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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4459 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Forest and Range Management.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 4459

Ministry of Forests annual report tabled for the year ended December 3 1, 1980 4459

Mr. King –– 4460

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Legislative Library report pursuant to the Legislative Procedure Review Act.

Mr. Speaker –– 4460

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Lauk –– 4460

B.C. Rail bond issue. Mr. Stupich –– 4461

Budget debate

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4462

Mr. Lauk –– 4465

Mr. Lea –– 4468

Mr. Strachan –– 4471

Mr. Barber –– 4474

Mr. Davis –– 4481

Mr. Cocke –– 4483

Tabling Documents

Ministry of the Attorney-General annual report for the 15-month period to March

31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4485

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON:

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today from Delta, and hopefully to join

us very shortly, are Mayor Burnett, Alderman Lortie, Alderman Moser,

Alderman Hayward, and Delta's newest and most attractive addition,

Alderman Beth Johnson.

MR. HALL: Also visiting the

galleries today are some other visitors from Delta who may be described

as orphans. They are Mr. Brian Henshaw, Mr. Ed Brewer and Mr. Larry

Reed, who are seeking relief on a bridge.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It's a great pleasure for me to ask the House to welcome three of

Victoria's most enthusiastic residents who have been in the tourist

industry and have extended warmth and courtesy to our visitors. In the

members' gallery are Miss Lee Richards, who manages the gift shop at

the Crest Motel — no ad; her mother Mrs. Myrtle Richards; and a member

of the local Pennysaver , Ruth

Layne. Also, I'm sure the House will be pleased to know that a number

of people from the hotel industry are in the gallery with us at this

time: Mr. Ted Theobald, Mr. Rod Verstrate, Mr. Lloyd Manuel and Mr. Ken

Noble. We have been discussing affairs of state and the economy, and

I'd ask you to give them all a very warm welcome.

MR. SEGARTY:

In the gallery this afternoon is one of the Elk Valley's most

enthusiastic citizens. He's a director of employee relations for

British Columbia Coal, a member of the British Columbia Labour

Relations Board, and mayor of Sparwood. I'd like the House to welcome

Mr. Henry Volkmann.

MR. COCKE: In the gallery today visiting from the Royal City, that well-known place in the sun, are Mr. and Mrs. Moody.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

FOREST AND RANGE MANAGEMENT

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table British Columbia's second

five-year forest and range resource management program in the

Legislature. This program is a confirmation of our government's

long-term commitment to effective and consistent management of British

Columbia's forest and range resources.

We have set our goals

as was required by legislation, and we will meet them. I am

particularly pleased that our government has been able to increase

projected expenditures for my ministry above and beyond those called

for in last year's program. Total projected expenditures in 1981

dollars over the five-year period from 1981-82 until 1985-86 will be

$1.8 billion. This is a 16 percent increase, over and above inflation,

beyond the total expressed for last year's five-year forest management

program, which extended until 1984-85.

The respective roles

of government and the forest industry in implementing the total

ministry program are split approximately this way: 68 percent of

expenditures through the ministry, and 38 percent through credits

against stumpage and to be carried out by the private sector. In

addition to that we will be contracting a great deal of the work we are

responsible for, so that the real balance in work division between the

ministry and the private sector will be approximately a 50-50 split.

Mr.

Speaker, in tabling this report, I would like to just speak of a few

highlights that you will find in the five-year program. First, basic

and intensive silvicultural goals to be reached by 1985-86 have been

increased over the targets projected for last year, and in several

cases very significantly. Dramatic gains are planned for the

reforestation program. The goal of planting 117 million seedlings by

1984-85 has been raised to a goal of planting 150 million seedlings by

1985-86. That will be double the number of seedlings that were planted

during this current fiscal year. This change is an outgrowth of my

ministry's policy of encouraging and supporting the development of

nurseries by the private sector.

In 1985-86 the total

silvicultural program, both basic and intensive, will comprise 40

percent of my total ministry budget, and that compares to last year's

28 percent. Over and above inflation, the total ministry expenditures

by the year 1985-86 will be 99 percent higher than they were in the

year 1979-80. The silvicultural program, however. will be 180 percent

higher than in the last fiscal year.

In 1980 the forestry

harvest in British Columbia totalled about 75 million cubic metres,

which is very close to the previous record, in spite of a very poor

lumber market in the world. Industry is also responding to the

responsible management position that we are taking and they are

committing themselves to modernizing and changing the forest industry

to suit the changing profile of forests which they will be using in the

future. At the present time a total of $4.6 billion in capital

expenditure is committed and projected by the forest industry in

British Columbia. Last year alone $1.4 billion was spent. The ministry

collected over $514 million in direct revenue last year. This was a

record amount and demonstrates the benefit of our forests for the

province of British Columbia.

Several other records were

broken last year. More trees were planted than in any other single

year. For the first time, this year, some 75 million seedlings were

planted in British Columbia, which is an increase of 18 percent over

the previous year. Within five years we will have doubled that figure.

The range administration in the province has again been increased. Last

year we provided over 930,000 anabol unit months of forage in British

Columbia — another record. Our recreational program has been greatly

expanded and was used last year by over 1.3 million visitors — mostly

British Columbians.

I am very pleased to table in the House

today our second five-year forest management program which demonstrates

our government's intent and commitment to manage the forests for the

future. At the same time I would table the annual report of the

Ministry of Forests for the year ended December 31, 1980.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the tabling of the reports, the statutory

section needs no leave but the non-

[ Page 4460 ]

statutory report will require leave. Shall leave be granted for tabling?

Leave granted.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for tabling the second

five-year plan in the House at this time and to assure him and the

House that we will look forward with great interest to studying that

report.

I listened attentively to the minister's indications

that he had achieved all manner of new records in terms of restocking

the forests of British Columbia. While he gave percentage increases

over previous years he did not give any indication that we have yet

achieved a level which will keep pace with the annual allowable cut,

much less catch up on the almost two million acres of inadequately

restocked forest land in the province of British Columbia. That

concerns me greatly. It's going to take a far greater allocation of

will and financial resources to recapture that land which is now

unproductive than simply a percentage gain over last year's budget.

would observe too, despite the minister's claim that the nursery

capacity has expanded and seedlings are now available, that a cursory

inspection I have conducted of regional field offices of the Ministry

of Forests still indicates a serious shortfall in the amount of

seedlings available to restock the needs in those regions on an annual

basis. So I don't think the minister should take too much pride until

we arrive at a situation where adequate nursery capacity and adequate

seedlings are available to meet the annual needs as well as catch up.

The

other point he talked about in his previous inventory report dealt with

the potential loss over the next 20 years of about 25 percent of the

forest land base in the province of British Columbia. In the interim

period we have seen the minister's colleague the hon. Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) dispensing Crown land, that

is indeed forest base land for smallholdings of hobby farms, at an

alarming rate.

I think that the projections contained in the

first inventory report are indeed liable to be outpaced in terms of the

erosion of the forest base land. The Journal of Logging ,

which is a fairly competent observer of the forest industry's health,

arrives at the same conclusions in their latest issue. We will be

looking very closely at these points. It's going to take a great deal

more than bland statements of percentage increases to satisfy the

official opposition that the minister is indeed delivering on the brave

words of his inventory.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Ministerial statements in this House are perhaps not as

frequent as they are in some Houses, and I think that it would be wise

for us to reflect for a moment on the purpose and length of ministerial

statements. Statements by ministers have been given a recognized place

in routine proceedings. The standing order is specific, but

considerable latitude has been left to the Speaker to set limits on the

participants. The Speaker has emphasized that both the government and

opposition contributions should be brief and factual. The purpose of

ministerial statements is to convey information and not to encourage

debate.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order,

partly with respect to what you have just now said about brevity and

also about the custom and the practice. It seems to me that if

ministers are going to embark upon the practice of lengthy statements,

and the Chair obviously can't know that unless he is advised in advance

about what the statement is, it would be courtesy, if nothing else, for

ministers to make copies of their statements available beforehand to

members of the opposition so there could be some analysis made of them

and thus fair play come into play in responding to ministerial

statements.

Mr. Speaker tabled the report of the activities

of the Legislative Library, pursuant to the Legislative Procedure

Review Act, chap. 231, RSBC .

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: I apologize for being late. Did we have introductions yet?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if the House would indulge, I'd like to introduce someone.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

I'm sure everyone will be pleased with this particular introduction,

Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Jerry "Mack Truck"

Reddick. I'm sure that most of you have heard of Mr. Mack Truck —

spelled perhaps different than the trucking company. Mr. Truck came off

a merchant marine ship two years ago in the Victoria harbour and joined

in one of those "So You Wanna To Fight" contests, and without any more

experience than that has elevated himself to a top middleweight

contender in Canada. I'm sure that all Victorians are proud to have Mr.

Mack Truck here with us this afternoon. I believe he fights in Nanaimo

in about a week; he has a fight coming up very soon. I'm quite pleased

to have been associated with that young man. Why don't you stand up,

Mack, and let them see you?

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the minister of industry and infinitesimal

development. On March 9 I asked the minister to confirm that there will

be a $2 reduction on freight charges to Teck Corp. and Denison Mines

Ltd. In the first five years of coal shipment. As you may recall, the

minister replied that he was not aware of the BCR or CN making a rebate

to any coal company. Yesterday when I pointed out that Mr. Andras said

that there was such a discount, the minister didn't answer. This

afternoon I have again confirmed with Mr. Andras that a rate rebate

will be given by BCR or CN or both. Was the minister aware of this

rebate when he gave his answer on March 9?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I would suggest that the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has

been in this Legislature for quite some years. I'm sure he has lost

some of his respect for the Legislature. Whether he has any respect for

me personally or not is a matter which might be open to debate. But I

[ Page

4461 ]

would suggest in respect of our parliamentary order that the member address

the portfolios of cabinet ministers with the proper nomenclature.

MR. LAUK:

I can assure the hon. minister that I not only respect his office but

him personally. The question is directed to the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In

answer to the question from the first member for Vancouver Centre, as

the member knows, there has been a lot of negotiation since April 21,

1980, when the Japanese steel industry decided to make this great move

and open up the northeast

section of the province by purchasing an

initial tonnage of coal in order to make the project viable. Since that

time, there have been a lot of negotiations between the coal companies,

steel companies and the two railways involved. I think that I answered

the first member the other day when I said — and it still holds — that

I'm not aware of any rebate by the railroads to any coal companies.

That answer remains the same as it was when I gave it to him two days

ago.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary. Mr. Andras of Teck

Corp., being the principal negotiator for that company, is under the

distinct impression and expectation that a rebate will be given. Mr.

Olson, the Minister of State for Economic Development, has stated that

the CNR will not be part of that because there will be a complete

commercial cost recovery for that railway. Can the minister confirm

that if there is such a $2 freight rate reduction to Teck, it will be

made by the British Columbia Railway?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

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

to say that I haven't the legal background that the member has, not

having had the opportunity to be in a courthouse. However, I want to

tell him again that there were negotiations on the freight rates. There

is a lot of difference, as far as I'm concerned, between a reduction

and a rebate. Having said that in further answer to the member's

question, which was not very properly worded to get the information I'm

sure he's seeking, Mr. Speaker, there indeed were negotiations on the

freight rate. I could go back in the records, I would imagine, and find

that there certainly were some negotiations from the original price.

The Canadian National Railway, that great railway which was built to

open up this great country, first of all wanted a very high freight

rate and, naturally, so did our great British Columbia Railway. But I

want to tell the member that both railways will be making a very

handsome profit on moving that coal from northeast British Columbia to

the port of Prince Rupert.

MR. LAUK: If the rebate is applied to both companies for five years....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or reduction.

MR. LAUK: Or reduction — what difference does it make? It will amount

to $90 million. a further loss which has to this point been hidden from the

public. Is the minister now willing to disclose to the taxpayers of British

Columbia all the hidden subsidies to the northeast coal development? Tell

us about the other hidden subsidies, Mr. Minister.

The minister is attempting to get out of his seat, Mr. Speaker. He might be

glued there for some reason. Is the minister going to answer that question?

Are there any other subsidies?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have another question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I can't answer the question, because there really was no

question. I want to tell you, my friend, and I want to tell all these

great British Columbians, there are no hidden subsidies in this deal on

northeast coal. There is absolutely nothing to hide. The member is

being argumentative. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you draw it to

his attention, because he is being argumentative and imposing an

improper motive on this government. I can't stand for that while I am a

member on this side of the House.

MR. LAUK: I

appreciate the minister's assurance to this House that there are no

hidden subsidies and that his government has nothing to hide. I am

asking him, therefore: has he decided to make public all the memoranda

and documents surrounding this deal so that we can be totally assured

that the minister has not made a mistake in that regard?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker. I will be tabling numerous and sundry documents very shortly.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, the question was whether he would make public all the

memoranda and documents surrounding the northeast coal project. not

whether he would provide numerous and sundry documents. That is not

responsive.

MR. SPEAKER: The first question was in order; the second question is out of order.

MR, LAUK:

Well, Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the opposition will

continue to press for the full public disclosure of these documents, no

matter how long it takes during this session?

B.C. RAIL BOND ISSUE

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Given the

minister's continued trumpeting of B.C.'s triple-A credit rating, can

he explain why the province failed to find any takers in the European

money market for the $100 million B.C. Rail bond issue in February of

this year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question is based

somewhat on an inaccuracy. The government did not fail to find any

takers for an issue. In fact, the issue was not actually offered to the

market.

MR. STUPICH: Did the government change its

mind about making this offer when it found out that the climate was

going to be too cool in view of some concern by the international

financial community about the government's involvement in the northeast

coal issue?

[ Page 4462 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Argumentative.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the question is indeed argumentative, but I think this is

an opportunity to put the record straight. I trust that the member, as

an honourable member of this assembly, will accept and understand

precisely what occurred. We were interested in placing an issue on

behalf of British Columbia Rail in the Euro"U.S. market. These are U.S.

dollars resident in Europe.

There is a term that I'm not

that comfortable with, but it's a term the member will know, and it's a

term which is used in the marketing of debentures. That is, there was a

window. There was a brief period when it appeared that the most

favourable market conditions for U.S. dollars were to be found in

Europe, and we were interested. It also happened that many other people

were interested. The member will know, as a former but brief Minister

of Finance in the socialist administration, that these windows do

occur, and then the market can alter dramatically within a very few

minutes. Literally in 15 minutes it can move 10 or 20 basis points.

the Friday in question we expressed a willingness to consider going to

that market. On the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, while documentation

was prepared, British Columbia, along with a number of other would-be

borrowers at that particular moment, found that the terms and

conditions were not acceptable. We have decided to wait as far as the

Euro"U.S. market is concerned.

I assure the member that the

issue was in no way related to northeast coal and I reject

categorically the inference that the.... [Applause.] At least let me

reject it before you applaud. I reject categorically the inference that

the market somehow did not like what we were about to do. The decision

to go was ours; the final decision not to go to the market was also

ours, based on conditions and in the best interests of the people we

are elected to serve.

MR. STUPICH: There will be better opportunity to discuss that response when we get to estimates, but in the meantime....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: No, it's simply that we hope to get more information at that time. That's not a threat or anything else.

the meantime, can the minister tell us what steps he has taken to

secure investment capital for the BCR's Anzac spur line at a reasonable

rate of interest?

HON. MR. CURTIS: On behalf of

several Crown corporations, not the least of which is British Columbia

Railway, senior officials in the Ministry of Finance are constantly

monitoring the bond market — Canadian, American and Euro"U.S.; those

are the only markets we are considering — for appropriate times to move

to market. Indeed, an issue was successfully raised earlier today in

Toronto in Canadian dollars for British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority.

MR. STUPICH: There is some concern that

the bond market may be in a bad way for some time, and I'm wondering

whether the minister has any alternative plans for raising the money

for BCR to build this line.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think

that it's not just the specific of British Columbia Railway and their

capital requirements in months and years to come but rather all Crown

corporations which would go to the market. We also, as the member knows

and as the House knows, have significant capability internally to fund

projects, and we are undertaking that. We review those frequently. I

spoke just a moment ago of the issue which was successfully concluded

today. It's to close on April 14 next.

At the moment there

is some concern internationally with respect to the availability of

so-called long-term debenture markets, long-term bond markets, but that

problem is by no means restricted to British Columbia issues or to

Canadian issues. In Europe quite some time ago, the former long-term

bond disappeared and now "long" is an adjective which would be ascribed

to ten years, seven years, or something of that order. The issue which

we undertook for British Columbia Hydro three days before Christmas was

for 30 years. The issue which was settled today for British Columbia

Hydro today was for 25 years. Whenever we see an opportunity to go into

that kind of market, if the conditions and terms are right, we shall do

so immediately.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I

believe I have a few minutes yet in my time to conclude my address to

the budget. I was surprised, frankly, with the official response from

the official opposition on this budget. I had thought, for example,

that the hon. member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who accused this

of member to separate himself from the New Democratic Party in Canada,

who have aligned themselves with the Liberal Party in Ottawa against

those of us in western Canada who appreciate that our natural resources

and the profits therefore belong to the people of British Columbia. I

would have thought that that member, of all the members across the way,

would have appreciated that and wouldn't have included in his remarks

the Ottawa bashing commentary which he laid at the feet of this

government. I would like to say to the designated speaker of the

opposition who accused us and made so much of Canada bashing that it

seems to me the federal government has abandoned in past months any

notion of a cooperative approach to revenue-sharing and instead has

embarked on a program of unilateral persuasion. The opposition claims

that this administration has embarked on this campaign of going after

the federal government, but I would say that from the standpoint of

resource revenue the reverse is very much the case — the federal

government is going after the provincial government of British Columbia.

would think that this isn't a view held solely by this side of the

house but also one increasingly shared by observers in the province at

large — so much so, in fact, that the Fraser Institute has produced a

timely book on the reaction to the national energy program entitled, Reaction: The National Energy Program .

If the members of the house take no more time than to read from the

introduction of that publication they would be well advised to do so.

The introduction by Dr. Michael Walker gives us an outside view of

events which produce the background making today's budget a necessity.

There

has been much talk to the effect that the British Columbia government

has adopted a contrived attitude of bashing the national government,

but other people do not feel

[ Page 4463 ]

that

way. In fact we are reacting to issues which are without precedent in

the country and which were begun unilaterally by the national

government. Let me quote from the introduction to the book to emphasize

the point that the federal government has left us no alternative but to

raise revenues, to make up for revenues that are siphoned off by the

federal government. Since 1945 the approach to revenue sharing has been

a cooperative one between the provincial and federal governments. In

recent months the national revenue program has abandoned this

relationship. We are merely reacting to their drastic changes. In the

stormy weather which has been created by unilateral federal action, the

budget before the House can be viewed as a lifeboat intended to save

the level of public sector services provided by provincial government

in the province. Dr. Walker says this in the publication put out by the

Fraser Institute.

"While the national energy

program is obviously of great importance in determining Canada's energy

future, its most profound and long-lasting effects may be on the

structure of the Canadian federation. In fact Professor Tom Kurcheny,

an internationally acknowledged expert on matters of fiscal federalism,

suggests that the national energy program has effectively shattered the

concept of federalism as a system of self-rule — shared-rule. In his

insightful analysis Kurcheny concludes that the most devastating

feature of the National Energy Program is the fact that it involves

unilateral action and revokes a long-standing tradition of cooperation

in the evolution of fiscal arrangements. In his view there are no

longer ground rules for the federalism gain. While the National Energy

Program itself directly impacts only a narrow range of issues, it will

have an effect on the overall tone of federal-provincial fiscal

dealings. In Kurcheny's view the medium is the message, and the medium

is one of unilateral action — a message which the provinces have

clearly received."

At the end of the preface there is also

another quote, and I wish you all would read the messages in between,

but let me just quote this last line.

"Thus

the most important long-term consequences of the national energy

program may be the further decline of the common market which exists

between the provinces with all the inefficiencies that portends. In

Kurcheny's view the future of Confederation and federal-provincial

relations looks bleak and fractious."

Mr. Speaker, when the

members opposite, who have on the national scene and obviously now on

the provincial scene aligned themselves with the moves of the Liberal

Party in Ottawa to take over the resources of the provinces and not to

return to the provinces what is rightfully theirs, then I suggest to

you that these members of the New Democratic Party are not serving the

people of British Columbia well.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Each member will have an opportunity to debate in his turn.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond, too, to some of the discussion which

was embodied in some members opposite when they were responding to the

budget speech last day, and they talked about the current housing

crisis. I also refer to some publications which were put out by the

Fraser Institute, not recently but in 1975. A book was written and

edited by Dr. Michael Walker and put out by the Fraser Institute. Part

two says that rent control is not the solution. I would like to share

this with the members of the House:

"Price

control produces shortages because of the prices kept below the market

price. The control becomes, in effect. a tax on the supplier. The

amount of the tax is the difference between the market price and the

controlled price. Since the proceeds of the tax are in effect given to

the consumer, the consumer is encouraged to demand more. Thus since

price control taxes suppliers and gives the proceeds to customers, it

leads inevitably to a widening gap between the amount demanded and the

amount supplied. i.e. a shortage.

"Rents in

Vancouver appear to have boomeranged under the influence of rent

control. Historically. rents in Vancouver have risen slightly less than

rents in Toronto. In the period 1963 to 1973 Toronto rents rose 30.6

percent,

whereas in Vancouver the increase was only 30.3 percent. Since

the time rent controls became effective — that is, 1974-75 — rents have

risen by 59 percent more in Vancouver than they have risen in Toronto."

Mr. Speaker, I lay that before the House because there is going to be a lot

of discussion in this province in the next few months regarding a shortage of

rental units. May I say that we only need to go back to the moves that were

made by the opposition when they were in government, to really lay the blame

of a shortage of housing in this province where it rightfully belongs: at the

feet of the Now Democratic Party, whose moves have disallowed an incentive for

the building of housing units which are so necessary today. Thank goodness the

province of British Columbia, through its government, just a year ago provided

low-interest loans and mortgages to the amount of $200 million, which gave this

province record housing structures in this past year surpassing all of the Canadian

provinces.

Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to have drawn to my attention that in the gallery

this afternoon is Dr. Gordon Shrum. As members of this House will know,

Dr. Shrum is an outstanding Canadian who has assisted this province in

such an outstanding way, and I would like the House to join with me in

welcoming him.

Dr. Shrum wasn't in the House yesterday, I

don't believe, when I commented on the trade and convention centre. It

is because of the initiatives of this government and the trade and

convention centre and the kinds of revenue that it will bring to the

province of British Columbia that the social services which I am

responsible for will be able to be increased and enhanced. I'd like to

thank Dr. Shrum for his

part in bringing the trade and convention

centre to fruition. It will be the finest trade and convention centre

in the world, and we'll welcome the world to British Columbia because

of the work that Dr. Shrum has been doing on our behalf.

Mr.

Speaker, I really want to address myself today to some of the services

which we're going to provide in this budget for families and children,

because in this province

[ Page 4464 ]

today

we have a level of social services to be envied in all of the world. We

have social services to families and children which have been the focus

of attention in this past four to five years in this province. I'm

happy that $104 million is going to be added — an increase of 18.8

percent over the 1980-81 budget — for a total of programs which include

an increase in subsidies to help more than 10,500 parents in British

Columbia to meet the cost of child day-care services. My ministry

subsidizes the cost of almost 11,000 children a month, in a variety of

day-care services — 43 percent of all children who attend day care in

the province of British Columbia. These subsidies were increased in May

1980. One million dollars toward improvements in the income-testing

criteria for the day-care subsidy and the homemaker subsidy, to allow

these programs to reach an increased number of potential beneficiaries,

will be added. These will increase by 17 percent in May 1980. The

proposed additional assistance will offer valuable support to low- and

fixed-income families.

The government has provided $2.3

million to develop five intensive-care child-care resource units for

emotionally disturbed children. I'm pleased that the inter-ministerial

cooperation is working so very well between the social services

ministries. The Ministries of Human Resources, Health, Education and

the Attorney-General are all together in addressing the plight of the

emotionally disturbed adolescents who cannot receive proper care under

existing programs. We have long awaited this initiative. If I don't

speak today of any other social initiative in the budget, I want to

draw attention to that one because of the incredible need for it and

the fact that it has been such a cooperative effort between our

ministries.

There are other important services to families

and children which will be extended this year. It's interesting that

they are extended at a time in this province and in this nation when

social services are being curtailed throughout the North American

continent and the world because of recession and problems with

economies which promise too much and cannot deliver. But we are

delivering our social services. There is an increase in specialized

services and community services for children with emotional problems.

This will enable them to return to their own families and communities,

while receiving continuing care and attention. It also addresses itself

to increased staffing to deal with reported child abuse and neglect.

Our Helpline program for children has proven to be of immense value in

identifying family-crisis situations; but in the identification of

those situations more help has been needed.

We are

increasing the budget for the income-security programs under GAIN. An

additional $32 million has been allocated to provide increased benefits

to those receiving income assistance and GAIN-for-handicapped

allowances. To ensure that the ministry can effectively administer

these services, the field operations budget will increase by more than

$3 million to provide additional staffing. An additional 85 social

workers and support staff will be hired to provide services in areas

where a need has been identified. These new positions will be

throughout the province. I'm pleased to tell you that new offices will

be opened to meet the growing need in the northern and interior areas,

where the pace of economic and social change is rapid, particularly in

the areas of Valemont-McBride and Stewart.

The United

Nations has declared this year to be the International Year of Disabled

Persons. Particular attention is being given to the expansion of

services to the disabled. The infant development program provides

special training from birth to the age of three to those handicapped

children who are delayed in their physical development. This has been a

most successful program. Because of its success it is in such demand

throughout the province. Those who have the program would like it to

cover more; those who do not have it would like to have it initiated.

This year's funding will be increased 100 percent to expand existing

services and to provide services in several communities where none

exist. There are currently 17 of these programs operating around the

province, serving an average of 625 children. A number of requests will

expand those programs during the coming year.

Specialized

day-care programs for children with exceptional needs will be expanded.

This will enable an anticipated 170 handicapped children throughout the

province to receive services. The ministry purchases specialized

day-care services for approximately 1,000 handicapped children in

specialized and integrated group day-care facilities. Parents of

special-needs children are not required to contribute to the cost of

specialized group day care. Counselling and home training programs for

deaf children, introduced by the federal government, will be continued.

The families of 50 deaf infant and pre-school children will be given

training in all forms of communication. It is our firm belief that

early training by specialized staff can greatly support the later

education of those children with learning disabilities.

The

number of achievement centres will be increased so that handicapped

adults may receive more opportunities and social interaction. The

monthly transportation allowance to travel to achievement centres will

be increased for the 1,700 handicapped people receiving income

assistance and attending these centres.

I'd like to

congratulate our Minister of Finance, who has given us a realistic

budget but has also addressed the needs of those who are in need and

need our special care and attention. I was particularly interested in

the budget's mention of the year of the handicapped, where a $14

million enrichment of educational and employment opportunity programs

for the handicapped has been introduced and there is a full rebate of

the provincial fuel tax to eligible handicapped persons. I would also

like to suggest that the extension of the maximum $630 homeowner grant

to cover an additional 3,000 handicapped persons is particularly apt in

this year of the disabled, but also pays tribute to the fact that this

balanced budget, which calls on the people of British Columbia to, yes,

pay higher taxes, asks them also to think of those who are not as

fortunate as themselves and need our special help and special care.

Among those are those people of British Columbia who are in a

particular income tax area which needs special assistance. The major

tax reduction in the budget which covers and benefits 40 percent of

British Columbia families and 75 percent of the elderly residents of

the province is a measure which will give relief to our people of

British Columbia while still maintaining and retaining all of the

services and adding so many more.

We have seen a difference

in philosophy in this province in the last few years. The difference in

philosophy has been one of socialism or individual enterprise. This

budget addresses itself to the initiative of the people who have a

vision and an opportunity to build British Columbia even greater. This

budget says to the people of British Columbia that we will in this

province take care of those in need and we will also give opportunities

for those who will be coming after us.

[ Page 4465 ]

This

is a budget that is looking forward. By being realistic it reflects the

government's commitment to those in need, those who are ill, those who

are disabled, those who need hospitalization and those who need human

resources. None of these services has been curtailed, none of them has

been sacrificed. Where the NDP, the socialist party of this province,

say, "Leave the resources in the ground, " the statement made by the

designated speaker of the NDP....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Or: "Give them to Ottawa."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As my colleague the Attorney-General says, they say: "Leave them in the ground or give them to Ottawa. You have your choice."

But

the choice that this government makes and the choice that this province

of British Columbia makes in this budget says to the people of British

Columbia that we will protect the resources for the people of British

Columbia, for the good of the people of British Columbia, and this

government has clearly expressed the vision that matches the greatness

of the province of British Columbia. This budget gives opportunities

for the young, jobs for the people of British Columbia, and it once

again says that this is the place to be in the 1980s, this province of

British Columbia.

I am pleased to speak in support of this great budget.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the warm respons e

that I'm receiving from all sides of the House is a testimony, because

all of the veteran members of the House applaud as I take my place in

this debate. That's a clear indication that they know my remarks are

going to be fair, even-handed, truthful and to the point.

contrast I would like to deal with the comments of the previous

speaker. The Minister of Human Resources has made some statements in

her speech which cannot go unanswered. I think the minister is not

completely candid with us or the people of the province of British

Columbia on several issues, and I want to point them out because she

raised them in her speech. I think that it's incredible indeed for the

minister to quote statistics of comparative rent increases in Toronto

and Vancouver when since 1976 this government has sat on its hands and

allowed a housing shortage to grow more serious month by month and year

by year until the people, particularly in the city of Vancouver, are on

the streets.

Housing is a critical problem in this province,

and she blames rent controls. Since 1976 this government had an

opportunity to deal with that problem; they have done nothing. They

have shut down the housing corporation. They've created no new

incentives for the building of housing. All they do is whine and

whimper about farmland remaining in the agricultural land reserve, and

they take it out for their friends to develop expensive luxury housing,

They will not come to grips with the housing shortage in this province

for ordinary people. That's why the rents are so high here. There's a

shortage of housing. Why is there a shortage of housing? Because this

government has done nothing since 1975 or 1976 to take care of it.

all the unmitigated gall, for the minister to raise the trade and

convention centre. Last year this House voted a vote of confidence in

that minister as our representative on the board to develop the trade

and convention centre. We voted for the bill. We delivered a totally

non-partisan encomium to that minister. We said she was fantastic. She

sat on that board. She knew at the point when she announced the cost of

the trade and convention centre at being somewhere in the neighbourhood

of $25 million that it would cost more than that. She was trying to

sell a bill of goods on that project to the people of Vancouver and

this province. She sat on that board month after month. We thought she

would negotiate for us and handle it in a businesslike manner. She has

totally bungled that project, and there's proof of that. The city of

Vancouver, through its finance committee, has exposed the real cost of

that convention centre. The minister knew or ought to have known what

the real costs of that convention centre were. It's an elaborate

boondoggle, a political ploy that had nothing to do with the reality of

a trade and convention centre, which all of us thought would be a good

idea.

What do you say to a person who has dealt with an issue so incompetently?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Resign."

MR. LAUK: Resign

from that convention centre board. Resign from it. Give it to somebody

who knows what they're doing, who can tell the truth to the people

about its costs so that we can relate realistically to what we, as

taxpayers — the business community and civic and provincial officials —

can do to put together that project in a proper, businesslike and

efficient manner.

It was through the minister's bungling.... And

I'm surprised that she would have the nerve and unmitigated gall to

stand in this House to take credit for something that's still a puff

of wind today because of that minister's incompetence in handling the

project.

What was the answer of the people of Vancouver to

these big-ticket items that were being handled in such an incompetent

way by the provincial government? They got their answer on November 15

when a number of Social Credit Party hacks sitting on council were

thrown out of public office by the city of Vancouver. Thrown out of

public office!

AN HON. MEMBER: The people of Delta gave a message on Saturday.

MR. LAUK:

Another message in Delta. You're not reading these things, through you,

Mr. Speaker, to the minister and to the government. You're not taking a

close look at what's happening in this province. People are fed up to

the teeth with the shell game. They want to be told the truth, On some

of these projects they'll pay the price, but they want the truth. They

don't to be hoodwinked into monuments on behalf of the Social Credit

Party. They want to know that it's a benefit to their community, that

it's a reasonably priced project and that it will not be funded by this

government or by the city at the expense of needed projects within the

city and particularly funded by massive and oppressive tax increases to

ordinary working families.

The minister says: "Socialism

versus individual enterprise." Well, the people of the province of

British Columbia are well aware of what that government means by

individual enterprise, and they're saying it's too expensive for the

individual. If this is what they call individual enterprise — an extra

$850 per working family to pay for their big-ticket monuments across

this province while nothing has happened on the basic services that

government should be providing to people — then individual enterprise

is too expensive for us. Let's talk about individual freedom — the

freedom to work and live in our communities without being taxed out of

our

[ Page 4466 ]

homes,

without being taxed out of our jobs, without seeing everything we've

worked and saved for over a lifetime of labour eaten away by an

extravagant and incompetent government. The government is feeding off

the backs of the homeowner-taxpayer here in the province of British

Columbia. They are destroying home ownership in this province. Whether

it is deliberate or just out of sheer stupidity, Mr. Speaker, they are

destroying the opportunity for ordinary families to own homes in this

province. They know it, and they call that individual enterprise. For

whom? The major corporations in this province, or for the ordinary

working people, some of whom used to vote for that party?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

It's okay for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) to say: "Bring out the whipping boy." Let me tell

you, the ordinary working family in this province has been whipped long

enough by this government. They've been whipped year after year, budget

after budget. They have no place to live, they can't afford the rents,

they're out of jobs, and of the jobs that they do have, Mr. Speaker,

they are paying such a great portion of that income for taxes, for

northeast coal, for B.C. Place, for Transpo and for that little toy

ALRT, for which the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is

trying to do a snow job on the people of British Columbia....

Mr.

Speaker, I'll give you an example of how this government is destroying

home ownership in the province of B.C. They are paying less of school

budgets while the homeowner pays more. In transit they created a

virtual smokescreen in this Legislature on the Urban Transit Authority

Act. They said: "We're going to give responsibility for planning your

transit to regional areas through the UTA. At the same time, however,

we're going to give you responsibility to raise the funding for that

transit through homeowner taxation, hydro rates and gasoline tax."

Little

did we know at that time that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) had every intention to come this Christmas and say to

the UTA: "I'm taking back planning, but you keep the responsibility of

raising the funds." The gasoline tax — is there anything left for

transit there? This greedy, money-hungry government is grabbing every

last penny from the gasoline tax. Hydro — we're going to pay more on

Hydro rates. Who's kidding whom? Hydro owes $8 billion. Do you know

what the annual interest rate and debt-servicing charges of that amount

is on the backs of the Hydro ratepayers in this province? No, it's

going to be homeowner taxation once again, and only the very wealthy

will be able to stay in their homes, because this government couldn't

care less about home ownership in this province. Oh, they went across

the province and talked about everybody being entitled to own his own

home and about the poor people being stricken by the NDP because they

were not given Crown land. Remember that? "They are not giving you

Crown land."

But actions speak louder than words. Since 1976

the share of education taxes on the homeowner has risen steadily,

whereas in the NDP administration it went down steadily.

That

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker, can only be described as an

egotistical dictator when it comes to transit. You cannot give with one

hand and take away with the other.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that temperate language is the hallmark of good debate. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK:

I thank you for bringing me to order, Mr. Speaker. But I'll tell you

the people of the city of Vancouver are fed up to the teeth with the

double-shuffle that that minister has perpetrated upon them, as if he

has some magic about urban-transit planning. When he announced this

automated light rapid transit system — the turnkey operation we're

buying sight unseen, a pig in a poke from back east — he gave as an

excuse that the regional district is moving too slowly, when, a month

prior to his announcement, the Urban Transit Authority had said to him:

"We are ready to go. Here's the study, here are the Spaeth plans. We've

got the roadbeds laid out. Here's the cost, here are the materials,

here are the contractors. Let's go." And the minister stalled and

stalled and stalled, and then at Christmas came up with a Christmas

present for Vancouver: the Toonerville Trolley from Pier B-C to

Transpo. What is it, six kilometres, with this little toy train going

back and forth? Can you imagine the Minister of Municipal Affairs

sitting there with his railway hat and his little transformer in the

CPR tower, Marathon Realty's tower, running his little toy train back

and forth. That's all we're going to get in Vancouver. Everybody knows

it. The rest is nonsense, because no one can buy a pig in a poke that

is untested and apply it as a mass transit system to an urban area, a

metropolitan area like Vancouver.

Vancouver and Victoria are

fed up — and I'm sure the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will

have more to say about being taxed out of our homes to pay for transit

dictated to us by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You know, it

reminds me of the stories in the Bible , Mr. Speaker, of ancient kings

taxing their subjects to build monuments, and the oppression of their

subjects paying these taxes to build their monuments. But I'll remind

that government that most of those monuments ended up to be tombs,

tombs for the kings themselves. The people of this province, as I say,

have had enough of the massive increases in homeowner taxation with no

relief in this budget — none.

I want to talk about education costs primarily today, and I want to talk about

the role of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) together with the Minister

of Finance and their feeble efforts to relieve the homeowner from this oppressive

burden. The Minister of Education gave a commitment in February to make the

finance formula more sensitive to fluctuations in property values. I looked

carefully in the budget, I looked carefully at press statements — I can't

find it. Philosophical direction from the minister is lacking, Mr. Speaker,

and this disappoints me, because there is room for philosophy and an expression

of philosophy even from a minister who is corralled in that cabinet. Last year

the minister said he would do nothing until he had toured the province; we heard

that promise. This year, 865 briefs later — count them, 865 — he's still

doing nothing. What direction does the government want education to go in, I

ask? There were plenty of briefs, and a good portion of those briefs dealt with

education financing and the incredibly uneven and unfair formula, which places

a burden on ordinary homeowners in B.C.

sudden has become limited. I'll give you an example. Most recently — and

I've got a whole file full of these about this minister — Capilano College

Student Society sent a letter to the minister on

[ Page 4467 ]

February

23. He had previous correspondence. He promised he'd be accessible, and

despite the earnest wishes of the students, faculty and staff to speak

with him, does the minister plan to meet with them? We've heard no

indication as of to date that he'll meet with them to discuss their

specific problems. Today out in the front lawn there is a

demonstration, and the very urbane Minister of Education went out greet

them, fed them a little cake, patted them on the head, made a few

patronizing statements and came back into the palace. That's not good

enough, Mr. Speaker, and I have a strong criticism to make about the

comprise those educational institutions in this province.

There

is no policy respecting the proportion of school costs that will be

borne by the taxpayer. You can't leave policy to an uncontrolled, wild

formula — you can't do it, unless you're trying to pass the buck and

avoid the heat of your responsibility as a government to take the heat

for taxes. Because I have a feeling that if that formula were changed

and another formula instituted where there would be a definite

percentage of contribution to school districts for their education

costs such as recommended by the McMath report. then these inequities

and these oppressive property taxes would not take place. But it's

clear that the motivation of the government is to avoid the heat by

creating confusion and making it appear as if it's the school

districts' fault, as if it's the school boards' fault, as if it's

teachers' demands that are at fault — as if it's anybody except them

who are at fault — and also to avoid a further tax, a further

imposition on the treasury for education costs.

If we paid

for nothing else in this province except the essential services the

government has to deliver to the people, I would say fine. But the

government has opened themselves up to serious criticism, and that's

this: they are expending funds in the northeast of British Columbia,

the funds that private enterprise should be expending there. They are

expending funds for B.C. Place and Transpo and for Pier B-C, a great

part of which would be the ordinary responsibility of the private

company, the private entrepreneur. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

they have opened themselves up to the criticism that if they're going

to spend and use those as priorities, they've got to demonstrate

clearly that they've acquitted themselves justly and honourably in the

expenditure of funds in education. They failed in that; there is no

policy.

McMath recommended that 75 percent of all school

costs be borne by the province and 25 percent by the school districts.

The British Columbia Teachers Federation, the School Trustees

Association and this party have endorsed that recommendation.

you want to know who else endorsed that recommendation? He was just a

Social Credit candidate in those days, and everybody believed him. It

was the present Minister of Education. He said he accepted the

recommendation of the 75 percent provincial share and 25 percent local

when he was a candidate running for office in Oak Bay. I have a

feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education is going to get a

message from the homeowners in Oak Bay next time around. They'll

remember his promise. And if some of them forget, we'll always be there

to remind them.

In five years the proportion of education

spending picked up by the province has declined from 47 percent in 1976

to 33 percent in 1981. That's the decline in the share of the

provincial governmentos contribution. Here's the graph. The basic mill

rate goes up. The mill rate is there; it goes up. The homeowners pay

more and more tax. The provincial government, although increasing our

taxes almost every year, pay 33 percent — 10 percent less than they

paid under the NDP administration. The government has never made a

pronouncement on McMath's recommendations, but I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that we know what they think of them. We know what they think

of them, and actions speak louder than words.

Mr. Speaker,

the New Democratic Party used surpluses to begin a deliberate, planned,

five-year program to remove homeowner tax for school purposes. This

government wiped it out. They wiped out that program. This government

has spent their surpluses on monuments to themselves on the backs of

the homeowners of the province.

School boards have budgeted

responsibly. I heard the minister the other day get into the same trap

as his predecessor, the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the

second member for Point Grey, the doctor. It's the same trap — issuing

a press release which is totally smokescreening it, saying the school

boards aren't budgeting responsibly. "It's not our fault the taxes are

going up- it's theirs." That is false. It's not true. It's

insupportable. and any minister worthy of the name should not make

those statements publicly inside the House or outside the House. School

boards have budgeted responsibly, and the average increase has been

about 15 percent, in and around the inflation figure, for running our

schools in the province. When he says that inflation this year is lower

and that the number of children entering schools is lower, it's totally

deceiving. We know that if you get three students less at this

elementary school, 20 less there and 40 less there, you're not going to

shut down the schools. You're not going to hire less teachers if

there's one pupil less per class. He knows that there are fixed

ongoing costs, and it's unfair to label school boards — the most

thankless, political job in this province; they have little authority

as it is — as being irresponsible.

I say the minister has to

answer for that kind of incorrect response. It's not responsible. It's

less than honourable for a minister of the Crown to blame the school

boards of this province in that manner using those figures. As I say,

the increase is about 2 percent above inflation, and that's to

incorporate additional programs. It's for work imposed upon the school

districts by the government, such as education for the gifted and

education for the handicapped. They can't have it both ways. Those are

extra costs that have been placed on the school districts by this

government, and then the minister comes back and says: "You're being

irresponsible by raising your budgets."

School boards act conscientiously within a highly centralized, provincial government-controlled

system; let's not forget that. They need approval for all of their expenditures

from the ministry.

The

minister gave a commitment in February to make the finance formula more

sensitive to fluctuations in property values, as I've said. That

commitment has not been followed through in this budget. There's been

no change in homeowner grant. A mill rate of 42 mills means doubled and

tripled tax bills for many residents of the lower mainland. The present

formula is complex, and had the minister any clout in cabinet or had

the government any commitment to getting the property tax burden off

the backs of the people, they would have achieved relief. They would

have reduced the basic mill rate. Increased the homeowner's grant, or

both. Like all

[ Page 4468 ]

commitments

of this minister, it's next year, as in this year, next year, sometime,

never. The same thing next \car. the same time next year. The minister

of next year.

Over

half of the unemployed in this province

are under 25 years of age and unskilled. Is the education system,

particularly the post-secondary colleges and institutes, geared

sufficiently to producing the skilled people that British Columbia

needs at the time they are needed? The evidence is that the Socreds

would rather import the skilled people for as long as they are able

rather than make a commitment to make sure the British Columbia

school-leaver can get a job done here.

One of the

assumptions of the budget is that unemployment will increase by 10.3

percent in 1981 over 1980 and by a further 8 percent in 1982 over 1981.

What is the budget doing to reach out and train British Columbians?

They complain about an in-migration of new Canadians and Canadians to

British Columbia who are taking jobs and putting pressure on the job

market, but what are they doing about 50 percent of those unemployed

who are young people and unskilled and don't have an opportunity to get

into institutions and to take training courses to become valuable

workers in our community? The budget is virtually silent on this issue.

This government has not taken seriously that logjam of trades and

training in this province. The hon. member, our labour critic, will be

dealing with this in greater detail. This is one of the major problems

facing this province this government has not addressed itself to.

The

present federal-provincial student loan plan is something I also wanted

to mention this afternoon. It's inadequate. Everybody knows it's

inadequate. The minister heard briefs in the last year, saying he was

going to deal with the problem, and limits access to higher education.

The

British Columbia Students Federation last year asked for changes in the

student assistance plan. I've seen those changes. I wrote to them

myself. I agree with many of them and I think the minister, in a very

double-shuffle routine, pretended to agree with them too. The

government made no changes as a result of the submission by the student

organization. After talking with the students and seeing their

submissions I would say there's still a sound position for us to take.

The minister has failed to do that. There is no reflection in the

budget of those needed changes.

Be aware that the allocation

is up nearly 30 percent in vote 58 this year; I'll say that. But that

percentage increase is very misleading, because the department has no

idea how many students they're going to have to cover. In 1980-81

cabinet authorized $580,000 in special warrants for a total of $11.56

million for vote 58. I'm not referring to estimates — only to make my

point that the 30 percent figure is after taking the special warrant

into account and that there's no reflection of the needs for the coming

year in that budget.

Each ministry has an item in the budget

that I wanted to mention before concluding my remarks. It can only be

described as Socred funny money, 1981 style. I think the item reads:

"Less efficiencies achieved to control government growth." This

proportion varies from ministry to ministry. Education's is just over 8

cents per $ 100. How is this efficiency to be achieved'? Well, since

the average per ministry is 92 cents per $100, what conclusion should

be drawn from the apparently limited potential for efficiency from this

Minister of Education? I think that's something he has to address

himself to. How was the target sum calculated — on the Russian

five-year plan principle that no matter what the practical results, the

targets and the plan are all somehow miraculously achieved?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

reminds me of the story of the Russian five-year plans. Mr. Speaker,

I'm sorry you're leaving, because I know you'll enjoy this. I'll

mention it to him when he gets back.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

Oh, there's the honourable maverick from the north over there, the

honourable gentleman who said he was going to stand up and fight this

government because they weren't doing the things he needed in his

constituency.

MR. KEMPF: Get your facts straight.

MR. LAUK:

I've got my facts straight. Mr. Speaker, I was talking to the people of

his constituency in Omineca, and most of the leaders there say he's a

man of few faults but the ones that he has he does very well with.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair]

The major implication of this

budget is twofold. Firstly, it is a budget that takes away more and

more of what we earn as ordinary people in this province. It eats away

at our assets. The only asset that the average family has, if at all,

is the house they own. Their earnings and savings are all the cash they

have. This government is raiding all of our bank accounts. They are

taking away the possibility of our keeping our homes, and they have

eliminated, almost for all time, the possibility of a young family

purchasing a home in cities in this province. They've done that in the

name of Transpo and B.C. Place. They've done that in the name of

monuments to a decaying government bankrupt of ideas, and a government

with little sympathy and little sensitivity to the needs of ordinary

people. They act at the bid and call of the major corporations, of

their special friends and special interest groups. They do not act

responsibly, generously and fairly to the majority of people of this

province who are ordinary families who just want to get by with as

little government taxation as possible. They've taken $625 million off

the backs of ordinary people. It's the most shameful budget in the

history of B.C.

MR. LEA: I suppose if the government

isn't going to have speakers during the budget debate the reason should

be quite obvious: they can't defend the budget.

We listened

on March 9 to the Minister of Finance telling us for three hours what a

wonderful, booming economy we have in this province, how things are so

good, how the economy is so buoyant, how things have never been better

— in fact so much so that we've got to bring in more taxes. Things are

going so well that the government's broke. Things are going so well in

the economy that we're going to have to switch the onus of taxation

from the corporations who extract our raw resources to the backs of

those people who earn their living in the workplace and to the small

business community. If there's one thing that can be said about this

budget it is that it does this: it ensures that the people of Japan get

the coal and the people of British Columbia get the shaft. That's what

this budget is all about.

[ Page 4469 ]

the first budget after this government was re-elected in 1979 the

Minister of Finance at that time said that this was going to be a

visionary budget — the budget of 1980 — a budget that would be the

cornerstone for budgeting into the eighties, the visionary budget, the

budget of the future. Interestingly enough the second budget is the

budget to clean up the mess that the first one raised. This is an

immediate budget. The first one was visionary, and it seems awfully

strange to me that that vision only lasted a few months — about 12.

What

can we say about a budget that's obviously a fraud? I've got quotes

from other fraudulent budgets by people who are still in this House

today but have switched their party allegiance. Here's what was said

about another budget: "The problem with Social Credit budgets is that

they have never told the truth about revenue. They told the truth about

expenditures, but they never told the truth about revenue." Who said

that about the Social Credit? The present Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) from Vancouver–Point Grey.

That's what he had to say about Social Credit in their budget. He now

sits on the benches after turncoating his way over there and says it's

the most wonderful budget any government has ever brought in.

But, you know, somebody thought of putting a Hansard into this House, and now we can look at the remarks. What else did he say?

MR. McGEER: ...you've done over there is trade jobs in private

industry for jobs under the government. You've taken revenue, taxes from

the people who are working and producing. and you've blown them on non-productive

programs.

Well,

it may have been true then, but they've even left out the

non-productive programs in this budget, the Social Credit is improving

upon themselves: now they just tax.

Here's what the member

for Vancouver–Point Grey had to say about the now Leader of the

Opposition, when he was Premier, travelling around the world.

He's had a nice tourist visit to China. He's been to Europe. He's been to Japan. He's had an opportunity to travel tire world. We

feel that this year, particularly in view of the care he's got to show

as Minister of Finance, he needs to be at home, and we won't require

all this money for public travel.

Isn't it odd that this

year the Premier and some of his staff and some of his colleagues have

just had the taxpayers of this province pay for a big boondoggle trip

throughout southeast Asia, and then they come back and tax the people

of this province so they won't get any holiday at all.

What

else have they said? Here's what was said by the hon. member for Point

Grey during another budget debate of this kind. This one fits so

closely. These figures will be a little different, Mr. Speaker, but you'll get the same story.

This budget is taking tax money at the rate of $6 million a day, $42 million a week, $200 million a mouth and $2.4 billion a year.

It was a $2.4 billion budget. Today, Of Course, we're looking at $6.5 billion.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Ah! Let's just spend a moment with the member from the north. Did you

know, Mr. Speaker, that the maverick member for Omineca called a public

meeting in his riding to discuss with the people in his riding the

expenditure of funds by government, namely the Kemano project? Six

hundred people showed up at the meeting, and they said: "Well, Mr.

Member, what do you think of the project?" He said: "Well, if it's

good. I'm for it: if it's bad, I'm against it." Right there and then,

Jack knew lie had better become a maverick. You see, the idea is that

you speak out against your own government, hoping to create the

maverick image, so that some day when the next election comes around

you can still get the Social Credit nomination but be Mr. Maverick. The

fact of the matter is, that member has done not one thing to stop

Kemano II from going ahead, except talk about it and then go in and

completely succumb when he meets his caucus, tail between his legs, run

out and say: "Well, I'm just a maverick; I'm not really against them."

I'll

say one thing, he does better than his seatmate. The member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) said that he is "in principle" against

two things that this government is going to spend money on. He's in

principle opposed to northeast coal. He's in principle opposed to B.C.

Hydro being the carrier of natural gas to Vancouver Island: he's

against it on economic terms and in principle, but he says he's going

to vote for it, because he wouldn't want to submit the province to the

socialists. He'd much rather, I suppose, have his friends ruin the

province than his enemies.

You're watching a pretty novel and spectacular thing. You're watching for the first time,

the Premier sit down beside the member for Omineca (Mr, Kempf) — the

first time in history. It pays to be a maverick, eh? At least you get him

to sit down beside you once in a while and not cut you off when you're

the chairman of caucus and you do his bidding.

What about

this government and what about this budget? Here's the government that

always said they were for small business. Then they bring in the most

regressive tax of all and add to it — two more points on the sales tax.

Who does it hurt? It hurts those people in this province who can least

afford to pay. I don't believe that you"ll find an economist anywhere,

right- or left-wing or middle of the road, who won't say that

the most regressive tax in our society is the on sales tax, because it

hits those people in the lower incomes in a much harder, meaner way

than a graduated income tax system. First of all, there's no need for

this taxation. But once you've decided, for whatever various reasons,

that you're going to tax, why pick the one that hurts most the people

who can least afford to pay? Why would they do that? Lord knows.

There

are people who have said that this budget is not an election budget. I

say it is. This is definitely a Social Credit election budget. It's the

story of Social Credit. The year before an election they tax the

dickens out of us, knowing perfectly well that their expenditures and

their estimates of revenue are false. They know that what they brought

into this House as a budget is a false document. It does not reflect

the revenues that they expect or the expenditures they expect to make.

What it reflects is an overestimation of expenditures and an

underestimation of revenues so that at the end of the year they can

say: "What good girls and boys we are: we have balanced the budget." I

don't know how they can call having a surplus a balanced budget, but

they do, and they take some pride in announcing it every year.

When

the Liberals — the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

— were on this side of the House, sitting down about there, as

Liberals, they abhorred this kind of budget. They spoke about it, they

cried about it, they anguished about it, and they

[ Page 4470 ]

used to bring in their own Liberal budget, saying how awful and immoral it was to bring in this kind of budgeting.

Isn't

it strange today that I look across the floor at the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations so busy scribbling himself notes. Today

he's sitting on that side, smugly saying: "It's the kind of budget I

can support. After all, I'm over here now. It means my paycheque; it

means I'm going to stay in power, maybe." All the trickery and false

documentation in that budget are quite okay with the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations today. He still laughs kind of nicely; he

chuckles and goes along. But in his heart of hearts he knows this is

the kind of budget that when he sat over here as a Liberal he condemned

and voted against year after year. I think it's well worth while; it's

a lesson that we should all learn in some aspects of human nature. I

think it's worth a moment just to glance across and look at the

minister writing so busily and say, there he is; there's the guy who

voted against this budget when he was a Liberal in the opposition

benches, now voting for it. That's what he looks like. That's the kind

of person who does that sort of thing.

I suppose it's the

Liberals that annoy me more than anything else over this budget. The

kind of remarks I was reading by the hon. member for Point Grey, who's

now the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications; the kind

of remarks that he made about this budget, yet now he stands up and

defends it. The Attorney-General won't stand up and defend it. If he

did that, he might be forced at some time to stand up and defend the

Premier, and he's not going to do that at all costs. It's better to

defend nothing and nobody any time. Those three Liberals, who spoke

against, voted against and said on principle they were against this

kind of budget, now sit there as meek little lambs voting for 'it

because they enjoy the position they're in so much that their

principles have gone out the window. We've got the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis); his principle is that he's against it

in principle, but he'll vote for it anyway because his friends are in

government. It just doesn't make any sense.

Taxing the

people too much to build up surpluses for next year's election, or the

following year — there isn't anyone in this province or in this House

who doesn't understand and agree that that's exactly what this

government is doing. They're going for more surpluses to try to bribe

the people of this province with their own money at election time. They

are a government of bribery when it comes to budgets. They are a

government that has no respect for the people of this province. They

are a government that doesn't seem to understand that with modern

communications the people in this province know what they're up to. In

the outback, in the rural community where we didn't get television

coverage and daily newspapers, now we do. The people in this province

know what's going on. They know this government is again setting the

stage and scene to try a bribery of them with their own money.

More

monuments, more taxation, more bribery, and they have the nerve to talk

about fiscal responsibility and balancing their budgets. Some nerve —

some budget on the backs of the people of this province who can least

afford to pay. What about the small business community they say they

support? What's going to happen to the sales in those small businesses

with sales tax going up? The sales are going to go down. That's what is

going to happen. They have hurt the economy of this province. They've

added to the inflationary spiral. They've hurt the small business

community, and to add insult to injury, they've taken a look at small

business services in this budget and they've cut them by almost 50

percent. The services to small business are down from just over $2

million to $1.2 million — an $800,000 cut. Give them the back of the

hand.

They are not the friend of the small business. They

are the willing messengers of the corporate world and they love every

minute of it. The odd part about that is that they don't even talk to

them. This government is so withdrawn into itself that it has no idea

what's going on in this province. They only have a blind faith that

what they should do is let the corporate world off the hook, tax the

people, build up surpluses and attempt to bribe the people of this

province with their own money. Again and again they've done it. I don't

expect any better from the Premier. He's an old Social Crediter. I

don't expect any different from the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He's had a Social Credit

card in his pocket for 20 years. There are others here who are Social

Credit, and you agreed with it from the beginning — to overtax, build

up surpluses and bribe. We know where you're at. We can understand it.

There's some consistency. But for those people who are new to this

House, who came from other political parties, who came from the

Conservative Party, who came from the Liberal Party, or who came from

no party at all....

MR. BARBER: Or all of them, like Curtis.

MR. LEA:

Or like the Minister of Finance, who has been in all of them. Surely

you can take your courage in this Legislature and say that this budget

is wrong.

How can the member for Prince George South (Mr.

Strachan) go to his constituency and tell the small business community

that the spending by government on his behalf is cut in half? How can

he go to the people there and tell the small business community to

expect smaller sales? "The government wants surpluses to bribe you next

year." How can the member for Prince George go to his constituents who

are on fixed incomes and say: "I'm sorry, but we're going to put the

sales tax up. I know it hurts you more than it hurts people who are

making a lot of money, but then they're our friends — you're not. We

just want you to vote for us when the time comes"?

How can

you do it? Interestingly enough, I think that the back bench is going to

be pretty silent on this budget — unless they have staff write them and

they read them and they're ordered to read them. But left to their own

devices, you won't see too many backbenchers up defending this budget.

What's

the money going to be used for? Surpluses. In good conscience, how can

you call coming in with a surplus year after year after year a balanced

budget? I'd like the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie),

who is a self-determined economist....

MR. LAUK: He's a self-made man.

MR. LEA: He's a self-made man and he worships his creator.

I'd

like to have him stand up and talk about a balance sheet. He thinks

he's a businessman. I want you to stand up and tell this House how you

can see surpluses every year as a balanced budget. It just doesn't work.

[ Page 4471 ]

The

small business community is going to suffer. People on fixed incomes

are going to suffer immeasurably. It would be bad enough if this was

the only taxation that we have. I have constituents who are over 65,

coming to me with their ICBC premium crying, tears running down their

faces, knowing that for them it's over — no more driving their car. And

for those who aren't senior citizens, you can pick up your ICBC bill

and see it has gone up 50 percent at least.

Isn't it

incredible that we tax our own citizens — our own individual citizens —

out of their homes, out of their cars, out of their hospitals, out of

their medical care system, out of life. We tax them out of it. Yet we

turn around to their corporate friends and we say: "Here's a billion

dollars, boys. It's for you. Spend it wisely, and we know that the

people of this province will be socketed by our bribery budget."

I'd

like to offer a challenge to the Premier of this province. Let the

Premier decide with whom on this side of the House he'd like to go on a

television debate on this budget. Let him say who he wants to have from

this side of the House go on television and debate the merits of this

budget. I challenge the Premier. I know he won't take on our leader —

we know that because he's afraid to do that. Pick anybody. As a matter

a fact you'd have a hard time with the Pages. They're in here enough

that they can hear what's going on and you couldn't debate them.

Can

this Premier defend this budget? The answer is no. He cannot defend it.

He can attempt to but he cannot defend it. As we see inflation eating

away at the wages of working people in this province and even more so

with people on fixed income — the answer that this government has to

those problems of trying to meet the inflationary spiral that we're

living in is to tax the hell out of them! It is the most insensitive,

most inhumane kind of budgeting possible to try and bribe people with

their own money. There isn't anyone who doesn't believe that.

I'm

glad to see the member for North Vancouver–Seymour back. I hope he

speaks on the budget. I want him to explain how he's so opposed to what

they're doing on a matter of principle but will vote with them anyway

to keep them in office. I had sympathy for that member. I watched him

crucified by the Premier in this House. I watched him go through

torment for what that Premier did to him, and I had feelings towards

him. I thought, at least he's a man of principle, but I take it back.

How can you be opposed in principle to the government you serve with

and the projects they're carrying out and vote for them anyway?

MR. BARRETT: That's politics.

MR. LEA:

That's politics, eh! That's Social Credit politics-cum-Liberal. I don't

know who I detest the most, Mr. Speaker — the people who've always

adhered to bribery with your own money through budgeting or those

who've grasped it to their breast for power and to sit with government.

I know one thing, this government doesn't care a whit about anything

except themselves. They go by the policy that self-interest is the

order of the day. They believe it's self-interest that makes the world

turn and they believe that it's self-interest they should adhere to.

They never have heard and don't even like the word cooperation. It's

all self-interest for themselves. That's all it's about.

This

budget isn't designed to help, hurt, or do anything to the economy.

What it's designed to do is to bring a surplus amount of dollars in for

bribery. That's all it's for. They know it, we know it and the people

of this province know it, and a three-hour boring speech doesn't change

a thing. At the end of the speech, that's what we're left with — gas

taxes, fuel taxes, heating taxes, car insurance taxes, hospital

insurance, medicare, income tax and sales tax.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Ridley Island. We've had Ridley Island announced every year and every

election since 1910. I honestly believe that Hays committed suicide by

going down on the Titanic so he couldn't see you in operation. The

promises you've made! Nobody in Prince Rupert will believe anything's

happening until we see it start. We had the Premier's father come

through every election and promise us a superport. We had that Premier

come through every election and say we're going to get a superport. We

won't believe it until we see it. All talk, all mouth, no action.

This

budget is detestable. That's what it is. It's attempted bribery and a

clumsy one at that. I guarantee now that television is around this

province, now that newspapers travel more easily, now that you can get

a daily newspaper in Prince Rupert in the morning — the Vancouver Province ; the Sun

the next day — now that those kind of things are happening, now that

the communications in this province are in a state that they know

what's going on in this House and what's going on in this province,

people are wise, and they're wise to this bunch. They're not going to

be bribed, and especially with their own money. You can try it all you

want, and we know you are, but we know what you're up to and the people

of this province know what you're up to: you're taking money out of the

lunch buckets of this province and you're turning it into a fund, and

it can only be called bribery. This, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, should

be labelled the bribery budget of 1981 — nothing more, nothing less.

MR. STRACHAN:

Nice, friendly day in the House. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this

budget. It's a good budget; it's balanced in terms of dollars and it's

balanced well in terms of priorities and initiatives.

MR. LAUK: What are you going to tell the people of Prince George?

MR. STRACHAN:

Well, I'll get to that; it's coming. I was telling my corridor

colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who I speak

to from time to time, that he'll have to stop smoking and start sewing,

and he agreed to that. Seriously, this is a very good budget. The hon.

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), I think, compromises his own

professional position — he's a chartered accountant........

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's not that we mind what the hon.

member says, but on the point of order: one must never in one's remarks

in this House reflect upon the profession and the calling of a person

in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. LAUK:

He said that the hon. member for Nanaimo had compromised his position

as a professional accountant. That must be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4472 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, if the member was imputing any improper motive he should certainly withdraw.

MR. STRACHAN:

If I imputed any improper motive, I'm sorry. I was going to mention

that the member for Nanaimo is a chartered accountant; he still

maintains a membership in the Institute of Agrologists, and I

understand him to be a reasonably clever and intelligent man. I don't

always agree with his politics and I found that I had an awful lot of

problems agreeing with his comments about the budget.

This

budget is fiscally responsible. It ensures that our province will not

go into debt; it ensures that we won't leave a legacy of debt for our

children and for our grandchildren. I assure you it's a good budget.

Sure, we could have had debt, we could have had management like the NDP

had when they were in power, when we saw in the years 1974-75 the

migration of 20,000 people from our province. We reckon if that had

continued, if they had stayed in government, then, in fact, we could be

looking at a deficit in our province of close to 200,000 people by now.

Well, you only have to look at the net migration figures, hon. members,

to sort that one out — and I'm sure you have from time to time,

although you've never mentioned them.

Again, Mr. Speaker,

from the NDP we hear absolutely no alternative. As I pointed out, the

member for Nanaimo is a professional; he was for a short period the

Minister of Finance for the party when they were government. He should

be able to sort through the budget very quickly and point out what he

feels about it and, in fact, present an alternative. In my two years in

this Legislature I have yet to see that party across the floor give us

an alternative. Can you give us an alternative budget, hon. members?

What would you do? Can you present anything to this House that is in

fact an alternative?

AN HON. MEMBER: Debt.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh, sure, debt, debt, debt.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, resign. How about your program? You don't have one. I would submit that....

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN:

Yes, well, tell us what your budget would be. Present an alternative,

my friends. Say something about your position, about your policy. I

don't think you have one, and I don't think if you had one you'd care

to articulate it. You could maybe, say, leave the sales tax alone, and

then, in fact, given the position we're in right now, you would have to

curtail spending. What spending would you curtail? Would you curtail

hospital spending? Would you curtail education spending? Would you

curtail spending on the social services? I doubt it. You'd probably

just carry this government and this province further into debt.

have exemptions this year — good exemptions — and they add to a long

list of exemptions that we, in fact, have brought to this province.

There are exemptions in terms of energy. If you will remember, last

year we introduced exemptions of sales tax on wood-burning stoves and

other items that would, curtail our importation of energy; there were

exemptions and reductions in the sales tax on fuel-efficient cars.

This year we've exempted caulking, insulation and weatherstripping on homes.

have to begin efficiency measures, because oil is a depleting resource,

and I don't think there's anything that you and I can do about that.

All hon. members have to consider that. We have to take efficient

measures. As a member from a part of the province that has some

severely cold winter from time to time, I can assure you that that's a

very good initiative on the part of our government and something that

will save my constituents many dollars in heating oil and gas and in

insulating their homes.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) made the very interesting point, when we speak about depleting

resources, that the NDP wishes to nationalize the oil companies. When

Prime Minister Trudeau was on a certain TV show a couple of weeks ago,

he was asked if he would nationalize B.C. Tel. He said: "No. How can a

government who can't even run the Post Office run a telephone company?"

Well, let's use that same argument. Although Mr. Trudeau wouldn't want

to do that, in fact with your party's support he's seriously

considering nationalizing the oil industry. I have to ask the same

question of you, hon. members, as you support the federal government:

can the government who can't even run the Post Office be allowed to be

in charge of such an important resource as energy?

Governments

and people need the private sector; they need the private sector

investment to go. Nationalization just doesn't work, I think if you

check with the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) he will tell

you of that and of the experience he witnessed in his own country. If

nationalization is such a good thing, then why do people immigrate from

the U.K. to Canada? Why isn't it the other way around'? Nationalization

has ruined that country, and I think we're all aware of that. Just look

at the recent British budget.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: I'll get to that, hon. member; that's a very interesting point.

Here

we sit and face members of the opposition who certainly endorse

nationalization of our oil industry, of energy in Canada, and the

government that would support $1.5 billion to buy Petrofina and yet cut

back the community services program when, in fact, we could have

private sector money look after the energy situation in our country and

continue community services programs and many other good federal

initiatives for the people. I understand your membership, hon. members

opposite, doesn't think too much of your association with the Liberal

Party.

There are many good budget initiatives. The member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) at some length asked me if I would be

prepared to talk to the small businessmen in my riding and defend this

budget to them. I have no problem whatsoever, particularly when I look

at the reduction in tax to the small businessmen; it's gone from 10

percent, to 8 percent. This is a great move. As a matter of fact, if

you follow this one through and check with accountants, people who are

aware of what small business is, we're looking at businesses that would

do $2.5 million down to $2 million per year, depending on what type of

business they are in. This will very greatly affect them. It will be

money in their pockets for expansion, for new hiring, and it will have

a very positive effect on 90 percent of British Columbia's business.

[ Page 4473 ]

don't imagine members opposite have followed this one through. In fact,

the $150,000 gross taxable income does mean that we are looking at

business from $2 million to $2.5 million a year sales. I have no

problem — to the member for Prince Rupert if he's listening or if he's

still in the buildings — about facing the small businessmen in my

riding with this budget.

The other item that's most

beneficial to the small businessman is the change in commission on the

collection of sales tax. That will help them greatly. Again, I have no

problem with that.

We've been labelled for the last three

days as a government that builds monuments. Talk about northeast coal;

my friends, that takes tremendous vision. We have to have vision. We

had to have vision, Mr. First Member for Victoria, when we developed

hydro in the north. If it wasn't for that hydro development that I saw

in my part of the country, Prince George would not be the city it is

today.

Our government has tremendous vision. We're looking

for resources, we're looking for development, and we're looking for

many things that will benefit the people of this province. Social

Credit built this province by having that type of development. You

cannot disagree with that, hon. members, as much as you would like to.

Social Credit built this province by looking for development and

continuing to look. Items like northeast coal are just another way that

our government shows that it has vision.

The interesting

thing about your criticizing northeast coal, Mr. Member, is that in

fact there already is a benefit to the people of British Columbia from

that development. Prince George is starting to do very well just in the

last six weeks since that development was announced. The suppliers in

Prince George are doing very well — suppliers who, as a matter of fact,

have warehouses in New Westminster and Burnaby. Your constituents, Mr.

Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), are already benefiting from the

announcement of northeast coal. They are, and I can demonstrate to you

how they are. And to the members for Burnaby, they are benefiting from

the development and the announcement of northeast coal, make no mistake

about that.

We have that type of vision and we will continue

to have that type of vision. Prince George in the last 15 years has had

phenomenal growth. Why? Because of the wisdom and the vision that

W.A.C. Bennett had for the central interior and the northern part of

our province. We've grown tremendously. We grew because we had faith in

people and we had faith in resources. We had people who had the faith

to pioneer and to invest in our part of the country. It really does

benefit the whole province. In the words of W.A.C. Bennett: "Draw the

circle ever wider, my friends."

You talked about monuments.

You talked about B.C. Place, Transpo and northeast coal as being

monuments. My friends, monuments are something that deal with something

that's dead. Let me tell you that B.C. Place, Transpo and northeast

coal — all those initiatives by our government are not dead. They are

alive, vital, breathing facilities for people. They are people programs.

could erect monuments. Yes, we could in fact forget about B.C. Place

and put a monument up saying: "We forgot about that, and here lie all

the dreams of all the people who would benefit from B.C. Place." We

could forget about northeast coal and put a monument up there saying:

"Thanks to the NDP, who didn't like the idea in the first place, we're

going to dash the dreams of all the people who will benefit from this

development." That would be a monument. We could do the same thing for

Transpo. We could put up lots of monuments if we followed your ideas.

"Here lie the dashed dreams of millions of people." Sure.

B.C.

Place, Transpo, northeast coal, all the initiatives our government has

taken and will be taking are for the people of the province — for

people to build, for people to go to, for people to use. Again, they're

part of our vision.

Society has to continually move ahead.

Governments must move ahead. They must have vision, and this budget has

vision. Standing still really won't do anything for us, my friends. We

have to have faith, we have to have commitments, and we have to have

initiatives. That's what's in this budget: initiatives for all the

people of B.C.

MR. LEA: Why don't the people know that?

MR. STRACHAN: They do.

Now,

there have been many concerns that we've cut back on health care.

That's a myth that your party tried to propagate in 1979. I remember

during the campaign the big ads coming out, "Socred Cuts Back on Health

Care," and your poor NDP candidates driving down the street seeing

hospital construction, the construction of a health-care unit, the

Northern Interior Health Unit, hospital beds — not just small projects

but projects in the millions of dollars. There was complete bafflement,

wondering why your party would say we're cutting back.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN:

There has been $6.7 million this year, Mr. Member. Health care has

never been better in this province, and you know it. Come on, it's a

myth if you don't think that it has.

Social services have

not been cut back. Social services have been added. Again. hon.

members, during the 1979 campaign we watched the NDP advertisement

saying: "Social services arc being cut back." In the meantime, in

Prince George the achievement centre was being added to. All sorts of

programs — the infant development program was coming along quite nicely

— many good social services.... Schools were starting

up. I opened five schools in Prince George in 1979 while you people

were decrying the fact that the education budget was being slashed. The

college was expanding. It's an interesting thing that the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) talks about Cap College because he

received one letter from the student society. I took the liberty of

phoning the administration of Cap College and found out that in fact

their budget was not in and there was nothing for them to worry about

yet. Then your member points out there is no increase for colleges in

this budget. I referred him to page 21, but maybe he didn't have his

contacts in and couldn't understand this one or see it. Provincial

funding for colleges has been increased by 20 percent, and yet we hear

doom and gloom and everything is being cut back. Perhaps a

speed-reading or comprehension course might be the best thing for your

members.

The government has also substantially increased the

amount of money available for student aid. These initiatives, I might

add, were not taken by the first member for Vancouver Centre, but by

our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and by financial aid

officers throughout the province meeting with the Minister of Education.

[ Page 4474 ]

There's

one program that I had a bit to do with in its inception in Prince

George that I'd like to spend some time on this afternoon. It's a

program that's received a 100 percent increase in its funding. That's

the infant development program which was begun with great success in

this province during our government.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN:

Oh, yes, it is, hon. member. Perhaps you should read the Blues tomorrow

— as you listen to me. There was a pilot program only in 1975, but

nothing happened until 1977.

For the benefit of the House

I'll describe some of that program to you. Essentially the infant

development program is a program that employs a health professional to

go out to the homes of mothers who have just had infants and who are

maybe concerned about a delay in development — either a diagnosed delay

or a suspected delay. The job of this professional is to assist the

family — the mother, father and all of the family — in coping with the

problems that may or may not be there. It's an extremely good program.

I've met many mothers who have benefited from it. I think, for the

record, I should read into the record the name of the gal who really

got it going in 1977. Her name was Dana Brynelsen, and I'm sure some of

you members might have heard of her. She travelled all over the

province and spent a lot of time with many associations describing the

program, helping them recruit staff and providing guidelines for the

program. The program has met with extreme success. This is a program

that's been given a 100 percent increase in funding in this budget. At

the same time members opposite are saying we haven't increased our

budget.

I'll briefly describe the program in Prince George.

Since its inception — it's been going now for just about two years —

there have been well over 200 cases referred to the infant development

program coordinator in that area. There's been a fantastic response

from parents, and there's been a tremendous response from pediatricians

and general practitioners who realize the benefit of this program. The

wonderful think about this program is that it does have a cost-benefit.

It employs one person only — with a small equipment-expense allowance

and a travel allowance — who goes out and does incredible work in the

parent's home. If it can diagnose if it can save training problems

later on in years, and if it can in fact change the course of that

child's future, then it has a cost benefit to all of us in the

province. That is a program that our government has endorsed with a 100

percent increase in budget to expand the program — and maybe to expand

it to Prince Rupert, Mr. Member, although I wouldn't be a bit surprised

if you already have it.

MR. LEA: No, we don't.

MR. STRACHAN: You don't have it? Maybe you should check with the MLA there — he might be able to help you out.

MR. LEA: No, we checked with the minister — it's not available.

MR. STRACHAN:

Well, it certainly would be if you looked at it. It's a great program,

and I'm sure a city of your population would be well served by it. Now

that there is an expansion in the budget for that program, to not only

expand existing programs but also add new ones, I think you'd be well

advised, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, to take that concern to your

local association for the retarded and take it to the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

A government always has to

be realistic in approaching a budget. Sure, there are lots of things we

don't like. But we have to bite the bullet, and we have to ensure the

fact that our province is going to be well served in years to come. We

can only do it with this type of a budget. Of course, it's politically

unpopular in some respects; in other respects it is quite popular. But

we're prepared to live with it and support it, and it's going to serve

this province well.

MR. BARBER: The member for Prince

George (Mr. Strachan) gave away more than he intended when he admitted

at the beginning of his speech that this budget "assures that our

province won't go into debt." We have to ask him what debt he was

referring to; doing so, we find the obvious and clear answer.

The principal debts, the major capital expenditures, the biggest new items

in the Social Credit agenda are those wild, reckless and unaffordable schemes

promoted by the Premier and no one else. That's the debt you have to avoid

and that's the reason why we see in this budget an increase in taxation

of $625 million. The member for Prince George clearly but accidentally revealed

the fact that the debts they are concerned about are the debts created by the

reckless schemes of an over-ambitious Premier, desperate to retrieve the failing

popularity of Social Credit by buying his way into public favour with big-ticket monuments to himself. It won't work. It

won't succeed, the reason being that you are now so discredited and the

Premier's leadership is such a joke around this province that none of

these vast and grandiose proposals is treated by the people as any more

and any other than a pathetic attempt by Social Credit to buy its way

back into public favour with public money.

We know the debts

you are worried about the province going into. They are the debts for

B.C. Place, for Transpo, for Pier B-C, for a rapid transit system

that's totally unproven and, most massive of all, for a ridiculous and

unnecessary subsidy of northeast coal. Corrupt governments produce

corrupt budgets. Discredited governments produced discredited budgets.

Stupid governments produce stupid budgets. We have seen aspects of all

these three things in this budget. It's a matter of clear and

indisputable public record that Social Credit is in trouble across the

province. One by one the members of its farm team in local government

are being defeated. They are being defeated by persons who stand for

other principles and other values, most recently in Delta on Saturday,

when once again the Social Credit farm team candidate was handily

defeated by a candidate who stood for higher and more civil values and

against the arrogant and bullying tactics of the provincial government

in specific regard to the location of a bridge.

Social

Credit has always used local government as its farm team in British

Columbia. Something like half the members of the current Social Credit

caucus once served in local government at the school board or municipal

level. There's nothing wrong with doing so except when you pretend that

you're not. It's the hypocrisy that offends. The action, if it were

clear and honest, open and admitted, would offend no one. The

hypocritical claim, however, that Socreds never get involved in local

government, only socialists do, is

[ Page 4475 ]

offensive,

false and disreputable. But it is, in this instance, further proof that

Social Credit is in trouble all across British Columbia. The standing

joke about the Social Credit leader is that if his name were Bill Smith

he would never have become Premier of anything. The glaring and woeful

inadequacies of the leadership of the coalition Premier is now a matter

tested by the public across this province, and the Premier's leadership

is itself tested and found grossly wanting. I expect that the

by-election results in Kamloops will be further proof of that if and

when a by-election is called.

Social Credit's in trouble,

and this budget is a desperate attempt to buy itself out of that

trouble. Let me illustrate the kind of trouble they're in.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Hear the whole argument before you decide. Hear the whole case before you make up your minds.

The

Socreds are in trouble in part because of the whole dirty tricks

episode which the people of British Columbia have not forgotten.

They've not forgotten that the Premier promised to set up an ethics

committee within the Social Credit Party. They've not forgotten that

George Lenko, one of the many people fired for his involvement in the

dirty tricks campaign, presumably in repentance, proposed terms of

reference for such an ethics committee within Social Credit at the

party's last convention. What happened? The Premier himself said no.

They've not forgotten that the Premier promised an ethics committee and

then when he was called upon to deliver the goods refused to do so.

They've not forgotten that the Premier accepted a motion by the

official opposition at the beginning of the session last that we set up

a committee on fair elections practices in this House. Hypocritically,

the government accepted the motion and deviously refused all session

long to call the committee into action and to honour the commitment

that they supposedly made to make such a committee a real and active

thing in this House.

They haven't forgotten who's really

responsible for the whole dirty tricks episode in this province, and

that's another reason why the Socreds are in trouble. They haven't

forgotten about Lettergate; they haven't forgotten about Dan Campbell's

giving out thousand-dollar bills; they haven't forgotten about the

forgeries and the mass firings; and they most certainly have not

forgotten about one-time Social Credit candidate Larry Eckardt and his

commission. as it was called, on electoral reform, a commission whose

general manager was one Dale Mearns. Who was she'? She was the Social

Credit campaign manager in the two previous general elections in

Vancouver Centre. A one-time Social Credit candidate and a Social

Credit campaign manager ran that show, and we had of course the

ridiculous and offensive results of the Eckardt commission.

now have as a matter of public record a statement made by the Premier

in December 1980, in which he said that he was prepared unilaterally to

increase the number of seats in the Legislature to reflect what he said

with a straight face was the growing population in certain ridings in

this province. What ridings did he name? Strangely, he was only able to

name Social Credit ridings, where he proposed to add extra seats.

Strangely, he only named Kelowna, Kamloops, Delta and Richmond.

know something about the ethical standards of a government that would

appoint a fellow like Eckardt in the first place as a one-man

commission on electoral reform. We know something about the ethical

standards of a government that would hire a research office that did

what they did, and then fire the lot of them and pretend they knew

nothing about it while all of the dirty tricks were going on. We know

something about the ethical standards of a Premier who would have a man

in his office engaged in forging people's signatures to letters they

never wrote. We know something about the ethical....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It is true! Prove it.

know something about the ethical standards of a Premier who would hire

out a man who gives thousand-dollar bills without receipts during

political campaigns, and who is the leader of a party that fails to

report and disclose something like 20 percent of their general campaign

expenditures at the central office, when they were legally obliged to

do so.

We know something about the ethical standards of

Social Credit and its leader. The problem for Social Credit is that so

do the people, and that's why you're in trouble.

I said that

corrupt governments produce corrupt budgets. I said that discredited

governments produce discredited budgets. Stupid governments produce

stupid budgets, and that I suppose is unerringly the final result and

the real meaning of this particularly stupid budget proposal that we

have before us.

After all, this is the government that

managed to close down, accidentally and stupidly, the Seaboard

insurance company. Do you remember that one? We were the ones who

disclosed that they had done it. The then Minister of Finance

pretended that they hadn't. That was in the morning. At four in the

afternoon, the Premier announced: "Yes, we had." And just as the

opposition had said that morning, proving us correct, he said the only

remedy was a legislative one, and the House had to be called back into

an emergency session that night.

you want proof of

stupid, you don't need to look much further than Social Credit for all

the proof you could ever ask for. But there's more proof of stupid in

Social Credit. Let's take a look at BCRIC. Today BCRIC is trading at

$5.45. Yesterday BCRIC was trading at $5.45 and closed at $5.50. If you

want to take a look at stupid, take a took at the record of this

government and its administration of the affairs, legislative and

otherwise, of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

When the prospectus for the resources corporation was first published,

we saw in it the claim that the resources, the companies, the component

parts of that corporation, were worth $11.75 a share. For political

reasons,.thought to be clever at the time, the Premier artificially

lowered the value to $6 and said: "Here's a bargain. folks. Go out and

buy it." In the long-run that turns out to be stupid with a capital S.

It turns out that what he really did was permanently lower the value of

the BCRIC shares, because except for a brief period when they rose to

$7, $8 and $9 and then fell back down to $6.... BCRIC shares have

never been worth anything like the $11.75 that the government's own

stockhouses indicated they would be worth.

The Premier

lowered the value of BCRIC shares to $6.00 from the $11.75 that his

own prospectus indicated they were worth., and now we discover — two

years later — that the value will not go back up. Why is that? Because

the Premier wasn't very bright. He didn't seem to realize that when you

artificially and politically reduce the value of shares in a

[ Page 4476 ]

corporation,

which is presumed to be the property of the government of British

Columbia and the creation of the Premier, you then discover that it's

quite hard to pump it back up.

MR. SEGARTY: On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were on the budget

debate. BCRIC is a private company operating out there in the private

sector and has nothing whatsoever to do with this budget or the

government of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Notwithstanding, the debate on the budget does leave wide latitude for each member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker for protecting me from the learned member, who just rose on no point of order at all.

Another

reason why Social Credit is in trouble is the fact that BCRIC shares

are currently trading at $5.50, and people are paying interest on the

$30,000 that the Premier told them to go out and borrow in order to buy

the 5,000 shares. One of the reasons this government is in trouble, and

one of the reasons why this budget is a desperate attempt to buy its

way out, is because of the fact that the Premier himself, touting a

stock while at the same time artificially lowering its value, is now

unfortunately in the position....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Shame? The shame is yours for creating BCRIC in the first place, and

the double shame is yours for lowering its value, in the second.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. member, you would assist me in maintaining order if you would address your remarks to the Chair.

MR. BARBER: Happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. I know you understand; the Minister of Agriculture and Spetifore may not.

concerns us, sympathetically, that Social Credit is in so much trouble

because of the failing worth of BCRIC shares. This morning we read that

BCRIC is trying to buy major control, a major shareholding position, in

the MacMillan Bloedel corporation. Well, one has to wonder who is

taking over whom. One has to wonder whether or not Bruce Howe and his

pals at Mac-Blo have not in fact taken over BCRIC, instead of what is

presumed to be the other way round. But we'll get to that in another

debate shortly.

Social Credit is in trouble because BCRIC so

far is a stock market flop. No matter how hard BCRIC tries to pump up

its own value by buying other companies' shares, and thus artificially

raise the worth of BCRIC shares themselves, the point is that it won't

wash. It won't wash, in part, because of the quality of "stupid" that

permeates Social Credit. You see, BCRIC owns southeast coal; BCRIC now

owns Kaiser Resources, called B.C. Coal. When you artificially, through

massive subsidy, bring on stream coal in the northeast part of this

province, and at the same time have to deal with the problems of a

corporation like BCRIC that owns coal in the southeast and is thereby

jeopardized in its competitive position, it might occur to

an intelligent person to ask what happens to the value of BCRIC shares.

What has happened to the value of BCRIC shares is that they have been

further undermined by the clear favouritism played by the Premier, in

favour of northeast coal and thereby against southeast coal. You see,

southeast coal doesn't require a massive public subsidy; it more or

less goes on its own. It got Roberts Bank; it got an agreement with the

federal government; it didn't get a billion dollars' worth of public

handouts, as will northeast coal. Southeast coal makes it on its own as

a basically viable commercial proposition. That's a good thing. I

welcome it. Hurray for them! Northeast coal, if it could make it on its

own, would have done so a long time ago. The reason it can't is because

it's not currently commercially viable. Southeast coal was, and that's

why it came onto the market without a government subsidy. Northeast

coal isn't. Therefore BCRIC is further compromised because of its

equity ownership position in southeast coal. That's in part the quality

of "stupid" that personifies, that clearly validates — from the point

of view, we think, of most people in British Columbia — criticisms of

this budget.

The best thing we can say about this budget is

that it will continue to help us to defeat Social Credit at the next

general election. That's da