1, 1979, to March 31 –– 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

B.C. Labour Relations Board report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act annual report for the year ended

March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

Pension (Public Service) Act annual report for the year ended March 3 I 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

Pension (Municipal) Act annual report for the year ended December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

Pension (College) Act annual report for the year ended August 31 –– 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

Pension (Teachers) Act annual report for the year ended December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

Public Service Benefit Plan Act annual report for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4458

Erratum –– 4458

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to welcome to

the gallery today one of Port Coquitlam's most prominent citizens,

formerly mayor of Port Coquitlam and formerly chairman of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, Mr. Jack Campbell.

MR. SEGARTY:

In the gallery this afternoon are Mr. William McNamar, district

administrator for the regional district of East Kootenay, Mr. Jim

Lambe, city administrator for the city of Cranbrook, and Mr. John

Hayes, city clerk. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming those

gentlemen this afternoon.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) I could direct this question to the Premier. Yesterday the

Minister of Finance indicated in an answer that he would deal in his

budget address with the question of the taxpayers' burden on the

northeast coal project and whether it was commercially viable. In fact,

when one examines the budget address, he did not deal with this aspect.

view of the fact that the federal government has indicated that on

behalf of the taxpayers of Canada it will guarantee that its tax

investment in northeast coal will be recovered on a commercial basis,

will the Premier now, on behalf of his government, make the same

commitment that the investment in northeast coal by his government will

be recovered through the commercial aspects of the project?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of trying to emulate the federal

government's financial policies in any of their aspects because, quite

frankly, in most cases they have not proven to be beneficial to the

development of the country, nor have they proved particularly

beneficial to the people of British Columbia. I will say this about the

northeast coal development: I'm going to draw a very interesting

parallel here, Mr. Speaker, to give some idea of how the government has

attempted to undertake a visionary development that will open up a

large part of the province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am answering the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the hon. members wish to interrupt, it may take me longer, but if they wish to....

MR. BARNES: Is that a threat?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're too big to threaten, hon. member for Vancouver Centre — the second member, not the first member.

Mr.

Speaker, all of the details of the government's planning for northeast

coal will be before this Legislature very quickly when the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) presents

his estimates, at which time that type of detailed answer will be

undertaken. So let me say what the government has done for the first

time, because I would like to contrast it with the previous rail

construction that opened up the province, which most of the people of

British Columbia supported. It opened up the great interior of the

province, and was done without any attempt at extra cost recovery.

Interjections,

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The question was a rather broad question

as I understood it, and if the member wishes to have the answer to the

question, let's hear the answer, at least. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

In fact, even when there were no major developments such as took place

in the central interior, I know that in the years 1972-75 major railway

extensions were undertaken not only as a pioneer railway, but upgraded

to mainline standards in the Dease Lake area with not only no

cost-recovery bonus, but in fact the very dream which had been the

initiative that developed that railway was lost. They kept building for

building's sake and no load was there to carry even at normal freight

rates, let alone recovery.

Now this government, in assessing

the responsible northeast development of this province. has negotiated

and made a condition of the development that there shall be surcharges

over and above the freight rate that would cover the operating costs.

Those surcharges are placed on the coal with the view that larger

tonnages than the initial contracts will be achieved. That means, we've

taken a moment in time when a large volume of tonnage is available in

order to initiate a project, because if not taken at that time the

opportunity would be lost. And we have enough confidence and

understanding of the world demand for coal and the ability of the

workers in British Columbia to produce that coal efficiently at

competitive prices that we will be able to achieve for this province

the additional tonnages that will bring back tremendous revenues from

those surcharges.

Now that is a first, quite in contrast to policy or lack of policy that was undertaken before.

MR. LEGGATT: I just wanted to be sure that I understood the Premier

correctly. I take it from his answer that the taxpayers of Canada will recover

their investment and provincial taxpayers will not. Isn't that, in short,

what he said?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order. please. Hon. members, before the Premier answers.... The nature

of the question is itself argumentative, and there's a very fine line

as to whether the question is admissible, but having admitted it then

we must listen to the answer or, at least, have equal coverage of the

answer so that it would cover the question itself. It's a little

difficult from this point of view.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

First of all, in that rather incorrect conclusion that was posed as a

question by the member for Coquitlam-Moody he presumes a fact that is

[ Page 4436 ]

development

in British Columbia, which they have not done. Naturally there is a

national instrument, that I always thought was there for the benefit of

all parts of Canada: the Canadian National Railway. Certainly I would

expect them with their existing track, to be good enough business

people and good enough Canadians to be able to participate in the

development. They're a necessary and integral part of that

transportation link. I'm not aware of a federal government role in

there, unless the member can advise me that they are taking a much

keener interest in the development of British Columbia than they have

shown over the last few years.

It is true that although the

province has applied for provincial management ports, we do not have

that authority under the constitution, and as such it is therefore the

responsibility of the federal government to develop the port at Ridley

Island which this province has pushed for to prevent the disastrous

mistake of being short-sighted and just upgrading the grain terminals

at another site which would never accommodate any other Canadian

supply. We've encouraged at least that part of the planning which would

develop for Canada and British Columbia a bulk commodity port on Ridley

Island. That bulk commodity port will be available for wood products in

all of their development, grain, potash and the many great Canadian

products, as well as B.C. coal and upgraded grain terminals.

The

province is assisting in developing that port as part of our industrial

strategy by participating in the road access, and that is part of the

road development that this government is committed to. We've never

asked the people in any part of the province to pay for recovery on the

cost of highways; we service communities because roads service people.

There will be people living and working at Ridley Island and in the

northeast. What we will have — the most important element — is a

creation of jobs.

I believe this development to be most

important. We've taken a major new step in the way of financing

development and looking for greater cost recovery than has ever been

done. Railroad development, Mr. Speaker, has been financed in various

ways in this country and in this province. I want to draw the parallel

very clearly, because this is a very important subject to the people of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who is speaking from his seat, is interested....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. Let's remember the purpose of question

period. Although the question in itself is argumentative, I must warn

the Premier not to go beyond the, scope of the question itself.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I was advised by you in the Chair. I had felt that the

question was argumentative, but the first question was very broad. I

felt that question period is a time in which people sincerely want

information about the direction in which their province is going, and

I'm attempting to do that. But if they don't want the answers now, the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

will certainly give them more answers than they've got questions — or

negative questions — when we get to his estimates.

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development, who I know doesn't agree with the Premier and his unduly

critical remarks about W.A.C. Bennett's decision to build the Dease

Lake line.

Mr. Andras of Teck Corp. said on February 13,

1981, that his company would receive a $2 per tonne discount or rebate

of total freight rates of $15.76 a tonne in the first five years of

deliveries. The minister stated yesterday that no such discount or

rebate would be paid by either of the two railways involved. Can the

minister confirm that there is no rebate or discount to be paid by

anyone to Teck or Denison with respect to transportation charges?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I guess a subsidy or grant depends on what area of the

country it's in. All I can say to the hon. second member for Vancouver

Centre is that I have to be responsible for what I say, and I would

suggest that those in the private sector would have to be responsible

for what they say.

MR. LAUK: Then the minister does not confirm or deny a rebate or discount. Is that what your answer is?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the first member for Vancouver Centre that

I answered his question yesterday, and I don't think the purpose of

question period is to be repetitive.

MR. LAUK: The

question to the minister was: is anyone going to pay a rebate or

discount to these companies? The minister has refused to answer.

A supplementary would be: has the minister contacted Mr. Andras to inform him that he may be mistaken?

Yesterday

the minister indicated that the provincial government would pay the

full $50 million cost for the transmission powerline from W.A. C.

Bennett Dam to Tumbler Ridge. Does this subsidy to the two mining

companies indicate new policy on the part of government, and can future

developments expect the construction of powerlines to their projects to

be made free of charge?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, I

would suggest that any townsite that has been built in British Columbia

— and I might remind him of when the instant town of Mackenzie was

built.... It is my understanding that B.C. Hydro supplies power to

communities in which people live.

MR. LAUK: That

would be the public paying the full cost of a transmission line for 5

percent of its use by the people living there. Is that what the

minister is seriously trying to suggest?

The most

conservative projections are that metallurgical coal from this region

will be sold at prices between $85 and $86 per tonne by 1986. The

Japanese have indicated that their agreement to purchase northeast coal

includes a provision that the price will be fixed at $76 per tonne for

the three and a half years following the first shipment to Japan. Can

the minister confirm that the price of northeast coal is so fixed?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the second member for Vancouver Centre,

I have suggested before to him and to other people that the detailed contracts

are between the coal companies and steel companies of Japan. It's my understand-

[ Page 4437 ]

ing of those contracts that the price is escalatable based on about 60 percent of the price.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat has 20 minutes left in her time.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm going to have to rush right along, then!

was speaking about the discrepancies in budgeting as evidenced in last

year's budget underexpenditures of amounts duly voted by this

Legislature and an even greater amount of overexpenditure as covered by

special warrants which have been filed by the minister with members of

this House.

In dealing with some of the underexpenditures, I

was pointing out some of the problems that have occurred as a result of

not expending the money that was voted by this Legislature for various

services. I dealt with the Human Resources ministry, and I want to deal

with one item in Health. Health is one of the budgets where we have

gotten into a great deal of trouble trying to budget sufficient money

to meet the health requirements in this province.

The point

that I wish to raise with the Minister of Finance and with this

Legislature is the continuing refusal of this government to provide a

speech therapist and an audiologist in the Cowichan Valley. This has

been an ongoing request since I first came into this Legislature six

years ago. Every consecutive Minister of Health sitting in this House

since that time has told me that it's a much-needed thing, but they

regret that they are not able to provide it in that particular year.

This year is no exception. I have a letter from the new Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) saying: "Please be assured that this minister

recognizes your concern and that of the Cowichan Valley Children's

Committee for the communicatively handicapped children in the

community...very much regret it, but as stated January 14 to that

committee it is not possible to meet the request at the present time.

It will be reviewed again next year."

That's six years. This

is the year for aid to the disabled; this is the year of the disabled.

That's the response. That speaks very poorly for the priorities of this

government and its budgetary policy.

In education we're

again faced with a larger share of the costs being borne locally. Last

year it was something like 37 percent of the total cost that the

government picked up this year that's dropping to 33 percent. There's a

continual reduction in the payment for services by this provincial

government.

There is one item that I want to raise that is

of particular concern to residents of the Cowichan Valley, and I feel I

must raise it in the budget debate rather than in the estimates because

it involves two different ministries, and it certainly involves

Finance. It is the problem of the Lake Cowichan road. I'm glad to see

that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is in the precinct. I

don't see the minister responsible for ICBC here. It is a problem that

has been going on for a year and a half.

The Minister of

Highways, in his wisdom, went in and tore up the surface of the Lake

Cowichan road and left it over a year ago last winter in a state where

we had nothing but flying gravel. To compound the situation, when they

finally resurfaced it the seal coating was so badly done that the

gravel continued to fly. We have had a series of paint damage and

broken windshields in that area that has been phenomenal. The cost to

ICBC last summer for replacing broken glass and repairing paint damage

was something like $350,000. This has been a continuing problem since

then. I'm sure it must be twice that amount now.

The

Minister of Highways has agreed to pick up the deductible portion of

insurance for windshield glass breakage, but he is continuing to

hesitate relative to paint damage. He is refusing up to this point in

time, though I must say that when he went over the road when the

cabinet was in the area recently he agreed that he would reconsider.

I'm still waiting for that reconsideration. His delays are causing some

problems because the release forms for the deductible portion of the

glass breakage relieve the ministry of any financial responsibility

occurring on that particular day. And if paint damage and glass damage

have occurred on the same day, the person who has suffered that damage

is, of course, very hesitant to sign that release. So the whole thing

is grinding to a halt. In addition to that. there have been tremendous

delays in those payments, just for the straight glass breakage — and

this is a continuing thing.

The reason I'm raising this

under the Minister of Finance — in the budget estimate — is the stand

that ICBC has taken relative to paint. Once they recognized the size of

the problem and the cost that they were incurring. they felt that

somehow they had to get some return from Highways for this. At least

that's the only reason that I can see for them deciding partway down

the line to declare paint damage as a problem, such that if an accident

occurred that damaged the front, the back and both sides of the car. It

was considered to be four separate accidents with four deductibles of

S400 or $200, depending on what the deductible was — which means that

in most instances the cost of the paint job is less than the deductible.

think that this is a very unfair situation that has developed, inasmuch

as in the original stages they covered both paint and glass for one $50

deductible. I have in my hand a report from ICBC that did exactly that:

covered both paint and glass with one $50 deductible. If this

difference of opinion is occurring between those two ministers, I think

it is up to the Minister of Finance as the chief financial officer of

this province to take some steps to ensure that the matter is

straightened out. And the people who have suffered this kind of damage

— damage which the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has admitted

is his responsibility.... It is time that was straightened out. and I'm

calling upon the Minister of Finance to bring those two ministers

together to take some action on that particular instance which has been

hanging around now for two and a half years.

We heard the

Minister of Finance yesterday tell us about how they were going to

streamline government procedures and cut government costs. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that's an interesting statement coming from a government that

seems to be able to waste money without even trying. I refer in this

instance to the Cowichan Estuary Task Force report. This report was an

ongoing report-for some five years that study went on. I have raised it

many times on the floor of this House, and many times many different

Ministers of Environment have expressed their concern as to how long

that study went on. We finally got the study, and on December 9 of last

year I put a question on the order paper asking how much that

[ Page 4438 ]

study

cost. The minister took the trouble to come over to this side of the

House and tell me that was a legitimate question, that I would get an

answer, and that if he got the answer before the House reconvened, I

would have it in writing. I haven't seen it in writing, the question is

still on the order paper, and we don't know what it cost. But I can

tell you it cost plenty.

Out of that report we got a lot of

verbiage, Mr. Speaker, and we got 12 recommendations. And out of those

recommendations only one was actually a recommendation for action.

Every one of the 11 other recommendations recommended further studies —

further review. That's the kind of expenditure that this government is

making and coming to no decisions — absolutely nothing — and leaving

the whole business of shoreline management hanging in limbo. Problems

for industry, problems with the environment, continuing problems, and

recommendations for more studies — thousands and thousands of dollars

down the tube and not one concrete thing as a result.

would be very unnatural if I were to speak in a budget debate and not

deal with agriculture, and today is no exception. I listened very

carefully to the Minister of Finance to see what he would say about

agriculture. He made one reference: he talked about the ALDA program

being extended and a revolving fund being set up. So rather than the

money going back to the government, it would revolve; and this amounts

to about a million dollars. That was the sum total of his mention of

agriculture. But it's very interesting if you look at the agriculture

budget. You don't even have to look that far, if you just look at some

of the words in the text where we're talking about tax increases. A lot

of people were hit very hard yesterday by this government's budget, but

let me tell you that farmers have been exceptionally hard hit.

page 49, it talks about family farm and fishing operations: over half a

cent a litre increase in the tax that family farms pay on diesel fuel,

an estimated $1.8 million from family farms and fishermen combined. But

worse than that, the coloured gasoline tax is going up by over a cent

and a half, to collect, according to the minister's estimates, $48.6

million from the farmers in this province. It is our third resource

industry, an industry that has little or no control over the price it

gets for its products, and a high user of energy. How are farmers going

to continue to operate when faced with this kind of tax increase? They

can't get it out of the marketplace. If you're raising carrots or

potatoes or turnips, it's going to take just as much gasoline, and

you're going to have that extra tax on it — $48.6 million in total out

of the agriculture community and no way to get it back out of the

marketplace.

Farm income assurance programs, where they

exist, already in place, are being cut back and curtailed by this

government. The farmer is on the brink of going under, and this is the

kind of slap that this government gives to the farm community. I'm

shocked and horrified that it would single out a group that is the

backbone of our community — produces our first basic essential — and

give them that kind of boot with taxes. I'm shocked.

I'm

shocked at the actual budget figures. When you look at the estimate

book, why are the farmers being asked to subsidize the senior citizens

of this province through the ICBC rebate? Because that's what happened

in this budget. If you look at the totals, you'd think that the budget

had perhaps been increased a little bit for agriculture — a couple of

million dollars. In fact it hasn't. It's been reduced, because six

million and some odd dollars of that budget is to repay ICBC for the

subsidy paid to senior citizens. I don't think seniors are going to

like that, and I know that farmers are not going to like it. It's

unfair to ask one group of people to subsidize another. That should be

strictly outside any of the agriculture estimates.

When you

look at the $10 million cutback for agricultural credit in times of

inflation and rising interest rates, then you realize just how hard hit

the farmer has been by this particular budget.

Agriculture

and land go hand in hand, but so do land and housing. It seems to me

that there has been an attempt by this government and some members of

this government to try to justify removal of agricultural land from the

reserve over the heads of the Land Commission by saying that it's

needed for housing. I would like to put into the record a few figures

about the availability of land in the lower mainland.

Recently

the four regional districts in that area — Fraser-Cheam, Central Fraser

Valley, Dewdney-Alouette and the Greater Vancouver Regional District —

have been preparing regional plans. I have a photostat of the plan here

and I have maps of some of the plans outlining the acreage. This was

done in conjunction with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm), who sat in on many of those meetings, together with some

of his staff; they were there continuously. It was done in conjunction

with Highways and with Forests. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has

signed these plans, and those plans reiterate over and over that the

whole concept of that community plan is to provide for housing and

industrial land without infringing on the ALR and without infringing on

the floodplain.

And they've got the land to do it. In those

four regional districts they have vacant urban land of about 30,000

acres in total, and if you figure four units per acre, which is not a

high density, that gives 120,000 units. In urban reserve and urban 2,

there is a total of 34,000 acres times 4, which is 136,000 housing

units in reserve in urban 2.

In rural land, where you

wouldn't expect as high a density, there are 39,000 acres. Let's assume

that half of those are one acre and half are five acres. That works out

to a total of 23,500 acres or a total of 282,000 units available for

housing in that Fraser Valley area. According to the plans and the

figures and the population growth tables there's enough land there, at

the present growth rate, to accommodate all the housing needed to the

year 2001 — this is as far as these plans take it — with enough area

left over to house an additional 384,000 people. This means that if you

carry that out at the same growth rate, you've got enough land already

classified as urban, urban reserve and rural to take the population

growth to the year 2020 without use of floodplain and agricultural

land. And yet members of that government have the nerve to get up and

say: "Well, we've got to release agricultural land to make room for

housing." I think those figures give the complete lie to those remarks.

It's a ploy to try and keep an election promise and get land out of the

reserve to benefit some of their friends.

I'd like to deal

with a topic in this budget that is certainly of concern to us. It's a

budget that is hitting the little people as far as taxes go. There are

some exceptions, and I give the minister credit for that — he's made a

few exceptions. The low-income people are going to get some refund. I

doubt that the Minister of Finance is aware that a great many people in

this province don't pay income tax; their incomes are too low. Where's

their help going to come from? Where are they going to get the money to

pay these taxes, estimated by my colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) at

something like $850 per

[ Page 4439 ]

household?

I see headlines in today's paper that it's going to cost you $280 more

to buy a car because of this increased tax. Where's the money going to

come from? Are they going to be able to buy it? Is the government

really going to be able to collect the amount of tax that they are

estimating, or are we once again going to find government ministries

asked to cut back on services because that money isn't coming in? We

don't know.

This budget is a dirty trick on the people of

the province of British Columbia. It's another Social Credit dirty

trick that is aimed at taking money from those least able to afford it

so this government can embark on grandiose schemes to perpetuate their

own name.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's my extreme

pleasure to be able to stand in the House on this occasion and support

the Minister of Finance in a tremendous budget which is both realistic

and responsible in a time when financial conditions are worsening

throughout this country.

I suppose one of the key words in

the whole of the budget address yesterday was "choices." Somebody has

to make some choices from time to time. We made the choice, as a

government — and the Minister of Finance made the choice — that we

would continue to provide British Columbians with the best possible

levels of service in health care, education and human resources, and

not allow those services to be eroded despite the fact that there are

increasing pressures on the revenues of this province. We made that

choice, and then, of course, we had to make the choices about how those

services would be paid for. That's an equally difficult choice to make.

It's one that the members opposite were unable to make when they were

in government, and as a result the financial situation in this province

became chaotic. The people understood and rejected that government that

was afraid to make choices. This government isn't afraid to make

choices, and we'll do the very best that we possibly can to make those

best choices available to the citizens we're responsible to.

This

budget commits itself to an ongoing program of expansion and

development in health services in this province in one of the largest

hospital construction programs in the history of this province and, in

fact, perhaps in the history of Canada. This government commits itself

to an ongoing program of continuing development of our educational

services in this province. This budget commits itself to the highest

level possible of looking after the needy people of this province

through our Human Resources ministry.

Perhaps there are

questions we should be asking today of those who are critical of this

budget. Which of those services would you cut? What choices would you

make? What hospital beds would you close — as is happening in many

other parts of this country? Which educational services would you cut?

Which Human Resources services would you cut?

Mr. Speaker,

would you opt out of the International Year of Disabled Persons? Well,

this government decided not to do that. It made the choice to develop

programs in this International Year of Disabled Persons that will be

the flagship, the model for all of Canada and perhaps, again, for all

of the world.

Which of those services would you have cut

because you'd be afraid to make the choices that were necessary as you

did in other years?

I'm proud to support both the budget and

the statement given yesterday by the Minister of Finance. He outlined

an economy which is without a doubt the brightest in Canada, without a

doubt an economy which holds for the future the only opportunity of

perhaps any province in Canada — and I even include Alberta in this —

of developing on a long-term basis a sound financial climate and a

sound economic climate, a sound diversification of our economy that

will allow us to continue to provide those services at the highest

level in Canada for years to come.

I'm proud to support a

statement we outlined as a government, in which the investment growth

in this province is the strongest in Canada. There are record levels of

people coming to British Columbia because they understand that here is

where the opportunities are, here is where the government has created

the kind of climate where people can still grow, where people can still

earn. where people can still be part of their community and be proud of

it. I'm proud to support a budget which outlines new jobs at record

levels over the past several years of our administration — 195,000 new

jobs since 1975. I'm proud to be able to support a budget which

outlines one of the few areas in North America where there has been

real growth in our gross provincial product and where that growth will

continue.

Mr. Speaker, it's no accident that this budget and

the statement made by the Minister of Finance were able to tell you and

the people of this province about those great developments that have

happened in this province in the last few years. It isn't an accident.

The Finance minister's statement outlined that it came about because of

good, sound fiscal management and good, strong partnership between

government, business and labour.

Just to clear the air

a bit. It also indicated again that despite what we know will be a

difficult year in terms of labour negotiations and management-labour

relations.... A look at the record shows that if you look at January of

this year, for instance, the last month for which we have full figures,

it is one of the best months in the history of this province for time

lost in labour disputes. It's certainly far better than the situation

in the last year of the NDP government. That's no accident; it comes

about because of the strong partnership that has been developed among

all of the players in our economic process.

In supporting

this budget, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just say a word or two about some

of the things that have been said in previous debate, today

particularly, and particularly by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

and to some degree the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

We've

had an ongoing conversation, I suppose, in this province about how

resources should be developed, when resources should be developed, and

the way in which that development would be achieved and accelerated.

The member for Nanaimo said this morning that coal and natural gas are

going out of style. Mr. Speaker, in this province coal and natural gas

are going to be the cornerstone of our energy economy for dozens and

dozens — perhaps hundreds — of years to come. Going out of style? Mr.

Speaker, where on earth has that member been? What on earth has that

member been reading? Has he looked into the history of the energy

situation in this world at all, or does he just sit in his cooperative

holdings office in Nanaimo and read his balance reports of the NDP

Society, which is developing its own kind of resources down in Nanaimo?

He said that we're increasing our dependency on the exploitation of our

natural resources. Mr. Speaker, natural resources are to this province

the foundation of our development, of our economy, of our ability to

[ Page 4440 ]

build,

of our ability to be able to ensure that in the future the people of

this province will have the kind of life that we need them to have.

You

know, we talk about exploitation of resources, and everybody talks

about leaving it in the ground for some future time. Doesn't anybody

remember the history of mining in this province, which is the

exploitation of our resources? Mining opened up this province; mining

brought prosperity to this province; mining was the real contributor on

an ongoing and steady basis as an indicator of the economic health and

vitality of British Columbia. How long do you hold those resources? Do

you hold them for a thousand years, a million years or a trillion

years? When do those resources become resources? Only when they become

a mine, then they become resources — and you don't find mines, you

build them by developing them. And how long do you wait for a good

price? Do you wait for $1 a tonne, $1,000 a tonne or $1 million a

tonne? Coffee 20 years ago was a nickel a cup; today it's — depending

on where you frequent — up to $1 a cup.

MR. LEA: We drink it in a $10 room.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Chocolate bars cost ten times as much as they did when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was a lad.

How

long do you wait to develop those resources? A thousand years for those

children a thousand years from now, or do you do it today? Do you do it

when the opportunity is right; when you can provide jobs for your

citizens; when you can build your economy; when you can build the kinds

of revenues that are necessary for you to discover new mines? Because

I'll tell you a little secret. Do you know how you find new resources?

You look for them and you find them and you develop them. And the only

reason people look for them is because there is a way for the

development and the use of those resources. And some day, if I live

long enough, I will hear from some member on that opposite side of the

House that they finally understand that the way you find new resources

is to look for them, and then develop them. Then you find new resources

and you look for more and you develop more and you find more and you

develop more — and that's how it works. I just wanted to let you in on

that little secret. Some day they'll know that. I don't subscribe to

that theory that we should always leave our resources in the ground for

some distant day in the future when the price might be right. I say

that we look for resources, find resources and continue to develop and

build the economy of our province.

We can and do make the

best of our mineral endowment, because mining is good business; it's

good for the province and it's good for this country as a whole. We've

got to make sure that we husband those resources in the best possible

way so that that development is good for all the people of British

Columbia in every way — environmentally, socially, economically and in

every other way.

Today, in this province, we're in the middle of an expansion boom in the

mining industry that approaches and perhaps very soon — perhaps this year

— will rival the boom times of the late sixties and early seventies. The

surge of this activity is due in no small measure to the confidence which has

been expressed in the economic policies of this government. It's due as

well, of course, to that kind of partnership that the Minister of Finance talked

about in his budget address yesterday: the partnership between the industry

and government and between those people who rely on those jobs and then fulfil

those jobs in the mining industry and every other resource industry. We would

be remiss today in this kind of a discussion if we didn't keep in mind very

clearly what can happen to mining or to other resource activities with a government

whose policy is not only nondevelopment but is non-economic growth as well,

because it happened right here in British Columbia, during the years from 1970

through to 1975 when the mining industry was virtually closed down. To a large

extent, so was the oil and gas discovery industry closed down during those years

when the NDP was in office in this province. You can't deny that, because

you all know that it's true.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. We have not recognized the member, so the microphone is

not on. The hon. second member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of privilege. This member is challenging my veracity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD:

In the course of making a speech which is supposed to be addressed to

the budget, he's challenging my veracity and he's refusing to quote the

figures on the growth and capital expenditures...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: ...between 1972 and 1975.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER:

It is an abuse of the forms of the House to gain the floor under any

other means but that which is provided for under the standing orders.

To state that you wish to have the floor on a matter of privilege you

must have an attending motion, or it is out of order.

The hon. minister proceeds.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mi-. Speaker, thank you very much. You know I wouldn't ever challenge

the veracity of a member of this House. It's against the rules of the

House to do that. I can challenge their competence, though, and I do

that, because their incompetence forced the mining industry to close

down in this province. The incompetence of that government forced the

oil and gas discovery industry to close down in this province. There

was none happening in this province during those years. In the past few

years since 1975, thanks to the policies of this government, we have

managed to revive British Columbia's exploration industry in both

mining and oil and gas through renewed activity, the right incentives

and the right kind of confidence, built on the kind of sound economic

judgment that this government has made. We'll work to keep it strong.

[ Page 4441 ]

There

was a lot said in the budget about energy, and there were some very,

very important tax measures which were contained in this budget which

we believe will help to ensure that British Columbians get the

conservation message in terms of the way in which they use our very

important energy resources. It's sad to say that so far we haven't got

that message, not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada. We are

today one of the few jurisdictions in the world which has not reduced

its dependence on the use of gasoline as our most important resource in

terms of our private and commercial transportation. The United States

has done an admirable job of consistently, over the last several years,

reducing its dependence, and they have done it in some interesting

ways. They've done it through incentives, to a large degree. They've

done it through decontrol of some of the industrial activities which

are held in the United States at the present time, and they've done it

through free enterprise measures which have worked very substantially

for that country.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That's correct. An aside from the Premier indicates that there were no

socialist measures put in place to achieve those goals of conservation.

Rather they were done through free individuals cooperating freely and

working together to make sure that that depleting resource was well

handled.

Mr. Speaker, the budget statement and the budget

itself indicate that we do have in this province some very important

strengths in the area of energy. They're well known: our massive

hydroelectric opportunities, developments which are already in place

and those which are available to us in the future; huge resources of

coal; we believe also huge new resources of natural gas not yet

discovered; and perhaps even some oil which has not yet been discovered

in this province, if we do things in the correct way over the next few

years. We have some weaknesses as well, and I guess our most important

weakness — and the budget recognizes this — is our dependence on

imported oil. Our dependence on imported oil is, to us, like a lot of

other countries, the one worrisome factor in developing our energy

security in the next few years, perhaps by 1990. We must work to end

that dependency on foreign oil and so end the weakness that we now have

in what is an otherwise very bright energy picture. In terms of our

achieving that kind of security for our citizens in this decade.

We've

done some important things, Mr. Speaker, in order to help end that

reliance on imported oil. One of the most important in terms of numbers

will be the pipeline to Vancouver Island, which this government has now

announced. That pipeline to Vancouver Island will save us and the

federal government over a billion barrels of oil over a three-year

period — I believe that's correct. That pipeline comes as a promise

made by this government and by our Premier — a promise kept by this

government, a promise not kept by the previous government. For all, the

years that government was in power, we heard about the great pipeline

that would be built to Vancouver Island. But we never saw an

announcement; we never saw a barrel of oil replaced by natural gas. In

fact, they deliberately stopped any further discussion of a natural gas

pipeline to Vancouver Island, ending what could have been the

opportunity for us to be saving that oil today, and for the people of

Vancouver Island to be using cheaper natural gas today.

That

great environmentalist group over there, which talks about being so

concerned about the protection of our precious coast, had to increase

the amount of tanker traffic on our coast to bring crude oil to this

island, because they refused to keep a promise they made to the people

of Vancouver Island. This government kept that promise.

We're

also moving in another important area, the conversion of automobiles

from gasoline to compressed natural gas. It may seem like a small

figure. If you just think about how many cars there are around right

now with natural gas conversion kits. We believe that the incentive in

the budget, for instance, in removing the sales tax from conversion

kits for natural gas, will be an important one, one which will see some

immediate benefits once it is coupled with some of the opportunities

already being developed in this province.

For instance,

British Columbia Hydro is going to be converting about 50 of its

vehicles to natural gas. We are now awaiting delivery of a compressor

for the filling stations which B.C. Hydro will be putting in place. It

should be in British Columbia momentarily. The first ten vehicles will

be converted and operating by mid-May the next ten will be operating by

June 1: the remaining 30 will be converted at the rate of about ten a

month. This will involve both standard passenger vehicles and vans

owned by British Columbia Hydro. We hope that will be the nucleus of a

fleet of vehicles in this province. both private and public. which very

soon will be operating on dual systems of compressed natural gas and

gasoline. If you think that's not achievable, Mr. Speaker, I'd just

remind you that in Italy, a country which has no natural gas of its

own, there are 250,000 automobiles operating on dual systems of natural

gas and gasoline, and have been for 30 years. So it's both achievable

and possible, because this government will make it possible.

have some exciting new ideas coming forward in the private sector,

which we believe will lead us to lead the world in the development of

the conversion of automobiles to compressed natural gas. There is a new

company called CNG Fuel Systems Ltd. headed by Judd Buchanan, a former

cabinet minister in the federal government, operating out of Calgary.

It is now working with the federal government on the standards and

regulations necessary for CNG cars. Once those standards are in place —

and we expect it won't take long — there will be refueling stations in

Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto by the end of this year. There

are more plans in place to launch this program in other parts of

Alberta and Ontario as well.

It makes sense for British

Columbia to get involved in this, because we have the gas. We're pretty

confident that there's lots more there to be found. We can deliver it

at about half the cost of gasoline. It's cleaner. Pollution control

equipment can be removed from vehicles if they use CNG only. Private

enterprise can and will do the job. That is another move this

government is taking in order to help end our dependency on foreign oil.

I'd

like to report that in the previous throne speech and budget speech we

announced that the government had been ordered to downsize its own

vehicles, and to find more fuel efficient vehicles as we replaced the

vehicles which went out of service. I'm pleased to report that

two-thirds of the government fleet is already downsized. It is an

extremely important contribution to the conservation of gas, and it

provides an opportunity for us to move away from imported foreign oil.

I remember when that opposition party over there was government: I'll never forget it. I remember when they said

[ Page 4442 ]

there

would be no more mining in this province. I remember when the hon.

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) rose in this House and

said that there was no gas in Grizzly Valley. It was a figment of our

imagination. That reminds me of statements that a lot of public figures

have made saying that there was no more oil and no more gas to be found

so we'd better forget it and start looking for some other way or else

freeze in the dark. Well, I remind you that it's only about five years

ago that one of the largest oil finds in North American history was

found at a time when everybody said there wasn't any more. That was in

the West Pembina field. It was only in 1976 that one of our continent's

largest gas reserves was found in Alberta and British Columbia in the

Elmworth field, the so-called Deep Basin. That was found at a time when

the NDP and everybody else were saying there just wasn't any more. Of

course there isn't any more if you don't provide the incentives to go

out and look for it. You've got to go and look for it.

remind you of what's happening in the United States today because the

United States government has put in the kinds of incentives, has

concentrated on those traditional areas of oil and gas supply to the

point where today there is a surplus of natural gas in the United

States. This is a country that two years ago had shortages and was

crying for Canadian natural gas. Today there's a surplus and there will

be a bigger surplus. Do you know why? Because they're looking for the

stuff. Do you know that today in the United States there are probably

about 1,000 and maybe more new gas and oil discoveries coming on stream

every month. In 1979 there were something like 49,000 wells drilled in

the United States. Of those, they found something like 33,000 producing

oil and gas wells. In 1980 the figures were about the same.

what you find is that in two years in the United States they have found

something like 26,000 new gas wells and 31,000 new oil wells at a time

when you and I and all the doom and gloomers were saying there isn't

any more. Do you know why there isn't any more? Because we wouldn't let

them look for it. We wouldn't provide the incentives that would allow

the seekers to become finders. That's what's happening in the United

States right now today.

Do you know what's happening in

Canada'? The Minister of Finance made some mention of the national

energy program in his budget address yesterday. The goals and aims of

the national energy program are ones which every member of this

government, every member of this House and every Canadian can share.

The goals that are stated in that program are those that would achieve

energy self-sufficiency for this country in the foreseeable future.

It's sad for me to have to stand here today and say that those goals

under the national energy program will not be achieved. Everyone

knowledgeable in the industry and every energy minister, I believe, in

this country knows and has advised Ottawa that they will not achieve

these goals under this program. In fact, not only will they not achieve

them but they will impair our opportunity to ever achieve

self-sufficiency for energy in this country. That makes me very sad.

It's too bad that the federal government has chosen, because it owns

the interest — at the present time at least in its offshore

developments in the so-called Canada lands, to concentrate all its

efforts on those very expensive and very elusive energy sources. No

matter what happens, there is no way that we will ever have oil or gas

coming out of those expensive sources that the federal government is

concentrating on until 1990 and perhaps 1995. If we took a leaf out of

the book of the United States and started doing the things they're

doing, we'd be finding new oil and gas right here in British Columbia,

right there in Alberta and Saskatchewan, in those areas which have been

our traditional sources. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, what

we're doing in Canada.

We've wrapped our energy policy in a

Canadian flag and we're flying it out there in the most hypocritical

statement I've ever seen. We're saying we're going to Canadianize the

oil industry. That's a goal that every Canadian can seek. How are we

going to Canadianize the oil industry? Do you know what the first move

that the federal government made was in order to Canadianize the oil?

They went out with their Petro-Canada dollars, which are pretty

non-existent right now, and they bought an oil company. Do you know

which oil company they bought? The member for Burnaby nods. They

probably have a service station right next to your house. It's called

Merit Oil — a totally Canadian-owned company, with the president of

that company in Vancouver and all its outlets in the province of

British Columbia. It's totally owned by Canadians. Is that

Canadianization of the oil industry? They don't drill any wells; they

sell gas. That's nationalization, not Canadianization. It didn't give

you an extra barrel of oil; it didn't give you an extra cubic foot of

natural gas.

Do you know what the next company to buy was? A

company called Petrofina, with a string of service stations across

eastern Canada. Service stations — a very, very small interest in the

exploration industry. For a billion and a half dollars we got a bunch

of service stations. We didn't need them. What we need is to go out and

get some companies out there drilling for oil, drilling for gas,

finding it and contributing to our energy security.

Canadianization

of the industry is one goal that everyone shares. Do you know what's

been happening in this country for the past two years? The

Canadianization of the oil industry. Figures up until last year

released by Statistics Canada, the federal government's own

fact-gathering agency, say that 45 percent of the capital employed in

Canada's oil and gas industry is now Canadian, compared with 25 percent

in 1978. In two short years the increase in Canadianization of the oil

industry in Canada jumped from 25 percent to 42 percent. Do you know

that American control in that same period dropped to 42 percent from 59

percent?

Canadianization has been happening, and yet we

allow the Minister of Energy for the national government to state

blithely that there is only 30 percent Canadian ownership in the oil

industry. It was happening, and I know what the Liberal government is

going to do when it reaches 50 percent, which it will have done

probably this year or next year at the latest anyway. They'll say, "We

did it, folks; we achieved Canadianization, " and they'll have a string

of service stations across the country which are costing you and I

dollars which will flow out of this country to foreign interests — a

billion and a half of them — for not one extra drop of oil or cubic

foot of gas. How are we going to get that billion and a half dollars to

pay for Petrofina? It's going to go on our taxes on our gasoline and

it's going to go on an additional Canadian ownership account, which

some of you may have read about in the national energy program, which

will add additional taxes to our natural gas. It will cost up to 60

cents per cubic foot to buy a foreign-owned company which is not going

to give us one more gallon of oil or one more cubic foot of natural

gas. Is that a Canadianization program, or is that a program built of

folly and hypocrisy by a government which

[ Page 4443 ]

has abandoned the west and is about to abandon all of Canada in its search for energy security?

Mr.

Speaker, what else is happening in Canada? Do you think that the oil-

and gas-finding industry is not leaving this province, as the federal

government would have you believe? Take a look at this little

article

in the Vancouver Sun : "U.S. Oil Drillers Leery About Canadian

Rigs." Do you know what they're leery about? They're worried about over

200 rigs which have moved down to the United States as a part of what

is quoted as a negative reaction to Ottawa's energy policy, and they're

worried that they're going to displace American equipment because our

rigs are better and our operators are better. We've developed the

highest technology in the world in this country, and we're in danger of

losing it.

I've been informed by what I consider to be

pretty reliable sources on a recent trip to the United States that the

American council on oil and gas activity is going to recommend to

President Reagan that he lift the restrictions on immigration for oil

and gas well drilling operators because they need our Canadians down

there to operate all the rigs which are fleeing this country because of

the detrimental policies of the national government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Our friend from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says they were all gone before

the policy came in. Have you been in Fort St. John recently? You'll

find out that that's the stupidest statement I've ever heard in this

House, and I can tell you that at the present time there are 90 rigs

drilling in British Columbia. The Canadian oil-well drillers

association — and let me tell you who that association is; it is 99

percent Canadian owned — that's the industry we're driving out of this

province and all of western Canada as a matter of fact. There are 90

rigs presently drilling in British Columbia. It's one of the highest

levels we've had for some time. But by spring, when their contracts are

up, unless something is drastically changed very quickly, there will

only be 12 left.

I'd like to give you some figures, if I

may, about the level of activity which is presently in existence and

what we expect to be in existence. The Canadian Association of Oilwell

Drilling Contractors has adopted an unusual practice of sending Ottawa

what they call a "casualty report" every 90 days as a result of their

national energy program, and we're now up to casualty report No. 4.

Drilling rigs which have left Canada from October 28, which was the

time of the national energy program, to February 20 are 78. Drilling

rigs committed to leave now by April 30 are 53, and next year we're

expecting to have a projected surplus of rigs in Canada of something

like 135. Those will all be idle or gone from our province, from

Saskatchewan and Alberta. Most likely they will all find work in the

United States. B.C., unfortunately, is harder hit than the other

provinces.

Those are the facts about the national energy

program. It is killing our opportunity to develop energy security in

this province, and the member for Prince Rupert is the most

irresponsible member I've seen in a long time if he condones that kind

of activity. I remember that group on the other side when they killed

mining and when they killed the exploration activity in this province,

so I don't expect much more from them. We know the potential danger

that government interference with the resource sector can have, because

we've seen it in this province before. And we're seeing it again,

unfortunately, in this national energy program in which federal

government tampering, through arbitrary and discriminatory taxation and

other measures, has caused a very, very precipitous decline in our

activity and has seriously threatened our energy security and economic

stability.

I want to talk just for a moment about the

comments made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) about

Canada-bashing. Well, in any of the statements that we've made in terms

of the constitutional debate and the national energy program debate, we

haven't been Canada bashing. We've been Canada-building. I'll tell you

that the federal government today has fallen into the socialist trap of

tearing down the strong to build the weak, but what you really do when

you do that is you just bring everyone down to a level which is not

acceptable to Canadians. You don't build a strong Canada without

building strong provinces. You don't do it. As soon as you tear down

strong provinces, you tear down all of Canada. I feel like I'm a

stronger Canadian than a lot of other Canadians, and perhaps than some

of them on the opposite side of the House who are willing to give away

our resources for the sake of a socialist dogma. offered to the federal

government by the Leader of the Opposition.... And I'm damned tired of

being called a bad Canadian just because I disagree with the policies

put forward by one man in this country who wants to dictate what he

thinks is good for all of Canada. And I won't accept that I in a bad

Canadian, because I'll fight like hell against those kinds of policies.

believe in Canada. My party believes in Canada. I love Canada. My party

loves Canada. I was born in Canada and I intend to be here all of my

life. I will never belong to a party which would give away the

resources which were guaranteed to us as a part of Confederation in

1871, simply because they will stick to some socialist dogma and offer

to give away the things that the people of British Columbia own.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order. please. Hon. members. before we recognize the next speaker may I

remind all members that temperate language is that which is desirable

in this chamber. I allowed you for just a few moments to learn from

your own experience what happens when inflammatory language is used,

and I commend the former.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I welcome

this opportunity to speak to this budget debate. Before you leave the

chair, Mr. Speaker. since this is the first opportunity I have had to

welcome you back to the Legislature.... I know you conducted the

proceedings here last December, but welcome back. I'm very pleased to

see you in good health and good spirits. Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

listened quite carefully to the remarks of the previous speaker. the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), and I found it incredible that not only that speaker but

the other government speakers who have spoken in this debate so far

have only been able to come up with a rehashing and a refighting of the

1975 election campaign. They have not been able to — and how could

anyone? — defend that budget that was placed before us yesterday. So

what are they doing? They're refighting the 1975 campaign. They seem to

lose sight of the fact that the superb government we had between 1972

and 1975 — three short years of good government.... We've had 116 years

[ Page 4444 ]

in Confederation, and we've had

governments like the people sitting opposite us today — that giveaway

crew, giveaway gang. They fight for big business and to heck with the

people. That's their attitude and that's the approach that they've

taken in this budget, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to discuss

the overall concept of this budget. It's a regressive budget, a budget

that hits the poor, the working poor and the middle income people the

hardest. When somebody is making $30,000, $50,000 or $100,000 or in

some cases millions of dollars — like some of our friends across the

way make over a year or two by various transactions — you'd think that

they could afford a 10-cent or a 15-cent increase. It's easy for them;

it's barely nothing to people like that. But the few little pleasures

that some people have — to enjoy a cigarette, a bottle of wine

perhaps.... These are the people who are really going to be hurt by

this budget. Those people who require their automobiles to travel to

work are going to be hurt by this budget.

I want to make it

clear that I don't stand up here and defend smoking and drinking.

They're bad habits and we shouldn't do it, but most of us do, as a

matter of fact. I'd like to give you a bit of an example, Mr. Speaker,

if I may at this point. The minister discusses in this budget some aid

to the handicapped, and I'm pleased to see that. I truly am. Let me

give you a couple of recent examples. In my riding I have a lady who is

54 years old with some medical problems. Her total income from Human

Resources happens to be $331 per month. Her rent has just been

increased to $280 per month. That leaves her about $51 a month for

utilities and food. She has no family except one son in Toronto. He's

young, working part-time and can barely support himself, so she has no

other source of income. When I went to Human Resources on behalf of

this person, they told me that this is the maximum amount she was

entitled to receive because all other forms of grants had been

suspended by that government. As a result of all of this she is

surviving only because some people in the Salvation Army are helping

her out at the present time. So there is one example. I see nothing in

this budget for people like that. The only vice this lady has is

buying, when she can afford it, a tin of tobacco. It's the only thing

she can afford to do other than barely survive.

So that's

the kind of thing we're faced with in this province under this type of

budget today. This budget doesn't address itself to people like that. I

have many other cases along the same vein. I'm not going to discuss

them here in detail this afternoon. We'll save those discussions for

the debate of the estimates, Mr. Speaker. This is the kind of thing I'm

talking about: this regressive taxation that hits the working people

and the poor people of this province. Furthermore, to compound the

felony, or whatever it's called....

What's a better word?

AN HON. MEMBER: Crime.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The crime. There are indexed taxes for the first time ever, as far as

I'm aware, in the history of this province. What they've said now is

that without reference to the Legislature there will be automatic

increases in gas taxes, cigarette taxes, liquor taxes....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Yes, I think that's wrong — without reference to the Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, this government would like this Legislature to close tomorrow.

They would. They don't want to come here and debate these issues.

They're taking more and more of the authority of the Legislature into

the ministers' offices.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I disapprove of fascism anywhere in the world where I see it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie has the floor, and we're all reminded again of the use of temperate language.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm very pleased that you're protecting me from the big bad Minister of Finance over there.

Furthermore,

the previous speaker referred to what this government has done in terms

of natural gas pricing, blamed the problems on the federal government —

some more Canada-bashing. That government, Mr. Speaker, has been

Canada-bashing for at least two or three years, hoping to get itself

involved in an election issue on that matter. It hasn't worked; the

people of British Columbia haven't bought it. What the minister over

there failed to tell us during the course of his speech on the budget

just a few minutes ago was that when we became the government of this

province natural gas was selling for 33 cents per thousand cubic feet.

In other words, we were giving it away. Social Credit philosophy — the

giveaway gang. We're doing it now with coal. In fact, that coal deal is

going to be a much bigger boondoggle than the Columbia River Treaty

ever was. It's going to make the Columbia River Treaty look like a

penny arcade. It's going to make it took like small potatoes compared

to the giveaway in this coal deal this government is getting us into

now.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who set the price of natural gas?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, didn't even go to Ottawa to attempt to get that price increase.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'd like to remind the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that the member for Mackenzie has the floor.

Will the member for MacKenzie please proceed.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I did think that the member for New Westminster made some

very good statements, which were absolutely correct. In any event, I

appreciate those types of interjections, because we don't have all the

information — most of it, but not all of it — and a little help here

and there goes a long way.

The fact is that it has been the philosophy of the previous Social Credit government and this Social Credit government

[ Page 4445 ]

give away those resources at the expense of the people. I think it

should be the philosophy of all governments, if we have resources, to

have properly imposed taxes on those resources. This budget, for the

first time, does not place the burden for those projects on the

resource base of this province, but in fact is attempting to raise a

$625 million increase in budgetary expenditure out of the hides of the

working people of this province.

This

ties in directly, Mr.

Speaker, with the labour disputes that are currently taking place in

this province and bargaining procedures coming up within the next few

months. And if you think for one minute that the IWA, the CPU and the

construction industry are not going to go to the bargaining table and

say: "Look, here's a government that tells us to hold the line; brings

in a budget with indexed tax increases in it; we need about 15 to 18

percent just to remain even...." You think they'll settle for

less? No way. Any union bargaining committee that went to its

membership and said, "Look, inflation is 17 1/2 percent, but we've

decided to be responsible; we'll accept 11 percent this year...." You

know what would happen to that bargaining committee? Well, I can

tell you. And I don't blame the people of this province for fighting

for their rights, particularly against the government that is

precipitating inflation rather than holding the line where they could.

They're holding the line in some areas. They're holding the line all right; they're holding the line in health care.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Oh, we'll get to you, Mr. Minister of Lands. I've got a lot for you. We

have the worst Minister of Forests this province ever had, and he's

getting worse all the time because he's practising at it; he's working

at it.

Before we leave the subject of natural gas I should

point out to the House, as this is my first opportunity, that that

government and that minister who just spoke have cost this province, in

federal and provincial revenues alone, by their arbitrary decision to

award a natural gas line route to Hydro, which has traditionally and

consistently underestimated the cost of their projects.... That's

another story which I'll get into eventually. They have awarded that

contract in spite of the fact that they set up the Utilities Commission

to hold public hearings into these matters. They bypassed their own

Utilities Commission. Now they say they're going to put environmental

studies before the commission. What a laugh! Contracts and tenders are

already being called for the Hydro project, and by the time the

Utilities Commission comes back to cabinet with any recommendations,

the decisions will have been made long-gone, and recommendations,

whatever they may be, won't mean a thing anyway.

But getting

back to the finances of that operation, because of that extremely bad,

horrendous decision for the people of Powell River, the Sunshine

Coast, Squamish, Woodfibre, Port Mellon, Sechelt and those areas, about

3,000 jobs are down the tube for starters. Secondly, in terms of

revenues to the province it's estimated that just on a fertilizer plant

alone — a $670 million project slated for Powell River — the lost

revenues to federal and provincial governments will be somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $2.3 billion over the next 20 years. This is according

to the prospectus issued to us by the consortium. The consortium, by

the way, included Westcoast Transmission and BCRIC. Remember BCRIC, a

partner in this particular venture?

So what they've done is

set up an operation which will compete against BCRIC. The people of

this province bought shares — mortgaged their homes for them, in some

cases — on the word of the Premier of this province, primarily, who

said it was a good deal. "Buy BCRIC shares, you'll all get rich. Get

yourself involved in the market." This also, of course, involves the

northeast coal. Northeast coal will be competing with the former Kaiser

operation in the southeast coal sector in direct competition with the

BCRIC shareholders of this province. I'm just amazed that the value of

BCRIC shares is still holding at the level of $5.75 per share, because

eventually, at the rate they're going, they'll probably plummet below

that. Just think of those ordinary people round the province.... I

know of one case. In terms of the BCRIC shares, of a person who

mortgaged his home, borrowed $20,000 from the bank to buy BCRIC shares,

and is paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14 1/2, percent interest

at the present time — he's got a pretty good interest rate, actually —

and is still paying the interest, of course — this was about a year ago

— and the shares themselves are now, as I said, worth about $5.75. So

who do you think, he's going to vote for next time around? After

Bennett's baby, as it was called.... I remember that. The BCRIC

corporation was Bennett's baby.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did he buy them?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Shortly after they were issued.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why didn't he sell them at $9?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

No wonder our economy is in such bad shape! These guys couldn't manage

a peanut stand. Look at them. It's true. The only response he has to

that last remark is: "Why didn't he sell them at $9?" My God!

any event, BCRIC was referred to as Bennett's baby, and now that the

Premier of this province is going into direct competition with BCRIC

with the northeast coal deal, one of my members over here has

previously accused the Premier of child abuse, and I think it's a valid

case.

I want to take this opportunity to. In overall terms.... A

lot of the items we discuss during the course of a budget debate really

belong in debate of the spending estimates of the various ministries.

Since my area of responsibility in this Legislature is to be

spokesperson for our party and our caucus on transportation and

highways, I want to spend a couple of minutes on that topic.

The

government's decision to bring back the Princess Marguerite — do you

recall that? They called it the floating coffin. They took that vessel

off that route. You will recall last year that I was called

irresponsible when I said that the final cost on that vessel alone was

going to be somewhere around eight to ten million dollars. I have an

article here from the Vancouver Sun indicating — if their

research is correct — that that is almost the total that the bungling

of that single fiasco cost the people of British Columbia — eight to

ten million dollars.

Yet here we have people in a remote

part of this province in Bella Coola, in this particular case — begging

for $75,000 for a drug and alcohol detox centre to be constructed near

the hospital. This is a serious problem in some of these small

communities. Two years and not a dime, and yet, they wasted on this one

venture alone in excess of $8 million of the taxpayers money. Can you

believe it? Now, of course, the

[ Page 4446 ]

Princess

Marguerite is being refitted — as we said it should have been in the

first place — and will be placed back on that route, as is the Prince

George which my government purchased, which this government owned at

one time and which this government sold. It wasn't even good enough for

a floating restaurant for this government, and now it's going back into

service on an Alaskan cruise. This gives you an indication of where

these groups are at, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Private, shmivate.

Coast

transportation is still a very serious problem in my riding. There's no

way that we can have rational economic development without the proper

transportation facilities. I know that two jumbos — classy vessels —

have now almost completed construction and will be in operation this

summer, but there are whole areas of the coast of British Columbia that

are still going to be without water transportation this year and next

year and probably forever. Ever since this government and the federal

government withdrew the subsidy to Northland and some other shipping

companies in 1976.... Areas like Bella Coola have had no

water transportation for almost five years and have none at present —

no water transportation at all into that community. A number of

communities on the central coast of this province, a number of

communities in the Queen Charlottes.... I've contacted the ministry

— anybody I could, everybody. What are you going to do? Come up with

suggestions. Have meetings in communities. I got ministers into some of

these communities. Have lunch, big smile, took off in a jet and away

they go. Nothing is ever done! No commitment! They don't take these

problems seriously.

Big northeast coal developments — $1.1

billion of the taxpayers' money to subsidize those ventures. Fair

enough, good stuff. We'll go ahead with those because we want to send

coal free, or at a cost to the British Columbia taxpayer, to our

friends over there. There's nothing wrong with supplying our friends

and neighbours on the Pacific Rim with the natural resources we have.

But at least let's get a fair price for them or not go into those

ventures at all.

Just one item in terms of the northeast

coal deal. In terms of my portfolio I would estimate, until the

minister proves otherwise, that it's going to cost somewhere in the

neighbourhood of about $325 million of the Ministry of Highways' funds

to construct the 93 kilometres of roads, bridges and townsite access

roads that are required. If I'm wrong I would like the minister to get

up in this House and tell me so and give me the figures.

The

worst about all this is that these are hidden funds. No bill is going

to come before this Legislature to say that we are going to require

$325 million to build a highway, or another $600 million to construct a

rail line, or another — whatever it is — $200 million to put hydro into

that area. There is no bill coming before the House. These are hidden

costs. Furthermore, I noticed in the budget presented to us yesterday

that the increased budget for Highways is only approximately $100

million for the next year. It's quite obvious that in order for the

Ministry of Highways to meet its commitments to the northeast coal deal

they are going to have to take funds out of other parts of the

province, mostly from the rural parts of the province. They can get

$130 million right off the top if they would stop construction of the

Annacis Island bridge — which nobody wants in the first place. That's a

good idea, but I know they won't do that, because then they

would lose that seat. They're going to lose it anyway, mind you. But in

the meantime the funds are committed. So what is going to happen? They

are going to take the funds out of various highway budgets throughout

various Highways districts in the province, and they are going to spend

this money building highways into northeast coal. That is one of the

things that is going to happen.

I ask you this, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister going to take any money out of his own riding? Last

year and the year before, in terms of capital expenditures and

day-labour, we had the highest spending of any district in British

Columbia right in the minister's own riding. This year he's probably

going to sink another $40 million or $50 million in his own riding. I

would suggest he only spend $25 million this year. There is another $25

million that he could put into the northeast coal sector as a

government subsidy to the Japanese people and their coal market and

steel industry, and to Teck Corp. and Denison Mines Ltd. It's really

blatantly unfair and not right. I think that government ministers when

appointed to cabinet have a responsibility to all the people, not just

a few people who happen to be ministers or friends of the government.

just want to spend a minute discussing the Cheekye-Dunsmuir

transmission line — a progress report. It's well under construction;

clearing is taking place; lots of money is being spent — all those

things. I just want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that approximately

three and a half years ago when that project was first announced —

never justified, mind you; no studies; no real public hearings; but,

never mind, the project is underway — the cost was estimated to be in

the neighbourhood of $300 million. That's a lot of money — and the

horrendous environmental consequences that go along with it. In the

Legislature last year my colleague, sitting to my right here, tabled

some internal documents from one senior-management type at B.C. Hydro

to another, stating that the estimated cost of that transmission line

would rise to $700 million — but don't tell anybody; keep it quiet; we

don't want to get people out there upset. Okay. Fair enough.

That's

$700 million already. Mark my words carefully. I've gone out and looked

at the project, I've talked to the contractors, and I can see already

the overruns that are taking place on that project in terms of cost. In

my view, the final cost of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line — a

project which was never justified; no hearings ever held; no studies

ever took place — will be $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money.

want to tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, when the government brings

before this House its annual borrowing bill for B.C. Hydro — and how

they are spending our money, the taxpayers' money, borrowed money on

which we have to pay interest to people in New York and Europe — I'm

going to vote against that bill. You have never justified the Site C

dam, the Revelstoke dam, the Hat Creek project, the Cheekye-Dunsmuir,

the Kootenay diversion — and the list goes on. We'll get into those

topics, I'm sure. You're totally irresponsible with people's money.

Talking about surpluses in your budget.... My colleague pointed out

this morning that the indirect debt, underwritten and guaranteed by the

people of this province, is about $8.5 billion at the present time. You

call yourselves good managers. My God, I can't believe it.

One

other little matter, just to give you an idea about this government.

I'm not going to talk about friends of the party getting their property

out of the agricultural land reserve; I'm

[ Page 4447 ]

not going

to talk about those things. I'm not going to talk about Mr. Spetifore

and other people, who happen to be friends of the government, getting

rich out there because they can have their property withdrawn from the

ALR. I don't want to talk about those things. I want to talk about

something else.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Vander Zalm as well? Did you say Mr. Vander Zalm had property

withdrawn from the ALR, and he's in cabinet? Oh, you didn't know about

that. Well, amazing. I'll be darned; you learn something new every day.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I prefer to believe the member from Victoria over the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), but in any event what I do want to talk

about is that just recently it was brought to my attention that this

government is going to give away 5,000 acres of land — fully treed,

waterfront property, in my riding, located at Sechelt Inlet — to the

CPR. How do you like that? And the CPR, by the way — for those young

people, the pages, who may not be familiar with this — have over the

125- to 150-year history of this province been given land from right

across Canada to build a railway for free — fee simple ownership of

land. They have a habit of taking land, people's property, from across

this country for over 200 years.

MR. HANSON: What do we get back?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

What do we get back? We get back some swamp; we get back two

mountaintops, logged of the merchantable timber. They left the snow,

though. It's out on the westcoast of Vancouver Island, And what do they

give to the CPR? Fee simple ownership with many miles of waterfront

property, fully treed. The timber on that property alone is valued by

one forester at $60 million. That's just the timber. Of course, after

they log it they'll turn it over to Marathon and subdivide it, no

doubt, and make god knows how much. It's a prime recreation area on the

coast of British Columbia. Fee simple ownership by the stroke of a pen,

and if you don't believe me, I have all of the documents relating to

that transaction right here.

This government, this giveaway

crowd.... You talk about giveaway of resources; this is not as big

as the coal deal, of course, but it is another indication of how this

government operates. Give it away to your friends. Give away the land.

Give away the coal. Give away the minerals. That's this government.

That's exactly what they are: the giveaway gang.

Last week I

had the distinct displeasure of visiting Ocean Falls in the northern

part of my riding. It used to be a pleasure to go up there. The

community that was working and striving, and under NDP management even

showed a profit, only stopped showing a profit when the Social Credit

government became managers of that operation. They have gone downhill

ever since, as has the rest of the province.

Here's what I

found. Approximately 90 percent of the community was boarded up. I

found 143 people, including 31 children in school, left in that

community. At the meeting last Wednesday night there were 103 of the

adults, which Must have been just about every adult in that community,

Despair like you've never seen. Now we're told by Mr. Williston and

other people, by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips): "Oh, we're looking at this, we're

looking at that." You recall that when they shut down the operation

they gave us at that press conference a timetable of how they were

going to.... "Well, here are the things we're going to do. In two

months we're going to bring in the flitch and chip mill and have so

many people, and start logging operations, etc., etc." They've never

kept their word. They've never kept one iota of that timetable, and

right to this day not a thing is happening. In fact the government,

through the Ocean Falls Corporationm is shutting down the steam plant

at the end of this month and the homes won't even have heat for the few

people who are left in that community, believe it or not.

I'll

quote primarily Mr. Williston, since he is directly responsible to the

people in British Columbia for that operation and reports directly to

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. He told me:

"I'm very optimistic and we hope to make an announcement pretty soon in

terms of some future activity at the Ocean Falls townsite." And you

want to remember, we have a brand new, modern high school — as nice as

any I've seen in the province; a brand new small but modern hospital:

libraries: recreation centres; wharves — deep-sea wharves as well as

the ordinary type marine facilities you find anywhere: all of these

things, sitting there in that community idle and boarded up.

told me: "Well. I'm very optimistic. We've done something about

experimenting with low-grade cedar particles, and we're hoping to

produce a particle board and perhaps bring in a flitch mill. All of

this is coming and I am optimistic."

I asked him: "Well, then what are you waiting for? Why don't you make an announcement?"

said: "Well, I have to check with the government. I can't make that

decision. I have to check with the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development, as a matter of fact, before I can make any

announcements or decisions." So that board of directors of that Crown

corporation obviously can't even make their own decisions.

But

there is another fly in the ointment which was just brought to my

attention this last week. I understand the reason that Impact Lumber of

New Westminster withdrew from a proposed operation that then had in

mind for that community, which would have employed about 200 to 250

people.... And you have to remember that operation was purchased by

our government for about $1 million and the government is now asking

$20 million just for a company to go in there and take a chance on a

new operation, when this government should be encouraging somebody to

come in there to at least put into effect the announcements they have

made, as I said, about sawmills and particle board mills and this kind

of thing

People up there at this point, those few who are

left, live absolutely without hope. They're only living on some

severance pay they received — some on a few investments they have made

— because they don't want to leave unless they have to. It's a

disappointing approach that this government has taken in terms of that

community. I wish every cabinet minister could go up there and have a

look at that community. I wish they'd go up there right now and have

the intestinal fortitude to stand up in front of a meeting of 103

people, as I did last Wednesday night, and try and explain away their

conduct in this whole matter since they became the government. Just

remember, Mr. Speaker. that operation made

[ Page 4448 ]

money during the three years of NDP government and only lost money under the five years of the Socred government.

There

are many other areas I could discuss, but some of this material I'll

save for the estimates. I see the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) is here. It's hard to picture a flood-devastated area and what

the results and the consequences of that are to communities. I'll be

very brief, Mr. Minister; I see my time is running out. I'll discuss

this privately, of course, with the minister, and certainly I have

written him, as a matter of fact. I just want it on record. I know the

minister did go to Squamish, and I know that he did go into Bella

Coola, and I personally went into both communities and had the

opportunity of looking at people's houses, meeting with interested

community groups and that kind of thing. Mr. Neale of the provincial

emergency program and Mr. Brady of the water rights branch have been

extremely cooperative throughout all of this, and even Highways, in

cases of the repairing of certain dykes and bridges in some of these

areas, have been exceptionally good. They're spending a lot of money,

but the fact is, in terms of payments to some of the people who were

affected severely by flood damage.... I know you can't pay

everybody, and the minister made a point here about two months ago.

"Grandmother's painting down in the basement got...." You know,

they're not going to pay for that kind of thing. We can understand

that; even the people who are affected don't like it, but they can

understand it.

But I just want assurances from this House

that there will be proper funding — because this is the budget — for

flood protection for the people living in these areas. Now maybe they

should not have built in these areas in the first place; maybe it would

be cheaper to buy them out, because there are going to be more floods.

But the way the situation exists today, if we do not have proper flood

protection for these areas, you'd better buy them out or you'll be

paying them off forever.

MRS. WALLACE: They're only going to pay them once.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Well, I know that. That's part of the problem. Next year they're going

to get flooded out again; there is no question about it, unless you

have flood protection. Quite frankly, from the looks of the budget I

see in front of me here today I don't think that the government is

prepared to do that. We're prepared to subsidize the Japanese to get

rid of our coal, but we're not prepared to subsidize our own people for

flood protection in this province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, my

time has run out. The fact is I have a great deal more to discuss with

the government and ministers in this House, but we'll save that for

estimates.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You're correct. It's the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food, and you recall we passed the legislation last

year to expand the mandate of my ministry. I think over the coming

months and years we'll see some good, concrete results of expanding

that mandate to give my ministry a little more impact in the food

production, processing and marketing sector of our economy.

I'm

very pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Minister of

Finance's budget. I think it's fair to say it's a realistic budget and

it faces the realities of today. I would like to quote from the inside

page of the Minister of Finance's budget as follows: "This is a

prosperous province, a dynamic province. Our people deserve public

service of the highest standards, and it is our intention to see that

they are provided." I think that pretty well sums up and says it all as

far as the Minister of Finance's budget is concerned.

I'd

like to deal with the public service part of that later. I would like

to talk about the fiscal responsibility of this government at this time

for the benefit of the members of the opposition when they comment on

the track record of this government.

If you look back, it's

the sixth balanced budget of this government. You'll recall the

campaign promises in 1975 when we campaigned and again in 1979. We

campaigned on the basis of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and

accountability of government. We've followed through ever since we were

first elected to office in December 1975. But remember when we came

into office. Think back to when we came into office and faced a $275

million to $300 million deficit. This government took over and had to

deal with that major problem and had to set up a debt on the books of

the government. We were committed to pay that off over the next

ten-year period. Bill 14, which was introduced yesterday, indicates

that another payment of $26.1 million will be applied to that debt.

have never compromised our position or our campaign promises of either

1975 or 1979 — those of fiscal responsibility, sound management,

balanced budget, accountability to the people of this province and

provision of an economic climate in which industry and commerce could

prosper. In my opinion, the people of British Columbia will continue to

recognize the value of that commitment. The value of that commitment in

such things shows as the triple-A credit rating we now experience in

this province. It's the highest rating possible and allows the Crown

corporations to borrow money at very preferred rates. I think that is

something that indicates the seat of approval of the financial

community on the sound financial management of this government on

behalf of the people of British Columbia. By providing that sound

management we are able to save British Columbians millions of dollars

with regard to the cost of interest at today's rates. At the same time,

by looking at balanced budgets we don't have to say to our children

that we are incurring debts today that they will have to pay tomorrow.

By doing that, by balancing our budget and managing the economy, we

have the opportunity to provide enthusiasm in the private sector to

expand their activities and to make this province grow.

Let's

look at the statement from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich).

Unfortunately he's not in the House right now. He attacked the increase

in government expenditures.

Our budget went up to $6.6

billion for 1981-82. It's up from the 1980-81 budget of $5.6 billion,

an increase of 16.7 percent, Added to that is Bill 14, which I referred

to earlier. It's the $26.1 million needed for debt retirement — the

inheritance that we have from three years of NDP administration between

1972 and 1975. It's debt with a cost which is the interest on the

balance of money still outstanding on that debt of $209 million. The

member for Nanaimo knows that the debt is factual. It is supported by

an independent audit and is subject to any comment that the

auditor-general would wish to make. It's been on the books for a number

of years, indicating the factual aspect of that debt. It is recorded

there

[ Page 4449 ]

for

the people of British Columbia to see and remember and for this

government to have to provide payments to pay off that debt because of

poor management by the NDP administration from 1972-75. It is a legacy

left over from the socialist government.

Not only did they

not believe in fiscal responsibility, they did not understand it. If

you'll recall, the Premier of the day jumped from the Ministry of

Finance and left the member for Nanaimo to face the music. I often

thought it was unfortunate that the member for Nanaimo had to somewhat

compromise his position as an accountant to defend the fiscal policy of

the former Premier of this province. But comments of the member for

Nanaimo today, in my opinion, recognize that it wasn't a compromise.

His statements really relate to political expediency, in an attempt to

defend the role of that party as government and its fiscal

irresponsibility.

HON. MR. BENNETT: History found them out.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's very correct.

The

member for Nanaimo, in his comments this morning, did advocate the end

of tax increases. He said we should end tax increases. But he does not

give us the alternatives. He doesn't tell us what those alternatives

would be. I 'd just like to touch on them. One alternative would be to

cut services such as Health, Education or Human Resources, that major

part of our budget where you take revenue out of the economy and

government administers and redistributes that wealth to provide

people-services to the people of this province.

Is that the

alternative that the member for Nanaimo was advocating — to cut

services? Well, our Minister of Finance in this government says no. I

refer you to the statement that was made in the beginning of the budget

speech, where the Minister of Finance said: "Our people deserve public

services of the highest standards and it is our intention to see that

those services are provided." So that answer was not the alternative.

course, the member for Nanaimo, in saying we should not have tax

increases, didn't offer that alternative. But I suggest this would be

the alternative if they were in office. They would take that short-term

view, like they did in 1975. They offered to the people of the province

a short-term solution, namely deficit financing. Keep the increase in

taxes down or do not increase your taxes — then you're a nice guy. And

don't tell the people that some day somebody is going to have to pay

the piper, because maybe they won't notice or maybe you can put it off

long enough that you won't have to deal with it. Maybe something will

happen. Maybe you'll be lucky and the economy will rebound so you can

pay off this debt and this interest on the debt-financing that had to

be incurred. Or maybe, as happened in 1975, the people would look once

again and see — if that party was in power — that all of a sudden the

fiscal irresponsibility would be back and their children would be faced

with paying off a debt in the future.

That's the alternative

they would take at this particular time if they were in office. They

would look to deficit financing, hoping that some day the economy would

rebound without any plan at all, something would happen and they would

not have to worry about going to the people and raising their taxes.

They would in effect, as they did in the past, mortgage the future.

They would mortgage the future of our young people. They would mortgage

the future of all the industry in this province. And what for? It's

very simple: for political expediency in order to indicate that they

are good guys and that they are not going to be concerned about

carrying a debt for future generations.

We know that the

problem at the federal government level today is the size of the

deficit that is being carried. If I recall the figures correctly,

yesterday the Minister of Finance referred to $1,500 per household in

Canada to service debt. I stand to be corrected because I don't have

the Blues right in front of me, but I believe that was the figure he

used. Regardless of how accurate that figure is, it is a debt and it

must be serviced, which means that revenues that are generated by the

economy, by our people of Canada, have to go to pay off a

non-productive debt — instead of taking those funds, paying as you go

and stimulating the economy with better measures than paying off past

debts.

This government, this party, this Minister of Finance

do not trade fiscal responsibility for political expediency. The

Minister of Finance stated we would continue at a high level of

people-services in this province: we will, and the budget indicates

that. Yes. there is a cost and that cost has to be an increase in

taxation. I don't think there is a member in this chamber, I don't

think there is one British Columbian who would deprive the handicapped

or the children of our province of their education, deprive the infirm

or the sick of services, or deprive the seniors in this province. I

don't think they would deprive any of those people of the services now

provided. Basically this budget says that that high level of services

will be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, we will pay as we go.

because we know that is the proper way to administer the finances of

the province. We will not be like the NDP between 1972 and 1975. That

philosophy, which ended their term in office, was deficit financing now

and sock it to the taxpayer later, after you get re-elected. We know

why that election was called in December 1975. It had to be called then

because they couldn't have faced the budget for 1976.

Mr.

Speaker, the taxpayer of this province has been stung once, and I can

assure you that never again will he be stung with an administration

such as we experienced between 1972 and 1975. As I say, Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Finance and his budget recognize the need for

maintaining a standard of service. Just to quote some figures into the

record, if you look at the Health revised budget for 1980-81, it was

$1.7 billion; it's now moved up to $1.975 billion — approximately a 15

percent increase which would cover the cost of inflation and add

additional services to the Ministry of Health. The Education portfolio

went from $1.035 billion in 1980-81 to $1.172 billion in 1981-82, a

13.2 percent increase, Mr. Speaker. Human Resources moved from $753

million to $836 million, an 11 percent increase. I am confident that

because of the economic viability that exists in this province today,

the people can meet this challenge of increased taxation. Like the

Minister of Finance and this government, they recognize that social

services must be maintained. The level of services to our less

fortunate, our handicapped and our seniors will be maintained at the

high level that they have been in the past.

The headline in

this morning's Province , as we saw, basically said: "This government is

facing reality." We're increasing the sales tax, of course, from 4

percent to 6 percent, and that hurts anybody. Nevertheless it does

recognize that there is a need to raise those revenues out of the

economy to pay for those services. "They increased the tax on

cigarettes from 24 cents to 34 cents. or 10 cents a pack." To the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). that's a pretty

[ Page 4450 ]

heavy

load to carry. As a member of this House who stopped smoking some

several months ago, I think they should have raised it 20 cents a pack.

However, some of my colleagues who still smoke may be a little hurt by

that increase in taxation. Really, Mr. Speaker, that's probably where

we should be looking. If there was ever a way to probably encourage

people not to smoke — and we all know it's bad for you — it might be in

the price of the product. Maybe that would slow down some of the people

who wish to smoke a package or two a day.

Nevertheless,

there is increased taxation, but the reason for having increased

taxation is because of services to people. But the Minister of Finance,

in presenting his budget, didn't just zero in on tax increases. He

looked across the whole sphere of the economy and determined areas

where he could be of assistance in reducing taxation, areas where

assistance is needed such as low-income earners and the elderly. I

quote those two items in his budget highlights that he refers to.

First, one being a new provincial personal income tax credit equal to 3

percent of personal income tax exemptions less than 1.5 percent of

taxable income. This measure is expected to benefit 40 percent of the

B.C. families and 75 percent of the elderly citizens of the province.

That's a pretty good move on behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker, in

a time when things are tightening up. It may just serve the opposition

members well to comment that there is a move by government, even in

these times, to assist those people who are in need.

The

second area of reduction was to reduce the corporate income tax rate on

small businesses from 10 percent to 8 percent. Those small business

operations find that in these inflationary times things are a little

tighter, so there's a move there by the Minister of Finance to help

those small businesses and to assist them in facing these times.

Mr.

Speaker, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) attacked the Agriculture

and Food ministry budget and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) attacked it. I'll comment in detail during my estimates. To

the member for Nanaimo, included in my budget now, of course, are the

Land Commission funds earmarked for the operation and administration of

the Land Commission to enable us to do fine-tuning. When I travel

around the province more people come up to me and say: "You know, when

they dropped the agricultural land reserve on this province they just

simply dropped it. The Canadian inventory maps came down. The Minister

of Agriculture travelled this province after the Land Commission was

brought into effect and everywhere he went he said: 'Don't worry, we

had to do this in a hurry, but we're going to do this fine-tuning.' We

never saw him again; we never saw this fine-tuning." He never put it in

his budget and I'm sure that in the remarks under my estimates he will

probably say: "We were going to do it. We never got around to it." We

should send him a badge. Have you ever seen that badge? A big circle — "A Round Tuit." We should send it to him some day.

Anyway,

the fine-tuning of the agricultural land reserves is being carried out.

The members opposite will have some comments in regards to exclusions,

but let me tell you something for the benefit of the members opposite.

Of the lands that have been excluded from the agricultural land

reserve, 98 percent have been excluded on the recommendation of the

Agricultural Land Commission — less than 2 percent in opposition to a

recommendation by the Land Commission or on appeal. But, interestingly

enough, and we'll get to the figures a little later on, you'll find

that some of those exclusions happened under the NDP administration. I

hope that maybe at a later date when we get into some further

discussion under my estimates I will be able to advise them of some of

those instances where they didn't follow the Agricultural Land

Commission's recommendation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Tilbury Island could be one. Wong farm is another one. I'm not familiar

with all these. My colleagues over here know more about these than I.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, each member will have an opportunity to speak in this debate in turn.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I wish to make is that when there is

reaction to exclusions from the agricultural land reserve from members

opposite and other NDP supporters I'd just like to say, for the record,

that the record does indicate that in some instances the previous

administration did not accept the recommendation of the Agricultural

Land Commission, although now they would never let you believe that.

would also like to touch on the record of the Ministry of Agriculture

over the past few years. I just happen to have with me, for the benefit

of members opposite, the statistics, the economic indicators of the

agricultural industry in this province, and I'd just like to quote some

of these statistics. As I say, this is right off the press, the latest

figures, preliminary 1980. We talk about the agricultural land, the

ministry and the need for agricultural land under cultivation in this

province. It will be interesting to know that, first of all, the number

of farms in this province is increasing not decreasing but increasing.

It's up 5 percent since 1977. Cultivated farmland is also up 5 percent.

So when the members opposite talk about the blacktopping of farmland,

the record, indicates that (

a) we have more farms in operation and (

b) we have more land under cultivation, and also that our farm cash

receipts have increased substantially over the past four years. As a

matter of fact they're up to $147 million now — that's at the farm

gate. If you go beyond the farm gate and get into the production of

food I could almost challenge my good colleague the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who has the third largest industry in this

province, but I won't do that because she sits right beside me and she

may get concerned about who's third or who's fourth. Nevertheless,

agriculture is alive and well in this province. We have other

indicators. Poultry sales in this province are up substantially, apple

production, of course, had a tremendous year last year and cattle

numbers are up, which, I think, is an indication in this province of

some of the long-term planning that we did under the Ministry of

Agriculture to indicate that there was support for that industry and we

would assist it in growing. We have assisted it, and we are seeing

results now. My agricultural critic.... I hope she's not going to

leave. Are you going out for dinner or something? That's fine, I'll

just make those few comments to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace), and during my estimates we'll get into further detail and I

can go on to something else.

[ Page 4451 ]

making those few comments, the point I really wanted to make is that

budgets and budget figures in government are not the criteria you judge

success by in the productive sector of our province or our economy, For

example, forestry, mining or agriculture are the producing sectors in

the province. What is in the budget of the government, whether it's

more or whether it's less, is not an indicator of the success of that

industry. The success is indicated by the activity out in that industry

and the cooperation and communication that goes on between that

industry and government, not on budgeted dollars by government —

although, Mr. Member, if they were in power, it would be the big budget

here. You know what would happen. The control would also be here, and

those people out in the farming communities wouldn't have the

opportunity to expand and grow, because they would be running it all

from Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, you judge an industry on its

performance, not on how many dollars are in the provincial budget in

Victoria. The record in this industry has been good and it will

continue to be good. There is better communication and cooperation

between the agricultural industry of this province and the government

than ever before. As I said before. I'll make further comments on my

ministry during my estimates.

Mr. Speaker, included in my

estimates, however, there is the item of approximately $6 million for

the senior citizens' discount in their payment to ICBC. I think it was

either the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) or the member for

Cowichan-Malahat who said that this government was subsidizing ICBC. I

am the minister responsible for ICBC. This government introduced a bill

into the House....

MR. COCKE: Heaven help us.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, the member for New Westminster says: "Heaven help us." Can you

imagine that member saying that? When he left ICBC, it was in a

disastrous state. We had to loan it $188 million or $181 million. I

can't remember. They were broke; they couldn't even pay the claims. You

know, it's just amazing; they have such a short memory. He was an

insurance man at one time, too. I remember that.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister continue to address the Chair?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The

item in my budget deals with a payment to ICBC because we use them as a

vehicle to pay to the customer the government senior citizens' discount

for automobile insurance. It is a government program no different than

the homeowner grant, Mr. Speaker. We use that vehicle because that

vehicle is the ICBC form and the agent who is in touch with the

consumer. The consumers get the credit or the discount at the time they

take out their insurance.

So that's part of my budget, but the item is not a subsidy of ICBC; it

is using ICBC as a vehicle to pay a discount to the senior citizens of this

province for two reasons. Firstly, the seniors don't have the ability to

meet the inflationary trends of today because they're on a fixed income

in many cases. Secondly, as we do with the homeowner grant. I think we recognize

the contribution the seniors have made to this province. We wouldn't be

in the state we're in today, and have the economic viability we have today

if it weren't for the hard work of our senior citizens of this province. Mr.

Speaker, I for one am glad we can provide them with that discount for automobile

insurance.

Before

I close I just want to touch on northeast coal, because it seems to be

a topic the opposition is bringing up. There is $48 million for

development of northeast coal in this budget. Mr. Speaker, that is an

investment in the future of this province — not a subsidy or a support

but an investment which will return dividends in many ways. The figures

indicate that there will be 9,000 direct new jobs created in the coal

industry in this province. There will be the creation of some 20,000

indirect jobs. I would suggest that that activity in the northeastern

part of our province, which is a quarter of the size of the total

province, will touch everybody in this province, every family, because

of the activity of the direct employment and the indirect employment —

the service industries, the transportation industries, the doctors, the

lawyers, the teachers. You can go on and on about the amount of

indirect involvement in that tremendous economic activity in the

northeastern part of our province. There will be opportunities for jobs

for our young people, opportunities for them to acquire land, possibly

opening up agricultural land in that area to provide food for the

people of the north.

There are tremendous benefits. The

revenues that will be generated will continue to provide the high level

of services to the people of this province in the future, Mr. Speaker.

my opinion the northeast coal policy is no different than the two-river

policy. There was a remark made by a member opposite not too long ago

condemning the two-river policy. Just think of the cost of power today

if you had to build those dams today. You wouldn't even get it off the

ground. The far-sightedness of the W.A.C. Bennett government in those

days — the planning, the looking ahead to the future and seeing what

our demands were, what our demands would be — resulted in the fact that

we have energy in this province and the ability to generate energy.

believe the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) made a comment a few years ago that energy was going to

be the cornerstone of our economic development in this province, and it

will be. We have a tremendous opportunity in regard to the northeast

coal development. It will be no different than the two-river policy.

People will look back in a number of years on the development that

occurred in the northeastern sector of this province; and I would

suggest to you and to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that they will

look back and say somebody had the foresight and plan to open up that

northeastern sector to provide opportunities for the people. the young

people, our children and our children's children.

You know

what will happen with the NDP, still in opposition, still sitting, over

there. They would say, as they have in the past: "We would have done

that had we been in power. That would be the comment. Or, "We were

planning to do that. Our strategy was there, but you never gave us the

opportunity." They will do that, and I hope some of us are still here a

number of years down the road. a little grey.... Well, you'd be

grey: I'd be bald but you'd be grey. We'd be sitting here and we'd hear

these comments coining across the floor at us, but the track record of

that opposition when they were in government from 1972 to 1975 was that

bad, and the legacy they left was that bad, that the people of this

province will not have them back.

Just in closing. the headlines I mentioned earlier said that government faced harsh realities in this budget.

[ Page 4452 ]

MR. LAUK: In closing — is that all you have to say?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, Mr. Member, I guess you haven't been listening. I've been going

for about 30 minutes now. I'm running down. Or you don't understand,

one or the other; I'm not sure which.

The difference between

this government and that party is that we do face reality, and this

government will not mortgage future generations by deficit financing or

deficit budgeting.

In facing the realities of today the

Minister of Finance and this government have maintained social services

at their high standard for those in need, and for our health and

education programs, as I've mentioned, there's the increase in the

budget. Our Minister of Finance and this government have also invested

in the future to ensure economic expansion in this province. I

mentioned northeast coal, and I would mention the improved forest

management program, with some $293 million.

With those

comments I would close by