1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, MARCH 20, 1980

Night Sitting

[ Page

1605 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Mr. Brummet –– 1605

Mr. Barber –– 1605

Mr. Kempf –– 1611

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1613

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1617

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In the gallery tonight is Mr. Tothill, the leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia. I ask the House to bid him welcome.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Also in the gallery this evening is someone

who has had close contact with British Columbia over a number of years,

Mr. Jacques Mignon, vice-president of the Banque Credit Commerciale de

France of Paris. He is accompanied by my wife this evening. Would the

House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BRUMMET: This afternoon before we adjourned the debate, I

had attempted to make the point that this budget was not a fluke. It

was a result of very careful and deliberate planning. It got to this

point by encouraging industry and providing incentives to that

industry. Since 1976 we had cleaned up the mess, and we were reaping

the results. I think it was pointed out that we did have a definite

long-range plan, and that plan also included the need to make some

unpopular moves in the early part of this government's taking over

again. If necessary, some unpopular measures had to be taken to

straighten out the economic mess which we inherited. I said, and I

think it bears repeating, that it took courage, planning and faith.

This budget is an example of what happens when you have that kind of

planning and that kind of faith. That faith is contagious, in that

industry picked up that faith, and they have certainly rewarded us with

the revenues which have made it possible to provide extra services to

the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the socialists made some

gains in the 1979 election based exactly on our successes. They

capitalized on the hard measures we had to take, because they kept

telling the people that if they had been there they would have just

been giving it and would not have taken any hard measures. Well, we saw

what happened in three years of giving and not planning for revenues to

keep coming in. You cannot increase services and keep them coming if

you do not have an assured revenue. That revenue is not created by

government; it is produced by industry, by the people, by the jobs

created out there — by the taxes that then result.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this government could probably have

picked up more seats in the '79 election had they been willing to take

the irresponsible action that was pushed at us — that we were supposed

to be stampeded into. It took time and effort, and it would have been

irresponsible to take quick advantage of the restored economic

situation. Now, once again, they are trying to use the success in this

province against this government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. Would the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) please come to order. Hon.

members, may I remind you that dinner hour is over. We are in the

budget debate.

MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note that Chief

Walking Eagle is back and has certainly set a different tone than was

in this House this afternoon.

I would like to conclude with the following statements. The

government cannot create revenue; it can only stimulate an economy

which can. Socialism cannot do that. The very principles of socialism

dictate against that, because excessive government control inhibits

development. Incentives by government to others encourage industrial

development...

AN HON. MEMBER: Read us some more.

MR. BRUMMET: Well, at least I wrote my own.

...and that produces revenue, which produces services. That's where government fits in: in providing services to people.

This afternoon I was referring to a Canadian company, Canadian

Hunter, which, for a half-million-dollar lease purchase, was planning

to spend $27 million in the Nechako area and has spent $145 million in

the last five years in northeastern British Columbia. Tonight I am

pleased to announce a significant discovery that they have made. Some

of you may have heard of the deep-basin theory which was advanced by

John Masters of Canadian Hunter in 1978.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't know.

MR. BRUMMET: That's development, so perhaps they wouldn't understand

it. Nevertheless, that deep-basin theory implied that there would be a saucer-like

layer under northeastern British Columbia, with the shallow end at Fort Nelson

at around 5,000 to 7,000 feet, and up to 18,000 feet below Fort St. John and

Dawson Creek. By seismic exploration they have established that that layer extends

into that area. It is significant that they have now confirmed that theory by

discovering at the south end, south of Dawson Creek, at about the 8,000-foot

level, one of the most significant gas finds in British Columbia history. Mr.

Speaker, under socialism that could never have happened.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr. Ian Mott

and Miss Marlene Nelson, who were at the Empress earlier, with the Automotive

Retailers Association. They are from Surrey and they have just entered the buildings

to watch democracy in action. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk tonight, if I may,

initially in a detailed way relating to some issues, as reflected in

the budget proposals and the budget speech, that concern people in my

own riding. I'd then like, if I may, more generally to talk about and

make certain proposals regarding the problem of high interest rates and

the problem of housing in British Columbia. Let me say now that a

number of the proposals that I wish to put forward tonight are very

much my own. I don't purport that they represent caucus or party

policy. They are my own, for what they're worth, and they stand or fail

on that ground. They do not necessarily represent party policy.

[ Page 1606 ]

I think it's fair to observe that this budget has some good

features. Some of them, I suppose, derive from experience. Some of them

derive from desperation. Some of them come from I'm not quite sure

where — I trust, an imaginative member of the cabinet or of the public

service.

The aspects of the policies represented in this budget speech which

I find most supportable, personally, are those features concerning the

public management of the most important public resource in British

Columbia, which, of course, is the forests. Whoever deserves credit for

them — and I'll get to that in a moment — nonetheless we've reached in

1980 an important acknowledgement, I think, on the part of almost every

citizen in British Columbia: that forestry is principally, and if we

manage it correctly, enduringly, the most important source of revenue

to all of the people of British Columbia.

It is, I think, a lucky thing that 70 years ago a significant

political debate was won in this province by those who then recognized

and fought for the principle that the resources in the forest belong to

all of the people. The battle over the public ownership, the public

right, the common benefit that should derive from the forests, was won

more than half a century ago by people who acknowledged then and had

the foresight to view where we might be now, that if those resources

were in private and not public hands, the opportunity for all of the

people to benefit from them would be severely limited. So credit should

now be given, one can observe, to those who fought years ago, and

fought very, very hard to establish the principle which now virtually

every British Columbian acknowledges, that the resources of the forest

belong to all of us and not just a few. So when one stands up in the

opposition and congratulates the government for certain measures in the

budget, one has to acknowledge how it is that the government has any

say in the matter at all, and it is because people who died more years

ago than I am old fought a significant political battle and won. We

first of all owe them that.

I think these good features in the budget also derive from the work

of a man whom I personally admire a very great deal, because the man

possesses, I think, an absolutely first-rate intelligence. I know there

are those who might not be comfortable with some of the personal

aspects: those who never got along with him in a social situation.

Nonetheless, the people of British Columbia were lucky to have, for

three and a half years, one of the brightest, one of the most

authentically intelligent persons who ever served in public life. Like

those other pioneers, he too deserves credit for bringing us to the

place where we are tonight — that both sides of the House can agree, at

least in some measure, on recognition of the important principle of

good management of the public ownership of the forest resources. The

guy who also deserves credit is Bob Williams.

Regardless of all the controversies that swirled about him, even his

most bitter and relentless personal critics will acknowledge, at least

in private, that the man is phenomenally bright, alert, quick and

intellectually more than capable of doing what he did, which was to

initiate....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There are still several members

who have the opportunity to speak in the budget debate, and I would trust that

each would take his opportunity in his turn. The standing order provides that

we speak one at a time. Need I remind you again?

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In acknowledging those

features of the budget which I personally support, I want to pay credit

to the people who are responsible for bringing the level of policy here

tonight over a period of many years prior to this evening. Bob Williams

deserves credit for that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will please come to order.

MR. BARBER: So also does a gentleman, again the rigour of

whose intellect and the certainty of whose scientific inquiry deserve

tremendous respect, I think, from both sides of the House. I am

referring, of course, to Dr. Peter Pearse.

I'm not competent to comment on Gordon Sloan; I didn't know the man.

I can't comment on his work. No doubt those two royal commissions for

which he is responsible also contributed germinally to the development

of competent forest management policy in British Columbia. It's

important, though, to observe that New Democrats at least — and others,

I trust — are willing to give credit to a man who ran for the Liberals,

because most people should acknowledge that when a mind as valuable,

interesting and imaginative as that of Dr. Pearse sets to work, the

results are surely worth some study. I think another of the reasons why

the public debate on forest policy has now reached the relatively

mature level it has is also to the credit of Dr. Peter Pearse and the

royal commission which he headed. That's important.

Credit is also due to the current Minister of Forests. I'm glad you

can agree with some of the credit being due. Regardless of criticisms

one might have about aspects of his policy, nonetheless there are

represented in this budget speech, I think, certain valuable new

objectives for all the people of British Columbia. The man responsible,

together with his deputy, Mr. Apsey, deserves credit; and I for one am

happy to give it to him. He has achieved this tonight. We will have

specific criticisms; they won't be raised in detail tonight, but they

will be raised during the estimates of the Minister of Forests.

Nonetheless, if credit is due to the guys who fought 60 and 70 years

ago to establish public ownership of the forests — and won; if credit

is due to the two Sloan reports; if credit is due to, I think, one of

the most extraordinary Ministers of Lands and Forests this province has

ever had, in simple intellectual terms — Bob Williams — and to Dr.

Peter Pearse, it's also due to the current minister (Hon. Mr.

Waterland). To be fair, it is. Those aspects of the budget are, I

think, worth reasonable and significant study by all of the people of

British Columbia. They are far more profoundly influential than any

other aspect of the budget. In regard to the long term, the

environmentally sensitive, the economically necessary public management

of this commonly owned resource, those aspects of the budget speech

concerning forest policy are probably the very most important of them

all. There is no other aspect that touches so many lives and that

describes in such an important way the fundamental

[ Page 1607 ]

engine of the British Columbia economy, which is

forestry. Having said that on that aspect, I want to discuss briefly a

couple of local concerns as a member of the Legislature for Victoria

city.

The budget provides a $300,000 operating grant for the Vancouver

Convention Centre; this is a good thing. I wonder if the members

opposite are aware of how much is provided by way of an operating grant

for the Victoria Convention Centre — not $300,000, nor $30,000 nor even

$3,000, but precisely nothing. I think this is an unfair double

standard. I freely acknowledge that the centre in Vancouver is larger

and located in a larger metropolitan area. I freely acknowledge that

the capital costs involved are more considerable and therefore with the

expanded size of the facility the operating costs will also be greater.

Nonetheless, in Victoria we have in this budget no commitment whatever

— 0none, zero, zip — to share in the start-up or the ongoing operating

costs of this facility. I think it's a bit of a double standard. I

think it's less than fair.

If a good reply can be made, I would like to hear it from the

members opposite, but I am well aware, as I'm sure they are, that the

business community in Victoria, which ordinarily supports you, and not

us, is also disappointed in you. The sum of $300,000 a year for the

Vancouver Convention Centre in operating grants, for what I gather was

to be a short-term period, with nothing whatever in Victoria, is not

fair. If there is a justification I've yet to hear it from anyone

opposite, and I don't expect to hear it, either. In my opinion the

government must be willing to negotiate an operating agreement with

those in Victoria responsible for the convention centre that includes,

on the same basis as in Vancouver, a share of the initial operating

costs, because they will, of course, in the first three or four years,

before the centre gets fully on its feet and operational year-round,

attracting all of the conventions, events and fairs it will bring to

the capital city, be in somewhat difficult financial straits as far as

the operating costs go. Such a formula has apparently been negotiated

for Vancouver. I urge the government to recognize the necessity to

negotiate a similar formula, proportionate to the size of our facility

and of our community. That too would be fair.

A second local matter. It seems, I suppose, a small point, but it is

a large symbol. The government has laid some claim to an enlightened

taxation policy which recognizes the difference environmentally, and

the difference in fuel efficiency as well, of automobiles, and would

argue that on the basis of fuel efficiency certain automobiles be

granted a lesser rate of sales tax than others. I don't think there's

anything at all wrong with that principle. Indeed, maybe the penalty

for the larger automobile should have been a great deal larger. I don't

object to that principle, but the small point suggesting a large symbol

I want to make is simply this — and it's more than just a personal

thing. In the greater Victoria area, according to the city police

force, there are some 100,000 bicycles in use. In greater Vancouver I

expect the proportion is similar. In Europe — I remember discussing

this with the former Attorney-General three years ago — the bicycle is

acknowledged as a cheap, safe, healthy and affordable means of public

transport. I would urge the government to abandon altogether the sales

tax for bicycles.

Again, I realize it seems like a small point, but it stands for a

larger policy, and it is this: the government must, in every way, by

incentive, encourage the use of the cleanest, simplest and most

energy-efficient vehicles we can find with which to transport people.

For those who can use it, the plain old-fashioned bicycle is just that.

It provides all of that at a very small cost for a great public

benefit. Abandon the sales tax altogether for the bicycle, encourage

its use thereby, and extend your own principle of recognizing a

differential sales tax rate for the private automobile. Extend it

logically a great deal further down the road and encourage people to

use energy-efficient, cheap, healthy and safe public transport as they

do in Europe and have done for 65 years in a significant way.

A third local matter. For whatever reasons, the Glenshiel Hotel has

been allowed to fall into disrepair. For whatever reasons, the current

administration has not invested and reinvested in the building or in

the human beings who live there. It's only because of recent public

protest, complaints by the fire marshal, campaigns led by the people

who live there, and action taken by my colleague the other member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that the government has now acknowledged the

worth of the building and of the human beings who live within it. I

think the hotel has been treated badly.

The government seems to feel, I presume for ideological reasons,

that it shouldn't be in the hotel business. If that's their only

objection to the Glenshiel operation, I think that's okay, because we

have an alternative that satisfies them and you. The alternative is for

you to sell the building for a dollar to an agency of the long-term

care program of the Capital Regional District of Victoria.

If you are ideologically opposed to running a residential hotel for

seniors, I'm not going to fight it. I'm only going to ask you to be

consistent and to acknowledge that the human beings who live there have

a right to continue to do so in some dignity, and in total safety. If

for ideological reasons you cannot stomach the notion that the

government runs a hotel for old folks, let's agree on that. I'll bite

my tongue and say no more about your ideological hang-ups. Sell it for

a buck to the long-term care program in Victoria, and they'll

administer it for you. It's an important local matter, Mr. Speaker, and

I regret that nothing whatever in this budget provides for the

reinvestment in the heritage potential of that building, and nothing

whatever in this budget acknowledges the human potential of those who

live within it.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Have you been in the Glenshiel, Garde? It's a

fine building. It was originally constructed as an annex to the Empress

Hotel. It has architectural value, and is worth the work. If we

operated on the principle this government has operated on regarding the

Glenshiel, all of the heritage buildings in Victoria would have fallen

down years ago. You have to reinvest, you have to commit it, and you

have to be prepared to spend the money.

I regret that there is nothing in this budget to provide for a permanent vessel to replace the Princess Marguerite . The Queen of Prince Rupert ,

everyone acknowledges, is hopelessly inadequate by itself. The

admission of that from the government is, of course, the admission that

they have to supplement that service with jetfoils. On January 31 the

Minister of Finance told us the Queen of Prince Rupert

would be adequate; today the government admits that the Minister of

Finance was dead wrong. They don't say so directly, but we know so

clearly. If it were not the case, we would only have the Rupert , but the reason today we have Rupert and three jetfoils a day is because the Minister of Finance was

[ Page 1608 ]

wrong. The Rupert

is not adequate; it cannot be made adequate; it will not serve by

itself. I regret that there is nothing in the budget which provides a

permanent replacement for one of the most important links in the whole

tourist economy of the Pacific Northwest.

A fifth matter that I want to raise is of concern in my own riding

but is, I think, of general application as well. There is nothing in

the budget speech that deals with the fiscal relationship between this

government's transit finance policies and those internal finance

policies of B.C. Hydro. Peculiarly, the day of the federal election

B.C. Hydro announced yet another rate increase. To suggest that Hydro

did so in order to non-inform the people would, of course, be rude; to

suggest they did so out of less than honourable motives would be

impolite. But one can observe that of all the days in the year Hydro

could possibly choose to announce a rate increase, they chose to do it

on the day of the federal election when they hoped no one was looking.

It was, I think, gutless and dishonest of Hydro, and the government,

who have members on the board of directors representing the cabinet

interest, should not have permitted it. It was a sleight-of-hand that

attempted to deceive the public of British Columbia by hiding an

important announcement by Hydro on the day of a general federal

election. I hear no member of the government defending Hydro's policy,

and, of course, they can't — it was cheap. You shouldn't have let them

do it; they shouldn't have done it.

But there is a larger issue that I want to address in the budget.

B.C. Hydro, at the same time they were notifying residential customers

of a general increase — and I say the word "general"; this is the

median increase, a 7 percent increase — and notifying those same

customers that their rates would be going up in approximately five

weeks from that date, also notified commercial customers that they,

too, would have to pay a rate increase. However, commercial customers

got a special deal from B.C. Hydro. How much notice did they have, Mr.

Speaker? A year. Their rates don't go up for a whole year. Yours and

mine go up within a couple of weeks because, of course, residential

customers are second-class customers, as far as Hydro is concerned, and

aren't worthy of the year's notice that the commercial customers got.

It's a double standard and it tends once again to reinforce in the

minds of the people of British Columbia that Hydro is not fundamentally

committed to the ordinary consumer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where did you get that?

MR. BARBER: From Hydro's own statement. I'll produce it; I'll table it — Hydro's own release. Did you not see it?

However, that's not the principal concern that I chose to raise.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you got it?

MR. BARBER: No, I don't have it at hand. I'll get it for you.

It is not the principal issue. It is the issue of the relationship of

Hydro's former responsibility for transit in British Columbia and, as

of April 1, its responsibility for nothing of the sort.

Hydro has, for some years, been complaining that it was unfairly

burdened with the cost and the losses of transit operations in greater

Vancouver and greater Victoria. This budget does nothing whatever to

reflect any commitment on the part of the government that this year

Hydro will not be responsible for $61 million in transit deficits. This

budget says nothing whatever about a liability impressed on Hydro to

either reduce its rates correspondingly or provide some additionally

beneficial service. In its annual report for this year, Hydro also

pointed out that because last year they lost the liability, as they saw

it, of Pacific Coach Lines, they were thereby relieved of an additional

$3 million a year loss. By Hydro's own calculations, therefore, as of

April 1 this year they will not be liable for some $64 million in

deficits directly connected to the operations of its own transit

division in British Columbia. Peculiarly, Hydro has said nothing

whatever, nor has the government — except for the Municipal Affairs

Minister (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is running for the leadership — to

suggest that something is wrong with this situation. I recall two years

ago the then Minister of Municipal Affairs implying quite clearly that

when Hydro was relieved of its transit obligations the people could

expect a break from Hydro because transit would be funded in another

way. But what do we see this year instead, Mr. Speaker? Hydro is

relieved of $61 million for its transit division, $3 million for

Pacific Coach Lines — a total of $64 million — and asks for a general

rate increase of 7 percent.

What's the position of the government? What's the response of the

government to this action on Hydro's part? Well, again, with the

exception of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who said he also

thought something was wrong with it, we hear silence. I wrote a letter

to the office of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) and his public utilities commission asking it to

be forwarded to the chairperson — I trust it will be — asking that the

public utilities commission rule on whether or not it is correct,

proper and fiscally necessary for Hydro to be relieved simultaneously

of a $61 million obligation for transit and to demand, unchallenged by

that government, a general rate increase at the same time. As far as

I'm concerned, it's not….

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I expect you to hold it until you appoint them in two years' time.

It was necessary to write there because there is no other agency you

have to review the matter, and I took, at least initially, some heart

in your energy policy, which is now, of course, generally the subject

of much public ridicule in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Hydro's reply to the question, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) please come to

order. This is the second time I've asked him.

MR. BARBER: Hydro's reply to the question when we made public

statements on the matter was to refer quite deceitfully, I think, to

problems of bookkeeping, and to say that we misrepresented the case. We

argue that because they saved $61 million here, it doesn't mean they

saved it there.

[ Page 1609 ]

Hydro's reply to the argument has been dishonest. For them to try

and persuade the people of British Columbia that they have not been

relieved of a real obligation of $61 million this year is simply false.

If Hydro argues that it requires the $61 million that it would

otherwise have spent — if they'd been obligated in the following year

it would likely have been a figure of something like $72.5 million

according to the estimates — then either Hydro never needed the money

or Hydro hasn't been telling the truth about its own revenue picture.

I urge the government to make some statement as to whether or not

they consider it permissible that we be double-billed by Hydro in one

year. A general rate increase announced the day of the federal

election, and the abandonment of Hydro's responsibility for transit

losses — if Hydro needs all of that money let's hear them make the

whole case and not just part of it. In the absence of the whole case

one can only conclude that Hydro has been less than honest with the

people of British Columbia about its genuine revenue picture and

expenditure obligations, because they've been telling us one story for

three years now about what'll happen when they lose transit. Now that

they're losing transit, they are telling us another story. It is not

consistent.

I want to make a couple of general comments in conclusion. An

overrun is as significant an admission of poor planning as is an

underestimation of revenue. An overrun as significantly reveals poor

planning as does a deficit. It is, no matter how the government cares

to reply, at the very least an admission of inept forecasting. Either

you poorly concluded what your revenues would be and were thereby

incompetent, or your revenues were much greater than you expected by

luck.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the government was telling us that luck

had nothing to do with it and that it was all the result of good

planning and good management. Let's take them at their word and tell

them once again they can't have it both ways. If it wasn't a happy

accident that these additional revenues came in, then it is in fact the

result of incompetent forecasting. They can't have it both ways. If

they deny it's luck, then they have to admit it was bad planning. One

way or the other they weren't doing their job properly. Logically, they

cannot have it both ways.

Competent planning requires foresight of a special order. I want to

restate the argument that one of the reasons this government enjoys the

bounty which its surpluses reveal is because the previous

administration had foresight of a most valuable kind. The previous

administration, against vocal objections, established the British

Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It was

an act of the highest planning

and the best foresight, because it recognized the necessity of allowing

the greatest possible return of the petroleum resources to all of the

people of British Columbia. If the BCPC didn't exist today, would this

government invent it in order to obtain those revenues? Would they have

the courage or the wit to recognize the instrumentality of that

corporation and through it obtain the revenues which were previously

unavailable? Well, they've never shown that kind of courage before

dealing with the oil companies. We have reason to suspect they wouldn't

show it today. The reason they have such a significant surplus from

petroleum resources is because the administration of Mr. Barrett had

the guts, the planning ability and the simple foresight to anticipate

that in the world dominated by OPEC, in a world of tremendous price

fluctuations, in a national economy like our own such an instrument was

fundamentally necessary to protect the economic interests and obtain an

economic return from that resource. If that instrument didn't exist,

what would exist in its place today? What other means or what other

device would have been able to obtain in a few short years the $1.5

billion revenue to the Crown?

Another example of good planning which has not been addressed in an

open and fair-minded way in this budget was the good planning shown by

that same administration when they assembled and added to the assets

that now form BCRIC. Not only could this government not boast of its

major petroleum surpluses if they didn't have the Petroleum

Corporation, but they could not boast of BCRIC if they didn't have the

achievements of the New Democratic government to assemble under that

corporate umbrella and pretend to call their own.

The most important example of foresight was the Petroleum

Corporation. The second most important example of foresight was those

assets which today, in combination, form the British Columbia Resources

Investment Corporation. Were the budget fair-minded, I think some

credit would have been given to the administration that had the

foresight to take those steps.

The commitment to small business in this budget is, I think, at best

trivial. My colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out that not

only did we hear the promise of registered, small business, venture

capital corporations in last year's budget speech, but we heard it in

almost precisely the same language. I needn't read again how remarkably

similar is the wording of this year's promise to that of last year's

promise. But the promise remains utterly unfulfilled. Why the

government has taken a whole year to do nothing more than Xerox last

year's promise and put it into this year's budget speech is a great

mystery. But that's what they have done, and no more. May I remind you,

Mr. Speaker, it was not this government but the New Democratic

government which established, through the foresight and business

policies it had, the British Columbia Development Corporation. That was

a good corporation. It was well managed by my colleague from Vancouver

Centre. This government has at least — even though they opposed it, of

course — had the common sense to keep it, although they've done nothing

with it as brightly or innovatively as they could. The only commitment

here of a new or interesting order to small business is plagiarized

from last year's commitment. Even to the small business supporters of

this administration that must be a very disappointing thing.

The final thing I want to talk about, and will do so at much greater

length during the Housing estimates, is the final relationship between

the problem of high interest rates and the problem of affordable

housing. At greater length and in another debate I will be talking

about the Briarpatch Trust. It derives from the anti-redlining movement

in the United States. It has established a means whereby capital is

pooled in some of the poorest economic sectors of that country and, for

the purposes of rebuilding private housing stock, of making commercial

loans available to businesses, of, through their own capital, obtaining

resources on a scale which would otherwise be denied them individually,

has had, in at least three communities, Chicago, Philadelphia and

Washington, some apparent considerable success.

I want briefly to put the government on notice that a couple of us

over here will be leading a debate later on about this remarkable new

use of community capital to do three

[ Page 1610 ]

things simultaneously: (1) to deliberately lower

the rate for private mortgages and commercial loans in those areas that

involve themselves in the community foundation most frequently referred

to as the Briarpatch Trust....

HON. MR. GARDOM: The what?

MR. BARBER: The Briarpatch Trust — it's a foundation in the United States of America.

Secondly, having pooled their capital, they have also, by virtue of

their involvement in the anti-redlining movement of that country, been

able to negotiate through the assembled powers-of-attorney with a bank,

with a credit union, with a trust company, and say: "We are prepared to

deposit $12 million in your institution. We will take that money from

all of the other places in this neighbourhood where it currently lives,

and we will put it in your institution. In return for this, we insist

that the following conditions be met: (1) you will loan this amount of

money in our neighbourhood for (2) these purposes; (3) you will provide

us with our money at these rates of interest; (4) you will be prepared

to accept this level of risk; (5) we will provide in return a

commitment to invest more over a period of time, according to our

contract with you, so that you understand that we are together

committed to the integrity of our neighbourhood and to its financial

redevelopment.

Now in the United States this approach appears to be working. It is,

admittedly, only four or five years old. The credit for it is due, in

Chicago, to the Industrial Areas Foundation, headed by one of the most

remarkable community organizers whomever I had a chance to observe or

study with. His name is Saul Alinsky — he's passed away now. But

Alinsky, initially through the Back of the Yards organization, now

called Industrial Areas, has created in the neighbourhoods of the

decaying American cities a level of public and private commitment to

reinvestment in their own housing stock, in their own enterprise, in

their own industry, that is an admirable and innovative thing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mainly private.

MR. BARBER: No, there's also public in it.

The anti-redlining movement has recognized, as this government in

its budget address so far has not recognized, the interrelationship of

housing and interest rates. One of the great generators of inflationary

interest rates is the problem of housing on a market where it has

become unaffordable, where land prices are too high, where the problems

of rent, publicly or privately administered, have become so grievous

that no agency, public or private, is able to deal with all its facets.

One of the reasons for this failure of policy in Canada in the States

is the seeming unwillingness of private capital to take a few more

risks, and the total failure of public capital to cooperate through

some new venture that allows people in their own neighbourhoods to

reinvest. Let me illustrate very quickly with an

article from the U.S. News and World Report ,

a journal that I ordinarily do not subscribe to. However, precisely

because it's there, it is, I think, a little more credible.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Wall Street Journal is next.

MR. BARBER: I think it's a heck of a lot more credible a journal than U.S. News and World Report .

Let me illustrate with Chicago, briefly, Mr. Speaker, so that the

government understands the relationship of these two issues —

affordable housing and low interest rates. I quote from the U.S. News and World Report of

June 9, 1975: "In Chicago a study by the Metropolitan Area Housing

Alliance asserts that 41 of the city's banks, with assets of more than

$41 billion during the year that ended on June 30, 1974, invested less

than one tenth of 1 percent of that amount in conventional home

mortgages in the city."

There's a second problem in Los Angeles, where once again private

and public capital, through this new American force against redlining

and in favour of private reinvestment in otherwise decaying

neighbourhoods, found as follows: The National Task Force on Credit

Policy found that six savings and loans associations put mortgage loans

of $671 million into Los Angeles county in a five-month period that

ended in May 1974. During that same time, the associations made

virtually no loans in the central city, east Los Angeles and some

outlying areas. They borrowed the money from depositors in those

decaying neighbourhoods but they refused to return the money by way of

mortgages, loans or other investment.

Now this problem is certainly more grievous in the United States,

where urban decay is greater than that in our own country, fortunately,

but urban decay is a reality in Vancouver. It is certainly a reality in

Toronto, Montreal and Halifax as well. In this province, this

government would, I think, be well advised to examine the apparent

success of the anti-redlining movement in the United States, a movement

which is now sponsoring legislation in four American states. I hear the

former Attorney-General mentioning something about Hawaii. I wasn't

familiar with that, but California, Illinois and New York now have

anti-redlining legislation pending which requires private loans

companies to reinvest a certain portion of the money they obtain from

redlined areas back into those neighbourhoods themselves. In that

country they have recognized the relationship between interest rates

and the availability of private capital, much of which is generated by

poor people themselves who do have some savings, and who put it into

the savings and loans on the corner in downtown Los Angeles but can't

get it back, for commercial venture purposes or for home-mortgage or

home improvement purposes either.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I'm not aware of the Hawaiian example but I'll

start to examine it tomorrow if I can. This government, I think, has a

similar opportunity, and to end this evening, although not by any means

to end the debate, the British Columbia Savings and Trust Act, passed

by the Barrett administration but not enacted — the government passed

the bill in, I believe, June of 1975 and it was dumped in December of

1975 and there wasn't time to enact it — nonetheless created an

instrument which, uniquely for British Columbia would have pooled

public and private capital to break the back of the control of the

great banking institutions of this country on interest rates, and

having pooled public and private capital to bring down interest rates

for all of us in this province, would have tied those moneys to the

availability of housing where previously and presently it cannot be

found. I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and will refer to these

policies again in the near future.

[ Page 1611 ]

MR. KEMPF: I'd just like to say

before getting started that it's amazing how those members opposite,

now that they're in opposition, have become instant financial wizards.

It's too bad they couldn't have done that when they were the government

of British Columbia.

But, Mr. Speaker, I rise, and I guess it's no surprise to anyone

here tonight, to speak in favour of this budget, to speak in favour of

a budget of which I believe all British Columbians can be very proud, a

budget to which all British Columbians can relate, Mr. Member,

excepting possibly the members opposite, the doom-and-gloomers on the

other side of the floor who, it would appear from the speeches we've

heard emanate from that side of the floor in the last two weeks and, in

my estimation, the very stupid amendments which they have been moving,

can't relate to anything at all. I was appalled and disgusted that we

in this House should be wasting our time and the taxpayers' money as we

have done in the last two weeks in debating these ridiculous and absurd

amendments. It was a breath of fresh air, really — and I don't say this

very often — to listen to the last speaker, who did, in a very small

way, stay very close to the budget debate.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: You're very welcome. Mr. Speaker, the amendments

brought in by that inept bunch of socialists over there were brought in

and debated because they didn't want to face the facts. They didn't

want to debate this budget or the throne speech. Now that we are back

to the issues of the day, their speeches reflect that. They can't

logically debate the economy. Why, Mr. Speaker? They can't logically

debate unemployment. They didn't want to debate the throne speech, and

they didn't want to debate the budget until we on this side of the

floor-regardless of what was reported in the media — forced them to

call the question on the amendment. Why didn't they want to debate the

budget? Because things have never been better in British Columbia, and

it's abundantly evident by this budget. They know it. Those members

over there know it and that's why they have difficulty in debating the

issues of the day.

The economy, employment figures and the total economic outlook of

this province, evident again by this budget, are second to none in

North America, and they know it. Those members opposite know it, and

they don't want to debate the real issues. They just can't face reality.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, you'll have your turn on your feet,

and I'm sure Mr. Speaker will indulge you in one of your 40 minute

dissertations of unreality.

So what do they do in not wanting to face reality? They brought in

amendments. Disgraceful! I think it's absolutely disgraceful, and it's

been a total waste of the taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, even the

media…. To date the media have given all those lame-duck opposition over

there all of the material for all of their speeches-not only for their

speeches, Mr. Speaker, but for their out-of-date questions in question

period. You laugh, Mr. Member, but we see it every day in this House.

Even the media had to say it, and I relate — as that opposition does in

practically every one of their speeches — to a news release. Here is a

news release of March 19 headed: "Vancouver Housing Problem Worst in

Canada." But even the media had to recognize how things are in British

Columbia. They tried to be negative, but even they, in this article,

had to be a bit honest. It goes on in the

article to read: "Ironically,

housing starts were up 208 percent in metro Vancouver in February, to

1,529 from 496 in February of 1979." We just heard from the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). It's up 44 percent in Victoria in

February — to 123 from 88 in February 1979. The

article goes on to

read: "In urban Canada in February housing starts were down 2 percent,

to 6,003 from 6,359 in February 1979; in B.C. starts were up 144

percent, to 2,137 from 876 in February 1979." Even the media had to

admit it. Mr. Speaker. Even the media can't help but print the truth

sometimes.

If the media is having trouble in not putting the truth of what's

happening in British Columbia, no wonder those members opposite, those

socialists over there, are having trouble with their speeches here in

the House. And yes, Mr. Speaker, the province is having its troubles in

providing such things as housing and sufficient jobs in this province,

and it's no wonder when you check the figures, as I have done, to find

out the influx, the migration of people to British Columbia since 1976.

I'd just like to read into the record here tonight some of those

figures. In 1975, the last year of that disastrous government, now

opposition, over there we had an out-migration from this province of

2,864 people. In 1976, with the disastrous results of three and a half

years of that socialist regime, we still had a slopover; we had an

outflow of 3,820 people from this province. Probably those were the

ones who had come in during those three and a half years expecting to

get on the welfare rolls knowing of the giveaway of that very inept

bunch of socialists on that side of the floor.

Mr. Speaker, let's continue to read these figures. In 1976, 13,565

new citizens came to the province of British Columbia; in 1978, 19,030

new citizens came to the province of British Columbia; and it's

estimated that in 1979, on the basis of what has happened in the first

nine months of that year, 30,100 new citizens will be entering the

province of British Columbia.

People are coming to British Columbia in increasing numbers because

they know that things are good in British Columbia. They have heard

that the government of 1972 to 1975 has been thrown out; they know that

the socialists are never to return to this province and that industries

can once again flourish in this province and grow and provide the jobs

and the security looked for by these people coming in to our province,

looked for by other Canadians coming to British Columbia. It's

difficult to keep up and to employ all of our citizens, all of the new

citizens coming into British Columbia, as well as the young people

coming on stream out of our colleges and universities.

That's what we've done in British Columbia. British Columbia has

only 10.5 percent of the population of Canada, yet today it provides 15

percent of the jobs in this nation. Since 1975 there have been 134,000

new jobs in this province. No wonder the socialists over there would

rather debate the amendment; no wonder they're having problems in

debating this budget.

Mr. Speaker, let's look for a moment at the budget. Let's look for a

moment at this province's enviable position in this nation. Since 1975

business capital. expenditures have grown at an impressive average — an

annual rate of 16.8 percent compared to only 11.3 percent in Canada.

The value of exports from British Columbia has expanded since 1975 at

an average rate of 22.8 percent per year; the comparable rate for the

country as a whole has been only 17.9 percent.

[ Page 1612 ]

Beginning in 1977 and continuing through 1978 and 1979, the rate of

inflation as measured by the Vancouver Consumer Price Index has been

well below the national average, in spite of the fact that in the early

days it was usually higher.

When this government took office in 1975 the seasonally adjusted

rate for unemployment stood at 8.9 percent, the highest rate since the

labour force survey started, the highest rate west of the Maritimes,

and a significant 1.6 percentage points higher than the Canadian

average. Since then the average annual unemployment rate in British

Columbia has declined in each and every year.

Since this government took office the number of jobs in this

province has increased by more than 135,000. In 1975 British Columbia

accounted for 17 percent of Canada's total loss of time in strikes and

work stoppages, but by 1979 this share had declined to approximately 10

percent — from 17 percent to 10 percent. I think that speaks for

itself. We have a sound economic situation.

In relating to the jobless rate in British Columbia I've got to read

to you a news clip of March 11, 1980:

"Vancouver and B.C. Jobless

Rates Fall.

"The Canadian employment picture is looking a little

rosier than last year, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday, with the

brightest spots in Vancouver and the rest of British Columbia. B.C.

leads the way in the decline in jobless totals, dropping from 8 percent

in January to 7.3 percent last month, the month of February. "

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: I told you about housing. Weren't you listening,

Mr. Member? You know, you're as bad as your friend the seagull over

there. If you'd just sit and listen once, you might learn something.

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, we have a sound economic situation brought about by sound fiscal management by this administration.

What has sound management brought us, Mr. Member? You wouldn't know

because you didn't have any sound management when you were government.

We remember you. Yes, we remember you, and we remember your management,

and that's not all we remember. I should relate to you the story of the

health and human resources board in Houston. I could relate that to you

very vividly; it sticks in my mind, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very sound economic situation in British

Columbia. What has sound management brought us? Well, I'll relate it

just for that member over there, just for that dictatorial once

Minister of Health.

Let's take, for instance, oil exploration. My friend and colleague

from North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) was telling us about the

marvellous new find announced just today. I'd like to relate it to you,

and it's been done before in this House and I think it needs doing

again, because it would appear no matter how many times members on this

side of the floor relate those things in the budget which British

Columbians can relate to, they don't seem to hear it. I'd just like to

read for you some statistics from the "Drilling Rig Operating Days

Summary." This is a

summary of operating days of drilling rigs. The

members over there think that it takes a corporation in order to

deliver the taxes, the money, to government from our natural resource,

that it has to be done through a corporation. You know, you have to

drill holes in the ground. You have to have drill rigs; you have to

have people interested in development in order for that money to come

into the provincial coffers. It's not just this marvellous corporation

put together by those socialists.

I've got to read to you from this

summary "Operating Days

Summary

for Drill Rigs" — oil and gas drilling rigs in the province of British

Columbia. This is from May 1972 through to April 1979. From May until

April, 1972-73, there were 4,257 operating days for drilling rigs in

the province of British Columbia; for the same period in 1974-75 almost

half of that — 2,446 operating days; 1975-76, almost half of that again

— 1,507 operating days; 1976-77, 5,032 operating days; 1977-78, 10,953

operating days; and 1978-79,13,883 operating days. Yes, Mr. Speaker,

that's what the return of confidence does for the province of British

Columbia. That's what the return of confidence has brought the people

of this province, not just in the oil and gas industry but in every

other industry that you want to mention in this province — forestry,

mining, tourism, agriculture, you name it. You name it, and it's found

renewed energy and initiative, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), and you know it; and you know it and you sit over there and you

waggle your tongue. You know what's happened in this province since

1975. You know what got this province back on its feet from the

disaster that we found when we took office early in 1976.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

What will the budget bring, Mr. Speaker? The members opposite have

taken pains to make sure that their debates have stayed a long way from

this budget. They know why and we know why as well, because it's one of

the best budgets ever brought down in this province. In fact, it's one

of the best budgets ever brought down in any province in this great

nation.

Mr. Speaker, the budget calls for a budgetary expenditure of

$5,549.6 million and statutory appropriations for another $250 million,

balanced by revenue. I think that's very important — balanced by

revenue. This is a balanced budget, something that those socialists,

while they were government, knew nothing about.

Tax cuts totalling $54 million and major initiatives proposed. I

think the one of most importance to me as the member for Omineca in a

constituency very highly dependent on the forest industry is a $1.4

billion five-year forest management program. I heard the last member

say: "Long overdue." Yes, Mr. Member, it's long overdue, but we're very

happy, especially in my constituency of Omineca, that it's finally come.

An energy development program, energy conservation measures, support

facilities for northeast coal development, further processing in mining

and mineral industries through changes and processing allowances under

the Mining Tax Act and Mineral Resource Tax Act, major assistance in

transportation, and social programs.... And we hear the members

opposite often talk of those social programs they'd like to see for the

people of British Columbia. Yes, this budget has social programs.

The Health ministry expenditure rises $226 million for a

[ Page 1613 ]

total of $1.55 billion to be spent in health in this province in the

next fiscal year. The Medical Services Commission receives an

additional $345 million. Hospital programs are allocated $795 million.

The Human Resources budget is increased 17 percent to $763 million.

The Municipal Affairs budget rises 53 percent due to a large increase for transit funding and municipal revenue sharing.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, rather than speak to the seagull I'll speak to you.

Expenditure for basic education, Mr. Speaker: an expenditure in this

fiscal year of $1.2 billion in this province. A statutory appropriation

of $30 million for the first-year costs of a dental care program. Other

tax benefits, as found in this new budget — an additional $50 for

homeowner grant for elderly people. I'm sure that will be well accepted

by the people of the province of British Columbia, Mr. Member for New

Westminster.

Charges for residential natural gas, electricity and telephone

rental exempted from the sales tax — something long overdue in this

province. Something very important to the people of the north and the

people whom I represent in Omineca: sales tax is removed from used

mobile homes. Many of the people of the north, through necessity, live

in mobile homes.

The corporation income tax rate for small business corporations is

reduced from 12 percent to 10 percent, a full 2 percentage points, from

surplus funds. I realize it's difficult for the members opposite to

understand the word "surplus." The word is foreign to them. They didn't

know what it was when they were government, and they still don't know

what it is when they are opposition.

There is $146.6 million for a new forest and range resource fund to

be implemented on a five-year plan. There is $100 million for an

accelerated highway construction program. It was interesting, Mr.

Speaker, to listen to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) in two

different speeches. In one he castigated the government for spending an

extra $100 million on highways, and in the other he castigated the

government for not building enough highways in his constituency. You

can't have it both ways, Mr. Member. Maybe you'll learn that. I don't

think you will with that bunch, but maybe you will.

There is $30 million to a special fund for first-year costs of

construction of a new Fraser River crossing at Annacis Island. I'm sure

you, Mr. Speaker, are very happy with that particular item in the

budget. Not to be local, so are we happy in the northern part of

British Columbia. I also heard the member for Atlin talking about those

things which shouldn't be in the budget because they serve only the

people of the lower mainland and in the city of Vancouver. That's not

so; we can't be that local. Mr. Member, I'm sure — well, maybe not;

maybe some of his people don't come to Vancouver — but I know for a

fact that a lot of people that I represent come to Vancouver, and

they're going to be very happy with the new highway link in that area.

MR. PASSARELL: What highway?

MR. KEMPF: Well, you have to link two highways across a river with a bridge, Mr. Speaker. Even the member for Atlin should know that.

There is $10 million for assistance to small- and medium sized

business in metropolitan areas, including funds for a continuation of a

low-interest loan program. There is $4.5 million for an employment

opportunity program for young people — very important in this budget,

and done out of funds found in a surplus. There is $3.4 million for the

continuation of a local airport assistance program. Again, I'm very

happy to find that item in this year's budget — a very important item

to the people of the northern part of this province.

Unfortunately we find as an item in this year's budget — and I say

unfortunately because we're going to find it in the budget of this

province for some years to come — a $26.1 million entry for the second

annual payment to retire the provincial debt. I might bring to the

attention of all hon. members of this House that we found in returning

to office in 1975 a provincial debt that did not exist when the Social

Credit government left office in 1972. The debt was incurred by those

on that side of the House when they mismanaged this province.

I could go on and on. The budget goes on and on. It's a budget for

all British Columbians. It's a budget for the people whom I represent.

It's a budget which I support 100 percent.

MR. BARBER: During my remarks I referred to a Hydro notice of

one year's advance for commercial customers. I did not have the release

in my hands at that time; I do now. I ask leave to table it.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure for me

to have the opportunity of taking my place in this debate at this time.

I haven't had the opportunity of congratulating you on your new

appointment, your unanimous selection as the Deputy Speaker of the

House, and I want to congratulate you, Mr. Member for Delta.

I'm rather surprised that the opposition, having been in the

Legislature for only three weeks now, seems to have collapsed. They

haven't found a speaker to speak tonight, but we're prepared to speak,

because we believe that the budget is a budget for British Columbians,

that it's a budget that looks after the needs of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about parks tonight, and the

great programs that we have for British Columbians, and others who want

to be British Columbians, and others that want to visit British

Columbia. I listened to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) a

few days ago talking about the neglect in his riding, which I'll refer

to a little bit later.

I want first of all to refer to an

article that appeared in B.C.

Outdoors , which relates to the campsite fee increase which will take

place this year. Mr. Stainsby, the editor of that magazine, in my

opinion did a great disservice to the credibility of that magazine by

the erroneous statements and lies that permeated the editorial that he

wrote in the March edition of B.C. Outdoors . I think it's unfortunate

that people who want to convey a message to the people do not avail

themselves of the information so they can inform the people accurately,

rather than create apprehension and fear in the minds of certain people

as to campsite fees in this province. I also want to castigate some of

the Vancouver newspapers. It seems that the media has a way of drinking

their own bathwa-

[ Page 1614 ]

ter. If one magazine or newspaper puts in an erroneous report or

false statements in an article, it's repeated by other newspapers in

the area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, they seem to repeat it as the gospel

truth. They don't want to get the facts from the source. They want to

repeat derogatory and erroneous remarks, such as that which appeared in

the Vancouver Sun editorial, "Camptown Cartel," which appeared

on March 10, 1980. They didn't bother to check the facts to see whether

that erroneous

article in B.C. Outdoors was accurate or not; they just

wanted to perpetuate the lie. The Victoria Times did the same thing on

March 13, with a front-page

article stating, "To Hell with the People

on Camping Fee Hike." They didn't contact me to find out whether there

was any truth to the statements made by one Donald Stainsby of B.C.

Outdoors . I just want to talk briefly about some of the statements that

he made in there, Mr. Speaker.

He suggests that the reason for the increase in the campsite fees

was lobbying by the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association.

I want to categorically deny the allegation made in this article. I've

never met that association, Mr. Speaker, and furthermore, I don't feel

responsible for what they might publish in any publication they might

print.

I'm going to repeat some of the erroneous remarks in this article,

and then I'm going to correct them as the facts are. "Many of the

campgrounds which were free last year will be $5." That is a falsehood,

because there is no campground in British Columbia now free that will

be escalated to $5. "All the $4 parks will be $5, with the

remainder — about one-third — of government campgrounds increasing from

$2 to $3." Well, I will relate the figures in just a moment — the

number of campgrounds that are involved in British Columbia and the

fees applicable. He goes on to state in his

article that old-age

pensioners and handicapped people will be gouged by this increase,

leading the people of this province who purchase this magazine to

believe that we charge senior citizens and handicapped people in this

province. This government in 1976 eliminated the necessity of senior

citizens and handicapped from paying campground fees in public

campsites, and there is no intention whatsoever to deviate from or to

change this policy.

Then he goes on, Mr. Speaker, to suggest in the closing remarks of

his editorial that the taxpayers of British Columbia have already paid

for these campsites, and why should they pay for them again? He has

some difficulty in recognizing that there is a difference between

capital costs and operating costs. Certainly I agree — and that's the

only place in which he's correct — that the taxpayers have paid for the

campgrounds in this province, but he doesn't understand that once you

establish a campground there is an operating cost associated with this

operation. The operating costs for the campgrounds in British Columbia

last year were approximately $2.8 million and we have a policy

objective to ensure that the user fee that is applied in campgrounds is

between 50 percent and 60 percent of the operating costs. I don't

believe that's excessive, and we find that our user fee has fallen

below the 50 percent level of the operating costs of these campgrounds.

Hence the reason that we've increased the fee by $1 per overnight use

of units.

We will have in British Columbia 55 campgrounds that will have the

$3 fee and 44 that will have the $5 fee and, as I said previously, none

will move from zero to $5. In fact, three will move from $4 to $3. As I

said before, in view of the escalating cost of operating these

campgrounds, I don't believe that this $1 increase is excessive.

Yesterday, March 19, the national government made an announcement

that they're going to increase their campground fees, and I might say

that ours are comparable to other provinces in this country, as well as

the northwest United States, and substantially less than those of the

national parks, even before their increase. The national government's

daily camping fee and the reason the hikes are necessary is to keep

pace with higher operating costs and to bring rates for national parks

in line with those charged for private parks. Daily camping fees will

jump to $4.50 from $3 on campgrounds with standard services; to $7 from

$5 for a campsite equipped with individual electricity outlets; and to

$8 from $6 for a site with individual electricity, sewer and water

outlets. A $3 fee is also being introduced for unserviced camping

areas; they'll have a minimum. We'll still have campsites in this

province that are free, Mr. Speaker. So their fee increase is between

$1.50 and $2, and the fully serviced and fully developed ones will be

$8. I think the fact that the national government has escalated theirs

to this degree really shows that our increase is a small marginal

increase.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) talked about the lack of

campground facilities in his constituency. I'm rather surprised that he

talked about them, because of the 13 proposals that have been put

forward to the parks branch of my ministry, none has been initiated by

that member. He has not corresponded or suggested that a campground be

established anywhere in his riding.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, we have a record of all the MLAs

who've written in requesting for campgrounds in various locations of

the province, and the member for North Island, who professes to be

interested in campgrounds while he speaks in the Legislature, doesn't

appear to have the time or the interest to write a letter asking that

something be done at a site specific within his constituency. He talked

about our failure to establish a campground in the Port Hardy area

because of the increasing traffic caused by the new ferry dock up

there. The reason why we haven't deemed it necessary to establish a

campground in that area is because there's an Indian band that is in

the process of developing a campsite there and we're not about to start

competing with them. We're not about to compete with them. They're

building a campground on the Kluxewe River and we're not about to

compete with them there.

I'm not going to enumerate all the parks that he has in his riding,

but there are five provincial overnight campsites in his riding: Elk

Falls, Miracle Beach, Morton Lake, Smelt Bay and Strathcona. He also

has 57 forestry overnight camping facilities. I'll give them all to

you: Muchalat Lake, Leiner River, Rodes Creek, Rugged Point, Elk Creek,

Little Bear Bay, Pye Lake Beach, Lower Stella Lake, Stella Beach, Pye

Lake, Stella Lake East, Amor Bay, McCreight Lake, Aldergrove, Cedar

Lake, Blackwater Lake, Twin Lake, Amor Lake, Stella Lake, Surprise

Lake, Mohun Passage, Paterson Pond, John Hart Lake, Big Bay, Loveland

Bay, Camp 5, Apple Point, Brewster Lake, Merrill Lake, Merrill Lake

South, Little Loveland Bay, Gray Lake, Boot Lake, Gosling

[ Page 1615 ]

Lake, Orchard Meadow, Fry Trestle, Fry Lake, Lawson Lake, Loon Bay,

Dogwood Bay, Long Point, Campbell Lake, Fire Grove, Gosling Bay,

Bonanza Lake North, Wosk Lake, Lower Klaklakama Lake, Vernon Lake,

Atluck Lake, Artlish Coves, Fair Harbour, Apple Bay, Quatse Lake,

Georgie Lake, Nahwitty Lake, Shuttleworth Bight, Mohun Lake. Mr.

Speaker, these are just a few of the campsites that are prevalent in

the North Island riding. I think that if the member is going to truly

represent his riding and not still have his heart on the North Shore,

up Indian Arm, he should acquaint himself with the kinds of facilities

that exist in his constituency.

Now I want to mention very briefly the very significant program we

have for the acquisition of land and development of parks in British

Columbia. For the upcoming fiscal year we have embarked on a $25

million program for land acquisition and development of campgrounds and

parks in British Columbia. The member for North Island suggests we are

doing nothing about parks, when we have allocated in this budget,

through surplus funds, $6.5 million as the first step in developing

this $25 million three-year program. We're not only going to....

MRS. WALLACE: What about Gordon Bay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member from wherever that one is from

wants to talk about a specific site in her riding. She has ample

opportunity to ask me specific questions of that nature either through

written questions or through oral questions, or she'll have ample

opportunity to question me as often as she wants during my estimates.

For her to bring up a specific site like that — as an interjection —

shows the lack of interest she has in that particular park, because she

would have asked me a question by now.

MRS. WALLACE: But I have.

HON. MR. CHABOT: She's asked me that question by now? Mr.

Speaker, I am being interrupted by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. I

wish you'd ask her to come to order. It's a vicious attack against the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm sure that if she's written me

a letter, she's had an answer. However, maybe she doesn't like the

answer.

Mr. Speaker, along with the massive program of assistance for the

parks of British Columbia, through greenbelt reserve acquisitions we

will continue to make a substantial contribution towards the regional

park function in this province. I might say that we are in a process as

well of looking at the possibility of making financial contributions

towards the development and the operation of community parks

where....

MRS. WALLACE: Like $600.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the member for Cowichan Malahat isn't

thankful for assistance for the class C parks and she doesn't

understand what I am saying. She's not prepared to listen. She just

wants to sit there and chirp, Mr. Speaker. I never thought I'd see her

chirping in here like that.

We have a substantial program which I'm very enthused about, and we have made commitments to parks in British Columbia.

I want to refer to another member — unfortunately the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not here tonight. Is he here in the vicinity or

has he gone to bed? He's in his office? Mr. Speaker, the member for

Skeena has a reputation for saying anything and doing anything as long

as it serves his ends. His respect for the truth is less than marginal.

I want to refer to an

article and a statement of his that appeared

in the Interior News of Smithers on February 27, 1980, in which he said

that the government's attitude towards the hot springs at Lakelse near

Terrace was deplorable, in view of the generosity that was granted to

Fairmont Hot Springs Resort on the Alberta border. He said that in

December an $850,000 forgivable loan was provided to Fairmont Hot

Springs Resort under the Travel Industry Development Subsidiary

Agreement with the federal government. "While that Christmas present

was given to Fairmont, Lands, Parks and Housing Minister Chabot

couldn't stir himself sufficiently to find the $50,000 which he had

promised for a feasibility study of the Lakelse hot springs."

When he was making that statement, had he cared to acquaint himself

with the truth, which might not have served his purpose in making this

statement, all he had to do was drop me a letter or phone me. I would

have told him at the time that that $50,000 allocation for a

feasibility study had already been committed. But no, he's not

interested in the truth. He wants to make false statements to serve his

own political ends.

I might, for the benefit — not of him, because he doesn't care for

the truth — of the people in Terrace and the northwestern corner of the

province tell them the status of the Lakelse hot springs feasibility

study. We've established the terms of reference for this feasibility

study. The $50,000 is committed. Tenders will be called fairly soon for

the feasibility study. I presume it will be underway within the next

week or two — two weeks at the utmost. So, Mr. Speaker, as I said

before, that member's respect for the truth is less than acceptable in

my estimation.

I would like to make reference to statements made by the member for

Atlin (Mr. Passarell) recently. He was speaking in the House last week

about the serious problems his constituents are having in gaining

employment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's that? Where is he?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's the Atlin riding. He's not here

tonight either. There aren't too many of them here tonight. Like I said

a little earlier when I stood up, Mr. Speaker, it seems they have

collapsed. They've not only collapsed and not got speakers, but there's

nobody here tonight either. Where are those socialists tonight?

Mr. Speaker, he wants to preoccupy his talks with the Iskut-Stikine

Hydro project, which is really a wild and woolly sense of imagination

that member has, because these are merely imaginary projects in the

member's strange thought process.

Rather than the lack of job opportunities in the Atlin riding, I

want to say that that area is in a state of boom at this time. Because

some of the projects were initiated by his predecessor, Mr. Frank

Calder, who urged the government to undertake some of these projects,

at this time I want personally, on behalf of the government, to thank

Frank Calder for part of the boom that is taking place in Atlin.

I want to mention some of the projects which Mr. Calder pushed for

on behalf of the people of Atlin and in which he was successful. He was

successful in getting a $500,000

[ Page 1616 ]

contribution from the government for improvement of the airstrip for

the community of Stewart. Despite the fact that the members over

there.... Here's one that's appeared; Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see

one's arrived. They seemed — especially the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) — to have some serious reservations about American investment

coming into the community of Stewart to reopen the Granduc mine to

produce jobs for British Columbians and to help build up the economy of

that community. I'm not opposed to American investment coming into

Stewart to help create employment in the northwestern corner of the

province and jobs for people in British Columbia. What's wrong with

that? They seem to think there's something wrong because the dollars

are coming from south of the border. They seem to think those dollars

are tainted because they don't happen to be generated right here. But

I'll tell you that the benefits that will flow from those Americans

will be immense for British Columbians.

At the urging of the former member, Frank Calder, as well we've had

millions and millions of dollars spent on Highway 37, building an

alternative route to the north. Not only, at his urging, have we spent

millions and millions of dollars, but the member is decrying and

unwilling to give credit for the jobs that those highways being

constructed through his constituency have generated for people around

Dease Lake. A lot of people in Dease Lake have benefited from the

highway construction or reconstruction taking place up there. And he

says that there are no jobs for the people in his riding.

At the moment the Ministry of Forests is looking at a forestry

inventory in that area to determine the quantity and quality of timber.

I feel quite optimistic that it will generate a sawmill for the

community of Stewart and provide many jobs for British Columbians in

that community.

He doesn't want to talk about the tremendous construction that's on

at Kincolith in his constituency. Amax Minerals is developing a

molybdenum property there that is employing 500 British Columbians in

construction.

MR. KEMPF: He wants to shut it down.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, he wants to shut it down; that's

probably his attitude, Mr. Speaker. Shame on him. You know, he stands

in here and he decries the lack of employment opportunities in his

riding — when they're there. And then when they're there, he wants to

shut them down. Strange thinking indeed. And where is he tonight? He

doesn't want to hear the facts. He just wants to spout off platitudes

about lack of job opportunities in his riding.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, once the construction project is over at

Kincolith — and I might say a contract was recently let for $12 million

worth of housing construction in that community — there will be 400

mining jobs in that community for at least the next 35 years.

He doesn't talk about the new little mine that opened up just south

of Cassiar either — Ericksen Creek, gold, 60 new jobs. He doesn't talk

about the many jobs that have been created by the new large trucking

contract between Cassiar and Stewart, that has helped build up the base

in the community of Stewart. Oh, no, he doesn't want to talk about the

great development that is taking place in his riding. He doesn't want

to talk about the geochemical survey that this government sponsored to

help promote exploration in that part of the province, that brought on

a boom like we've never experienced in this province before, and which

brought helicopters at a premium once the maps were issued.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did socialism produce that? No way.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No. They produced a boom, but it was a

little further north than the Atlin riding; it was just north of the

border of the Atlin riding, in the Yukon. That's where they chased all

the prospectors out of this province.

I want to talk about some of the other projects, Mr. Speaker. The

Adanac property near Atlin will be under construction shortly, will be

in production in late '82, which will produce 300 new jobs in Atlin.

And he says there are no job opportunities in his riding. He wants to

talk about imaginary Hydro projects such as the Iskut and the Stikine.

He has an obsession about imaginary Hydro projects. He has such an

obsession that he doesn't know what's happening around him.

There's another new little mine being reactivated this year — the

Atlin-Ruckner, gold-silver-lead-zinc property. There will be 30 placer

gold operations in operation, starting in June of this year. There will

be general prospecting and extreme activity in that area for tungsten,

tin, molybdenum and gold. Atlin will be used as a base for exploration,

particularly in the coastal area of Tulsequah. In the Atlin area alone

there were almost as many mineral claims staked in the first two months

of this year as were staked in the whole province when the socialists

were in. In 1980 there have been 102 placer applications and 890

mineral claims recorded up to February 29.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member for Atlin will distribute my remarks

about the opportunities and what is happening up there, because I'm

sure that member is not telling them of the great development that is

taking place and that is on the horizon — for the benefit not only of

people in Atlin, but of all British Columbians.

It has been the economic policies of this government that have made

that kind of boom in Atlin possible. That member doesn't want to be in

the House to listen to the facts regarding his riding. He doesn't want

to be confused by the facts. He reminds me of the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard): "Don't confuse me with the facts; I've got my mind made

up. I want to say this; it might win me a couple of votes." The

blabbering of the member for Skeena! I hope it doesn't brush off on

that young member for Atlin who is just starting in politics.

No, Mr. Speaker, this budget makes a provision for British Columbia, and the

policies over the last four years as well have made it possible to have the

attractive budget presented in this House less than two weeks ago. This budget

makes provisions, and that's why, I'm sure, these members have collapsed tonight.

I'm prepared to speak on the budget because of the tremendous benefits being

conveyed to British Columbians and those who want to be British Columbians.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) mentioned the tremendous influx

of people, and I want to say that we've had the largest influx of

people in this province in the last few months that we've experienced

in any comparable month in the last 20 years. Not only that,

unemployment has been decreasing as well, and those people who've been

finding

[ Page 1617 ]

Jobs here.... No wonder they don't want to speak tonight. They

don't want to hear the facts, they don't like this budget that makes

strong provisions for British Columbians and for the future of this

province. They don't want to debate the $226 million extra that has

been given to health services in this province, elevating health

spending to an all-time record of $1.55 billion. No, they don't want to

discuss the additional $50 that we've allocated to the senior citizens

of this province as a homeowner grant — $630 per year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They'll vote against that — against the senior citizens.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, I don't think they'll vote against it. They wouldn't dare.

The budget also makes provision for $16.5 million, of which $6.5

million is for new parks, land acquisition and development, but also

funds for the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund. I'm sure the

member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is pleased with that allocation;

$4.5 million is for the employment opportunity program for young

people; $3.4 million is for continuation of the Local Airport

Assistance Program of which, as previously mentioned, $500,000 goes to

the little community of Stewart; $1 million, an increase over the

previously allocated funds, for senior citizens and handicapped people

for housing in British Columbia, and an additional $1 million from

surplus, raising the total to $5.2 million — and I'm sure the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) recognizes the stupidity of attaching

his remarks to those of the mayor of Vancouver.

MR. GABELMANN: Garde's partner.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ex-partner!

So the allocation is $5.2 million, not $1 million, as was misinterpreted by the mayor of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of economic stimulus in this budget.

It's a budget that will look after the needs of British Columbians for

the forthcoming fiscal year and set a strong, stable base for a

continued growth for the benefit of all British Columbians in the years

ahead.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the

member for Columbia River on his very entertaining speech. Since

February 18 I've been listening to and observing that member very

closely, because he is the only surviving Quebec Social Crediter

elected to a parliament in Canada. He's the last of his kind.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to acknowledge and thank the

automotive retailers' association for providing this House with some

very cheerful people this evening. I've looked around at some of the

coloration in people's faces and thought that perhaps there was a

sudden sunspot or something outside over the dinner hour.

Being, I believe, the only member of this House who gets around this

fair city by what the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) suggested

was a reasonable way, a bicycle, I would like to concur with that

member in his statement that really.... Perhaps it was an

oversight, but I hope that the Minister of Finance would consider

reducing or removing the sales tax on bicycles as well as cars.

Mr. Speaker, in between what we might call those two extremes — the

licensed four-wheel motor vehicle and the self-propelled vehicle —

there is the whole area of mopeds and motorcycles, which represent a

significant part of the transportation scene in British Columbia. I

consider it very inconsistent — perhaps it was an oversight on the

minister's part when he was drawing up his budget — that the sales tax

should have been reduced for small automobiles but not reduced for

other licensed motor vehicles that are perfectly legal and acceptable

on our streets and highways.

Considering — there is still some chuckling and chortling across the

way — it's safe to comment on the media during evening sittings,

because it's commonly said that they don't report speeches in any

event.... However, I'm continuing to hear people from the other

side of the House say: "The media did it." It's just like: "The butler

did it." Whether it's the Glenshiel Hotel issue, the dirty tricks

issue, or the Deputy Attorney-General issue, whatever it is, Mr.

Speaker, we constantly hear it's a creation and exaggeration by the

media of this province. It's encouraging to hear the government members

give us credit for something like that, but I want to assure you that,

to my knowledge, no member on this side of the House owns the media in

British Columbia or controls any member of the gallery here. No way.

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoyed the speech by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and whatever else the

other night.

MR. BARBER: And the late Marguerite .

MR. D'ARCY: I'm going to be returning to that later. Mr.

Speaker, while that member is in the House I want to draw attention to

what I felt was a very disturbing statement in the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways'

summary of recommendations of the ferries

inquiry. I brought this to the minister's attention before. I'd like to

point out to him again that I have a freshwater ferry, a cable ferry,

in my riding. It, along with the Albion ferry in the Fraser River, is

one of the most heavily used ferries in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I think the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) is showing his ignorance of the West Kootenays. He may be

knowledgeable about the East Kootenays, although I've many friends over

there who say he doesn't know much about the East Kootenays either.

The Castlegar ferry and the Albion ferry are the two most heavily

used ferries in British Columbia, carrying more cars and passengers

than even the major routes 1 and 2 across the Strait of Georgia. I

would like to express to the minister in the House some concern over a

recommendation from the report:

"The committee identified some existing

free ferries where there are existing local alternate routes, and the

ferry provides a shortcut which has easily identified economical

advantage to the users."

Heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker! The government is

providing a service which is convenient and economically useful to the

public who are paying the taxes. Continuing to quote from the report:

"Decision on fares at these locations should be based

on different considerations than ferries which form a single link in

the highway network."

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister has not acted on this

recommendation, nor has he shown any indication he is going to, and I

would give the minister every bit of support for his continued inaction

on that recommendation, because

[ Page 1618 ]

that ferry at Castlegar has been in service for most of this

century. It has provided a great service to the people of that

community in the West Kootenays and I hope it is not interfered with in

any way. The mere level of usage of that route, I think, is indicative

all by itself of the public demand for that service.

I note it is typical in evening sessions that the treasury benches

are mostly empty. However, I wish to direct a few remarks of concern to

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). Perhaps he'll be reading

the Blues tomorrow if he can get here by 10 o'clock in the morning. In

my constituency, we don't have one of the major universities, which

means that most young people attend an institution on the lower

mainland or in greater Victoria, one of the three major universities.

In the past 12 months there have been significant policy changes in the

application of the loans and grant systems by the provincial government

Ministry of Education student services. What has happened is that a

number of the students from my riding, many of whom are no longer

teenagers but may be well into their twenties, instead of having

student loans and grants given to them at the same level as they have

had in past years in spite of inflation and increasing costs, have had

those loans and grants drastically reduced, or in some cases even

eliminated. It may be trite, but I wish to point out that nobody in

their right mind at today's interest rates of a minimum of 16 percent

is going to borrow money for fees or room and board or any other

purpose knowing full well that the moment they graduate they're going

to have start paying interest at those kinds of rates. Particularly if

you're taking a four- or five-year program, the amount of the loans

could seriously accumulate over those years and take several years to

pay off. I'm very concerned about this policy as applied by the

Minister of Education, and I would hope that they would show a little

more compassion and consideration in the application.

I've had cases where young people whose parents were retired from

their employment and on pension were being denied even a minimum

amount, because for some reason the Ministry of Education felt that

their parents were wealthy and could well afford to put these young

adults through university. I don't think these people are looking for

handouts. I think that the Ministry of Education, particularly in view

of the kinds of surpluses which we have seen in the fiscal year that's

about to end, has the ability to make these kinds of funds available.

Speaking of interest rates, briefly, I have to remember the remarks

of my colleague for Victoria regarding the potential that this

provincial government or any provincial government has to influence the

housing market, to influence the interest rates charged to individuals

and institutions which wish to invest in housing. Mr. Speaker, I want

to note that while it is quite true that chartered banks and other

organizations do not necessarily put a great deal of the moneys saved

and invested by ordinary people back into the communities, into

housing, into even commercial development let alone residential

development, it is true, however, that the credit union movement in

British Columbia and in other provinces, and in the United States where

it exists, reinvests virtually every penny into the communities whence

their deposits were taken.

However, just in passing, I noted that I didn't think I had heard

such a spirited advocacy of government involvement in these major

financial decisions since I was going over some of the work of Bible

Bill Aberhart and Major Douglas, in terms of dealing with some of the

economic and fiscal forces that so savagely affected the people of the

Prairies during the 1930s. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as far as those

parts of the original and true Social Credit theories go, I believe

most members on this side of the House could give them full support. I

suspect a number of members on the other side of the House could also

support those theories, but I rather doubt that the Premier and the

other members on the treasury benches are going to pay much attention

to them.

I want to make note of one

section of the budget which is very

encouraging to me. That's the

section for increased funding for

silviculture and reforestation in British Columbia. I hope that the

government means what it says. I would feel far more confident if we

saw legislation introduced that would provide money on a steady

appropriation basis, rather than simply having a verbal commitment. For

years we've had a verbal commitment to the principle of rebuilding our

forests, and we've yet to see it happen.

Certainly a most encouraging thing, though, is the large report

which the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has tabled, which

for the first time gives us a good inventory and a good assessment of

the resource in British Columbia. It shows that on the staff of the

Forests ministry we have people who can do a very adequate assessment

and appraisal; we don't have to constantly go outside the civil service

to get information about our most vital resource.

I see the Premier has come into the House, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

It is encouraging to have the Energy minister pounding his desk,

instead of caterwauling in the background, for the first time this

evening. The reason I was glad to see the Premier come into the House

was that on the issue of the forest resource, I'd liken the need here

for what we — or the Premier's father — used to call bill funding. The

Premier's father used to bring in funding bills for such developments

as parks and provide a funding program for park development over a

period of years, not just a one-shot thing.

I think we've had a good forest policy introduced. I would be far

more encouraged if the government saw fit to bring in special

appropriations, by law, over a period of time, to make sure that those

recommendations were carried out and weren't merely something that we

saw in a report.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to repeat, since the members across the

way don't seem to like my remarking on this at all, that it is most

encouraging to see such a comprehensive report for that particular

resource being brought in by the Minister of Forests and his staff for

that particular resource.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, we still seem to be having a series of minor interruptions here. Perhaps people will settle down tomorrow morning.

Mr. D'Arcy moved adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:50 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada