1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8639 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman's special report No 5.

Mr. Speaker –– 8639

Supply Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 57). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Cocke –– 8639

Mr. Davis –– 8640

Mr. Brummet –– 8641

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8645

Division –– 8646

Supply Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 57). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 8646

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 60: minister's office (continued) –– 8646

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Kempf

Employment Development Act (Bill 26). Report, (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 8650

Royal assent to bills –– 8650

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's special report No. 5.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 57.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1982

(continued)

MR. COCKE:

My colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) clearly

indicated to me that he wished me to say a few words on this bill, so

I'm just following in his able footsteps.

We have before us

a further interim supply bill — one-sixth of the budget, I'm told, for

this year. One of the reasons we have to keep dealing with these odd

little interim supply bills along the way is that the government is

completely disorganized. They came in here on April 6, six days after

our last fiscal year. Naturally they had to start immediately with the

presentation of a budget and then an interim supply bill. Now we're

working on our second interim supply bill. Had we come in here in an

orderly fashion some time back in January, or even February, we

wouldn't be in this unhappy position at the present time. The

government is totally disorganized. It can't even get sufficiently

organized to come into this House at the appropriate time and present a

budget, and make some sort of gesture, or at least a speech or two, in

defence of that budget, and then we could go through the estimates in

due course, and by now we would very likely be in the process of

discussing something other than supply. The estimates could have easily

been through had they been in here early enough, but they can't get

organized.

They can't get organized around the province.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance was asked whether he'd be presenting

another budget, since the budget he has presented has obviously shown

that it is in tatters now. The Lord alone knows what it's going to be

like. The Finance minister lives in an isolated little room in this

building. He hasn't got a clue what's going on across this province in

terms of employment, the delivery of health care and the general

economic conditions. How can this government get themselves into such

terrible shape when they were the ones who were business oriented? I

fail to see that business orientation when I look at what's going on

across this province.

HON. MR. FRASER: Tell us how you ran ICBC. Give us some background on that.

MR. COCKE: ICBC was in good hands. We built it and put it together. Even the Socreds couldn't take it apart.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may reflect on yesterday's

sitting, there was considerable latitude, but I wonder what ICBC, then

or now, has to do with interim supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the latitude which was granted yesterday is

granted again today. A passing remark can hardly be cut off before it has been

completed. However, the Hon. member must take upon himself the responsibility

for being in order, and I would recommend that to him.

MR. COCKE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. As you know, I was merely

providing the Minister of Highways with some information which he asked

for.

In any event, our situation at the present time is such

that the province needs some leadership. That leadership could easily

come from the Minister of Finance in terms of providing some financial

leadership so that we're no longer looking at our present jobless

situation and we re no longer looking at our hospitals partially

staffed. Yesterday I spoke to the Human Resources office in my area.

The person I spoke to said that an entirely new group of people are

coming in for assistance. They are people whose unemployment insurance

has now run out, some of whom, he says, have summer homes, which

they're told to dispose of. An entirely new cast of characters is

coming along. They say: "Yes, we would love to sell our summer home or

our car or anything else, but there's no market for anything."

Mr.

Speaker, what we need today is leadership. We need confidence, and that

confidence should emanate from the government. At the present time

nothing is forthcoming; nothing to provide the kind of hope that is

needed to turn this situation around. Let's hope that the Minister of

Finance will reconsider what he said yesterday. What he said yesterday

was there will be no further budget this year. I believe there must be

a redirection, and a new look at priorities. We mustn't have situations

such as the Children's Hospital where they cannot open beds in a

hospital that they've been so proudly presenting to the public. I am

getting phone calls, messages and letters indicating that there are

little children badly in need of either surgery or treatment, and they

can't get into the hospital. Traditionally we've had long waiting lists

for some forms of elective surgery.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's this got to do with interim supply?

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, the House Leader says: "What's this got to do with interim

supply?" What part of this sixth is for health care? None? Is that your

priority? That's where it has to do with interim supply. I just thought

that the House Leader might need that information. A major portion of

this sixth is for health care. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you right now

that a major portion of this sixth is badly needed for the delivery of

health care. As I said, traditionally we've had relatively long waiting

lists for sophisticated procedures such as open heart surgery and

coronary bypasses. Mr. Speaker, we should not have the kinds of waiting

lists that we're now having for procedures that are sorely needed for

children. We should not be having the situation such as we have at

Sunny Hill Hospital, where children suffering cerebral palsy are being

neglected.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) decides to stand up and

defend the health-care system in this province at the present time,

then I will be only to pleased to see him.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the best health care in the world, and you know it.

[ Page 8640 ]

MR. COCKE: We'll discuss that more during the estimates.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the minister come to order, please.

MR. COCKE:

It's interesting to me that the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations, a traditional Liberal, talks about the health-care system

that we now have as the best in the world. It's interesting because

that health-care system originally came from the old CCF and the NDP.

Thank you very much for endorsing medicare and hospital insurance,

because you know where it came from. But it's being neglected at the

present time by this government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the best in the world.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. Interruptions directed toward the member

who has the floor always result in disorder in the House. I would ask

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to come to order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, as I see it, interim supply is going to be voted on in the next short while. In saying that, I would suggest....

AN HON. MEMBER: And you'll vote for it.

MR. COCKE:

Of course we must vote for it; you have to be able to write your

cheques. I want the Minister of Finance to think about it seriously

from the standpoint that it's about time that he takes a new look at

priorities and at the direction the money is going that we taxpayers

are spending in this province. There are discussions, Mr. Speaker, when

you see some areas of human services suffering and on the other hand

you see megaprojects burgeoning. There is no shortage of money for

northeast coal to subsidize the Japanese steel industry, none

whatsoever. The Premier said that yesterday again.

I believe

that some of this money should be rearranged in such a way as to

provide the basic human services. I want to say in closing, Mr.

Speaker, that of all times to starve health care, to do so when we are

in a very tough economic time must be wrong. What do we see before us?

Every statistic in terms of illness, stress-related illness — there's

lots of stress out there — illness in terms of basic frustration.... We

see suicides, attempted suicides and all of those factors growing at

the present time, and at the same time we're cutting back on the

delivery of health care. Sooner or later we're going to have to come to

grips with this lack of priority. I suggest, if this government has any

sense whatsoever, that it will be sooner rather than later.

MR. DAVIS:

I want to say a few words on the subject of funding of government

services in B.C. The government is asking the Legislature for authority

to spend an additional $1.43 billion. That's at an annual clip of $8.6

billion a year. That's a lot of money, but I think it should be put in

its proper context.

A few nights ago we listened to the presentation of the federal budget by the

federal Minister of Finance, Hon. Mr. MacEachen. He disclosed a federal deficit

— a federal shortfall of income as opposed to expenditure — of the order of

$20 billion. That's $20 billion in contrast to our total provincial budget

of less than $9 billion. That's $20 billion minimum. It may be more like

$25 billion that has to be borrowed from a limited pool of savings in this country

by the sale of Canada Savings Bonds over the next 12 months. In other words,

the federal government will be borrowing between $20 billion and $25 billion.

Other

provinces — not this one, because it's not in the habit of borrowing

for current operating purposes — largely Ontario and Quebec, will be

borrowing between $15 billion and $20 billion. Crown and government

corporations, federal and provincial, will be borrowing moneys of the

same order of magnitude again: $15 billion to $20 billion. The

borrowing by the federal government is $20 billion to $25 billion for

current operating purposes. Provincial borrowing for current operating

purposes on the next 12 months is $15 billion to $20 billion. Federal

and provincial government corporations' borrowing is between $15

billion and $20 billion. The total is of the order of $60 billion.

The

total savings of the Canadian people over the next year is estimated to

be $90 billion. Governments will be borrowing $60 billion out of a

total Canadian savings of $90 billion. Governments will be taking out

of the pockets of the, Canadian people savings amounting to two-thirds

of their total savings. You and I, Mr. Speaker, business, industry and

the private sector will have only one-third of Canadian savings left.

Governments will be mopping up two-thirds of Canadian savings, and this

is the situation in which we find ourselves as a provincial

administration: trying to find money. Certainly if we were to be

running any deficit, we would be bidding against other governments and

government agencies for a limited amount of money, and bidding in a

market in which the private sector will be desperately trying to get

some money — some of our limited savings — to create jobs, new plants

and new industry to provide employment for our people.

Most

of that $60 billion — most of the two-thirds of Canadian savings — that

will be going to government will be taken to pay interest on old debt.

We're simply trying to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to keep up

to past decisions involving running deficits that are mounting year

after year. It has now become necessary because we borrowed so much,

and because in the refinancing of all our past borrowings we're having

to pay ever-higher interest rates. Can you conceive of interest rates

going down in this country when governments are mopping up more and

more of our savings, when governments are competing with us as

individuals, and competing with the private sector for those limited

funds, which are limited partly because we're in a recession? The

recession is not just a Canadian or continental recession; it's a

worldwide recession. So interest rates, at least in Canada, are bound

to stay up. They may even go up in the short and medium term, because

we have limited savings and governments are now so desperate for funds.

Governments are now taking so much of our savings in order to meet

current operating costs, including interest payments which they must

make to the Canadian people.

Canadian banks are caught in a

national situation, which is difficult. No wonder the external rating

of Canadian banks has dropped from triple-A to double-A recently. No

wonder the banks are going to have problems financing or refinancing

large companies with large debts, such as Dome Petroleum. They're

operating in that remaining one-third of Canadian savings, with

governments taking two-thirds of

[ Page

8641 ]

Canadian savings. It's a very difficult situation; it's a backdrop

against which we must evaluate our present budget.

Expenditures

this year — the Minister of Finance is still telling us — are in the

order of $8.6 billion. The opposition always goes for expenditures,

consumption and spending money. They'll agree with this bill. They'll

vote for it because they're always fond of distributing the public

wealth, but they don't address themselves to the income side, which is

terribly important. This debate, if it had any meaning at all, would be

dealing with the income side, How are we going to finance an

expenditure totalling $8.6 billion this year? It's going to be

difficult because the resource industries are in difficulties and

because they have provided in recent years the principal fillip to our

income side. They're in difficult times. They will recover, but will

they recover fast enough in the next 12 months to allow us to break

even at $8.6 billion? If we have to borrow we are going to be competing

with the Canadian government that now needs $20 billion to $25 billion

out of Canadian savings. Other provincial governments and Crown

corporations will take two-thirds of Canadian savings, a market in

which interest rates will remain high.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

have something to do with the public transit system and its development

in greater Vancouver, and for the next few years we will have to borrow

in order to finance that important development. We're going to have to

borrow in a tight money market — at least a tight Canadian money

market. We're going to have to pay 15 to 17 percent — hopefully not 20

percent — for our money. One of the matters which concerns me very much

is that our national government is still offering Canadian money to

other countries at low interest rates — 9.7 percent to the city of New

York, so that they'll buy partly Canadian-built transit equipment, and

to Argentina, of all countries, so that they'll be able to pay our

prices for nuclear power plant facilities. We're acting as if we have a

viable economy, even as if we've got money at low interest rates

available. It's not available to Canadians; it's certainly not

available to the private sector. Why should it be available to other

countries to buy some of our exotic hardware?

Back to the

supply bill, Mr. Speaker. We're all going to vote for it because there

are commitments to people, to health care, to education, and to human

resources — that's the great bulk of the budget — and those moneys

won't be held up. I wish the hon. members would address themselves more

to our income side, to what could well be a budget-balancing problem

this year, and would admit that because this administration has managed

to balance its budgets over the last half-dozen years and has indeed

managed to build up a modest surplus, which is now rapidly being drawn

down, we're still, compared to most other provinces, in a relatively

comfortable position. To draw an analogy with a typical British

Columbia family, the breadwinner, the principal income earner, is

facing shortened hours. The rate of pay might be up modestly, but hours

of work will be less and there'll be no overtime. Others in the family

have been laid off. Income may be up, but only marginally. Expenditures

are going up with inflation though. They're selling off some of those

term deposits to break even this year.

That's really our financial situation at the provincial level. We're

breaking even, but it's going to be tough. Therefore we need a restraint

program. We're in a national economic environment in which governments are

mopping up the savings. They are taking as much as two-thirds of all the savings

of all Canadian people and all Canadian industry and simply spending it — nearly

all of it on consumption and a large chunk of it merely trying to keep up by

meeting interest payments. We're not in that unhappy position in British

Columbia, at least as far as having to pay for current debt is concerned. Otherwise,

we're in difficult straits and we've simply got to hope that the U.S.

economy turns around soon and that some of our export industries at least will

be able to give us some of the dividends necessary in order to balance our budget

this year.

MR. BRUMMET:

I would like to make a few remarks on this interim supply measure. It

was interesting to hear the member for New Westminster (MR. Cocke) this

morning suggesting that this would not have been necessary if the

Legislature had been called in earlier. I would like to think that had

it been called in a couple of months earlier they would have allowed

the budget debate, the estimates debate and all these other things to

proceed more quickly. However, in view of what I have seen in three

years in this House, it stretches the imagination to assume that that

would have happened, and that the interim supply measures would not

have been necessary.

One of the things I'd like to suggest

briefly is that we've heard a great deal about how much help the

socialists are offering to the government. I've listened very

carefully, not only in this debate but throughout, and the type of help

and positive suggestions are: sort out the economy, recognize the

problems, develop an industrial strategy, lower the interest rates, do

some planning, bring in another budget, etc, I defy anyone to analyze

those generalizations and find there a suggestion of how it should be

done — how you lower the interest rates and this sort of thing. Yet

they try to perpetuate the myth that they are actually making some

helpful suggestions. Plan, do something, bring in adequate measures —

anyone can suggest that. Those are not helpful suggestions; they are

vague generalizations that contribute nothing.

The member

for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) spent some time yesterday delineating the

socialist philosophy. He was saying: why are you closing schools where

they are no longer needed, and why are you opening schools in new areas

where there are pupils, where they are needed? I say delineating the

socialist philosophy, because they seem to say: keep open operations

that are not necessary and not productive, and don't open anything new

where it's needed or where it can produce some revenue. I think this is

where the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) yesterday

came up with his assessment that it's no wonder that they take this

attitude when they have a social worker as leader, who is influencing

them with that mentality. Social workers in our society do a great deal

of good, but that leader, the socialist, uses that social-worker

mentality with the attitude that we give it out. The social worker does

not need to concern himself with where the money comes from; just write

the cheque, help people.

Anyone in this society likes to help people. So often we hear: "They are

in favour of the people; they are for the people." How you are going to

help people by the measures they suggest is beyond me. Certainly, you can give

someone some money today as long as you don't care where it comes from,

and if you don't have to concern yourself with how much it's going to

cost tomorrow. So we have this suggestion

[ Page 8642 ]

subsidized operations. They say they would create jobs. The way they

would create jobs, as I understand it, would be to kill the

megaprojects; yet just try to pin them down. If you ask any one of them

whether they would actually stop northeast coal, B.C. Place or any of

these operations, no, they won't go quite that far; but they certainly

infer that these projects should be stopped. And when they say that

money is available for these projects but not for health care,

education and this sort of thing, obviously they are inferring that you

should shut down those projects and put that money into health care,

into education, into whatever other government services.

What

they don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the money government

puts into these megaprojects invites other money from the private

sector. For instance, we've heard a lot about how much money is going

into northeast coal. Suppose we took the socialists' suggestion and

shut down northeast coal. We could save the few hundred thousand

dollars or few hundred million dollars that the provincial government

is putting in, and certainly we could distribute it into areas that are

not going to bring back a single buck. But at the same time, this would

cancel the billion dollars that private industry is putting into it,

and those billion dollars provide twice as many jobs as the government

input.

If we want to cancel these big projects, then I think

the NDP should tell the public that when you do so, you drive out the

money that is still being invested in British Columbia in a few other

places; you drive out that private investment money that also creates

jobs. We need to have that money coming in. If we simply take the

government money that we're putting into those projects and distribute

it according to the social worker mentality, then that money is gone

and produces no further revenue in the future. Yet the need is going to

be even greater next year for funds for those purposes, and where is

that money going to come from?

So the NDP is against every

megaproject, every Hydro project. They say Hydro should not go into

debt. First, let someone suggest that Hydro raise its rates so that it

doesn't go into debt, and they object to that. And if you suggest that

the Americans are willing to buy our power on a firm basis and pay for

the dams we build, then we get into the issue that we must not export

because it's a resource. They don't mind exporting other resources, but

that's one they've zeroed in on — we mustn't sell what others will buy.

They want to take more money from the people who are still making a

buck and put it into sawmills, for instance, to keep them open to

stockpile lumber. Stockpile lumber for what? You aren't going to be

able to sell it. You have to have a market, or at least a foreseeable

market, before you can keep producing a product, but that has never

concerned the socialists. That was evident in 1972-75 when we had

statements of "Keep things open!" Produce pulp that won't sell, and

this sort of thing.

To abbreviate my comments, the NDP says

they have a program to create work. That program involves buying

ourselves out of problems. All we have to do is look at the federal

example to see what sort of horrible catastrophe is created by trying

to buy one's way out of trouble. We have the socialist philosophy of

more government intervention — in other words, get government to do

more. In order for government to do more, they have to take over more,

run more, and take more and more from what's still producing. I can see

why the socialists are trying to tie this party to the federal Liberals

and why they're trying to dissociate themselves from it.

there's one program that has done an immeasurable amount of damage to

this country, it's the national energy program as put forward by the

federal government. Let me use a few examples. That national energy

program was, as I understand it, designed to Canadianize the oil and

gas industry.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET:

Yes, "Canadianize." I maintain that nationalize is what they really

want, because that's the socialist philosophy. It was to develop self-

sufficiency. It was to encourage our oil and gas industry.

am not an economic expert on how that works. I am just a plain, simple

observer of what has happened, which is that since the national energy

program was introduced, a viable operating oil and gas industry has

virtually been destroyed in Canada. We have used taxpayer money, in

effect, to destroy it, because we've collected more. Our price at the

pump- has gone up; our gas prices have gone up. What for? To collect

money from the federal government to Canadianize certain industries.

Through this national energy program, this great salvation.... The

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) yesterday said: "We've never

benefited so much in this country as we have from the national energy

program." Heaven help us, we can't stand any more of those benefits.

Even though I'm not an economist, prices have gone up for the products

in Canada.

The national energy program has also put a lid on

oil exploration in Canada in areas that are accessible. It's trying to

promote exploration through huge taxpayer subsidies in areas where it's

too expensive to bring the oil out, such as the arctic and other

glamorous places where we do oil explorations. These great things are

wonderful, except that it completely ignores the market. The market

says that if you can buy oil from foreign countries at $30 a barrel,

you are not going to find people willing to pay $50 a barrel to pipe it

down from the arctic. It has taken all this money out of producing oil

and gas wells, out of the public's pockets at the pumps, and put it

into these glamorous areas that are going to be impossible to market.

It's great stuff. It costs us a lot more and destroyed our conventional

oil and gas industry. On top of all that it has taken more money at the

pumps to buy foreign oil and subsidize foreign purchases at an

ever-increasing rate, while destroying our own industry.

The

national energy program has probably done great harm to investor

confidence in this country. I don't care if the federal Finance

minister says: "We've realized our error. We're going to give you a

year's reprieve." It is ludicrous to suggest that you can bring

investor confidence and investment opportunity to the oil and gas

industry by means of a one-year reprieve, with no promise beyond that.

I don't know how many people realize that even from the time an oil

well is drilled, and it takes a couple of years to get to that

point.... Once the development program is tapped in, it generally takes

four to five years before that well is actually connected and

producing. We've got this fantastic effort to entice the oil industry

back by giving them a year's grace. They cannot operate on one-year

promises. They need four to five years. They need a long-range plan.

think people sort of feel that the movies model, where you put up the

oil rig, start drilling, and this great, big gusher with its black gold

flowing.... Let me tell you, it takes an

[ Page 8643 ]

awful

lot of investment in that field — refining plants, pumping stations,

delivery systems — and four to five years, and then there might be some

cash flow. It does not just sort of flow and turn into gold as soon as

the gusher comes out. Would they believe that many wells are drilled

before one produces.

I know I'm getting somewhat off the

topic, but the socialist philosophy, "Let's just put more money out

there; let's create some jobs," is ludicrous. What happens next year,

when you've spent all your money on creating jobs this year that do not

create anything that is going to keep the economy flowing?

Fin

sure the Minister of Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips) would agree with me

that if we cancelled the northeast coal project, took $300 million and

spread it around and put people to work, we could create a lot more

jobs right now. I'm sure anybody would agree with that. But what would

you have when that $300 million was gone?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A post office on every corner.

MR. BRUMMET:

Right. Next year you would have an impossible situation, because you

wouldn't be able to get the next $300 million anywhere, and you would

also have lost the $700 million which private industry put in. So the

socialists, with their social-worker leader's mentality, are saying:

"All we have to do to solve our problems is to spend money. Let's not

concern ourselves with where it's going to come from next year." The

federal example in this country is so obvious, so glaring, that you

would wonder why anyone at this time would turn around and say: "Let's

not worry about where it's going to come from; it will be better next

year." Certainly it may be better next year.

I'll tell you

what the socialist philosophy reminds me of. Remember years ago when

Household Finance had a great program going on: "Borrow from us to get

out of debt." You wouldn't believe how many people borrowed from

Household Finance at 20 percent to pay off their 8 and 10 percent

debts. They said to people: "Borrow from us to get out of debt." This

is exactly what the socialists are saying: "Let's borrow to get out of

debt." Even I could have been hoodwinked into believing that, except

for the obvious examples in this country, where several provinces

decided to borrow to get out of debt.

There is a distinction

in borrowing. We're talking about borrowing for operating costs. A lot

of companies and private-industry governments have borrowed millions of

dollars to create assets worth millions of dollars or more — that's a

different type of borrowing. It's the same as a person who borrows

money to buy a house: that person has an investment to match what he

borrowed. But if the house is worth $50,000 and the person borrows

$100,000 against that house, obviously he might as well be a socialist.

If the person is at all sensible, he would certainly not borrow more

than what the asset is worth. That's what we're talking about. If that

person, as an individual, started borrowing money to make the mortgage

payments on the house, then that person is down the socialist road to

destruction. Borrowing money to pay operating costs is quite different

from borrowing money to build the house.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET:

I don't care about the fed-bashing. But it's certainly obvious that you

end up having to take more and more tax dollars from anything that's

left in a producing area in order to pay the interest. and that is

nonproductive money. It doesn't generate any Jobs. There again, all you

have to do is take a look at the federal national energy program and

their takeover of Petrofina — at a premium rate, of course. Hundreds of

millions of dollars of taxpayers' money went to buy existing operations

that never created one extra job or one more barrel of oil in this

country. Yet somehow, socialist philosophy says that that's a good

investment. I don't know how you could call a good investment something

from which you don't create anything new. You simply take it over.

The

amount of extra money that every taxpayer in this country is now paying

for the takeover that created nothing is unbelievable. As a matter of

fact, the takeovers have driven out the people who were here making our

economy go. Do we attract them back by saying: "Come on in and invest

your money in here, and we'll take off the top 25 percent as soon as

you discover an oil field"? The socialist philosophy being promoted

here in this province and operating at the federal level is

unbelievable.

The only way that socialism can work is to

keep taking more money from the taxpayers to allow government to lose

increasing amounts of money and just keep paying it out. Anyone can see

that that has a very limited timespan. In the early seventies people

realized that the timespan was about three years from the time you

start spending until you go into debt. If there hadn't been a

turnaround.... Imagine the debt that British Columbia would be in today

if that socialist philosophy were still in practice. The federal

government would be pale in comparison to what these socialists in

British Columbia would have done to this province.

Instead

of that, we did have a turnaround, and we had people coming here. They

came because they made a profit. When they made a profit....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they now?

MR. BRUMMET: They've been driven out by the socialists in Ottawa.

They

were here and were willing to put more money into it, because on a

long-term basis they had to make a profit. Would you believe that the

oil and gas industry, at least a year or so ago, had put far more money

into British Columbia completely and entirely from every cubic metre of

gas and barrel of oil than they've taken out. They've actually got more

money invested. Over the long term they'll recover it. But they have to

make a profit. The socialists say that since these big corporations are

making a profit, it's dirty. That's a dirty word. Steps were taken

federally to eliminate their profits. When those profits went, they

went, and with them went the jobs. When those people were doing well,

so were the workers and government services in this province.

Somehow

or other the socialists seem to believe that you can distribute wealth

without creating it. People don't go out to create wealth if they can't

see a way to make a buck at it. That is what encourages investors. We

need investors to put money into this province. If they make a profit,

good, because when they make a profit they also keep people working,

they keep our resource development going and they keep government

revenue coming in so we can provide services. When we drive them

out.... Yes, we can take pride. We

[ Page 8644 ]

took

them over. For heaven's sake, look at what it has cost us to take over

the oil and gas industry in this country. I don't know how much of a

price we're willing to pay, but I can tell you that from what I've seen

in the last few years, we cannot afford the socialist philosophy or

thinking in this province or country, because it has done a lot of harm.

started out with an interim supply measure in order to keep funds going

while we're dealing with these issues, as they're known. We've been

bogged down with the same criticism and debate over and over again,

using this occasion to reiterate what they've said before in attacking

government. They'll do anything to keep us in this Legislature longer.

I guess, in a sense, I'm contributing to it. I hadn't planned to speak

on this interim supply measure, but when I hear the nonsensical and

dangerous suggestions from this opposition, then a person does feel he

has to stand up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. BRUMMET:

They're all out there trying to figure out more ways to buy people's

votes on a short-term basis by giving promises that they can't keep.

the meantime, what are they doing? There were a lot of suggestions here

to keep employment going in this province. I don't know whether they

all would have worked. Take the B.C. Tel example, where they said:

"Look, if those of you who are still working and doing well will take a

half an hour or an hour a day less, we will try to keep the other

people working." The labour bosses said to them: "No way. We're for

jobs." Sure, higher pay for some people at the price of everybody

else's job.

The B.C. lumber industry did make an

effort. Again, we don't know whether it would have worked, but it was

an effort to say: "Look, if you'll just postpone this increase for a

little while, we'll do everything we possibly can to stay open." What

did the labour bosses, with NDP support, say? They said: "No way are we

about to discuss anything of that nature." We have it over and over

again. The labour bosses say to them: "Don't give an inch. Let's pay

the price." And the price is being paid by their fellow workers.

believe the NDP is being very irresponsible by even holding out the

hope that all it would take is an election and a socialist government

in this province to turn things around. As the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) just said, any government could turn

around and borrow all the money going. We're destroying the economy

with this increased borrowing; A we have to do is borrow some more

money. This government, a socialist government or anybody could just

borrow some more money and put a lot of people to work this year and

destroy the entire economy next year and in the future.

They're

against any steps that are taken for restraint. We hear them talk about

making motions here in the estimates to reduce expenditures. It's

showmanship, because during the debate they keep asking for more here,

there and everywhere else. Then they come in with these insidious

little motions to cut back those expenditures.

I guess I'm getting a bit carried away, but I think a lot could be done

in this province. You talk about lowering interest rates. There's a lot

of money out there that could lower interest rates. I've heard some really

pious suggestions from some of those labour bosses. They suggest that we've

got to bring interest rates down because our people are losing their houses.

In the meantime, where would they invest their $200 million strike fund? Would

they put it in at 10 percent and loan it to their own people to save their houses?

No way! They'll go out there and get the 16 and 20 percent interest that

they can get anywhere. Let them put their money where their mouth is sometimes.

If they're really in favour of it, they've got $200 million they could

give to their own people to help them with their mortgage rates, never mind

anybody else. But they say: "No, it's not our responsibility to look

after our own people. We just talk brotherhood. When it comes to doing something,

let the taxpayers of this province look after those people."

You

add up all the money that's out there in strike funds and being used

for various promotions that the unions are doing, and they could be

saving an awful lot of their own members' homes. I thought unions were

supposed to help their own members. Instead of that they invest their

money at the highest going rate and wonder why the government shouldn't

go out and borrow money at 20 percent to lower the mortgage rate to 12

percent. What a socialist philosophy!

In order to keep wages

higher and keep extreme increases.... What are we talking about?

They're asking for 25 percent or 40 percent in the construction

industry and 25 percent in the B.C. Government Employees Union. They'll

stick to that 25 percent, and they're asking all their members to

strike rather than say: "We'll take a little less to keep the rest

employed."

When you increase the amount of money that goes

out, and you've only got so much money, you've got to decrease

somewhere. They're willing to sacrifice all their members at the lower

end of the scale. They're willing to sacrifice many members so that

some of their members can get a lot more. When in heaven's name are

some of these labour bosses in this union going to realize that it's

not a political situation we're in? We're in a real economic recession

in this country.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Brought about by you.

MR. BRUMMET:

What I'm saying is that you can blame all the governments in existence

right now for having brought this situation about. I am not about to

accept a worsened situation by accepting some of the socialist

philosophy — by borrowing to make the thing worse — because I see from

the federal example what it's done. There are remedies in this

province, Mr. Speaker, but those remedies are only possible if we can

get the labour bosses, industry and government to all agree that

they've got to contribute. We have the labour bosses saying: "No, sir,

just give us a strike vote and we'll get what we're asking for. There

is a problem, but we will not in any way take

part in the solution.

That's up to them." I don't know how many people throughout this

country keep looking at government as "them," as though they have

absolutely no participation in it.

As I've indicated,

private industry needs profits in order to keep going. They've got to

be able to afford to keep going. The labour bosses need industry.

Everybody needs government, but everybody needs less government instead

of more government that the socialists are promoting. I think that if

we gave the people an opportunity, if the socialists would quit

irresponsibly saying to people that there's a magic solution, and it's

in politics — nonsense. There's no politician in this world that, can

go out and say to the Americans.... I shouldn't say there's no

politician in the world — maybe there is an American — but certainly

there's no Canadian

[ Page 8645 ]

politician

that can go down to the States and grab the Americans by the throat and

say: "Even if our lumber is higher priced than yours, even if you don't

need it, you must buy it, because we want to produce it." You cannot,

so we've got to recognize that when you can't sell something it doesn't

make any sense to produce it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, we have the resources and we have the funds, but it will take

a cooperative effort, not a confrontation tactic, to get this province

back on its feet. We could, by cooperation, make it work. We really

could, but as long as we have this socialist opposition saying "Just

give us the reins and we'll hand out the money," that encourages people

to have unrealistic expectations. We have a lot of young people in this

province that would like to work — they'd like to gain experience.

There are a lot of blockages. I could talk about training programs.

What would the socialists do? They would just take money and somehow

put these people to work. Doing what? Producing what? That's the second

part that they've never mentioned. What would these people do? You

could put anybody to work if you don't have to care where the money

comes from. I think we have to be a little bit more responsible than

the opposition. I think we have to keep in mind that it doesn't do any

good to con people into believing that there's a money tree somewhere —

that it doesn't have to be created by somebody somewhere. I think we

could bring about a recovery in this province quickly if.... It's not

going to be easy, because people are going to have to contribute in

some way to restraints in their own spending and in wage increases in

various ways. They can do it. I would soon like to see the day when

they will recognize that the false promises being made by the labour

bosses and the socialist opposition are false promises and cannot be

maintained.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the debate in second reading on Bill 57

has covered a number of topics, some of which I will be happy to deal

with in the debate on my estimates. There are two or three things,

however, that I think should be pointed out. Again, this is interim

supply. It seeks legislative authority for the government to continue

to pay its bills, provide services and pay salaries for one-sixth or

two months of the fiscal year we are now in.

The member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is not in his seat.... I note, in

fact, Mr. Speaker, that while the debate was so urgent and so fevered

yesterday, there are only three members of the New Democratic Party out

of their total number in the House at this time.

The member

for New Westminster made a few remarks and then departed the chamber. I

think the thrust of his comment, other than relating to health care,

was with respect to the fact that interim supply should not be

necessary and that interim supply is somehow an indication of the

government's inability to correctly manage its calendar. The point was

made by another member of the socialist opposition yesterday, and it

was also made, as I recall, in debate on an interim supply bill last

year.

Mr. Speaker, interim supply is not unusual in the province of British Columbia.

I would point out that in 1974 the then NDP government introduced the same sort

of bill which is before us today, and that was Bill 108, which was introduced

and given third reading on April 9, 1974, and then the final supply act in June.

In 1975, the last year of NDP rule in the province of British Columbia, we had

two interim supply bills: Bill 11, which was given third reading on March 26,

1975; and Bill 80, which was given third reading on June 9, 1975, with the final

supply act on June 26. The dates are not far off the date which have occurred

this year.

Mr.

Speaker, inasmuch as we are debating the short-term expending of a

portion of the year's budget, I think that the most germane comments I

can make are to excerpt from the recent issue of the Financial Times

of Canada, July 5, 1982. I don't offer this as a display, but it is, in

fact, a small chart. The page reference is not available to me, but it

is headed "The National Balance Sheet." I think this speaks more

eloquently than I could with respect to what British Columbia has done

in the course of this fiscal year in the detailed, lengthy, exhaustive

and sometimes stressful preparation for this fiscal year, a portion of

which is provided for in this interim supply bill. I want to cite a few

figures in terms of spending.

I'm again quoting directly

from the national balance sheet chart. This is the increase in spending

for 1982-83 over 1981-82 in terms of the provinces of Canada, then the

ten provinces averaged and then the national government. With the

exception of Nova Scotia, the increase in government expenditure, which

is of concern to every single Canadian today, in British Columbia this

year over last is the second lowest, second only to Nova Scotia. Ours

is approximately 8 percent; Alberta, 27.3 percent; Saskatchewan, 31.2

percent; Manitoba, 18.9 percent; Ontario, 11.6 percent; Quebec, 11.2

percent; New Brunswick, 21.6 percent; Nova Scotia, 6.6 percent; Prince

Edward Island, 13.3 percent; Newfoundland, 15.8 percent. For the ten

provinces, the average is a 14.1 percent increase in spending year over

year; for British Columbia, 8 percent. Canada's increase in spending

for 1982-83 over 1981-82 is 15.8 percent; again, match that against the

approximate 8 percent in British Columbia.

There are other

columns: revenues, financing required, debt service cost. The member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) spoke about this, as have other

members on this side of the House. I think this is fundamental to the

restraint we have exercised in terms of our spending, OUT lower

expectations in terms of revenue. These figures are also extremely

significant. They reach right to the heart of the care with which we

developed this budget, one-sixth of which is now about to be approved

on an interim basis. I should point out that the footnote indicates

that for provinces, own-purpose direct debt only. This is a key to the

column from which I am now going to read.

Increase in debt

service cost over 1981-82: British Columbia, 5.9 percent; Alberta, 9.1

percent; Saskatchewan, 21.3 percent; Manitoba, 33.7 percent; Ontario,

18.2 percent; Quebec, 41 percent; New Brunswick, 43.3 percent; Nova

Scotia, 36.4 percent; Prince Edward Island, 8.3 percent; Newfoundland,

7.4 percent. The average for all ten provinces in Canada in increase of

debt service cost, 1982-83 over 1981-82, is 28.9 percent. Where is

British Columbia? It is at the bottom with 5.9 percent.

structured this year's expenditures with care, with recognition that

recession was upon us. There were variations as to when the recession

might end, and we looked at better cases and worst cases in preparing

expenditures. The fact

[ Page 8646 ]

remains,

however, that we have a responsible government. We have a responsible

management of the public's money. We have held our expenditure lift to

the lowest level possible without impairing programs that people have

come to expect, and that they deserve in British Columbia. We knew that

this would be a difficult year, in a difficult era. We have not

contributed to the national malaise. We have not contributed to the

national illness of spending more and more money than we take in.

There

were several calls for an emergency budget. The government examines

constantly, regularly and very objectively, through the issuance of

quarterly reports, the state of our revenues and expenditures. These

reports were introduced by this party when it formed this government,

introduced by my predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister

of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I have indicated to members in

Question Period — members who are not present now during the closing of

second reading on this interim supply bill — that there has been some

slippage. Some expenditures are up, some revenues are down. But we have

the capability and courage to take the kind of measures which are

necessary, without running into this House with a hastily prepared

"emergency budget," to use the phrase which has been tossed across the

floor by two, three or four hon. members in the course of this debate.

We have the ability to adjust as we move through this fiscal year. Mr.

Speaker, I have avoided, I trust to the satisfaction of the Chair,

straying into some of the areas which, if I may say so, sir, in my view

do not properly belong in a debate in second reading on interim supply.

We are still in the estimates process. Key ministries have yet to be

examined, including the Ministry of Finance. I will answer any number

of questions at that particular point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 57.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I ask your advice in terms of assisting members to attend the votes of the chamber.

Because

of the decision by the public accounts committee that the MLAs are to

examine vouchers, rather than staff, the vouchers are being examined

out of the range of the bells in the precincts, as I've discussed with

you already. I'm asking if there is some way to assist the members to

do their duty in examining vouchers closer to the precincts, perhaps in

one of the committee rooms, rather than having to leave the precincts.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would ask if the Whips, who are not under the control of the Chair at

all, could make those arrangements. I'm sure it would be appreciated by

both sides.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order,

maybe the Whips could also make arrangements for pairing. We're the

only Legislature on the North American continent that doesn't pair, and

follows the barbaric practices articulated by the official opposition.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Matters of concern to the Whips are not of concern to the Chair. They certainly should not be taking the time of the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of you and

this House that the bells did not ring in the offices of the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). To fortify my concern on the matter of

the bells, they are not satisfactory whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER:

The matter of the bells is of ongoing concern. The people who are

responsible for the bells are in the process of installing yet another

bell system.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 57 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 57; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 57, Supply Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, with leave.

Leave granted.

Bill 57, Supply Act (No. 2), 1982 read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 60: minister's office, $187,000.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

A question was posed to me by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

regarding a press release I issued on July 9, 1980, announcing a

moratorium in

[ Page 8647 ]

Buckley

Bay. The member was a little confused regarding what was happening. She

claims she asked that question of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) and that he suggested that the question should be asked of the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I want to report back, because

the member is seeking this information, and tell her the present status

of that three-year moratorium.

The Ministry of Environment

has completed capability mapping of the coastline. This ministry is in

the process of preparing a detailed shore-zone plan for the sound.

Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment are jointly preparing

administrative policy for the mariculture resource of the sound. In the

plan, coastal areas will be set aside for mariculture. A target date of

mid-1983 has been announced for the policies and the plan, and it will

be met.

MS. SANFORD: I have just one very brief

follow-up question. Before they are actually adopted, will there be

public hearings on the proposals the government wishes to introduce?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, there will be no public hearings; there could be public meetings.

want to respond to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who raised the

case of David Rozek and the lease fee charged him on his agricultural

land. He thought our rates were exorbitant. We issued a 15-year lease

to Mr. Rozek, with certain performance commitments on his part. He has

held the lease for ten years; it expires in January 1987. Our policy

was lease rental of 5 percent of the appraised value of the property.

The appraised value is $25,888. He has had the 200 acres for ten years.

The policy of the day was that he had to put 80 percent of the arable

portion of the land under cultivation or seedbed condition. I'm not

sure how much of that 200 acres is deemed arable. But I do want to say

that he enjoys a benefit which most British Columbians don't enjoy; he

has the opportunity of acquiring that land once he has performed. Once

signed on the lease, he'll be able to acquire that land at a price that

nobody else in British Columbia can acquire land for. That 200 acres of

agricultural land will be offered to Mr. Rozek at $5.81 an acre. I

suggest to you that the treatment of Mr. Rozek is more than fair.

MR. PASSARELL: We're going to go into the parks issue right now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up.

MR. PASSARELL: For sure, but I hope we'll have a reasonable discussion here.

have a number of issues I'd like to address to the minister regarding

approximately 13 parks in the province. At the onset, while the

minister's turning around, I'd like to congratulate him on the good job

he's done this year in regard to provincial parks. I think he's done an

excellent job. I really can't attack him much today.

There

are some concerns regarding parks in the province. There are three

particular issues that come up regarding parks: logging aspects, mining

aspects and hydro development in parks.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about trapping?

MR. PASSARELL: Just sit back and be a good boy for ten minutes, and we'll get this over with.

One

of the biggest issues addressed to the minister and me is that of

increasing the provincial parks systems in the next five or ten years

from 5 percent to 6 percent of the provincial land-use base. This would

enlarge the provincial parks in this province. A number of

environmental groups have asked for this. The second thing the Western

Canada Wilderness Committee has asked for is the objective of having

0.5 percent of B.C. Crown land in reserves by 199 1. The 0.5 percent is

to protect salmon spawning, watersheds and natural forest ecosystems.

These

are difficult economic times, as most of us are aware, and we re

looking at parks as something used by many residents for recreational

purposes. But we see that environmental groups, industry, tourist

groups, unions and local residents all have their own concerns when it

comes to considering the three aspects that I identified earlier in

regard to parks. I think that so far the minister's office has been

very accessible to environmental groups and people who are concerned

about the natural parks in this province. Whenever I've had to discuss

personal situations with the minister, I've always found he's been

excellent in answering letters.

What I'd like to go on to

are the 13 parks I talked about earlier. The first one is the Valhalla

Park. Thousands of people have petitioned the minister and the

government in regard to their park around Slocan Lake. The aim is to

establish it as a class A provincial park. The multiple use of the land

base as used by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has been

termed a cynical joke in the press. But I think the minister who is

responsible for parks has dealt with this particular park and is making

recommendations. The potential logging area of the Valhallas is only

3.5 percent of the vast area. Can the minister guarantee that the

moratorium will not be lifted in the near future in regard to the

Valhallas?

The second question is an interesting one that we

had last year in a fun discussion regarding petitions. It regarding

Windy Bay. It's within tree licence 24 in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

I hope the minister can give some positive commitments on what's going

to happen with Windy Bay in the next year.

The third park is

the Stein River valley. Logging is the concern again. It's the only

sizeable valley within 100 miles of Vancouver. Has the ministry

developed a cost analysis on the logging in the area. as opposed to

keeping the Stein valley free of development?

A number of

letters and questions have been addressed to me and the minister

regarding Meares Island. We have had some good correspondence on it.

The

fifth one is South Moresby and that's related to Windy Bay, the second

park that I addressed earlier. Forestry and mining are the concerns

there.

Robson Bight, the sixth park, was brought up earlier

by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). Could the minister

state what's going to happen with Robson Bight? Is it going to become a

class A park? Is it going to become an ecological reserve? Maybe the

minister could give some information to the House.

Skagit

Valley. That's been addressed through the Environment estimates,

regarding the hydro development and the international negotiations that

are going on between Washington and British Columbia. Hopefully that'll

come to some type of settlement to protect the Skagit Valley.

[ Page 8648 ]

The

eighth one is a park that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and I

share, and that's Spatsizi. What can the minister state in regard to

that provincial park and the problems that happened last year? I know

the new Wildlife Act that was addressed and voted upon in the House

will make some further sense in regard to the unnecessary harassment

that hunters find in Spatsizi. Hopefully the minister can make some

statements in regard to that particular park — one of the biggest ones

in the province.

The ninth provincial park that I would like

to bring to the minister's attention is the Stikine valley. It's known,

Mr. Chairman, as the Grand Canyon of Canada. There is a potential hydro

development in the area. Has the ministry made any plans to make the

Grand Canyon of Canada, the Stikine valley, a class A park or a class C

park or an ecological reserve — through the canyon itself — to prevent

the unnecessary destruction of it if a hydro development goes through?

The same could be applied to the Liard basin, where there is a very

similar grand canyon that would be destroyed by hydro development.

Pacific

Rim National Park. It was in 1969 that the provincial government passed

the West Coast National Park Act, which developed into the

federal-provincial government designating areas to be included in this

park. Has this park been gazetted or incorporated under the National

Parks Act? If not, then hopefully the minister will be pushing the feds

into doing something this year in regard to the Pacific Rim park.

There've been a number of articles in the last few months in regard to

the national park and the problems between the provincial and federal

government,

The Cascade wilderness contains many historical

trails. A moratorium was placed on the area, and I am wondering if the

minister can state if this moratorium is going to continue for the next

two years.

In conclusion, here are some of the suggestions

that the official opposition would like to pass on to the minister in

regard to parks. There have been a number of stories about the parks

branch being thinned out in regard to its employees. There was an

article in the Victoria Times-Colonist earlier this year,

stating that the parks branch was losing 37 man years to staffing of

higher priorities in the ministry. The statement was opposed by the

B.C.

chapter of the National and Provincial Parks Association of

Canada, and I was wondering if the minister has made any changes there.

The

historical aspects of parks, Mr. Chairman. More historical trails are

being lost, such as in the Cascade wilderness. We have an opportunity

here, particularly in this park in the Cascade wilderness, to offer

some kind of assistance to young people getting jobs clearing and

maintaining historical trails in provincial parks in the summer months.

As a suggestion, it would give young people part-time work in the

summer. There are two trails: the Hope Pass and the Whitecone trails.

This

year's budget cutbacks. Capital for parks and outdoor recreation is

down by just under $900,000, about a 38 percent reduction from last

year's level. We need capital, Mr. Chairman, for projects, and a 38

percent reduction in capital can only harm the provincial park system.

In difficult economic times we hopefully will not sacrifice our parks.

But I know the minister has increased the provincial park size

threefold in the last year. Has it been threefold, or something of that

magnitude? From 5 to 17?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Seventeen.

MR. PASSARELL I'd like to offer the minister two last suggestions

about special categories of parks. The first one is the marine parks. There

is an ever-increasing number of people who are using marine parks for boating,

scuba diving and other recreational aspects. There is little maintenance involved

in a marine park, and hopefully the minister could give some suggestions as

to which way the government is going in relation to marine parks.

The

second special category I'd like to discuss is river parks, such as the

system that the federal government has instituted regarding heritage

rivers. We should be developing heritage rivers, particularly the

northern rivers, some of the last free-flowing, major salmon-producing

rivers in this province — the Stikine and the Liard — before developing

them into river parks which are free of destruction by B.C. Hydro.

These are a number of questions that I addressed to the minister, and I would hope he can answer them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'll just answer very briefly some of these questions which were put to me.

First

of all, the Valhalla area. The member asked whether the moratorium will

stay in place. The answer is yes, the moratorium will stay in place

until such time as a decision has been made regarding the future status

of that particular land and the Slocan Valley. A decision will be made

on the Valhallas, I presume, within the next two to three weeks.

Windy

Bay. That's an issue which will be examined this coming fall along with

the South Moresby plan; I believe it will be sometime in October

they'll be looked at.

The Stein River Valley. The Ministry

of Forests has carried out an economic impact study there;

unfortunately I don't know the results of that study. However, I do

want to say that our ministry is not looking at establishing a park in

that particular region at this time.

Spatsizi. Yes, I

believe that the new Wildlife Act will hopefully resolve some of the

conflicts that have taken place in that particular park. My ministry

has looked at the possibility of aircraft patrols; that is, issuing

permits for aircraft to penetrate Spatsizi Park. My reaction now is to

hold back on aircraft permits until such time as we see just how the

Wildlife Act will address this particular problem in the Spatsizi. If

the problem recurs this year, then maybe in 1983 we'll have to have

some degree of control on aircraft flying into that particular park.

haven't examined the possibility of establishing a park or an

ecological reserve over the Stikine Grand Canyon. We have a fairly

large park adjacent to the Stikine River, the Mount Edziza provincial

park, which is a large, very attractive park. I was in that part of the

world just a couple of weeks ago, down into Telegraph Creek, and the

only way I could get out of Telegraph Creek, I might say, was by way of

the U.S. I had to come out through Wrangell, Alaska, to get back to the

lower mainland, because the chartered plane that was going to pick me

up from Terrace didn't show. It wasn't about to fly up because of

weather conditions — smoke conditions because of forest fires — and the

closest and easiest access to me to get back into Vancouver was

Rangell, Alaska. It was the least expensive too, I might say.

Pacific

Rim. Yes, there's been an ongoing issue about buying the inholding

properties. We're well on our way to acquiring most of the inholdings

in the Pacific Rim Park — or future Pacific Rim Park, because in order

to establish that park it requires federal legislation. There hasn't

been federal

[ Page

8649 ]

legislation passed as of yet. There will be a

meeting this fall between provincial and Canadian officials regarding

the very complex issue of timber rights being extinguished there. It's

a very complex issue. It's the one that has probably delayed the

establishment of this federal park. We're well on our way to buying out

most of the properties that are in place there.

Cascade

wilderness. Yes, the moratorium will stay in place until such time that

a decision has been made on whether the historical trail will be

preserved. We expect a decision to be made on that region within the

next couple of weeks, I would guess.

The question of

heritage rivers is a matter under discussion. It's strictly at the

discussion stage between officials of the federal and provincial

government.

MR. PASSARELL: What about Robson Bight?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

We just recently established a fairly substantial ecological reserve at

Robson Bight to protect the playground of the killer whales — the

rubbing stones, as you might call them. In the meantime, we're looking

at acquiring some backup lands there. It involves private timber

holdings and private land — Crown land granted to MacMillan Bloedel.

That's really essentially to provide additional protection to the

ecological reserve that we've established on the foreshore. Again, it's

another complex issue of timber acquisition and we haven't determined

yet what kind of status those lands will take — whether they become a

wilderness conservancy, a park or an addition to the ecological

reserves. Those matters are still in abeyance, but I think we have

ample time because it will take some time to negotiate the timber

acquisition. We have lots of time to determine what kind of a

designation should be on those lands. Essentially the designation

should be such that it affords the greatest degree of protection to the

killer whales in that region.

MR. KEMPF: Before

getting back into the problems related to land that I want to talk

about in this minister's estimates, while on the subject of parks I

would like to say to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) that I am

also concerned about that which takes place and has taken place in the

Spatsizi. Again I would like to tell this House that I'm happy to see

the anti-harassment clause in the new Wildlife Act, because it's an

absolute necessity. Hopefully it will stop some of that harassment that

has taken place for the last three years in the Spatsizi, but every

anti-harassment clause in the world is not going to do the Spatsizi any

good.

Mr. Chairman, there's not going to be any harassment

of the hunters soon in the Spatsizi, because there won't be any reason

for hunters to be in Spatsizi. There won't be any game for them to hunt

if the anti-hunters, anti-guide- outfitters and those types who now

make up a great number of the wildlife biologists that are hired by

this province have their way. Without a proper predator control

program, by the year 1988 or 1987 there won't be any game in Spatsizi

or anywhere else in this province to hunt.

I was happy to see the minister approach the subject of the plight of one of

my constituents, Mr. David Rozek, who was asked to pay an exorbitant lease rate

for a piece of agricultural land that he has under lease. This ministry is trying

to extract from that individual a very unfair amount of money yearly for that

lease. I intend to take a great deal of time this morning, this afternoon, tomorrow

and next week, if necessary, to point out why I have made these particular remarks.

I intend not only to delve into this situation but also.into many others which

I have on file here and in my office in order to, once and for all, get to the

bottom of the very real land problem faced by the people whom I represent. The

case of Mr. Rozek is not an isolated one, The individual lives in a very isolated

area, but his case is certainly not an isolated one.

The

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is asking Mr. Rozek to pay a lease

fee of $1,294 per annum for a piece of that Crown agricultural land,

which he has eked out of the wilderness, with a real value of $6,000.

The reason I say that is that I have here a B.C. Assessment Authority

assessment notice for that particular piece of property. It is a great

deal different from the $25,800 the minister mentioned earlier, The

1982 assessment notice for the piece of property in question gives the

actual value as $6,000. I'll table this document in the House — with

pleasure. That's a lease fee of $1,294 a year for a $6,000 piece of

land. In the five years that the minister mentioned, between now and

1987, we are asking Mr. Rozek to pay $380 more in lease fees than that

particular piece of property is valued at. The lease fees in the next

five years would be $6,380.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

The minister is right. That's on top of asking him to spend many

thousands of dollars to clear and do whatever is necessary to bring

that particular piece of property into production; to cultivate it to

the satisfaction of some land inspector in the Ministry of Lands, Parks

and Housing. On top of that difference, there is the kind of harassment

perpetrated upon citizens of this province who are in a similar

position to Mr. Rozek's. I'd like to read part of a letter dated June

10, 1982, which was sent to Mr. Rozek from the Smithers office of the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing:

"In view

of the circumstances, you are hereby advised that if payment in full of

the rental in arrears is not received by Finance and Administration,

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, Bag 5000, Smithers, B.C., VOJ 2NO

within 60 days, or representation submitted to this office why payment

cannot be made within this time, the ministry will have no alternative

but to institute cancellation proceedings with respect to the lease

concerned. Cancellation of your disposition will require you to cease

occupation and the use of this land and premises, and may result in the

seizure of all improvements, buildings, structures, machinery,

equipment, goods, chattel, logs or other materials that may be on the

Crown land."

All this, after and while the MLA has, for the

last three years, represented Mr. Rozek in his plight. You still see

this kind of letter being sent out of a government office.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's a shame, and it's the sort of thing.... And the minister smiles, but it's no laughing matter.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

Well, I should hope not, because it's no laughing matter, I want to

tell you. That kind of a letter from some lowly bureaucrat out there —

some lowly, officious bureaucrat who, like many, particularly in this

ministry, thinks he's God, Mr. Chairman, and has forgotten the fact

that he's being paid by the taxpayers of this province; and being paid,

I might add, very handsomely indeed to serve the

[ Page 8650 ]

public,

to serve the very people that he writes these kinds of letters to. As

an elected member of this province I take exception to that. I take

exception to it, and I tend to dwell for a long time in this chamber on

this particular subject, as well as on others. Mr. Chairman, many have

forgotten the reason they're out there drawing their wages from the

taxpayers of this province — and that too is a problem. Mr. Rozek's

problem, as I said earlier, is not an isolated one. I intend in the

hours ahead — days or weeks, possibly — to point that out in this

chamber.

My question to the minister, particularly in regard

to the Rozek situation, is: why, when the B.C. Assessment Authority

values the land at $6,000, does the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing value the land at $25,850? Why does your ministry seem to

think, for some reason or other, that they're more knowledgeable?

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I rise under

section 43. After all,

do we have to go through this five times? It's tedious and repetitious.

What does he want? He wants the minister to fall on his sword right in

this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The

point of order has been made. It's one which deals with irrelevance and

repetition in debate. I ask that the member, when continuing his

remarks, bear standing order 43 in mind during that discussion.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I have been told that the Lieutenant-Governor is waiting

to enter the chamber. Although I have hours more debate on this

particular minister's estimates....

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, I'd like to know why this member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) has the inside knowledge that the Lieutenant-Governor is about

to arrive. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing doesn't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A good point.

MR. KEMPF: That's not all the minister doesn't know!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

Bill 26 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the premises.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, with His Honour approaching the chamber, I suggest that

we remain in our seats until the doors have been opened. I will ring

the division bells so that all members will be cautioned.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Employment Development Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 1982

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982

Supply Act (No. 2),

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada