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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1623 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting reports Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

annual report, July l, 1978, to June 30, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1623

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1623

Presenting petitions

Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia.

Mr. Ree –– 1623

International Woodworkers of America forest industry pension plan.

Mr. Segarty –– 1623

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1623

Mr. Lorimer –– 1626

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1628

Mrs. Wallace –– 1631

Mr. Mitchell –– 1634

Mr. Hyndman –– 1638

FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1980

The House met at 10 a. m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Education, Science and Technology for the year of July 1, 1978, to June

30, 1979.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources for the year 1979.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome

four visitors from the far-away royal city of New Westminster — Mr. and

Mrs. F. Brandolini and Mr. and Mrs. A. Vizzuti.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm really proud to introduce two

guests to the House today; they're from the breadbasket of British

Columbia, the Central Fraser Valley — Mr. and Mrs. Fred Rempel.

Presenting Petitions

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition. Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I present the petition of the Institute

of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia praying for the

passing of

an act intituled

An Act to Incorporate the Institute of

Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a motion attached?

MR. REE: I move that the rules be suspended and the petition

of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia

be received.

Motion approved.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I present the petition of the

International Woodworkers of America forest industry pension plan,

praying for the passing of

an act intituled Pension Plans (IWA-Forest

Industry) Merger Validation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The attending motion, please.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended

and the petition of the International Woodworkers of America, forest

industry pension plan, be received. Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, this morning in the portion of the

time left to me before this assembly, I want to talk briefly about the

question of land development in British Columbia. The member for the

endowment lands, who is in charge of universities, sciences and

technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer), spoke the other day about his concern for

finding land for research and development. Mr. Speaker, that minister

touched on a general problem in British Columbia which is in part

responsible for the acute housing shortage that we have in British

Columbia today. That is a shortage of land for any purpose,

particularly land which can be developed or can be serviced. This

province is simply not well endowed with usable real estate, and there

is a major shortage in all parts of the province of land for

residential use, industrial use, commercial use, recreational use and,

particularly in the lower mainland and the greater Victoria area,

foreshore land for the locations of marinas for pleasure craft.

The problem that we have in terms of planning and land use is that

we have no coordinated government policy to try to deal with the

problem of allocating certain lands for certain things. We constantly

have disagreements; we have conflicts over land use, whether it be for

agricultural purposes, development purposes or industrial purposes.

Very often, Mr. Speaker, the wrong decisions are made regarding the

highest use of lands for certain purposes, and this has led to an

escalation in the price of land. I think it's fair to say that the

perhaps necessary regulation exercised by municipal and regional

district governments, in terms of land use and development, has

contributed to the lack of supply, considering the pressure on land —

the lack of supply of land — and that has contributed to the cost of

that land in, essentially, not only the availability of housing but the

cost of building housing and the cost of doing business in British

Columbia, which has had a profound effect on the cost of living for all

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I would call on the government to develop a

comprehensive policy of working with municipal government to accelerate

the question of land use planning and the allocation and development of

land for various purposes. While I know the notion of planning is

foreign to the Social Credit Party in British Columbia, my belief is

that all British Columbians — even those who see themselves as having a

philosophical sympathy with the Social Credit Party — would welcome

such a move on the part of the government. I'm not suggesting that the

government get into the business of buying and selling land; I am

suggesting that in view of the great regulation applying to land in

British Columbia by provincial and municipal levels, the government

become involved in a massive way in the planning and the development of

land so that the private sector, ultimately, within the context of the

availability of that land, can make decisions in terms of development

for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, and even for the

research purposes that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey talked about

a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the budget in particular, we have heard

some criticism and some praise for the government because of the size

of the increase over the budgetary expenditures of last year — or the

proposed expenditures of

[ Page 1624 ]

last year, because, as we all know, what a

government says it is going to spend in the spring really has very

little bearing on what it actually does spend by the end of the fiscal

year.

I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

for bringing in, at least in terms of his projected spending figures, a

somewhat more realistic picture than that which we've seen over the

last few years. It does represent a 27 percent increase over the

projected expenditures of last year's projected expenditures and

revenues; but the fact remains that it's probably a realistic increase,

based on some assumptions that were never properly taken into account

when previous budgets were brought in. What has concerned us on this

side of the House, and has concerned many British Columbians, whether

they be from consumers' groups or business, or industry or trade

unions, is the fact that the size of the government take in British

Columbia has been increasing under a government which promised, before

it was elected, and since it's been elected, to reduce the size of

government in British Columbia. And, Mr. Speaker, we're only talking

about the bare bones of government.

I want to throw something else into the hopper here, which I don't

believe has been emphasized in this debate, and that is that the Crown

corporations, some of them existing in the service industries, some of

them existing when this government took office, some of them created

since, have been increasing their take out of the economy at an even

faster rate than the provincial government has — in real terms,

discounted for inflation. I'm referring to corporations that existed

when this government came into office, such as ICBC and British

Columbia Hydro. I also have to mention the British Columbia Ferry

Corporation which, while the ferry system existed, of course, when the

present government took office, was in fact part of the civil service

when they came into power in British Columbia. It has since been

removed from the civil service and placed in its own Crown corporation,

partly I believe, Mr. Speaker, to give the impression that the size of

government was not increasing as fast as it was.

The tax load on ordinary British Columbians, in terms of the tax

load on business and industry in British Columbia — which is not

ultimately but very quickly passed on to ordinary individuals — has

been getting more and more onerous every year, in spite of marginal tax

reductions here and there in the last two budgets. If you take into

account inflation, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the total

amount of government take — as well as spending — is increasing as a

proportion of the real gross provincial product in 1980, as it

increased in 1979, 1978, 1977 and 1976. Mr. Speaker, I would like very

much to see the Minister of Finance and the government address

themselves to this, and if they can't realistically address themselves

to this, at least admit to it in the statements they make to this

Legislature. It is my view that this sort of unrealistic budgetary

forecasting — this kind of unrealistic taking of resources from British

Columbians that should be left to circulate in the economy — has had a

depressing effect on the growth rate of the economy and the number of

new jobs which would be provided.

For the last four and a half years all of us in this House have been

subjected to a number of specific instances where members across the

floor allege that they know of somebody who is doing much better now

since the Social Credit Party has been back in office, or of somebody

who has more employees now. But they're all individual cases. We never

hear people across the floor referring to the general picture as

espoused by Statistics Canada. We never hear them wanting to tell us

that there was real growth in the British Columbia economy of just

under 5 percent under the former government, and that that real growth

rate has dropped to about 3.2 percent under Social Credit — dropped by

nearly 40 percent.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), having

been a little short-fused last evening, would have gone home and had a

good sleep. But it appears that he might have been suffering from

insomnia.

What do they say in the radio business? "Not every traffic manager knows how to count cars."

I'm also concerned — and perhaps the Minister of Finance is going to

be dealing with this — with the last two auditor-general's reports for

the province. I'm not suggesting for a minute there has been any sort

of defalcation of funds by the government. But since the members on the

opposite side of the House insist on refighting the 1975 and the 1979

elections rather than talking about the present, and much of their

tirade seems to revolve around the real or imagined budgetary

situations in government past, it has concerned me greatly, as it has

many British Columbians, that in the two years that we've had an

auditor-general reporting to this Legislature and to the people of

British Columbia, in both cases that senior civil servant has seen fit

to use what I can only describe as unusual hyperbole in criticizing the

government's accounting practices. I'm not going to deal with this at

length, but we find quotations such as: "Basic deficiencies in the

securities accounting system have resulted in records that cannot be

relied upon to produce accurate information." That's not my

imagination; that's taken directly from the report of the

auditor-general. That last statement refers, in particular, to the

Ministry of Finance. Far be it from me to want to disturb the

minister's honeymoon. He may be working on some of these items; I

certainly hope he is.

She also brings up the point that there is no provision in the

central accounting system for responsible reporting of revenue and no

overall requirement to report budgeted revenue as a comparison to

actual. One of the things I alluded to earlier was the very large

overruns — whether taken in real terms or in percentage terms — that

have been experienced by the present government. Most observers have

reason to believe that when the final public accounts are in for the

fiscal year of 1979-80 those overruns are going to be even larger than

had been previously mentioned.

I mentioned the growing size of government — both the bare budget as

presented by the two Ministers of Finance we have had under this

administration, and the size of, you might say, captive Crown

corporations which provide services which are essential if you are

going to live or do business in British Columbia-such as ICBC, B.C.

Ferries and B.C. Hydro.

I want to mention another area of government where there has been a

real increase at an even faster rate than any of the agencies I've

mentioned. That is in the area of property taxes, both for education

purposes and for general purposes. I don't believe there is a school

board or a municipal or regional district council in British Columbia

that is spendthrift. In fact, they're probably more sensitive to tax

increases than anyone else in the province-the administrators and

elected representatives of those boards and councils. Yet

[ Page 1625 ]

we see, each and every year this government has

been in office, the basic mill rate for education going up. We see the

actual total property taxes, in real terms for general purposes, in

spite of revenue sharing, going up every year. While it is true that

the heaviest burden has fallen on industry and commercial taxpayers,

the fact remains that those increased costs to industry and to owners

of commercial property are passed on to the public through higher

prices, higher rents and higher costs for manufactured products.

I believe the government should clearly address itself to the fact

that it has not been pulling its weight when it comes to sharing

provincial revenue with local taxpayers. There isn't a municipal

taxpayer in British Columbia who isn't paying higher taxes now for

school and general purposes than he was in 1975 — not one, Mr. Speaker.

There are industries and commercial businesses in my constituency that

are paying two to two-and-a-half times the amount of taxes they were

paying four years ago. Thank goodness business is so good in B.C. Thank

goodness the prices for our basic products in British Columbia have

been so high that business and industry can afford to absorb these

increased costs.

Mr. Speaker, before I finish I want to address a few more words to

the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Last

night I mentioned the ferry service in my constituency; this morning I

want to deal with a project which by now, I'm sure, the minister is

extremely familiar with, commonly known as the West Trail approach or

the smelter bypass. As I'm sure the minister is aware, this is a

project that is extremely important, not only to the public in Trail,

but also to my major corporate citizen, Cominco Ltd. The staff of the

Ministry of Highways tell me the project is coming along very well and

I wish to let the minister know — if he didn't already — that his

people have been extremely communicative on how the project has been

going. But, Mr. Speaker, when the time comes that contract documents

are ready for him to take to Treasury Board, I want to put on record

that I hope that there is absolutely no delay in getting that passed by

treasury, because I would suggest that that 1.3 miles of Highway 22,

which has been neglected — admittedly, Mr. Speaker, by the last three

governments — is long overdue to be reconstructed.

HON. MR. FRASER: Vote for this budget!

MR. D'ARCY: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Highways'

capital spending bears absolutely no relationship to what goes into the

budget. So in terms of a project which is long, long overdue from a

safety point of view, from a traffic point of view and in this case —

rarely, I think, but certainly very important — from an industrial

development point of view, I would hope the minister will not waste any

time when those engineering and contract documents are ready. I have

faith in you, though, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, there are a great many other people who wish to take

part in this debate — I see the government benches are filling up. I

have to mention that I received a certain amount of criticism over the

telephone from some constituents on Wednesday morning. Those

constituents said to me: "How come you guys blew it the other night?" I

said: "What do you mean?" They said: "Well, you had a chance to defeat

the government. Why didn't you?" I said: "Well, they have more than we

have." They said: "Well, if you ever get another chance, don't let it

go by!"

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: No more late dinners at the Union Club, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I could get the attention of the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), I would like to

have him perhaps make some remarks — perhaps I should direct these to

the Premier — regarding where he and the government may be today on the

Alcan II project. I wish to separate Alcan II from Alcan completion or

the Kemano completion project, which only involves the Aluminum Company

of Canada, while Alcan II, as we know, involves other rivers — the

Morris and the Dean. The reason I'm bringing this up here is because

the Energy minister's statements have been somewhat ambiguous on the

subject. We have his energy statement as issued in the policy, where he

said that there were going to be more private developments of power in

British Columbia; then, when asked if there was a loophole in it, he

told the press that the policy spoke for itself, which didn't take

long. A few days later, Mr. Speaker, the Energy minister said there

were several ways a project could go ahead, assuming that there was

going to be a public inquiry under a new procedure, which is yet to be

laid down. Later, on the 12th, the Energy minister said that the

project would go ahead and it would be a Hydro job. Alcan immediately

said that they were going ahead anyway, that they didn't know of any

regulations or law which changed their licensing.

Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties the opposition has in dealing

with government intentions is that not only are government intentions

on these major questions somewhat unclear on these issues, but they

seem to change — not over a long period of time, but over a very short

period of time. And, Mr. Speaker, I would hope, for the public of B.C.

and particularly the people of the northwestern half of the province,

that over the next few weeks the government could clarify exactly what

they mean in the policy on some of these major issues, particularly the

Kemano II and/or the Kemano completion project.

I think that those sorts of considerations, on a long-term basis,

are far too important to waste time on trying to make political Brownie

points. We know that the Kemano I project, agreed to by the coalition

government in the late forties and early fifties, is in fact something

we all have to live with today regardless of our political point of

view. I don't want any snap decisions being made on projects of this

nature involving a major group of resources, recreational, fish, forest

and mineral resources, for what could be a relatively short-term energy

gain that may be replaced by other forms of energy over a period of

time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are other members who are standing and wishing to take their place.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, the opposition is asleep again today. Mr. Speaker, I stood; you recognized me, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the only member that this Chair

can recognize is the one who is standing. However, the rules simply say

that when another member stands in the two formal debates, it is the

Chair's responsibility.

[ Page 1626 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: No matter, Mr. Speaker, how long it takes them to get to their feet?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Unless it is the intention to exercise closure, I think that perhaps the thing to do would be….

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

are on their feet, the practice of this House is that everyone be given

the opportunity to speak, at least within the time limits provided for

under the standing orders.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: While you are the chairman of this assembly,

I watched very carefully to see if any member of the official

opposition wished to speak. This government does not intend to enforce

closure, but I must observe, Mr. Speaker, that at 10:35 on a Friday

morning the official opposition was asleep.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps you could advise the House how long

the Chair will wait for the official opposition to stand up so we may

know fully when we may close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. members, the Chair can bring an opinion to the House which would satisfy that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Further on the point of order, perhaps you

would advise us then, Mr. Speaker, I would hope, on what is a

reasonable time for some members to be able to identify that they

clearly wish to participate in debate. It makes it difficult for those

members who wish to get on with the business.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be

pointed out that when the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy)

concluded his remarks and sat down, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) rose to gain the floor. Immediately! And in the normal course

and flow of debate....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Can I hear the point of order?

MR. HOWARD: In the normal flow of debate, Mr. Speaker, and

you approach this with great care and attention, there is an

alternation between opposition members and government members. And you,

sir, undoubtedly in respect to that, cast your eye on the government

side of the House, saw the Provincial Secretary rising, and then the

manoeuvres on the other side tried to make a game of it, and I think

the government tried to cast reflections upon your impartiality and say

that you're picking and choosing….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: It's a disgraceful way to run the affairs of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER: I'd like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that

I was prepared to get up to speak. The Provincial Secretary was getting

to his feet, and in the usual back and forth manner in which this

debate has been carried on, I retained my seat. So it's an obvious

ploy, and a ridiculous ploy, by the government to try to make some

points, because they haven't made any in this session so far.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. I think I have

sufficient opinion upon the point of order, and I will return to the

House with some guidelines.

Let us continue with the budget debate. Is it a new point of order? The member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I have very rarely requested the permission to

say a word, and I request that I now be heard on a point of order. Last

night we bailed out the opposition, who were asleep last night also. We

brought up the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) to take on the debate back-to-back, because we did not want to

hasten. Now today the only other person who stood was the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). If they want to sleep that's their

privilege, but I do not think they should have the support of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is not a point of order. Back to the debate.

MR. LORIMER: I might say that it doesn't surprise me that the

Minister of Finance wishes to close this debate. He's got a budget here

that he's not too proud of. He's concerned about it, and he doesn't

want any more discussion with reference to it. It's a bit of a game

they're trying to play, and they should probably have their chance to

have their little games. First of all, I want to say that I am pleased

with the cooperation I have received from the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). With his assistance a

small but quite knotty problem has been resolved in my constituency,

and I want to thank him for his assistance.

Getting to the budget, this budget is $1 billion larger than last

year's. Approximately $500 million to $1 billion is set up as a surplus

in this budget, and we now know who are the last of the big-time

spenders. Here they have a budget of $1 billion more than last year —

an increase of probably 34 or 35 percent over the previous spending.

There is no doubt that the public generally have been grossly

overtaxed. The province and its people would have been much better

served if the Minister of Finance had decided to bring in some

reductions in taxes. For instance, the personal exemption on income tax

could have been increased so that the working poor — those earning some-

[ Page 1627 ]

where in the neighbourhood of $3,000 per year — could be exempt from paying income tax.

There are other areas where, if the government had desired to put

some heart in this budget, it could have given relief to areas which

are in dire need. There is no relief in this budget. It has merely

increased the sums to each minister proportionally to last year's

budget. A few of the portfolios have increased by a very slight amount,

and a few have been reduced. Consumer services and Human Resources have

had a drop of a percent or so, and Health and Energy have had a slight

increase. So here we have a budget which is basically the same as the

budget of last year with the one exception that there has been a $1

billion increase.

The budget has recited income from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation —

that corporation that the New Democratic Party set up — of half a

billion dollars, which is about the total amount of the surplus

suggested by the Minister of Finance. So he owes his surplus to the

forethought and the energies of the New Democratic Party government—

and the wisdom. I am sorry to see that there is no mention of revenue

from Plateau Mills and Kootenay Forest Products, or shares from

Westcoast Transmission and Canadian Cellulose. Of course, the reason

for this is that the corporations have been transferred to BCRIC.

BCRIC was created as a ploy to allow the rich to take away from the

poor. It's a Robin Hood in reverse. Everyone in this province had equal

shares in those resources, and the affluent citizens of this province

were then able to buy the shares which were owned by the general

public. It is true enough that to give a little legitimacy to this

operation a few shares were sprinkled about to the common folk. They

were, of course, not given the power to vote or control, in any way, in

the corporation.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: Someone has asked how many shares I have. I have

no shares in BCRIC. It's a boondoggle operation; it is a system of

defeating the purposes for which it was set up — to give everybody in

this province an equal share in the resources of this province. That

has been taken away. And I, for one, won't have any part of it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your brother has some.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I can't answer for my brother, my sister or anyone else. I'm telling you what I have; I have none, and I won't have any.

I might say that the aggressive policies of the new BCRIC

organization have been anything but startling. There are no results

that I can see in terms of any active operations or thrusts by the new

corporation. The BCRIC experience has been one of the most expensive

boondoggles that this province has ever seen. The operation which was

carried out is absolutely nonsensical. As my colleague from Coquitlam

Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has said, BCRIC has turned into another trust

company.

What have we lost in revenues for the province? In 1976, the last

full year of operation of these Crown corporations, Plateau's earnings

were approximately $2 million, Kootenay Forest Products' $1.2 million,

Westcoast Transmission's shares earned $2.1 million and Canadian

Cellulose earned $26 million for a total of $31 million revenue in that

particular year. In 1977, which was only a partial year for the

operations of these companies under the provincial Crown corporation

setup, Plateau Mills earned $4 million and so on; I won't go through

them individually, but the total was $24.7 million in the partial year

of 1977. So we can see that the gross earnings of these companies

probably average between $25 million and $35 million, with the

possibility that in future years those earnings could well be

increased. Also they would be increased not just for one year but for a

number of years, so not only have we deceived ourselves, but we have

robbed all the people of this province, and those that are still not

born, who would have received benefits from these corporations during

their lifetime had these companies been preserved.

The shares given away amounted to about 12 million — those were the

shares that were sprinkled among the general public — and the number of

shares sold was approximately 84 million. So not only did the general

public have non-voting shares, but they also had a very small

percentage of the shares that were distributed. In the annual report of

the company, we find that after three months 23 percent of the shares

are now owned outside the province — almost one quarter of the shares

issued. Now that is a great performance.

I want to spend a few moments talking about fisheries. We all know

that before the creation of the province of British Columbia the

fishing industry was one of the major industries of this province. At

the present time, the industry is undoubtedly facing tough times. The

federal and provincial governments are taking actions which are, in my

opinion, detrimental to the fishing industry. On the one hand, the

provincial government has not taken the fishing industry that

seriously, due to the fact that their jurisdiction in the industry is

somewhat limited. As a result, the federal fisheries department,

although their intentions may be great, are dealing with a provincial

government that has not been showing that much concern for the

preservation and protection of the fishing stocks in the province. For

example, the Queen Charlotte Island operations, in which logging was

allowed to continue and flourish in areas which were sensitive, have

resulted in damage to spawning areas which will have an effect on the

fishing stock for a great number of years to come.

HON. MR. MAIR: Absolute rot!

MR. LORIMER: The member for Kamloops says that this is rot.

He is suggesting that the injury of the spawning areas of the fish has

no effect on the fishing stock. That might be the view of the member

for Kamloops, but it's certainly not my view nor, I'm sure, the view of

the public of this province.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: I am really trying to influence the rest of you,

who are not already committed, to the fact that this budget is a budget

that the province of British Columbia can well do without.

Wherever the fishing industry or the fishing problems come into

conflict with mining or forestry, we all know who will win out. It will

not be the fishing industry. The logs and the ore for the mines will

beat out the fish any time there is a dispute. The food industry of

fishing will take second place in the minds of the government of this

province.

I think probably the answer to the whole matter is for the Premier to discuss with the federal government the transfer of

[ Page 1628 ]

total jurisdiction of the fishing industry to the

province. That way, it seems to me, we in this area could probably far

better control the industry as a whole than can be done from Ottawa. In

that case, I presume we would also have a Ministry of Fisheries by

which the minister would be in a position to say no when there was

conflict with the Minister of Mines or the Minister of Forests. I think

the province as a whole and the fishing industry as a whole would

benefit immeasurably from such a transfer. In my opinion, the transfer

of such industries as the fish industry — a food industry — is far more

important than the transfer of ore and so on in the offshore areas of

this province. If, at this stage, we could get control of the fishing

industry, I think we are in a position to do a very effective job in

the creation of a viable fishing industry again, due to the fact

that....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's a reverse of your policy. You want to give all our resources to Ottawa.

MR. LORIMER: No, I think you've been reading too many of your

own press releases and not enough of ours, my friend. You have done

what many of you over there have done. You have taken words and

sentences, jumbled them together and come up with an idea of what our

policy is. If you want to ask about our policy, maybe you can get in

touch with me in question period and I will try and answer your

questions.

The provincial government does have jurisdiction over the fishing

industry on the shore installations and so on. I think they should be

very careful in making sure that the people in this province get the

benefit of the processing of our fish, and in making sure that as much

employment as possible is garnered for this province in order that the

people in this province get some advantages.

I want to deal briefly with the problem of housing and the fact that

we are now in a very critical stage in housing in this province. This

isn't a sudden happening. It's been around for some time, and the

government should have been able to foresee what has gone on in the

housing field. Housing has never been a top priority of the Social

Credit government; it never was in previous Social Credit governments.

As a matter of fact, in the years 1968-72 the annual estimate for

housing was $5 million. That stayed the same. The unfortunate

part is

that, generally, less than half of that money was ever spent during the

current years. The housing shortages were acute in those days, but

today they are much more acute than they were in those times. I don't

know what you are doing about it. As far as I can see, you are doing

absolutely nothing about the housing situation.

When the NDP was in power we came to grips with housing. What did we

do in the field of housing? We created a Ministry of Housing to start

with. The B.C. Housing Corporation was created, Dunhill Corporation was

acquired, rent controls were instituted and there were regular

increases in the homeowners' grant given every year. In those days the

government had a leader, and the government was prepared to make

decisions. This government has been leaderless since the election, and

no decisions have been made since that time. Today we have to face the

problem of those people who are unable to get housing, either rental or

for purchase. We have to determine what can be done. There is nothing

in this budget to indicate that the government has considered taking

any action whatsoever. The housing has basically been left to the

private sector, and it has been proven many times over in many

jurisdictions that although the private sector is essential for a

housing program, the private sector by itself cannot satisfy the needs

of a growing urban society. There has to be help from the provincial

field and from the public sector.

During our term as government we were involved in one-third to

one-half of the housing starts in the province. There were a number of

programs in place — I'm looking at the 1975 annual report of Dunhill,

which indicates that there were some 32,476 units ready to be

commenced, in the planning stage or almost completed. That would be

enough stock in housing for a year. But what did this government do?

They wiped out the Ministry of Housing. They sold the B.C. Housing

Corporation assets. They sold and dismantled the Dunhill Corporation.

Rent controls have become meaningless. Now they are pretending that

they're satisfied with their performance in housing. They know very

well that they are directly responsible for the housing situation that

faces the people of British Columbia today. They have done nothing

about it; they are not going to do anything about it. They don't know

what to do about it, and they've got no one to make a decision to do

anything in any event. The performance of this Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the government in the housing field

has been a complete disgrace.

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, if the NDP were in we would be able to

proceed with the housing operations. However, you can't produce a house

in two or three days. It takes time to get the activities in motion in

order to start construction of the buildings.

If the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing or the government had

not disbanded the programs and the activities that were in place when

they took over office in 1976, they wouldn't have this problem facing

them today. There would have been ample housing, rentals would have

been much lower, and the housing situation would not be a major problem

in this province. But no, they couldn't do that. They have failed

completely. They've even gone so far as to attach it to a ragbag

portfolio. They didn't know where to place it. They didn't know what to

do with parks so they threw it in and threw lands in and then threw a

minister in. As a result we have had no activities in that department

of housing — none in parks either, and the lands branch has been unable

to do anything under this ministry. It's an absolute disgrace. Even I

expected more from this government in the field of housing.

I think that for the rest of my remarks I will wait until the estimates, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you would want me

to say just a word or two on an important matter of this kind. I think

that at the outset we would all agree that this budget is no less than

fantastic. I think the thing that impresses me the most is that it is a

balanced and sound budget, and this is one of the things I am most

proud of, where this budget is concerned. A $5.5 billion budget.

Mr. Speaker, others in this House will remember the first $1 billion

budget which Mr. W.A.C. Bennett brought into this House, and what an

exciting day that was for British Columbia. Here we have a budget for

one year alone of $5.5

[ Page 1629 ]

billion. I say it's a sound budget. When you

examine it, it's positive for British Columbians. It's constructive. It

is stimulative at a time when we could use some stimulation. It is

socially conscious, if any budget ever was. It's exciting and

opportunity-filled, and it's balanced.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister of Finance for

putting together this budget and this budget speech in the brief period

of time that it was his responsibility. I have some knowledge of the

task which was before him and the job that he did. I think it's a

terrific budget speech, and I want to compliment him. I don't thank him

for all the duties he handed over to me; they're much heavier than I'd

anticipated. I want to remind him of that.

In any event, I'd like to refer to the remarks by the member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). Once again we have a member opposite

saying we're trying to fight the election of 1975 over and over again.

On the other hand, I hear many members opposite trying to bring up the

1956 incident of Mr. Sommers, Minister of Forests in this province.

Repeatedly in this House members go back to 1956. They talk about

dragging up ancient history; that's 24 years ago, Mr. Speaker. So let's

not have any of this nonsense about reflecting on past history in this

House. I think it bears fruit and is illuminative to reflect on history

in examining current events.

I believe the member for Rossland-Trail said: "What's all this

nonsense about real or imagined fiscal problems during the NDP years?"

Mr. Speaker, an overexpenditure of 27.5 percent on average in those

three years is not an imagined fiscal problem. There is no way we can

match that in terms of overexpenditure.

Mr. Speaker, in a brief few moments I would like to look at the broad picture

where this budget is concerned, and with a rather different approach. I rather

like figures, and I'd like to ask you if these figures remind you of anything.

These three figures are: 18 percent, 26 percent and 48 percent. Those three

percentages are the escalation in the budget of each of the three years of the

NDP term of office. Here are another four figures: 5.4 percent increase, 5.9

percent increase, 11.7 percent increase and 6.7 percent increase. What do those

mean, Mr. Speaker? Those four figures were the inflation or increment in the

budget in the last four years during the Social Credit government of 1975 to

Now what I want to draw your attention to, Mr. Speaker, is that we

have before us a large budget at a time when we need it, and a budget

which reflects on the careful administration and restraint that we have

shown. We do have a sizeable budget before us, and I think the

significant fact is what it contains. In that budget we've had an

increase of $226 million devoted to health-hospitals, medical insurance

and so on — a 17.1 percent increase for health alone. To compare that

to other years you have to appreciate what that means.

We have an increase to education alone of $133 million, 15.1

percent; an increase in the moneys which go to human resources of 17.4

percent, an increase of $112 million; and lastly, municipal affairs —

thanks to the revenue-sharing program and urban transportation funds —

shows an increase of $117 million over the last year, a 55 percent

increase in the money going to municipalities. That's just not an

insignificant figure. Therefore I say we should be proud of this

significant increase in our budget which is going where it needs to go:

to human resources and to local needs. It's not simply a case of the

government sinking it into programs which some people would question or

consider unnecessary.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you examine the budget of the province of

British Columbia, over 70 percent of it is represented in grants or

transfer moneys which go to municipalities, hospitals, school boards,

universities, etc.

They're actually moneys which are turned over for local use at local

discretion, with very little determination by the provincial Minister

of Finance. And I say to you, these could in a sense be termed

non-discretionary where the provincial budget is concerned. Over 70

percent of a budget of $5.5 billion is really going to local

expenditure, to municipalities, to local citizens, to lower their

taxes, to improve their services in local hospitals and so on. The

point is, when you examine the whole budget this leaves a somewhat

limited latitude in terms of incentive programs and other means which

could be used by your administration.

I'd like to just touch, too, on the impact of the budget on the city

of Vancouver, which is an area that I represent. First of all, revenue

to municipalities has significantly increased. To the city of Vancouver

what does this mean? It means an increase of $4.3 million — an increase

over last year of 20 percent — in the funds which will flow to that

municipality alone. Urban transit funding. We're all aware of the new

funding provided for local transit. A high percentage of the total

funding for urban transit goes, of course, to the most costly network

in the province, the lower mainland. Out of an appropriation of some

$64 million to $65 million, I'm given to understand that some $56

million of that will be devoted to the urban transit system in the

lower mainland. Let's mention the new Fraser River crossing at Annacis

Island and the $10 million appropriation to small business for

metropolitan areas — of great benefit to Vancouver. Let's mention the

funds set aside for the development of B.C. Place and Transpo '86, a

world-class exposition which is planned to be held in Vancouver in 1986

and, of course, the increase in the funds going to the development of a

major stadium in the Vancouver area. So, Mr. Speaker, those are a few

elements in terms of the impact of this budget on Vancouver.

I want to say a word or two about our pension funding in this

province. As Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services,

I have responsibility for the superannuation funds. Recently, with the

tabling of the annual reports of the Teachers' Pension Fund, the

superannuation fund of the public service employees and the municipal

superannuation funds, there was attention paid to the fact that the

unfunded liability, which is a term used by actuaries, was a sizeable

amount. The figure of $1 billion was totalled up as the unfunded

liability in these three pension plans in British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and the people of this

province that the funding of the pension plans I'm referring to is very

sound in British Columbia. We can be very proud of this in B.C., due to

the foresight of people who preceded us in administration; it reflects

particularly, I think, on the sound long-term planning of Social Credit

administrations. We find today that the financial position of the

British Columbia public sector pension plans is excellent. I'm not

trying to play down the problem of funding universally, in North

America particularly, where pension funds are concerned. Inflation is a

serious problem for pension funding, but in British Columbia the

government has always had a policy of substantially funding the pension

commitments it makes to these various pension statutes. As a result,

the government has built up a very large pension fund for public

servants, for teachers and for municipal employees. I would

[ Page 1630 ]

point out that the most recent financial reports of

these three large pension funds, for which I have responsibility,

disclosed that the public service superannuation fund had assets of

$687 million at March 31, 1979, the assets of the Teachers' Pension

Fund were $528 million at December 31, 1978, and the municipal

superannuation fund assets were $714 million at that same date. What

this means is that those three pension funds have funds in the bank of

close to $2 billion. To give you some example of this funding, over the

most recent reported year these three funds alone increased by a total

of $300 million — the increased funding that is being set aside to take

care of their eventual benefits.

So compared with the pension funding practices of other provinces,

British Columbia has achieved an enviable degree of funding. The

provinces of Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland, and also the federal

government, do not fund their pension plans at all. Other provinces,

such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, have funded

only the contributions actually deducted from employees, not the

contribution from the employer, so I would call them partially funded.

So, Mr. Speaker, the government of British Columbia has been one of the

very few governments in North America which has been concerned about

funding its public sector pensions over the past 40 years.

As a result, our plans are very well funded by public sector

standards today. I want to say, too, that we want to continue to keep a

vigilant eye on the financial status of pension plans because the

exposure escalates with inflation of salaries, compensation, and the

revision in benefits; so we are concerned with the exposure of benefits

to pension plans. But I want to assure British Columbians, and

particularly the people who are involved in these plans, that they have

really nothing to fear insofar as funding is concerned. As I say, I

think it's a good example of the soundness of Social Credit

administration in this regard.

Just a word, too, about lotteries — Loto Canada and the provincial

lotteries. I want to make brief reference to the fact that, last

August, the provinces made an agreement with Ottawa under which Ottawa

ceased to handle the $10 Loto ticket. This was then turned over to the

provinces, which have included it in their lottery ticket sales. In

exchange for this understanding, the agreement stated that the

provinces would pay to the federal government some $24 million. Each

would share a part of this $24 million, payable over the term of a

year, annually escalating according to the cost of living.

I am concerned at recent indications from the new government, in

particular from Mr. Regan, the minister responsible, who has indicated

that they are looking at the possibility of re-entering the field of

financing their costs associated with national events where athletic

endeavours are concerned, and there has been a clear indication that

they might re-enter the lotteries field. This would throw up in the air

the agreement signed last August. It would certainly make you question

what, in fact, the provinces would be obligated to continue paying

under the former agreement. In other words, what are we paying $24

million for if the federal government is going to re-enter this field?

I merely want to show some concern about this, and I've indicated this

to Mr. Regan. I would hope that in a meeting in the near future this

situation could be clarified. Other provinces, aside from British

Columbia, have also expressed concern, and I would hope that the

federal government does not see fit to discount or set aside that

agreement merely because they simply don't happen to agree with what it

says.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing these brief comments on the budget, I

want to thank the Minister of Finance for funds set aside for

libraries. The computerization of the provincial libraries has been a

matter of concern and request. There's $3 million in this budget set

aside for that program. I have an acknowledgement of the libraries

computerizing program from the Greater Vancouver Library Federation

signed by Derek Francis, chairman of their board of directors. They are

very interested in this project and I want to see this computerization

program moved forward.

Secondly, I am very encouraged to see an increase of $5 million to

the recreational facilities fund. This is very much needed. There are a

multitude of requests from local areas for funding of local community

projects which are difficult to satisfy without these increased funds.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Lastly, the $5 million for the Barkerville Historic Park Development

Fund is badly needed, as the Minister of Finance is aware, and other

members have referred to this.

Then in the tax field, Mr. Speaker, not much mention has been made

of the fact that probate fees have been eliminated in this budget. I

think you will find that a great many people involved in estate

probates and so on will very much appreciate this change. I thank the

minister for that tax change.

The amendment to the Insurance Premium Tax Act is a matter that will

make business in the insurance business not so much more economical,

but more easily understood. I have some understanding of what this

problem has been, so I think this is a very good move.

Lastly, in the tax field we've removed sales taxes on residential

natural gas, electricity and telephones. This is a significant change

in the budget of British Columbia and is going to have a big impact, I

think, when you realize how many people it affects in terms of their

needs in the energy field. I know that there has been a lot of concern

over the years about the sales tax applied to telephone rentals. So I

say this is a good move, and once again want to indicate to the

Minister of Finance that this will be appreciated.

To sum up, this is a large budget. I think it reflects not only the

careful management that has been applied in recent years by this

administration, but we should recognize that the fiscal health

indicated in this budget is in large part due to the bulge in resource

revenues enjoyed by British Columbians from forestry and petroleum

revenues. I say it is necessary to keep that in mind and, therefore, I

am fully in support of the fact that we haven't spent all of these

revenues. We've allocated surpluses because they have been beyond our

expectation, but at the same time we're conserving in our surplus

account.... If you'll examine the budget, some $253 million has not yet

been committed in the anticipated surplus at the end of March 1981. I

am in accord with that, Mr. Speaker. I support that, with a word of

caution. In other words, resource revenues and their strength don't

last forever. I think we're in quite a brisk, strong economy, but you

have to prepare for days when maybe it isn't as brisk, so I'm in accord

with holding some of this reserve aside for other times. We need to

harbour some of this present prosperity for the future and I think that

is, in effect, what we're doing by only allocating part of those

surplus funds.

So, Mr. Speaker, this budget represents a strong statement of

confidence in British Columbia. It is a budget that builds for the

people in the 1980s and prepares for the opportunities and challenges

ahead. To put it in another perspective, in this budget we will be

spending $906 on

[ Page 1631 ]

health and social services for each British

Columbian, $1,963 for each patient in acute-care hospitals in British

Columbia, $1,394 on education costs for each public school student in

the province, $4,344 on education for each university, college and

vocational school student, and $405 per household on direct aid to

municipalities throughout British Columbia in addition to the homeowner

grant, plus $189 per person for provincial highways, roads and bridges.

This is a budget for the eighties which serves the people of British

Columbia in a responsible, sensitive and forward-looking way.

MRS. WALLACE: First, if I may have the indulgence of the

House — I hope they're still there — I would like to welcome to the

gallery a group of grade seven students from Mill Bay Elementary School

who are visiting the precincts today and arrived just in time to hear

me speak on the budget. I would like the the House to make them,

together with their teacher Mr. Pollock, welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few comments on the remarks of

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) before I begin the remarks I

had intended to make here. I was interested in his statement that this

budget represents a strong statement of confidence in British Columbia.

It seemed to be in a rather strange context that he used that

statement, because he used it just as he finished talking about how

things were going to be so bad that he had to save up for the future.

That didn't make very much sense, but I suspect he is probably right in

that latter assumption, because even the Minister of Finance, in his

comments in the budget, indicates he is expecting that unemployment

will be worse in this year. He says in his written comments that

unemployment will increase in British Columbia. That's what he expects

to happen. Yet at the same time he's squirreling away money rather than

making that money available to put people to work, even when he says

outright and forthright that there's going to be more unemployment.

I want to deal today, very specifically, with the budget and the

figures in the budget. I think it was the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) who spoke in the House earlier— and I'm not making this

statement, but I concur that perhaps he was right in this one

particular statement — and said: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Maybe he was talking about this budget when he said that. I'm very

interested in page 34 of this budget— the statement of expenditure by

ministry. Last year the former Minister of Finance presented us with a

budget with comparative budget figures for the preceding year, and

those figures were the figures that we had discussed and debated by the

hour in the Legislature, and agreed on through the democratic process.

But the figures in this budget are different, and the Minister of

Finance put a little star up there and said: "It's a revised estimate."

I wondered about that, but then I looked down at the bottom, and he

says it's adjusted, for comparison purposes, to the 1980-81 ministry

structure. Okay, that's fair enough, I'll buy that. But you would

expect, Mr. Speaker, if that's what he was doing — just changing things

around because ministers have different responsibilities — that the

total would be the same. But the total isn't the same; the total is far

different. I don't think that's a total, truthful picture of what the

minister has done.

In effect what he has done is to come in and say: "The last Minister

of Finance didn't know what he was doing. I'm going to change the

budget." That's what he has done — he has changed the budget. He has

increased it from $4,567 million to $4,810 million. He hasn't just

moved figures around to accommodate a change in ministerial

responsibility. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt where he

added another ministry — there's $2 million in there for

Intergovernmental Relations — that would only bring it up another $2

million, not up to the $4,810 million. No, Mr. Speaker, that isn't what

this minister has done at all. He has changed the budget. I suggest

that represents a disrespect for this Legislature and for the debate

and discussion that goes not only into the budget but into the very

detailed estimates that are presented to this House.

How has he changed this budget? Well, some of the ministries have

more money and some have less. It doesn't seem to really matter what

the Legislature voted. If you spend less — that's fine, there's a

surplus. If you spend more — that's okay too, we'll just have a special

warrant. That's rule by order-in-council, and it overrides the whole

democratic process.

The Minister of — it used to be Economic Development; I guess he

ruined the economy and now he is going to ruin industry in B.C. — the

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

has an expression he uses quite frequently in this House, and it's

"flimflam" — everything is "flimflam." Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to you

this budget is flimflam.

They say: "If you don't spend what the Legislature voted and

indicated you should spend, that's okay, that's a surplus, we'll

squirrel it under the mattress, we'll use it for something else, we'll

come up with some other idea. And if you over spend, we'll just pass a

special warrant." Mr. Speaker, the special warrants that have been

passed by this cabinet over the last year are nothing short of

disgraceful — one after the other after the other, completely

disregarding the will of the Legislature and doing what the government

full well pleases with no respect for the decisions of the Legislature.

There are a couple of exceptions. One was a fire for which they had

to bring in a special warrant, because nobody knew that fire was going

to take place — perfectly all right. And, of course, under the new

legislation which they brought in, they can put in a new ministry

without any consultation with the Legislature. So probably the $2.5

million that went in a special warrant to establish that new ministry

is perfectly all right.

But I have some grave concerns about many of these special warrants.

There are so many of them. I don't have them all here, but I've got a

list of all of them, and they go on and on. These are for the Minister

of Finance. One for incidentals is $175,000. Another one for computer

and consulting services is an overexpenditure of $738,000-plus. You

know, we were going to have such a wonderful service with this new

Systems Corporation. It was going to provide us such an economical and

all-encompassing computer service. It has done nothing but cost the

taxpayers money. That special warrant is just one more thing that

indicates how much it's costing, and how it's being done with complete

disregard for the Legislature.

Assessment appeal boards — that's a great one — an additional

$299,000 over and above budget, required because of the mess this

government has created through trying to change the classifications,

particularly the farm classification. It's nothing but a horrendous

mess out there, and that's the kind of extra expense this government is

having to cover by special warrants. Another one from the Minister of

Finance is $202,000 for government agencies.

[ Page 1632 ]

Here is a dandy: $24 million as of February 7 this year. Do you know

what it's for? It's for overexpenditure on salary contingencies. That

one is worth looking into a bit. In 1977 and 1978 the government

budgeted a little over $21 million for that particular item, but do you

know how much they spent? They spent $8.78 million; they'd budgeted $21

million and spent $8 million. That's good budgeting, Mr. Speaker, isn't

it? So this year they reduced the vote to $17 million, about $3 million

under what they had last year, and what happened? They not only spent

the $17 million, but they needed $24 million more just to cover salary

contingencies. That is completely inefficient budgeting and nothing

more.

While I'm on the Finance minister's special warrants and his

particular responsibilities, I want to talk just a little bit more

about these assessments. You know, without so much as a "by your leave"

to anyone, the government decided to change the assessment rate for

machinery — this is machinery within large industrial or commercial

properties — and I have a statement here which indicates just what that

change, coupled with the 50 percent assessment for farmland, has done

in the North Cowichan district municipality; what it has done to change

the amount of dollars that municipality can collect. These things were

done just offhand, off the cuff, by the government. It has reduced the

farmland dollars collectible for school tax by 30.78 percent; there has

been a reduction in the school assessments from some $416,000 to

$288,000. Machinery and equipment — because of the change that this

government made, the assessment reduction was brought down from $62,900

to $56,300. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when a

municipality is faced with those kinds of changes in its assessment

base, it's hard put to hold the mill rate; it simply can't do it. The

mill rate has to go up because their expenses remain constant.

I think the thing that added insult to injury was.... I don't know

if it was the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), but he sent a letter to those municipalities —

and I'm not sure which minister it was — and asked them to include on

the assessment notices how because much the mill rate would have been

if the resource grants had not been made by the province. Well, I'll

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that raised a lot of ire among some of the

councillors. They said: "Okay, if we have to do that, we're also going

to include how much the mill rate would have been reduced if our

assessment had remained the same and if the school tax basic mill rate

had remained the same." Those are things that the government does on

one hand — it takes with one hand and gives with the other — and then

says: "Tell me what a good boy am I. "

Moving on with the special warrants, Mr. Speaker — municipal

affairs. Here they are; I've got four of them here. They go on and on —

Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources; oh, lots of those. These special

warrants are not included in the budget, Mr. Speaker, not voted on by

this Legislature; it's money that government just decides to spend

because they didn't do a good job budgeting or because some whim moves

them to do something else.

Lands, Parks and Housing — $348,000 for parks and outdoor recreation

— and I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, Mr. Speaker. What I'm

saying is that that minister should have decided what he was going to

do, taken his estimates to cabinet, put them through the Legislature

and done it as any good business operation would have carried out its

business. You know, that minister can go and get a special warrant for

extra money for parks and outdoor recreation. He can stand up in this

House and tell us about all the money he's going to spend and how he's

got $6.5 million extra for special projects; and he can send out news

releases outlining all the parks he's establishing and the land he's

giving. But whenever I write that minister to indicate any park needs

in my constituency, I always get the same answer: "No, no, no. No

money." I've asked for a campsite, Mr. Speaker. We have no campsite in

the Cowichan Valley, really. Can I have a campsite? No, there is no

money. I've asked for a very special little park site at Mill Bay, a

sort of mini Cathedral Grove, as we used to call it, over on the

Alberni highway — big trees, something there are not too many of any

more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it?

MRS. WALLACE: It's right on the highway, right at Mill Bay,

an ideal spot, not too costly, where we could have a nice little

roadside park. There's access to nice beaches for swimming, and it

would be a beautiful nature conservancy with those large historical

trees being preserved. Is it happening? The minister says no, no, no.

He has only one answer.

If you want to get into Gordon Bay Park at Lake Cowichan, you don't

have to leave on Friday, you have to leave at noon on Thursday in order

to get a space. That's how full it is during the summer. There's a

piece of property adjacent to that park, with a golf course on it,

which is coming up for sale; there is an option to buy at a very low

price that piece of property that the people who have the golf course

have. Is the minister interested in expanding Gordon Bay Park and

helping those local residents preserve their golf course which is

adjacent to the park- a beautiful setup? No, no, no. The same answer.

The road through that park, the access to that park, has become a

disaster. It's a real hazard. One after the other, large recreational

vehicles go through there where children are walking and playing.

There's an alternate route; it would be very easy to provide. Will it

happen? No, no, no. It won't happen; the minister says no. What he's

doing is widening the road. I don't know what he's proposing to do by

widening the road, except to make more room for more vehicles and more

kids so we can have more accidents.

Forestry, range management, special warrants — here we are, another

one, for $213,000. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) had a

lot of them. It's not good budgeting when this happens, and it's

disrespect for the whole process of the Legislature.

Education. Education is a very interesting one. This House adjourned on July 31 —

we'd passed all the estimates, we'd done all the business and we

adjourned. On August 16, two weeks after we adjourned, here's the

Minister of Education with two special warrants. Now, surely he could

have decided what he was going to do before that time. But, no, the

House adjourns and then we go ahead and decide what's happening in

education.

It's interesting when you realize what has happened in education as

far as this budget goes, Mr. Speaker, and it repeats what's been said

in this House before. It tells us where the power base is. The grants

to school districts — the public school system — as estimated for

1980-81 show an increase of 6.6 percent over 1979-80. Colleges and

provincial institutes, on the other hand, have an increase of 17.7

[ Page 1633 ]

percent. Independent schools have an increase of

19.6 percent, and universities 11.4 percent. It shows the priority that

is put on the public school system in this province, and it's a very,

very low priority.

I wrote the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) the other day, relative to research grants. I was

concerned about the lack of money available for research grants for

agriculture. He wrote me back, and he agreed in a way, but he gave me

some interesting figures too. He said the Science Council of B.C. does

the best it can within the limits of the funds made available to it. So

it sounds like he would like some more funds for research. In its most

recent distribution of funds, the council was able to award grants to

32 out of 175 applicants. That indicates to me, Mr. Speaker, that there

should be a sizeable increase for research and development. But the

worst of all, as far as I was concerned, of this particular letter is

that he says: "In this stiff competition none of the three applications

for agricultural research were in fact funded." Is there any money for

agricultural research? The answer again is no, no, no.

Special warrants for the Ministry of Health. They are probably the

largest amount of money that has come in in special warrants, and

obviously they're needed. Health care is still in dire straits in this

province, to put it mildly. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Health could well have guessed that, could well have

learned that, and known that was going to happen, and come into this

House last year with estimates that would more nearly reflect the needs

for health care in this province, instead of doing it under the table

through orders-in-council.

He can go and ask council for $16 million or $800,000 — all kinds of

amounts. Yet when I write him, Mr. Speaker, and point out to him that

in the city of Nanaimo where the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit

is located, which serves the area that I and other members on this

island represent, and ask that the facility that has been built there

to provide audiological services to the people of that area be provided

money to staff that facility.... He spent the money to build it, and

there is no staff. I write and ask him if he will staff that facility

so the people on the Island will have that service. What is my answer

on March 14, 1980? In spite of all these special warrants for millions

and millions of dollars, he writes me and says: "I thank you for the

letter. We will encourage such a development as soon as financial

circumstances allow."

What is that minister trying to prove, Mr. Speaker? He can go to

council for millions of dollars, but he can't get funds to put one

audiological technician in an already provided facility in the Nanaimo

area. As a result there is no service for people on Vancouver Island.

You can come to Victoria if you are under 18, but otherwise there's

nothing. That's the kind of action this minister and this government

are taking. There are special warrants by the score, but not enough

money for one technician in Nanaimo to help the people with hearing

difficulties.

Provincial Secretary. Yes, there are warrants for the Provincial

Secretary. Small business developments. There are special warrants for

them. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has

had a lot of special warrants, but the two that I want to talk about

are two that were passed February 7 and February 21. A special warrant

of $2.9 million reads: "Whereas the Minister of Transportation and

Highways reports that the necessity for the expenditure is urgent."

It's urgently and immediately required for the public good, and do you

know what it is, Mr. Speaker? It's $2.9 million to buy an airplane!

This was just a couple of weeks before the House was to come into

session. I guess on February 21 he realized that if he had a new

airplane to play with, he needed someone to staff it and some fuel to

run it. So we have another special warrant for $500,000 for the air

services branch. Special warrants. Government by cabinet. Big

government at its worst — "urgently needed for the public good," indeed!

The special warrants that have been issued in this province over the

last year filled three pages of close typing, and they total

$267,714,787. In 1976 and 1977 they amounted to $84 million; in 1977-78

they amounted to $215 million; and in 1978-79 they amounted to $226

million. This is government by cabinet, and it gets worse every year.

This particular Minister of Finance has seen fit to bring in a budget

that doesn't even relate, as far as comparable purposes, to the budget

that was actually passed in this Legislature last year. What assurance

does this House have that anything we discuss or anything we vote on

will be carried out? It will be done by that cabinet according to the

whim of the moment. It will be done according to some fantasy of some

minister who wants an airplane, wants to build a road somewhere, or

wants to do some particular thing without any consultation or long-term

planning. It's budgeting without due thought and care. If you ran a

company like that, it would be a disaster. It couldn't be done. But

this government, who pride themselves on being such great managers and

such great businessmen, are the ones who have proven to be a complete

disaster.

I'll say just a couple of things in closing. I recall when that

government was first elected. They were trying to accumulate a deficit

to lay on the shoulders of the former administration. One of the minor

things they did— they did a lot of things worse than this — was to dig

out all the payments that would be coming due to the cattlemen under

the Farm Income Assurance Plan. They weren't expected until April or

May of the following year, but they charged them out in the previous

year, so that would be an added expenditure — something to add to the

so-called deficit. Well, that's what they did then. What are they doing

this year?

They found out that thanks to the former Minister of Agriculture —

not this one but the one that held that office for just a few months,

the member no longer in this House who made a commitment to the farmers

of this province that they would have a guarantee to 9 percent interest

rebate, and this minister is stuck with that— thanks to that minister

who's no longer here, the farmers are getting that payment, but it's

costing, and it's costing more than they budgeted. But did they go and

get a special warrant for that? No. What are they doing?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but when you paid the cattlemen you made

sure that got in the previous year, even though it wasn't done back in

1975-76. This year you're not paying it out; you're paying it out of

this '80-81 budget, and that's mighty strange. It's what you said, Mr.

Minister, when you spoke earlier: "Figures don't lie, but liars can

figure."

Mr. Speaker, I was concerned about the figures in this budget, I was

also concerned about a couple of things in the content of the dialogue

that we heard from the minister of the dulcet tones over there.

Mr. Speaker, the two things that concern me are, first of

[ Page 1634 ]

all, the obvious error in the budget when he was talking about the

homeowner's grant. He talks about new measures that will increase by a

further $50 the grants to the elderly, the handicapped now receiving

GAIN, and war veterans. There were a lot of war veterans in the

province who thought they were going to get that $50. But were they

right? No. The minister made a mistake. That is not what the minister

really meant.

The other thing that concerns me in the dialogue is the fact that

this minister would write into a document that goes all around the

world his own political bias relative to the federal government duly

elected by the voters of this province and this country, and say that

he was going to have a difficult time working with the new government.

It shows very poor judgment, Mr. Minister, to include that kind of

remark in an official document that will go all over this province.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't want it both ways.

But I would suggest to you that any Minister of Finance who would turn

out a document that tells the war veterans of this province they're

going to get $50 of their homeowner's grant when it isn't necessarily

so, and who tells the world that they're going to have a difficult time

working with a duly, democratically elected federal government....

There is something drastically wrong with that document. As I said

earlier, it's a flimflam budget, because it doesn't mean very much. It

doesn't mean a thing, because we're not going to follow it anyway. That

government will continue to govern with surpluses and special warrants.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is quite a tradition

that the members of the opposition participate in this debate. I felt

it was a personal affront for the people of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew when

the political game was played by the Minister of Finance to try to

institute closure in this House. I'm telling you, we accept certain

traditions, Mr. Speaker. We recognize you as the Speaker to direct and

to give us guidance. When we have a policy that has been set down by

tradition, by you and your predecessors, that there shall be a certain

selection — the opposition, the other parties and the government — we

accept that. And when you have the little petty political games of the

Provincial Secretary standing and sitting down — a good friend of mine,

a personal friend for a long time — I find this sort of manoeuvre

offensive.

I don't think it's any political secret that we, on this side of the

House, participated in the last federal election. One of the things you

are doing when you're out knocking on doors and main-streeting is that

you are finding out what the general public is saying. They are talking

to us.

MR. BARBER: We all voted, too.

MR. MITCHELL: And we all voted too, as my good friend from

Victoria says. But when we get out there.... I have knocked on

doors where I meet a lot of good traditional NDPers, and granted, they

are going to support us both provincially and federally, because we are

the only political party in British Columbia that fields a full slate

of both federal and provincial candidates. We are a party that has

principles and traditions, and we are part of the political force of

this country. We will be here long after the Social Credit Party has

gone down the tube, like it's gone down in Quebec, like it's going down

in Alberta. It is a thing like the coalition and the dodo; it is going

out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even vote.

MR. MITCHELL: I vote. I vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't vote on the independent schools, did you?

MR. MITCHELL: I wasn't here on the independent schools. I was not here, and if you point at me, you point at me as an individual.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you convince this blabbermouth to keep quiet?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member speaking to address the Chair, and I would ask the members interrupting to cease interrupting.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I appreciate your

traditions. I appreciate the control you exercise in this House, and I

bow to your wishes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: The member opposite called me a name that,

while true, was offensive. The member opposite called me a

blabbermouth, and I'd like to know whether or not that's on your list

of proscribed words, and if it is, I would ask for a retraction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is on the proscribed list, hon. member. The minister asks for a withdrawal. Would the member withdraw the term?

MR. MITCHELL: Is the word "blabbermouth" on the offensive

list? Well, as someone said, it's true, but I withdraw it. I bow to

your overwhelming majority; I know that you have to enforce it.

But one of the things I would like to bring out.... I couldn't

help when the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) wanted to bring

some figures to this House, and I would like to bring some figures to

this House.... I would ask the government not to continue to read

their old press releases and rehash Jack Kelly's research and speeches

that they bring out, but study what is happening in the province of

British Columbia, what is happening to the political spectrum and the

political votes.

In 1972 the NDP came to power with 38 percent. My riding was a good

indication of what was happening in that respect. My riding indicates

what is happening to the political votes in the province of British

Columbia. We sent a member here with 33.9 percent of the vote. In 1975

— again, study the facts; don't study the political garbage that comes

out — the NDP were defeated with 39 percent of the vote.

[ Page 1635 ]

My riding, again, was a good indicator of the type of vote, of the

increase. Our vote at that time rose to 43 percent. Again, I ask the

members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to say to the members of the

government that that vote in B.C. has risen to 47 percent; my riding

has gone to 52 percent, and this is what is happening in the province

of British Columbia. The Social Credit Party is going down the tube and

the NDP is coming up.

I'll tell you what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: You want to check your...you can tell the Speaker

when you get the floor. I'm telling you what's happening in the province of

British Columbia, and I heard it from knocking on doors in the last federal

election. There are people who are voting NDP federally, and there are people

who are voting Conservative and Liberal federally. But I had person after person,

voter after voter, constituent after constituent, tell me that though they have

their federal traditions, they can hardly wait for the next provincial election

to get those — I won't say it, Mr. Speaker, I know it's offensive —

people out. And that's what's going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: And now to the budget.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: It's really important that we get back to the

budget. We should study a few of the issues that have come up. I think

one of the major issues, again referring to the previous speaker who

said that we should review some of the history of the province of

British Columbia.... I would like to deal with forestry, though I

will be speaking on it longer in the estimates. If you go back into the

history of my political party, in 1939 there was a man who represented

the Comox riding by the name of Colin Cameron. He made a speech in this

House where he advocated complete forest management, complete sustained

yield, and 100 percent maximum reforestation of the denuded lands.

In 1956 Mr. Sloan brought in a report. At that time the Social

Credit were in power. He brought in a report where he advocated — so

that we could catch up with the lands that had been denuded, raped and

creamed by the forest companies — that if B.C. wanted to maintain its

position in the world market of forests, they should start on a policy

of reforestation to the lands. They should start it. He recommended at

that time that we should at least plant 48,000 acres of land per year.

The Social Credit government was in power with a great, overwhelming

majority. They could have enforced that policy. What happened? They

drifted and they drifted. They completely destroyed the forest

industry. They have given land away in forest management licences so

that now the vast majority of B.C. is controlled by seven or eight

multinational forest companies who dictate what we are doing today. Now

our Minister of Forests comes back and says in all his wisdom that we

are going to put $380 million into reforestation this year. In the next

five years we are going to put in $1.4 billion to plant and replant the

forest lands of this province. Do you know what that does, Mr. Speaker?

Five years from now — 25 years after the Sloan commission report came

down — it is only going to plant 38,000 acres per year. This is after

25 years of Social Credit mismanagement.

B.C. led Canada in forest industry and wealth, and now we are

allowed to see our country denuded. The money is going out of this

country, and nothing is being done. Nothing has been done for 25 years.

What has happened? The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) rose to

ask what provisions had been made to protect the log supply for a mill

in his riding and what provisions had been made to protect jobs. The

minister said: "I am not interested. When someone buys timber they can

do what they want with it." Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister,

this is the reason that I have three mills in my riding today that go

from month to month and week to week, because they are not assured of a

permanent supply of logs.

I'm telling you the constituents in Esquimalt–Port Renfrew are fed

up with the mismanagement and the lack of action of this government. If

we had the policies that were promoted in 1939 and if this Social

Credit government with their 25 years of overwhelming majority had

given leadership and direction and shown initiative we would have had

trees today and we would have had employment throughout the forest

industry. But, no, we burnble along, day after day, week after week,

and we never face it until we hit a disaster.

I'm sorry the Minister of Human Resources is not here. I know she

will be listening to what I have to say, and I know when we get into

her estimates there will be a more detailed study. I would like to

bring to the attention of this House one small situation that developed

in the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding. Within the riding it is called

the Langwood Centre for the Mentally Handicapped. This is a centre that

takes 20 children or adults who have come from homes where the parents

have been looking after these children — and some of these children are

from 20 to 50 years of age, but through no fault of their own are

mentally handicapped.

What is the alternative? They could either stay home and the parents

could look after them, or they could go into an institution like

Glendale at a price of around $200 a day.

So the Capital Region Association for the Mentally Handicapped have

opened, in the Esquimalt riding, a centre where adult males can go and

work, do projects, learn life skills and have the chance to work with

peers and fellow residents. What is the alternative, Mr. Speaker? Some

of these children had been taken out of Glendale and put into group

homes. Some were still in their own homes, and parents cannot survive

with a mentally handicapped person in their house 24 hours a day, seven

days a week. They have to be taken out to an activity centre. Then in

October the Capital Region Association for the Mentally Handicapped

came to the minister and requested a meeting for more funds. We had

October, November, December and January, and there was absolutely no

answer and no positive commitment — nothing — until the association was

forced to announce that it had to shut down this centre. This was

completely uncalled for. The worry that went through the parents'

homes, and the worry that went through the group-home parents who were

looking after children, and who had taken children out of a $200-a-day

hospital.... They were saving the taxpayers money, saving the

government money, and they were showing a type of humanitarianism that

is not shown by a lot of people in this House. They were looking after

people who needed help. They were relating to people who needed it and

appreciated it.

Then we get the budget, and I am happy to see that they have raised

the funds for the handicapped, but they still have not faced the

variety of handicapped people in this province.

[ Page 1636 ]

There are people who are handicapped because of industrial accident;

there are people who are physically handicapped, although mentally

competent, because of birth defects; and there are handicapped people

who are handicapped because of mental illness. You cannot bundle all

the handicapped under one budget, and you cannot put them all into one

basket, because they are as different today as apples and boards of

lumber. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, to the Human

Resources and to the Health ministries: let us recognize the different

types of handicapped people and how they fit into our society. Let us

recognize that some need a helping hand, and some need complete,

seven-day-a-week care.

When we have families of natural parents and group parents from

group homes who are attempting to give the treatment that is needed,

instead of the state being forced to spend $200 a day to keep them in

an institution, we should not be so niggardly, and so inhuman that we

stall it off from October to November to December to January to

February, and at the last minute come out with an increase from 73

cents to $1 per hour. I ask the minister to go over his budget, and I

ask the minister to give more money to those who need it, those who are

in the mentally handicapped field.

Mr. Speaker, a large part of the budget is in highways, and again,

we will be going into it in detail. But I feel that there are certain

policies that affect my riding, and affect the riding of every member

who has a rural

section within his riding. There are two matters, and

the first one is drainage.

I know the Highways ministry has told me time after time — when I

have approached the engineer, the minister or the foreman on the road —

that the Highways ministry does not recognize drainage as one of its

responsibilities. One of the great causes of drainage problems within

the province of British Columbia, and within my riding, is the inept

policies of this government and the Highways ministry — day after day.

The cause of the drainage problems in two major drainage areas in my

riding — the Bilston Creek and Craigflower Creek drainage system — is

the Highways ministry's approval of subdivisions up in the hills.

They have allowed the subdivisions to be denuded of trees and

covered with blacktop, and they have allowed the subdivisions to run

the water down the hills into the valleys, down into Bilston Creek, and

have allowed it to flood that area year after year. It is the Minister

of Highways and his ministry who have okayed every last one of these

subdivisions. They have made no preparations for any off-site damage;

they have made no preparation for those who have collected large sums

on the subdivisions to pay something, to look after the drainage where

they are flooding those who settled in the valley, the pioneers of this

area down along the riverbanks who year after year have been flooded

out. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if you have any input into the Minister

of Highways, that he look over his budget, look over his policies and

bring in some type of understanding and some plan that looks to the

future for the drainage problems of the province of British Columbia.

We have another creek, Craigflower Creek. A good friend of the

political party which is now governing this province wanted to put in a

subdivision. It was in a field beside Craigflower Creek. The first

application for that plan was rejected by the Ministry of Highways. For

some unknown reason, a certain political MLA at that time, I believe,

got involved. The original engineer had said the area was not to be

subdivided; it was to be held for a park, because traditionally that

area flooded. All of a sudden seven lots appeared on that land, seven

lots that flood every second year because of the development above that

land and the increase in water. This year was no exception; seven of

them had four feet of water in the basement. I say this is the bungling

and mismanagement of 25 years of Social Credit rule in my riding.

I say that from a constituency point of view, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to see a policy come out through the minister where we can make

some positive plans to correct this measure. Maybe these seven houses

are there, and I feel that to build a dike around them would not solve

the problem. But I sincerely feel that this government, where it's been

proven because of their mismanagement, should make a sincere attempt to

correct the situation by either moving the houses or raising them, but

should not allow this cancer to develop and continue as it has for the

last 10 to 15 years.

What is happening? I guess people are human. They get flooded out in

the winter, look around in the summer, clean up the house, move all the

bark and the chips off the lawn and sell the house, and a new owner is

stuck with it. The new owner ends up the next winter or the winter

after with a basement full of water, again because of the mismanagement

of this government and the predecessors of the Social Credit government.

I would like to bring a second issue to this House — through you,

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways. Because of the changing

lifestyles that we are having, because more and more people are leaving

the family car at home, more people are riding bicycles, more rural

areas are developing, and more kids are walking to school. Every day

the highways that were originally designed for traffic are now taking

the pedestrians.

I would like to see this government develop a policy of paving at

least one side, one shoulder, of every highway so we can get the school

kids off the road, can get the bicycles off the road, and we can

protect people. I say that this is something that we need, not only in

my riding.... Granted, my riding has the largest concentration of

residents who are not organized within a municipality, but I do know

that they are paying taxes, Mr. Speaker. They are donating to the

revenue of this province and they demand, they want, they request, they

plead for some of that money to come back into the highways to protect

their children, to protect their cyclists. When a car breaks down they

want an area where that car can get off the road and the repairs can be

done in safety.

I ask this government to come up with a policy that is a change from

their blacktop, 60 miles-per-hour philosophy, and that we start looking

to the fact that roads are for people.

When we go through the various speeches, we from the southern end of

Vancouver Island have one policy, one program, that has come up

consistently. It is a program that has grown for everyone in the

capital region to watch. It is something that each one of us — even the

minister from Saanich, the new minister from Oak Bay, the two members

from Victoria, and myself from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.... We have

watched a ship that has been part of our tradition, has been part of

our way of life. We know and you know that it was brought in by the

previous administration, but this ship became very popular. For some

unknown reason the government, with the planned involvement of five

ministers of this government who have been a part of the board of B.C.

Steamships — there was the present member

[ Page 1637 ]

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), there was the Minister of

Human Resources, there was that great and wonderful best Minister of

Economic Development, so he keeps telling us, and for a short period we

had the....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The voice came from our Minister of Finance. He

seemed to be involved in there, and now we have the present Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). What happened? For three

years they knew that we had to do something with the Princess

Marguerite — for three years! For three years they had the warnings,

they had the announcements by the Canadian steamships inspectors, they

had it from the U.S. Coast Guard, they had it from Lloyd's of London,

that changes must be made. For three years they burnbled and stumbled

from day to day, and little stories were leaked out, little reports

were leaked out, which I thought were about the funniest I ever heard.

Here we had a ship sailing with the certificate from the U.S. Coast

Guard — 100 percent; from Lloyd's of London, who are not new in the

industry — they said it was 100 percent safe; the Canadian steamships;

local people, professionals we all knew, who had roots in this

community, who had friends in this community, who had connections in

this community, said it was 100 percent.

But this little group directed by cabinet ministers of the Social

Credit government leaked a little report out that said the ship was a

disaster. They weren't even sure in this report if the lifeboats were

made of steel or not — this was how detailed it was. They think they

were steel. I don't know where they stood — they stood out on the

breakwater as it went by.

They obviously didn't make any attempt to study the ship. They never

talked to the professionals who run the ship, they never talked to the

people who inspected the ship, but they had a talk when they were out

fishing off the end of the breakwater. They said: "Oh, I wonder if

they're steel. Those lifeboats obviously must be deteriorated by now."

So what happens? We get right down to the last minute, the eleventh

hour, and we have petitions; 40,000-odd people — the little people, the

business people — sign a petition. What does this government do? It's a

disaster. The Minister of Transportation and Highways can't look after

it. They fire the only man who had any tradition in the steamboat

industry, Mr. Elworthy, who came from a long family of towboats and was

involved with shipping.

To straighten it out they had to send in the Premier; they had to

send in the coach. He got on the phone, he looked up the phone book and

got the chamber of commerce. He said: "Oh, I'll appoint the head of the

chamber of commerce. We're going to set up a non-profit society." What

are they going to do? They're going to run jetfoils.

Now I know Cedric Steele. He's a wonderful little guy. He has just

been elected to the chamber of commerce. He might be able to sell

houses; he might know the subdivisions; he might do all these wonderful

things. But all of a sudden, because he was a minister, because he was

the president of the chamber of commerce, he was appointed the czar to

look after the transportation from Victoria to Seattle. It was a

bungling idea. They have no plan; they have no understanding; they

can't even pack cars. Maybe the people of Victoria will accept that,

but if any of these visitors....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), if he wishes to speak, must be in his own place.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate any little

help I can get around here. We need help because we're sure not getting

any help from this government. This government is destroying Victoria.

It's destroying it, and I say it has destroyed the member for Saanich

and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis). There will be another NDPer from

this end. Some have an albatross around their neck, but the Minister of

Finance has the Marguerite and he'll have one heck of a time packing it

around. It was nice knowing you.

Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, the only thing that I really regret is that Sam Bawlf is not here.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Your side feels the same way, eh? [Laughter.]

MR. MITCHELL: There is one reason that I had — only one

reason. At least he had the vision of rehabilitating and updating

buildings, and he had the vision to update and bring ships. Everyone

has a little bit of good — the Minister of Finance, even the Premier. A

few of you over there have a little bit of good. Anyway, we will be

getting into that in a little more detail. I believe I have some new

information that I'm going to bring out when the minister's estimates

come up. I feel this government should come in with a plan, come in

with a budget, and know how much British Columbia money is going to

subsidize another American import. They're going to hire American crews

to bring people to British Columbia when our employees have been laid

off. With all the unemployment — we have 10 percent unemployment in

Victoria-they bring the Swedes, they bring the Japs...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MITCHELL: ...and they bring in the Americans. We want

to get jobs in this port for Canadians, and we want especially to get

jobs for people of the greater Victoria riding. I have no doubt that if

anybody is going to get a job, it's going to be a job from Victoria.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw the name

"Japs." I would like to honestly take it back. I would like to bow to

your wisdom, but I say that the people we must provide jobs for are the

people in this riding. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I'm never sure when I see that blue light how much time I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not much after that!

MR. MITCHELL: But I didn't even get started here, and I've

got to go on and on and cut it all off. We're going to be here until

December, they tell me.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should give my reasons why I am going to vote against this budget. I'm going to vote

[ Page 1638 ]

because of three major issues. One is the inept bungling of the

Forests ministry in the last 25 years of Social Credit. Even today with

all the reports that are on their desks we have 10,000 acres a year

less than we need. I have mills that need logs, and if this government

had taken action 25 years ago we might have seen some light today.

Secondly, I'm going to vote against this budget because, for one

issue, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could have

come and given some of the feeling and compassion that was needed for

those who were running and had children in the Langwood Activity

Centre. She never even answered the letter. To me, Mr. Speaker, it was

a disgrace.

The third reason is the complete bungling over the Marguerite , and I

say "complete bungling" because that's how it was viewed by every

profession in this area and by the people in the business community. If

we can have that bungling on the Marguerite , it is indicative of why

today we do not have hospitals and we do not have the facilities that

are needed in this province. That is why I am voting against it. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, with some indulgence from you, I

should like to take a few opening minutes in my budget remarks to

express my absolute incredulity and my very great shock and sorrow in

recalling what I think were the words I heard uttered by the last

speaker, the member of the opposition for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. If I

heard those words correctly.... It's after the fact, whether or not

they have been withdrawn. We have heard a reference....

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's my

understanding that when the Chair asks for a withdrawal or when a

member voluntarily issues a withdrawal, the Speaker...

HON. MR. BENNETT: What are you so nervous about? Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the point of order.

MR. KING: ...accepts the word of hon. members in this

House and accepts their retractions, and that matter is concluded and

is not appropriate to be raised again in this Legislature. That's my

understanding, Mr. Speaker. I would like your direction on it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I

don't know how the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) knows what

the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) may yet be referring to.

The member for Vancouver South has not yet introduced to this House the

subject he wished to discuss. Secondly, it's my understanding that

statements which may be withdrawn in the House may be withdrawn if they

offend a sitting member and are considered to be unparliamentary.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that you asked the member to

withdraw any remarks.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I have order, please? Would the Premier please come to order?

In order to have some guidance for the House, whenever an offensive

remark is made — sometimes already having been previously ruled

unparliamentary, sometimes not having been previously ruled

unparliamentary but still offensive — when those remarks are withdrawn

they are withdrawn by the word of an hon. member and are accepted by

the House as withdrawn. To put those words again into the mouth of a

speaker would be to consider them as though they had never been

withdrawn.

Although in the instance before us the Chair has no knowledge of

what words are being referred to since they have not yet been

identified, I still would warn all hon. members to guide even the

construction of their phrases by the overriding principle that once a

remark has been withdrawn, it should be withdrawn.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in moving to the topic of the

budget and stressing how the introduction to the budget stresses the

reliance of this province on export trade and makes reference to our

great trading neighbour, Japan, my point is, sir, that in a province so

dependent on export trade, with a budget which so heavily stresses our

requirements for export trade, may I simply say that I hope the budget

of this government is seen as a document which shows friendship and

interest to our great trading neighbour of Japan. This government and

this party of which I have the privilege of being a member takes the

greatest of pride in and values highly the friendships — the business

friendships and the social friendships — we hold with our Japanese

Canadians, our Japanese British Columbians and Japanese citizens

overseas.

Mr. Speaker, we, in this party and on behalf of the government, hold

in the highest regard the working abilities, the quality of

craftsmanship, of the Japanese worker and the Japanese product produced

and imported into British Columbia, and we value the fact that the

Japanese worker and those Japanese businesses choose to do business

with us, using our exports.

There is, Mr. Speaker, no place in the vocabulary of this government

or our party — no place at all — for the word "Jap," which we find

unfortunate, regrettable and not to be used in the trading business

between this province and that country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this the phrase that was withdrawn?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If this is the word that was withdrawn, then I would suggest that it not be referred to in further debate. Please proceed.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will proceed as you suggest.

I would also like to pay the Minister of Finance....

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I fear

that we might be moving into some dangerous ground here if we establish

a precedent within this House that

[ Page 1639 ]

we can't use words, in our speeches. The member who was speaking was

speaking about something that he finds offensive, and we have no way of

knowing whether he's referring to something that happened in this House

or in Langley or in Point Grey or somewhere else. That member finds

that term offensive. I'd caution the House that we wouldn't want to

start ruling against the use of words and the use of the opportunity

for us to express our feelings very clearly in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will reflect on both the

precedent and the opinions of both sides of the House over the weekend;

I will prepare a statement and bring it to the House on Monday or

Tuesday next. I trust that that will be acceptable.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, out of the regard and the respect I

hold for you, sir, and your chair, I think it is now appropriate if I

move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before the hon. House Leader moves the

final motion, hon. members, earlier today I undertook to bring a

decision to you. Here it is.

Standing order 42 requires that the Speaker inform the House that

the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate. The

purpose of this standing order is to alert members who have yet to

speak, and a member thus alerted may stand immediately and declare that

he wishes to continue in debate. Today, following the custom of the

House, I recognized the Minister of Finance as the only member standing

and inquired if the minister was closing debate. At that point another

member sought the attention of the Chair to continue the debate and was

recognized. The minister quite correctly yielded the floor. The Speaker

will recognize all members who wish to take their place in debate; this

House does not recognize an official speakers' list; and it is

incumbent upon members to be prepared to speak at the appropriate time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, which

section did you quote?

MR. SPEAKER:

Section 42.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada