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 14, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1463 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Auditor-General annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1464

Ministerial statement

Forest analysis and management.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1464

Mr. King –– 1465

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Ministry of Forests annual report as at December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1465

Forest and Range Resource Act (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 1465

Budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1465

Mr. Lea –– 1470

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1473

Mr. Barrett –– 1477

Presenting reports.

Ministry of Transportation and Communications annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1482

Liquor Distribution Branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1482

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On the floor of the Legislature this

morning is Mr. Gerry Bryson, who has been a part of the public service

in this province since 1948. He has served in a number of capacities:

as a commissioner, as assistant deputy minister and, since 1957, as

Deputy Minister of Finance. Mr. Bryson served under five Ministers of

Finance: W.A.C. Bennett, Dave Barrett, Dave Stupich, Evan Wolfe, and

Hugh Curtis. It's interesting to note that when Mr. Bryson became the

first deputy minister in 1957 the budget for the province of British

Columbia was $300 million; in 1980 the budget is $5.8 billion. Mr.

Bryson has been a part of not only witnessing the change and the

dynamics that make up the government of the province of British

Columbia; he has taken a

part in making it happen. Gerry Bryson has

been the epitome of the public servant whose commitment is truly to the

people and to the government they serve, and he has proven his

commitment under many ministers in different administrations. His

contribution to British Columbia cannot be measured in just the bottom

line of a budget but in the accomplishments that have taken place in

this province over the years in which he served.

Today is Mr. Bryson's last day as a public servant, as he is

retiring. But it's hard for all of us who have worked with Gerry and

watched him work to think of Gerry Bryson retiring.

Today then, instead of the end of a career, is the start of another

beginning in new ways in which all of us know Mr. Bryson will be

playing a very important role and making a very strong contribution to

the province. It's giving him an additional and new opportunity to

carry on. To look at Gerry Bryson, as youthful as he is, and consider

retirement then, Mr. Speaker, is not what anyone would think. We look

at Gerry Bryson and say, "tomorrow is a new day, a new challenge," and

we know that's what Gerry is planning.

Gerry Bryson, to you through Mr. Speaker, from all of us in the

Legislature and all British Columbians, today, on your last day here,

we'd like to thank you for your years of service, the contribution

you've made, the advice you've given government, the help and

protection you've given to your ministers, keeping many of them from

pitfalls and pratfalls. Above all, the beneficiaries have not just been

the ministers but the people and the province of British Columbia.

Gerry Bryson, we thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as one of the former employees,

when I was Minister of Finance, of the deputy, I want to add my

congratulations to Mr. Bryson's years of service and sincere wishes for

an enjoyable life ahead.

The Premier spoke eloquently of Mr. Bryson's assistance to all of us

and it is true that he helped us avoid pratfalls and mistakes. Never

once, Mr. Speaker, in all the years that the deputy minister guided

Finance ministers through this House, did he ever have to be

reprimanded by the Speaker for interfering in debates or interjections.

He sat through some heated moments and some very strong and wilful

debates. It goes without saying that politics in this province are

intense.

It is interesting that Mr. Bryson has served for at least a third of

the history of this province's organization within Confederation. That

shows how young we are, how much we have to learn and how much we need

the assistance of people like Gerry Bryson. Mr. Bryson could write a

book. But as a civil servant he has never changed the role or the

standard of serving the government of the day, regardless of politics.

That model is outstanding for all civil servants.

I want to add my congratulations to Gerry and his wife Grace. Both

have been prominent, active citizens in this province. I understand

that Alice, his secretary, has retired as well. That is another loss.

Just as much as I confess that I was an employee of Mr. Bryson, Mr.

Bryson was an employee of Alice. We will miss those support staff. Good

luck. I hope you have, in the traditional sense, 120 more years of

life. I hope that every other civil servant, when looking for a model

in terms of service to the public of this province, will not hesitate

to look at Gerry Bryson.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I too would like to

add my words of congratulations to Gerry Bryson. After all, perhaps the

most difficult period in his many years of serving the province of

British Columbia was under me for the last four years. I just want to

say that he was of terrific benefit to me and the government during

this period of time. He is just a fantastic, knowledgeable person in

terms of government procedures, finance and so on.

It has been a privilege to have served with him. He is a most loyal

and dedicated servant of the province. I think it should be said that

he served through some of the most difficult periods the province has

incurred — experiences, I am sure, that are clear in his memory, where

minor crises developed that he had to respond to. He is no small part

of the present economic well-being that we enjoy.

I think all people of British Columbia should be mindful of this

clear-cut example of excellent service to the province. I wish him

well. I want to say that I enjoyed working with him. I know that he is

going to continue to operate and benefit the province in other ways.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, as one who had the

opportunity of serving as a Minister of Finance for only two and

one-half months, I would like to join in this morning in recognizing

the contribution that Gerry made. I suppose the thing that I regret

most about the shortness of my career in that post was the fact that I

had so little time to work with Gerry. I recall the day that I was

appointed Minister of Finance. I arrived back in my office after having

been sworn in and there was a note on my desk from Mr. Bryson telling

me that it was the second time in the history of the province that a

Minister of Agriculture had been appointed Minister of Finance as well.

The previous time, I think, was somewhere in the 1890s.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Dave, it'll be that long again.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier suggests they're going to wait that long again. Well, perhaps.

In any case, one of the things I'd like to note about Mr. Bryson's

attendance in the House in support of the Ministers of Finance — and

I've seen him since I first appeared here in 1964 — is that the roof

could have fallen in and Gerry Bryson would never have cracked a smile

or made a frown. He sits in that chair with never any trace of emotion

on his face. It doesn't matter what's happening or who is saying what

to anyone.

[ Page 1464 ]

On one occasion there was something in the budget that indicated

that the Minister of Finance might have had some information about the

previous administration from the deputy, and I drew attention to this.

I knew it didn't come from the deputy; he was not that kind of person.

But he was just a little bit afraid that I might have felt that there

was some report about the previous administration, and he made a point

of phoning me afterwards to say that he had said nothing like that. He

didn't have to reassure me; he was the sort of person that we trusted

completely. He was the sort of person that, I'm sure, the

administration opposite and the previous administration trusted

completely never to tell members any more than they should know. He had

a very firm line, but was always available to answer any questions of

interpretation about the budget or anything that he felt was proper to

reveal to anyone on either side of the House.

I enjoyed very much working with him, I've enjoyed very much knowing

him for the last 17 years and I'm intrigued by what the Premier says

about his future. Mr. Bryson has not told me anything about his future

either, although I've tried to find out. The Premier hinted this

morning that he's starting a new career. I'm awfully curious, Mr.

Speaker; I wait with anticipation to hear just what that career will be.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. former Minister of Finance and now....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, is there something you know that I don't? [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now the Minister of Finance. I

did recognize the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as the

Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, you did, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The record will correct me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I did not rise on a point of order, but do you know something that I don't know?

MR. LEA: Gerry's new career.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is Gerry Bryson's day, not

the day of those who have spoken to pay tribute to him. My time with

him has been very short, with the portfolio change of late just last

year, but I do want to express, through you, in front of all hon.

members of this House, my appreciation to Mr. Bryson for the assistance

that he has rendered in this transition phase, as his retirement day

approached and a new deputy commenced to take up the reins. I recall

the first day I met Gerry Bryson, when I was in elected office some

time ago. I didn't really at that point know how, to approach this

individual who had such a fine reputation in British Columbia. He has

been faithful — faithful is the key word, I think — to the people of

the province throughout his career, and it's been a privilege to have

even these few months with him prior to today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make one observation.

We've heard from the Premier and we've heard from the Minister of Finance, we've

heard from the ex-Minister of Finance, we've heard from the ex-ex Minister of

Finance, and we've heard from the ex-ex-ex Minister of Finance; but, speaking

for the rest of the members, we didn't hear one of them mention the gold watch.

Does he get a gold watch?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in my community, as I'm

sure in every community, there's a fine group of people-builders, and

I'm very pleased to have them represented here today in the House. In

your gallery we have three wonderful Guiders in Mrs. Margaret Furuya,

Mrs. Sharon Jones and Mrs. Lorraine Wright.

We also have four young guides who've just been awarded their

citizenship badges: Janice Gerllays, Rachel Stewart, Susan McGiveron,

and Maria Peelo. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a gentleman well

known in Victoria for his tremendous contribution to opera, Mr. Art

Wiebe, and with him, from my constituency, a fine leader, very active

in Amway, a leader in the community, Mr. Jim Janz.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the fine region

of Victoria will be host to a rugby tournament — that loving, gentle,

non-violent game, which is shared in fellowship between Commonwealth

countries. It will be hosted by the University of Victoria. Two members

of the New Zealand team from Auckland University, Ron Peters and John

Paki are with us this morning, I ask the House to welcome these gentle

sportsmen.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a brother visiting in the

gallery today. I would like the House to welcome Thor Petersen, a

resident of Cumberland.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today for two purposes. One

is to introduce the young lady who is my constituency secretary, Sheila

MacFarlane. Sheila comes from a long history of political people

involvement. Her father was a legislative reporter and ran a political

CBC program in Halifax — for another political party, I should say.

Also while I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my

personal apologies for my cross debate in the House last night that was

the cause of your displeasure.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the Auditor General of

the Province of British Columbia for the year ended March 31, 1979.

FOREST ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd like to make a short statement.

Section 8 of the Ministry of Forests Act passed in 1978 requires that

not later than September 30, 1979, not later than September 30. 1984,

and every tenth year thereafter, the minister shall prepare and submit

to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council a forests and range resource

analysis. The act further requires that the resource analysis and a

five-year management program be submitted to the Legislative Assembly

within I 5 days of the start of the next session, after presentation to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The development of the analysis and

the five-year prog-

[ Page 1465 ]

ram has been guided by the basic goals of the

ministry. That is, to realize the maximum contribution of the available

forest and range resources, now and in the future, towards the social

and economic well-being of British Columbians.

The preparation of this analysis and program has been a monumental

and demanding task. I would like the record to indicate my sincere

thanks and appreciation to all members of the Forest Service, who have

devoted so much time and effort above and beyond their normal work

demand, in preparing the assessment and program reports. In particular

I would like to thank my deputy minister, Michael Apsey, for guiding

the development of these reports.

The assessment and program were presented to the executive council

in September. And it is a tribute to the objective forward-thinking of

our Premier, the Minister of Finance and the entire cabinet that the

management program was enthusiastically endorsed.

The substantial initiatives announced in the budget on Tuesday are

just the beginning of a long-term commitment required to make the

transition from a forest industry based on the use of old-growth timber

to an industry based on the use of well-managed, second-growth forests.

Continuous funding, as outlined in the budget speech, will lead to

stable management and realistic planning for this most important of our

natural resources.

The release of the three volumes of the resource analysis and

program marks both a precedent and a new stage in forest management in

British Columbia. During my estimates I hope that these reports will

lead to a meaningful discussion and a new level of understanding of the

challenges and opportunities awaiting us in the management of the

forests and range resources of this great province.

I take great pleasure in presenting to the Legislature the first

ever Forests and Range Resource Analysis and the first-ever five-year

management program. With them and a commitment of this government we

can move confidently through the eighties into a new era in forest

management in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the year ending December 31, 1979.

MR. SPEAKER: There is normally a right of reply to the ministerial statement.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond briefly to the

minister's statement and to indicate that I am looking forward with

extreme interest to having the opportunity to peruse the management

plan which the minister has introduced, with respect to his glowing

comments about what the report is liable to accomplish. I can only say

that, not having had a prior opportunity to peruse the document, that

debate will have to await a later opportunity.

I would only observe that it is my understanding that the report has

been in the hands of the press and other media for some period of time.

I would have hoped that perhaps the opposition Forests critic might

have received the same courtesy that the media did. However, there will

be ample opportunity to peruse the report and to enter into intelligent

debate when the minister's estimates are before the House, and I look

forward to that undertaking.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AND RANGE RESOURCE FUND ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Forest and Range Resource Fund Act.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mr. Phillips asked leave to table a document he referred to during the previous sitting.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question I keep asking

is: how can the members in the opposition possibly vote against the

budget which is being considered right now? It is certainly a

tremendous budget. It leads us into the eighties with great enthusiasm

and promises wonderful things to come for all British Columbians.

It occurred to me as well that it must be difficult for them to be

very negative about this budget. I have been around a few years and I

have been in business for some time, and during all of that time I

can't remember anyone ever paying off any part of my debts. Here, in

this tremendous budget, we have even been able to provide some moneys,

because of good government, to pay off some of the debt which was left

us after the NDP administration.

Actually there are very few people who are very negative about the

budget. There have been many glowing comments. There have definitely

been some negative comments as well, from those quarters from which we

normally expect negative comments. But instead of speaking on the

budget, instead of the members in the opposition addressing the

specifics of the budget, we have heard a great many personal attacks on

individuals, a lot of smearing.

In large part, too, they have been in hiding during all of this

debate. Again, there are only a few members present. Right now there

are only six opposition members in this debate. Their leader, as usual,

is gone; to date he hasn't said a thing. They really haven't been all

that involved; they have been keeping away.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), as might be expected, stated

some contradictions. Certainly that was followed by other members as

well. The member for Nanaimo actually wanted to say something very

negative about the budget, but he said something which I think is very

telling: in his opinion this budget had been designed to bail out a

government in trouble. Obviously there has to be some contradiction

there. If the budget is so bad and he thinks the government is in

trouble, then how does he see this budget as being a budget to bail the

government out of trouble?

The member for Nanaimo said: "You know, I was quite prepared to be

supportive of the introduction of the government's mortgage subsidy

program, but then I found it was so popular. There were so many people

picking it up so quickly that I decided I'd have to be against it." The

member for

[ Page 1466 ]

Nanaimo said: "The budget doesn't address three of

the basic problems that face British Columbians today; it doesn't

address record unemployment." But he failed to mention that the only

record unemployment was in 1975 when we took over from where they left

off. Those were the days of record unemployment, records we've not seen

in this province for a good while and, hopefully, we won't see again

for a good while. He fails to mention as well that of all of the areas

in the whole of Canada, Vancouver is where the unemployment rate came

down on the average during the last statistical information provided us.

He went on to criticize what the government was doing with respect

to B.C. Place, a great project which will certainly provide a

tremendous benefit to all British Columbians — not only lower

mainlanders or people in Vancouver, but people throughout the province

— a tremendously imaginative program which will take an area which they

had proposed to fill with scrub, willow, alder and swamp birch and turn

it into something beautiful and something productive. He was against

that. He says: "You're spending a lot of money." He failed to mention

that this project will attract a great deal of private money, a great

deal of private investment, and provide tens of thousands of jobs, not

only in its construction phase but in its follow-up for years to come.

He was critical of the Annacis Island bridge — too much money. Again

he failed to mention that this project, like so many projects

introduced by this good government, will again provide at least 4,000

jobs. Furthermore, the member obviously doesn't recognize that great

things have been done for the Nanaimo constituency by this government

to make that area boom. And I took

part in presenting a cheque for $6.4

million which was coming to the people of Nanaimo after they, when he

was in government and he was a member, had forced amalgamation but had

short-changed the people of Nanaimo. I went in there and presented the

cheque from this government because we, through good management, had

made the money available.

MR. STUPICH: On a point of order, a correction, Mr. Speaker:

there was no "forced amalgamation" in Nanaimo; they voted for it in a

referendum.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for corrections is at the conclusion of the speech. The member for Nanaimo was out of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I will correct that right now. I

think perhaps I put too much emphasis on the word "forced," Mr.

Speaker. Certainly I don't believe there was much alternative given

them, but I'll remove the word "forced" from my comments.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, while the member recognized or did not

recognize — I can't quite understand this — all of the things done

by this government for Nanaimo, there are tremendous needs in the enormously

fast-growing area of White Rock, Surrey and North Delta for further transportation

and transit facilities, and this Annacis Island crossing which we are proceeding

with is a part of that total program to make travel for the people in the lower

mainland just a little bit easier. How much they need this and how much they

deserve it. I believe that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) will recognize

— although we've not heard from the second member for Surrey on this point,

at least not during this debate — that the lineups at the Port Mann Bridge,

the lineups at the Pattullo Bridge, are unbearable and something needs to be

done. You cannot simply, as some would suggest, twin the Pattullo Bridge and

put more people on the King George Highway leading to the are unPattullo Bridge.

You need not only the Annacis Island crossing but need to tie into it a good

transit program which is being developed by this progressive government during

these very days.

The growth in the Newton area, the growth in the White Rock–South

Surrey area, the growth in the Fleetwood area and the growth in the

North Delta area dictate that this particular transit facility, by way

of a new roadway, by way of a bridge, form a very important part of the

total plans for the area.

You cannot develop an effective transit system unless you also have

a very effective feeder system, and that effective feeder system for

some people will mean getting into the car and moving to a

park-and-ride, or for others it may mean a good bus system, and a good

bus system, again, needs roads. I realize that our approach — and the

member for Burnaby Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) will vouch for this — is

certainly different from the approach which was being developed by the

NDP government when they were in. Their whole approach — and certainly

the member for Burnaby Willingdon will remember, because I was then the

mayor of Surrey, and we had some debates and argument on this very

point — was that every road should, if possible, remain two lanes, and

by no means do you provide bus bays. What you do, they said — and there

are certainly records to indicate this at the Surrey municipal hall,

and in Delta as well — is have the buses stop as long as possible on

the road, so that they get a long line of traffic behind, and when the

people get irritated enough, they'll get out of their car and into the

bus. That was their imaginative approach to resolving the traffic

problems on the lower mainland.

This government is much more progressive than that. We do not look

for a negative approach. Instead we develop a positive approach, and

that's what's being done right now.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo made some mention, as a

second point, of a problem that he felt was not being addressed: high

interest rates. Of course, we read in the paper today, again, that

there are problems, and that Ottawa is attempting to do something with

respect to high interest rates. It's a problem in the United States,

Canada, and the world over. No government anywhere, to my knowledge,

has really been able to grapple with it or has done anything at all

which is reasonably effective that, at least in part, may do something

about this, except for one government in the whole of North America and

in the world — not a national government, but a provincial government.

The government of British Columbia took the initiative to introduce a

mortgage subsidy program — $200 million. Maybe in the scheme of things,

when you're looking at it on a worldwide basis, $200 million isn't that

great an amount, but if we could somehow do, throughout the whole of

the Canada and North America, what British Columbia was able to do for

its citizens, the impact would be tremendous. But unfortunately for

people elsewhere, they don't have the leadership or good government we

find here in British Columbia — a model government which certainly is

being viewed as a government that is leading the way throughout Canada

and throughout most states in the United States of America.

The member for Nanaimo mentioned inflation as a point. He said it's not being addressed. Again, the member must

[ Page 1467 ]

know that the worst inflation that ever hit us —

the beginning of many of the problems that are faced by people

everywhere today, especially our seniors and those on fixed income —

started and really came to the fore in 1973, 1974 and 1975. Who was the

government then? None other than the NDP.

During those days, British Columbia was leading Canada, North

America and possibly the world in the highest and the

fastest-increasing inflation rate anywhere. Now, Mr. Speaker, as the

statistics from Ottawa clearly indicate, Vancouver and most of British

Columbia are leading in being the only area which is consistently the

lowest in the whole of Canada.

Contradiction after contradiction. The only research they have

available to them is some newspaper clippings from which they read.

There appears to be some approach by them, for the last while, to use

mostly newspaper clippings in order to make their presentation. I'm not

sure who's working for whom, but obviously they're picking up a lot of

this material and that is the only thing they're able to present to

this House.

Is that really what the people of British Columbia deserve from an

opposition? Is it really that which the people might expect to pay

their elected representatives for — to simply go through the Vancouver Province , the Sun , the Times and the Colonist

and clip out those things that they might stand up and read before the

House? I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker. I think the people of British

Columbia deserve better, and I think the people of British Columbia are

aware of how little the opposition is doing during all of these

debates. It's really a shame, though perhaps in some respect we as

members in government should be quite pleased with the fact that they

haven't been able to present anything concrete. I feel for the people.

Again, there are only four members from the opposition present in

the House today. There is the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I

hope that he'll go back sometime during the next year and tell the

people in Prince Rupert that that is the amount of his research. Let me

tell the member for Prince Rupert as well that it doesn't matter to me

at all that possibly the member for Prince Rupert, who is a fine fellow

otherwise, doesn't get back to his constituency as often as he perhaps

should, because he is resident in Victoria.

Let me tell the member for Prince Rupert that as Minister of

Municipal Affairs I'm doing everything possible within my ministry to

ensure that the people in that area get their fair share of the wealth

of this great province. Only today we allowed for the annexation of an

area called Ridley Island to the city of Prince Rupert, so that the

city of Prince Rupert and the village of Port Edward together might

benefit from the enormous industrial development which will take place

in the Rupert area because of our initiatives, because of the

leadership provided by our Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). We've been able to do this for you,

Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, and I'm happy, as Minister of Municipal

Affairs, to be able to be part of this great government and to do this

for you and the people in your area.

And there's the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), another member

who's in the House today, and I'm pleased that he's one of the four

that are representing those constituencies that are in the opposition.

Let me assure that member again, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, that

we will do all we can to ensure that the people in your area receive

their fair share of the wealth of this province.

I've already mentioned the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the

great things that are happening for that progressive city on Vancouver

Island.

Now the other member left, the fourth and only member left in the

House representing the opposition, is the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall). It goes without saying that Surrey is receiving not only fair

but tremendous representation in this government of British Columbia

today. I want to speak about some of the tremendous things that are in

this budget for the people of Surrey, but before I get into that, I

want to speak about a couple of other outstanding contradictions.

It bothers me no end to see the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) —

and that's why I made reference to it last night and make reference to

it again today — stand up in the House and argue continuously about one

of the greatest resources that might be developed in British Columbia,

our water resources. This government has taken the lead to ensure that

these resources will be developed considering the environment,

considering fisheries, considering all the other things that are

important to the people of British Columbia. But it is a tremendous

resource owned by the people of British Columbia. That member for

Alberni says: "No dams. We don't want any dams." Then he goes on to

say: "And we don't want any coal development." He's against everything,

all these great resources. At the same time, while he doesn't want to

see any of these tremendous resources developed for the people of

British Columbia, he talks about being concerned about unemployment. If

we accepted his philosophy and the philosophy of the NDP, we would have

unemployment now which would make the unemployment of 1975, when they

were government, look like nothing. It would be double what it was then.

I want to just have this for the record. The only thing that member

did not make mention of, even though he's a member of some anti-nuclear

energy committee, was nuclear energy. I can appreciate that. I think we

should say it for the record: they are divided on the issue, because

the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).… I wish he were in the

House but, unfortunately, like so many of them, they're seldom here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Away for the weekend.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I guess that's what it is. They've

gone. That's why they've all left; they're away for the weekend. They

want to work a four-day week, preferably three, maybe not at all.

But that member has come out very much in support of developing

nuclear energy for British Columbia. Is it really the position of the

NDP that we should not develop dams, that we should leave the coal in

the ground and develop nuclear energy instead? I am opposed to nuclear

energy. I don't want it in British Columbia. I don't want it anywhere

near our borders, and I'm not afraid to say it, because I think the

people of British Columbia are extremely concerned about the potential

and possible consequences of nuclear energy. I wish the NDP would come

out clear. I wish they would really say it, once and for all, so we

could really understand.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In order to maintain order I would remind the member for Central Fraser Valley

[ Page 1468 ]

(Mr. Ritchie) that he is being disorderly. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Vancouver East has just come in….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will come to order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He's a fine fellow too. I think perhaps

I should just address a few moments to something that particular member

was involved with, with his running-mate, the first member, now Leader

of the Opposition. Or is he the second member? I'm not sure. However,

they were certainly very involved in a project when I was mayor in

Surrey some years ago now. It's on record in Surrey, and the second

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) will remember this because he was

Provincial Secretary then. They approached the council very late in the

game because much had already been done.

They had moved into the southern

section of Surrey and bought up a

very large portion of land, at tremendous prices of course. The prices

they paid were greater than the prices that are being paid for land

today, and that was six years ago. But money didn't matter much to

them. That's why they went broke so quickly. But aside from that, that

member and his running mate, then the Premier of the province, were

going to put in an oil refinery. They had apparently made some

arrangement with British Petroleum and were going to put a great oil

refinery in south Surrey. Of course, much of that land is in what's now

the agricultural land reserve, but that wasn't that important.

The thing they haven't mentioned since, but what was then a real

issue — and certainly the second member for Surrey is still suffering

from it, because in that area his vote is relatively light — is that

the opposition from Surrey came about because they were going to bring

these large oil tankers down the coast and into Mud Bay, would you

believe. They were going to park these oil tankers in Mud Bay and pump

the oil from the tanker to the refinery. That was a part of the

program. Can you imagine?

I tell the people of Surrey this, I remind them, and certainly there

are many other members of council who will remind them, because they

are very concerned about Surrey's future, its progress and its

well-being. We don't want oil tankers in Mud Bay. We don't like oil

tankers in Mud Bay. We don't want them coming down the coast, but to

bring them into Mud Bay could be disastrous, to say the least. Anyway,

again we haven't heard too much about that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) walks in. He was here for

a little bit last night. I am very pleased to remember that last night

that member was applauding the comments made by the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) when he said: "We don't want to bring any power or energy

to Vancouver Island. What we want to do instead is conserve energy.

People should use less energy. Instead of turning on the light, you use

a candle or a coal-oil lamp." That member, incidentally, drives a

Mercedes. Hey, he must be really concerned about some of the things in

the budget now, because I don't think his Mercedes is really covered by

the lower sales tax. He's in trouble. If you go to sell that you're

going to pay the maximum. We're not going to let you off with 2

percent. You're going to have to pay more.

But anyway, the member with the Mercedes was applauding the

statements made by the member for Alberni that we were going to cut off

power to Vancouver Island. He didn't mention that 300,000 people are

expected to move to this most beautiful part of Canada over the next 20

years. What he wants to do is shut off Vancouver Island — no more

people. I guess he wants to get rid of a few that have arrived lately.

He wants to cut back on energy. That's his solution to the energy

problem of Vancouver Island: cut it off, make people use candles

instead, conserve energy. How ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, and this is the

sort of thing we've been hearing from all those members during all of

this debate.

I'm sorry that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) isn't here. I

listened to the member for Comox, and I got the impression that somehow

Courtenay and Comox were in dire straits and somehow the budget did not

provide for the area. This is a very growing area, a beautiful area of

Vancouver Island. Mr. Speaker, it can't be as terrible as that member

said. I believe it to be a very progressive area, full of people who

are very anxious, very ambitious, and very optimistic about the future

of the Courtenay-Comox area.

I said earlier I wanted to make some mention about what this budget

might do for the people of Surrey. Again, the budget provides an

increase of 17.4 percent in the area of Human Resources. We in Surrey

certainly have a great many single-parent families. If the rate is

increased for them, as is suggested, I think not only is this worthy

and very desirable now, but to Surrey it is very important. Those

single-parent families will benefit from the increase. It mentions as

well that we will provide for increased day-care programs and day-care

rates. Again, to these single-parent families in Surrey, those who have

to provide for a family and at the same time work out, that increase of

program and increase of rates will be a tremendous help.

It's also mentioned that there will be an increase in the foster

home rates. Surrey has the greatest percentage of foster homes in the

whole of British Columbia on a per capita basis. I am very pleased that

these fine foster homes, which are providing for youngsters who

otherwise have no family of their own, will see some increase to pay

for their effort, though really the majority of them are not in it for

the money. This budget is providing for that. And the people of Surrey

say: "Thank you, government of British Columbia. We are grateful."

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has also

provided that we will see an increase of moneys for the achievement

centres of British Columbia. Those centres are doing a wonderful job in

the community of Surrey, as the second member for Surrey will agree.

They're doing a tremendous job in White Rock, in Whalley, and in

Cloverdale. These centres will receive an increase of moneys in order

that their efforts may be more effective in giving the greatest

opportunity to our handicapped people. "We are grateful; we thank you,

government of British Columbia, for making this possible."

We in Surrey, particularly in the White Rock area, have a large

senior population. We also have a number of people who are,

unfortunately, handicapped. Over the years I have met with many of

them. I am very pleased that the government of British Columbia has

seen fit to give them an addi-

[ Page 1469 ]

tional $50 in their homeowner grant. We thank you,

government of British Columbia, for doing this too for the people in

Surrey who will benefit from this additional program.

The people of Surrey are very grateful, as are people all over

British Columbia, for the introduction this year of the denticare

program — $30 million. That is a tremendous social program that is

being introduced by a progressive government at a time when governments

elsewhere in this nation are cutting back. We are able to provide this

tremendous social benefit, and the people of Surrey and all British

Columbians thank the British Columbia government for making this

possible.

The only negative comment I've read about this tremendous denticare

program comes from a gentleman in Vancouver who is called David

Schreck. David Schreck may be remembered, because he was the one of the

people who were sitting in the gallery when the now Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).... She now has to drive there from her big

home in Point Grey in what may be a Cadillac. We better look into that,

because certainly the budget will affect her Cadillac.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, that's an NDP member for Burnaby-Edmonds who lives in Point Grey.

Day after day that member stood there and argued that when I was

Minister of Human Resources and eliminating the Vancouver Resources

Board the world was going to come to an end, social services in

Vancouver would suddenly go down to nothing, and it would be a

tremendous disaster. She said she didn't care if her debate went on day

after day. She filibustered, and it was costing $25,000 a day. This

money might better have gone to the needy people of British Columbia.

That didn't matter to her. David Schreck was sitting in the gallery

smiling and thinking it was great. He didn't care. He was the then

director of the Vancouver Resources Board. But that didn't matter, they

said, because if the Vancouver Resources Board were discontinued — oh,

it was just the greatest disaster that could ever have happened in

Vancouver.

Well, the Vancouver Resources Board disappeared. There was no more

mention of it by anyone. The opposition has never mentioned it again.

What's more, social workers from all over Vancouver....

A social worker just walked in. We just had the Leader of the

Opposition come in. I'm glad to see he's back. That social worker would

probably agree with all other social workers that the elimination of

the Vancouver Resources Board was the best thing that ever happened.

Mr. David Schreck, who was then the director, said that this denticare

program was wrong because of this and because of that.

I wonder how many members of the opposition will speak against the

denticare program. I doubt if too many of them will speak against it.

Maybe they should have a talk with David Schreck.

I'm also very pleased for the people of Surrey that the sales tax

has been removed from residential telephones and from electrical and

natural gas service charges. The people of Surrey are grateful that

this progressive government, through good management, was able to make

it a little easier by removing those burdens. What government in Canada

or anywhere in North America was able to do that? Not one, anywhere!

We have a great many mobile homes in Surrey. The people of Surrey

are very grateful that the sales tax has now been removed from used

mobile homes. For those people who can't afford new mobile homes, the

sales tax has been removed, as it should be. This government not only

recognized the need but did something about it. The people of Surrey

are grateful, and we thank you, government of British Columbia.

There is $10 million in assistance to small businesses in the lower mainland, and the people of Surrey will benefit from this.

There is a $100 million accelerated highway program. You just need

to go to Surrey now and see some of those tremendous highway projects

which were brought about by a very progressive highway minister. We are

improving the highways of Surrey. It's happening. The people of Surrey

are extremely grateful. We thank you.

I'm also very pleased to see that we have 20 percent more assistance

for independent schools. We have a number of independent schools in

Surrey.

I see the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is smiling.

It must hurt you, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, because while all of

you members in opposition walked out during the debate on independent

schools because you were so violently opposed to assisting independent

schools, when the next election was called, you sort of scrambled

around and said: "I'd better find a way out of this." So you sent a

letter to the independent schools, saying: "I think we'll support you

now." He had a change of mind.

Suddenly there is no more talk about nuclear energy, no more talk

about oil tankers into Mud Bay, no more talk about not assisting

independent schools. They've changed. They are learning a lesson from

us, the government of British Columbia, and I'm pleased to see this.

Maybe one day they'll come around completely and vote for something —

and I have yet to see that in my five years here.

Mr. Speaker, we are also pleased, too, that there has been a

tremendous increase in the health budget to provide for additional

extended- and acute-care beds throughout British Columbia, and the

growing municipality of Surrey and the city of White Rock will once

more benefit from that. Already our very hard-working and progressive

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) — take a bow, sir — has provided for

and announced a doubling of all the extended-care beds at the Surrey

Memorial Hospital. We thank you, Mr. Minister of Health of a most

progressive government in British Columbia.

I see my time is running out. I hope I'll get another opportunity,

because I want to talk about this tremendous transit program and where

this progressive government has provided $55 million for capital

transit works. I want to talk about that downtown revitalization

program, where this government has provided $25 million to assist small

business in the downtown cores of small communities. I want to talk

about the great revenue-sharing program and the good words that we're

receiving from mayors and from the UBCM about the greatest assistance

municipalities in this province have ever received. I want to talk

about all of these things, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I might get a

further opportunity.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Municipal

Affairs leaves the chamber, I would like to make another correction. He

withdrew his charge that the people of Nanaimo were forced into

amalgamation and substituted that

[ Page 1470 ]

of the government, giving them no alternative. The

people of Nanaimo chose a committee locally that determined the

boundaries, and that campaigned successfully in favour of a referendum

vote that passed. It was determined locally.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate.... I

was going to leave this part until the end of my speech, but I think,

after hearing the Minister of Municipal Affairs, it becomes quite

appropriate to now read from Hansard of March 14, 1975. It says on page 651:

I think it's correct to say that the fundamental

approach of the government speakers, particularly the NDP ministers who

have taken their turn in this debate, can be described as a

diversionary tactic, to the point where many of them have been given

the impression that they, too, know that it is not a good document.

As a result, they've attempted to shift attention from

the budget itself by way of an attack on the opposition. In fact, I

think at times, Mr. Speaker, that a detached observer would be

understood for thinking that this was a replay of the last election

campaign.

Rather than to report in detail on achievements in

their specific departments — their areas of responsibility — ministers

have tried to turn back the clock with repeated references to the

shortcomings of the former government. With respect, that is not what

the citizens of British Columbia want to hear. That's an old tune. It's

a very old tune now and a scratchy record which has been played too

often by the present group in power.

Mr. Speaker, all of this was said by the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in 1975.

MR. BARRETT: Was he a Socred?

MR. LEA: Well, was he a Socred or a Liberal or a Conservative

at the time? I can't remember. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a bit

of time this morning, going back to those old days, and talk about the

present Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and some of the

things he had to say.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

take some exception to those remarks, in that they were probably very

appropriate at the time; but that was March 14, 1975.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a legitimate point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious what the government has

been doing for the past day or two, as we've been on the budget debate.

All they've talked about is the NDP; that's all they've talked about:

the bad old days when the NDP was in government and they were in

opposition.

Before getting into some remarks of criticism I would like to apply

to the government, I, too, would like to thank the government for some

of the initiatives they've taken in terms of conservation measures and

incentives to conserve. I'd like to thank the government for that.

Particularly I would like to thank the government for a particular

aspect of a happening in my riding surrounding port development.

Maybe some members of the Legislature and the public don't know that

the Conservative government — when in power — and people they appointed

were trying to push for the new grain terminal to be built at a place

called Casey Point near Prince Rupert. I went to the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) of this government and gave

him my view: that I thought it would be disastrous; that the grain

terminal should be built on Ridley Island along with the coal terminal,

another port development, so that it could be a much more economical

venture for all of us — for B.C., Prince Rupert and Canada.

I must say that I had the fullest cooperation of the present

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the government

in persuading the Conservative government to go the way that it should.

I thank the government for that. Obviously on most issues as they

concern B.C. we are going to be of a sameness of mind.

The minister who just spoke talked about $30 million being put

forward to denticare — a program that doesn't exist. I suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, that this kind of money to a program that doesn't exist

would only be worthwhile for those people in our citizenry who are

under three months old and don't yet have teeth — some sort of gum

control — or for people who happen to be over 95 and possibly have no

teeth. Because with $30 million and no program, that is exactly the

kind of dental program that you can look forward to — absolutely

nothing.

I suggest that the only thing we are going to have at the end of the

year is the $30 million plus the interest on the money. That's all we

are going to have. The same as the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — he has $10 million for a

program, and at the end of the year we are going to have the $10

million plus the interest. That is all we are going to have.

I have nothing against gums, except that when they get teeth I'd

like to see a program in government to do something about helping those

teeth to live in a nice, healthy way. That's what I ask.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to another page in Hansard .

This is from 1974. The present-day Premier was speaking; he was the

Leader of the Opposition in those days. He was talking about such

things as surpluses in government. Every time they get up these days

they say: "You know, you guys couldn't do what you wanted to do because

you had no money." Yet when you look through all of the budget debates

while we were in government, all you see is the opposition — the Social

Credit — attacking us for our surpluses.

On every page of Hansard

during the budget debate you see the present Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) attacking us for

surpluses; you see the present Premier, when he was over here,

attacking us for surpluses; you see the present Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis), when he was over here, attacking us for surpluses

all the time we were in government.

It's a strange psychological phenomenon but they say that people, if

they hate, tend to end up doing the things that they say they hate. If

ever that were true it is this government. It's big government, a

government that would like to take control of the money that we should

normally have in our pockets, as citizens of B.C., to spend. They want

to take it and they want to spend it, as big government, as they see

fit.

A government for individuals? They have to be kidding. When are they

going to start letting individuals in this province make decisions? In

every area of jurisdiction this government has taken the

decision-making process from the local level and moved it into

Victoria. They say they hate that, but they have become that.

[ Page 1471 ]

They say that they don't like surpluses, they want a balanced

budget, but in every budget we've dealt with since they've been in

government there have been surpluses — in other words, an overtaxation

of the people of this province. What do they end up with this year? A

billion bucks. What are they doing with it? They are going to spend it

as they see fit.

They say they like to have some money put aside for a rainy day. The

Minister of Finance himself says that we're going to have a few slight

showers this year. But are they going to spend any of that money to

offset those rainy days that the people of this province are going to

experience during the next year? Not a bit.

What could they do? Well, they could take part of that $1 billion

and they could give some tax relief so that the people of this province

could have the option of spending the money as they see fit. Everybody

in this province knows that the cost of transportation is going to go

up in the coming year. We know that the cost of food is going to go up

in the coming year. We know that the cost of shelter may have some

extraordinary increments in the coming year because of mortgage

renewals and the higher interest rates for those getting their mortgage

for the first time.

What is this government going to do to relieve people of that high

cost of living they are going to face? They're going to hoard money.

They are going to put some money under the mattress. They're going to

spend other money on pet projects such as B.C. Place. Mr. Speaker, I

guarantee you that at the end of this government's term there will be

no B.C. Place. I mean, how can you have a B.C. Place that was planned

in four hours on the back of a matchbox? Now they've taken a new

minister and they've said: "Here you are. We dreamed it up in four

hours; it doesn't really mean anything; it was designed so we could

have a big breakfast and get the Premier and the cabinet out of a bit

of trouble. Now it's yours." You know the mistake he's making? He's

taking it seriously. I mean be honest to God thinks they're going to do

it. He's going out making speeches, talking about B.C. Place. His only

mistake so far is believing the government. Not too many people these

days are making that mistake, but then he's got a special reason.

Mr. Speaker, what are some of the positive moves that this

government could have made with the surplus funds they have? Could they

have taken, say, half the present sales tax away for a one year period?

It's a regressive tax anyway. It affects those people who have less

more than those who have more. Why not take the sales tax away for a

one-year period and stimulate some retail sales in this province? Why

not do that? Help the business community. I commend them for dropping

the corporation tax to small business from 12 to 10. I think that's a

good move. But at the same time, the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) pointed out there could have been some

moves to

stimulate the economy in other areas. What are those other areas?

We see in our forest industry today some of the smallest inventories

we've had for a great many years. We also, from the Minister of

Finance's own statement, see that we may be having a shortfall in

lumber sales for the coming year. That means one thing. It means less

stability for our forest industry in terms of management and ownership.

But it also means fewer jobs. Because if you don't have the sales, and

because of high interest rates it becomes impractical to stockpile an

inventory, then you might look towards your provincial government to

give you some relief so that you can stockpile goods. It seems to me

that higher inventories this year are a must if we're going to keep any

sort of stable employment. There's not a thing in the budget debate

about that. Nothing! There hasn't been, in that budget debate, one

positive thing that the government has put through, either for

business, to stimulate the economy, or for people, to leave money in

their pockets so they can stimulate the economy in terms of spending

the money where they want to spend it instead of spending their money

where the government wants to spend it. All we're seeing, Mr. Speaker,

is a big government designed to do nothing more than take control of

our lives, from our pocketbooks to our social programs to everything

that we can touch. They take the decision-making process from the local

level and bring it to Victoria — in every area — the very thing they say

they are against.

The present Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) for year after year after year, when he was in this

House as the Liberal leader and the Liberal member, spoke about

overestimating the expenditures and underestimating the revenues so

they would end up with a surplus. He said it was one of the worst

things that a government can do because it's over-taxation. And yet he

sits here, now that he's part of the government, with a government

that's doing it much more than any government before, and what does he

say? Absolutely nothing. In fact, he applauds. Is that hypocrisy? Is

that the ultimate in hypocrisy? The Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications sits in this House and sees the government he

belongs to doing this thing he thinks is the worst thing for the

economy — and he's said it over and over. He said: "This is the worst

thing for the economy in the province." Now he sits on the government

benches and applauds those things he feels will hurt the economy and

the people of this province. That is hypocrisy.

There is no better criticism of this budget than going to Hansard , March 14, 1975, page 655. It says:

In B.C., a province that has always placed the value of work

among its highest priorities, people are now getting less for their money, getting

less for their work — less value for money, less value for work, less buying

power. I don't think there's a family in British Columbia which believes that

work and money bring more today than two and a half years ago.

I, for a moment, won't quote. But is there anybody in this province

who believes otherwise — that today you can get less for your money,

less for your work than you could two and a half years ago? Those

remarks are still very apt today. Mr. Speaker, I go back to Hansard :

Inflation, Mr. Speaker, as others have told you, is the cruelest tax of all.

Isn't that true? The cruellest tax of all is inflation.

It strains family budgets, it brings added problems to the

collective bargaining table, and we have clear evidence of that this

year.

That's what it says here.

If last year's 12.1 percent consumer index increase continues over a period

of years, and not too many really, inflation will then fully threaten the social

and economic fabric of our society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it?

MR. LEA: This was said in 1975 by the now Minister of Finance

when he was on this side of the House. He was right. But the words are

right today too. He says:

In my constituency there are many taxpayers who live on what is called a fixed income and many more who live on a relatively

[ Page 1472 ]

inflexible income. Many have earned their place in society; they're

not interested in getting more from society and they're not asking more

from the economy than they already have now. But to put it in

impersonal economic terms, these people are satisfied with their

standard of living as it has been. They don't want more, but they do

not deserve less.

Again, that's not a bad speech by the Minister of Finance when he

was in the opposition. But what do we see today? A government gone

crazy. Surplus — our money, the people of this province. That

government has our money in the bank. They're going to spend part of it

and put the rest under the mattress. I'm going to tell them that it's

going to be a rainy year for us, and we want some of that money back in

our pockets. We want tax relief. We want to have the sales tax lowered

for a one-year period. Use some of that surplus so we can have some

money in our pockets and spend it the way we want; so we can go to the

gas station and pay the extra money we have to pay to run our cars.

When we go to the grocery store we'd like to have enough money to buy

nutritious food.

You've got our money in the bank, and you're not going to give any

of it back. You've got $1 billion of our money. You want to spend it; I

say we want to spend it. We want to have that money in our pockets so

we can go to the grocery store and buy some fruit for our children. We

want to have that money in our pockets so that we can afford to drive

our cars to work. We don't want you to have the money. We don't want

you to put it in the bank. That's not a balanced budget; that's

thievery. You've reached into our pockets, taken our money and put it

in your bank, and you want to spend it as you see fit, and you have the

nerve to come in this House and talk about big government and Big

Brother government.

Mr. Speaker, they should be sitting over there in shame, because

they don't even stand for what they say they stand for. They're neither

socialist nor free enterprise. They're an unfeeling cash register. If

any corporation in the world dealt with its money the way this

government's dealing with money, it would make some sense. But it

doesn't make sense when you're the government, and that's the thing

that this group of people can't get through their heads. Yes, you have

to run government in a businesslike way, but you don't run it as a

business.

There are two different principles at work. Time and time again

since they've been in government we've seen that they don't understand

that. They don't understand that if you're running your own business

and you lay people off you save money; if you're running the government

and people are laid off you're more responsible for them than you were

before. They don't understand that, and so they go along making

decisions that might fit one area but are crazy when it comes to

government. They have no idea what it's all about.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) talked

about contradictions. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — and I've heard him — talks about

BCRIC being a wonderful thing: how people should buy BCRIC because it's

a good investment. On the other hand, just yesterday in the House he

said that when the NDP were buying those assets he says are so good, we

were squandering the money. He said we were squandering the money; now

he says they're gold chip. Does it make sense? What are the people who

are going to invest in this province going to think when you have a

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development who comes out with

two contradictory statements that are so apparently stupid? What are

you going to do?

It would have been better still if the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development had gotten up in his place and asked for

what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) asked for: to

get rid of, in this one area, something that we did when we were

government that I think should be done away with, the Corporation

Capital Tax Act. In retrospect, I think it was a mistake, and I think

that it should be done away with. But that group said at the time that

it was a mistake. They've been in power how long? How long has the

Corporation Capital Tax Act been in, and they've been in and done

nothing about it? We've had a chance to see that it taxes a company

before it is making any money and does not tax it after it is. We made

a mistake. It should be repealed, and this government knows it and

hasn't acted.

The member down there who used to be in the cabinet knows it and

tells them, but are they going to listen to him? Not on your life.

They've already fired him. He probably made a little bit of sense and

made them confused, and they said: "We've got to get him out of here,

along with the caucus chairman, because, boy, we need scapegoats, and

we know where to get them — right from within our own ranks."

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many areas in this budget that this

government has not dealt with in a fair and openhanded manner. The

biggest one has to be that they've taken money out of our pockets in a

year when we needed that money. But this coming year, the year not of

rain but of showers when it comes to the economic climate in this

province, they are going to hang on to it. They're going to stuff it in

a mattress, and they're going to spend it or not spend it as they see

fit.

Surely in a year of trying times, with the cost of living going up,

we'd be better off as a government, as a legislature, to take that

surplus money — nearly $1 billion — and say to the people of this

province: "Last year we made some money unexpectedly from natural

resources. We had revenue from the forest companies that was beyond our

wildest dreams. We underestimated it sadly. It's not our fault, but

it's here. We've got money from gas that we never thought we'd get, and

we've got it in our pockets in the Treasury Board. But because we know

this coming year is going to be trying for a great many of our citizens

— for you, our people — we're going to take this unexpected bonanza

that we have in the government treasury and we're going to, in the form

of tax relief, give it back to the citizens of this province so that

you in your own way can decide how you're going to spend that money

that you have in the bank."

It's our money. It's our money that this government has in the bank,

and they're not going to give it back to us so we can spend it to

offset what are how going to be the highest cost of living increases,

probably, in a decade.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that this budget is going

to take us into the eighties. We are in 1980 now, but God help us if

this government carries on in the same manner it has in the last part

of the 1970s. Because what it will mean is big government making the

decisions for us and a less healthy socio-economic climate for the

individual in this province, because they are the government that is

against individuals. That's the one thing we do know for sure. They

don't think that the people in this province have enough common sense

to spend their money in the right way, so they've decided they're going

to keep our money in the

[ Page 1473 ]

treasury and spend it the way they want to spend it, on the things

they want to spend it on, to try and get themselves out of a scandal.

That's all they're going to do. And in their heart of hearts.... Or

maybe they don't have them. Maybe those things in their breasts called

"swinging bricks" — maybe they could look into them and they could say:

"Just in pure economic sense, it makes sense to take this billion

dollars of the people's money we have in the treasury and give tax

relief." For one year, why couldn't we let those people out there

decide what part of inflation they'd like to make it their priority to

fight and have a bit of money in their pocket.

Mr. Speaker, if this government has committed one big error, it has

to be the error of thinking that they know better than the people of

this province how to spend the people's money. That's the biggest

mistake, and they know it. I believe if it weren't a year of political

scandal, of proven weak leadership, of proven chaos within the

government ranks, and if it weren't a year where they had to bolster

their own political image to try to get themselves out of eight months

of scandal, political intrigue and weak leadership, they would have

taken this money and given it back to the people.

So I'm saying this, Mr. Speaker: the people of this province are

going to be shortchanged in a way that they've never been shortchanged

before. One billion dollars is going to be lifted out of their pockets

this year by a government which is going to use that billion dollars of

taxpayers' money to try to buy their way out of a political scandal.

Mr. Speaker, this government has pulled the biggest, dirtiest trick

of all, because in order to try to get themselves out of those other

dirty tricks, they've brought in a Super Dirty Trick — the 1980 budget.

It's Super Dirty Tricks, and they're going to keep our money in the

bank to try to buy votes when the time comes. They're putting it in all

sorts of funds. It's money they don't intend to spend and money they

hope to have in their wallets in the treasury bench so that they can

buy votes when the time comes.

It's a dirty trick and they know it — money that should be in the

people's pocket. The treasury bench, big government, Big Brother — 1984

came four years early with this group.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I smile when I hear the member for Prince

Rupert in debate. I guess the only thing I can say to the member is

that at least we have the money to spend. That administration didn't

have any money in the bank; all they had was an overdraft, so they

couldn't do anything.

I rise, of course, to support this budget, because it is a very progressive and sound budget with which to begin the eighties.

It's a balanced budget, as have been all budgets since we became

government. It's a budget that provides revenues to meet the

expenditures of this administration — that's something that the party

opposite just doesn't understand. Those revenues are based on a sound

economy; they are not based on excessive taxation of people, as the

member for Prince Rupert implied. The sound economy of this province is

due to our having brought good relations between industry and

government, instead of regressive legislation like the mining tax —

we're not holding down development. We have good communication and good

relationships with the private sector, in order that it can stimulate

the economy and improve the revenues of this province.

I don't have to refer to the tax reductions put into place last year

because of a sound and growing economy, which took away some of the

load on the individual in this province.

Before I go into the rest of

my speech, I'd like to comment on something the member for Prince

Rupert said: "The decision-making process has been brought to Victoria

from the local level." Well, I'm sure he recognizes that that statement

is somewhat in error. There are ministries in this government that have

regionalized their operations; they have moved the decision-making

process out into the field so they can respond more quickly to the

needs of the industry they represent. We know full well that the

Ministry of Forests has taken that tack. We know that the Ministry of

Agriculture in its reorganization is also taking that approach, in

order for us to respond quickly to the needs of the people in the area.

The past year's good fiscal management by the government has

resulted in surplus funds, which, at this time, we're able to inject

into the economy to assist it and the people of this province. It is

all due to the growth of a sound economy in this province.

Let's just look at the indicators. We don't very often refer to the

actual budget document. Many speakers go back in history; I think last

night somebody went back to the year 1900. I'd like to point out, on

page 10, some of the indicators stated in the budget:

"Since 1975 business capital expenditures have grown at

an impressive average annual rate of 16.8 percent, compared to only 11.3 percent

in Canada."

MR. LAUK: Inflation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, if it's inflation, Mr. Member....

Our growth is greater than the rest of Canada, so I assume we cover

inflation; but we have greater growth as well.

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

at an average rate of 22.8 percent per year. The comparable rate for

the country as a whole has been 17.9 percent."

This is another indication of how this province is growing.

"Since

this government took office, the number of jobs in the province has

increased by more than 170,000."

And they talk about unemployment! Yet the latest indicators show

that the unemployment rates are lower in British Columbia than in other

parts of Canada.

"In 1975 British Columbia accounted for over 17

percent of Canada's total time lost from strikes and work stoppages,

but by 1979 this share had declined to approximately 10 percent."

"And in 1979 British Columbia's 7.7 percent inflation

rate was well below the 9.1 percentage increase in consumer prices for

Canada."

Those are indicators as to how this administration has assisted in

developing the economy in this province. The results are there, and the

evidence is there. It's not overtaxation of people. It's an economy

that generates the revenues so that government can provide the services.

Those programs and policies brought into place over the past four

years the economy will continue in the future. Again, I'd like to refer

members to some of the comments in the budget: a five-year $1.4 billion

forest management program, a program to develop the forest industry for

future generations in this province; enabling legislation to create

small business venture capital corporations, an excellent

[ Page 1474 ]

move to stimulate investment in small business in this province; and

a reduction, in taxation. Again I come back to the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea), who talks about overtaxation of people. The small

businessman is the backbone of our economy, and in this budget we have

reduced his taxable rate from 12 percent to 10 percent — a move, again,

to assist and to stimulate the economy.

MR. LAUK: That covers inflation, does it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, the reduction is there. It

will assist to meet the inflationary trends experienced not just in

British Columbia or Canada, but in the whole world.

Mr. Speaker, the budget also recognizes the serious matters of

energy, the security of our energy supply and the conservation of

energy. And we can recall that no less than a few weeks ago, when the

energy policy statement was issued, the comments from the opposition

were that there wasn't anything in the energy policy statement, there

was no concrete material in the energy policy statement. But not one

member has commented on the statements that are in the budget which

refer to and carry out the government's strategy for energy and energy

conservation in this province.

This budget indicates the follow-up action that was in that policy

statement. For example, there is $10 million for an energy development

agency to look at research and development, to assist in our energy

security for this province, and a $1.5 million expenditure for a pilot

project for further extraction of oil in existing wells. As you may or

may not know, Mr. Speaker, the figure for extraction of oil from wells

under the conventional method is, I believe, about 35 percent of the

oil that's in the ground. So we have other reserves in the ground. If

we can improve the technology, if we can develop this pilot project, we

will be able to extract more of our own oil from our own wells, thereby

becoming more secure in our energy supply. There is $1.8 million, for

access roads to our natural gas fields. Those are things that are being

carried out in development of the source of energy and to secure energy

supply.

Energy conservation: $3.1 million this year, under the

federal-provincial agreement, and I would assume that would be matched

by the federal government — a $6.2 million expenditure under that

federal-provincial agreement for energy conservation, renewable energy

research, demonstration and development.

Sales tax relief for energy-efficient automobiles — and that, of

course, wouldn't apply to the member across the way, because, as the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) mentioned, he

drives a Mercedes-Benz, and as a result he falls into the 6 percent

rate classification. I would suggest he trade it in and move to a 4

percent rate; it would relieve him of some of his high costs of living

— sales tax relief for energy conservation materials and equipment.

They're all set out in the budget, Mr. Speaker; they're there for

the people to read, for people to take action on. Storm windows, for

example, have been made exempt from the sales tax, as have heat pumps,

wind-power equipment, solar-heating equipment, etc. And there is sales

tax relief for natural gas and electricity to give some indirect

relief, I think, to the consumer, because that is a reduction of their

monthly electric or gas bill that comes into the home. But it also may

be just the thing that makes some people think that maybe they should

look now to conversion from oil as a heating fuel to natural gas and/or

electricity.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, the budget in regard to energy sets out the

action that was stated in the energy policy statement which was made by

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

McClelland).

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Agriculture I want to touch on the

agricultural industry in this province for a few moments. On page 16 of

the budget a comment was made that "agriculture represents another

important renewable resource sector" of our economy. The only fault I

would find with the budget, I guess, is the comment in that one line

that says: ".... . another important renewable resource." At this time

it is my feeling that agriculture isn't just another renewable resource

of this province; it probably is second only to energy in this province

as a problem that faces British Columbians and the people of the world

today. We must, of course, have a viable, aggressive agricultural

industry in this province. I would suggest that as time goes on

agriculture will become the most important sector of the economy —

again, not just in this province but in Canada and in the world,

because we must feed our people.

We've had good growth in agriculture over the past year — excellent

growth, as a matter of fact. Let's go back to 1976 and look at some of

the statistics.

The number of farms in British Columbia has increased by 6 percent

since 1976, as opposed to a decline in all of Canada of 3 percent,

which means that more people are going into the agriculture industry in

British Columbia, thereby providing food for our people and for the

people of Canada and the world. In British Columbia we've had a 5

percent increase in cultivated farmland since 1976, as opposed to all

of Canada with no increase over the past four years, an indication that

we have activity in the farm community. And more productive farmland is

coming on stream in British Columbia.

Milk production in British Columbia increased by 9 percent, compared

to a 1 percent decrease for all of Canada — a very aggressive and

active milk industry in this province.

I'll just read some of these, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's

important that the members understand the activity going on in

agriculture.

Poultry is up 34 percent in this province, compared to 20 percent for all of Canada.

Fruit sales are up 80 percent in the past four years. Of course, I

might mention that the Okanagan supplies a great deal of that

fruit — with the exception, I guess, of the Creston Valley area. My

colleague from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and I are very

supportive of our tree-fruit industry.

Vegetable sales are up 32

percent.

Floriculture and nursery sales. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) isn't here, but I can tell you that in the past

four years sales are up 52 percent, compared to 28 percent for all of

Canada.

Honey production — a small but aggressive industry providing natural

food for the consumer — is up 100 percent over the past four years.

That is from the north. We have some excellent honey producers in the

north of this province — Peace River country.

Cattle numbers — a very important industry of this province — are up

3 percent, as opposed to a 10 percent decline for all of Canada.

The hog industry is up 72 percent, as opposed to a 48 percent increase for all of Canada.

Sheep are up 37 percent.

Wheat production is up 36 percent.

[ Page 1475 ]

Rapeseed production has increased twelve fold since 1976.

Agriculture is an aggressive industry. It is an industry that, as I

say, in the future is going to be one of the most important sectors —

if not the most important — of our economy in British Columbia and in

all of Canada.

However, I would like to mention that revenues in the agriculture

industry have increased in the last year by only 9 percent. That is the

farm-gate revenue — what the producer gets. But at the same time,

operating expenses to produce that food have escalated by 14.4 percent;

which means, of course, that the farmer is falling somewhat behind

while he is producing food for the people of this province. There is

another statistic that I think members of this House might be

interested in. A number of years ago the farmer received 60 percent of

the consumer's food dollar from the marketplace. Today he only receives

32 percent of that consumer's dollar. So, Mr. Speaker, the agriculture

industry in this province has been aggressive, expanded its production,

and met more of our needs; but the pressures of inflation, imported

products, increased energy costs, etc. are taking their toll of the

agriculture industry in this province.

Of course, as government we are acting to assist and support that

industry. We have moved to increase our budget considerably, as members

of this House will know, to $70 million this year — a 44 percent

increase over the expenditures for 1979-80. We are providing the major

portion of that in financial assistance to the agriculture industry to

help offset some of the high interest costs.

We are also carrying out the reorganization that I mentioned earlier

in my comments in response to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

We are carrying out a reorganization program which will regionalize

some of our activities in order to be able to provide services to the

areas in question, the regions of the province, and to be able to

respond more quickly to the farmer and the agriculture industry in that

particular area.

We have had other programs, of course. I think the one that has been

of the greatest assistance in the agriculture industry is that of the

ARDSA program signed in 1977. It is a federal-provincial agreement

which provides funds to assist the agriculture industry in this

province. To March 31, 1979, which is the date of the last report, we

expended $2.1 million in research and market promotion for agricultural

products in this province. In our coordinated resource management

programs we've expended $4.6 million. We've spent $600,000 in primary

resource development. We've spent $5.1 million in support services and

community development in this province for a total of $12.4 million

since 1977. We still have another three years to go. The total program

is $60 million to assist the farm community.

But these programs — and I am fully aware of this — may not be enough to

help the farmer of this province. He cannot understand why he, who is

providing the food, happens to be at the bottom of the food chain. He

cannot quite understand why his expenses keep going up and up, when the

price he gets from the marketplace and the competition he gets from

low-cost, imported products erode his income year after year. It is my

intention during this year to explore new ground on how we can help the

farmer in this province. We'll have to work closely with all sectors of

the industry and all commodity groups, because they all have problems.

We will have to work closely with them to identify those problems and

determine ways to resolve them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The mandate of my ministry, as the budget has mentioned, is to

expand to include the food sector. I think this is something that is

long overdue, because in many of our programs we have been acting in an

area "beyond the farmgate." But I think we will have to move fairly

quickly to see what assistance we can give them.

For example, we can provide assistance, I believe, to the food

processing industry. But there is a lot more we can do. We should be

able to extend our time in the marketplace by further processing of our

product, which would provide that opportunity instead of meeting just

the fresh market. Some storage of product would assist in the

processing sectors so our raw product is used in the value-added

sector, and it would become B.C.-processed food as opposed to cans of

food being imported into this province.

We must increase our technology in the processing sector in order to

compete with our U.S. counterparts. I think that we've fallen well

behind our counterparts in the United States. As a result our unit cost

of production, of course, is not competitive and it is eroding our

processing sector. I think we should be able to assist in that area.

There is another major problem that our producer has that very few

other businessmen have. In most cases they must pay cash for their

product, or they must buy the inputs to their production three months,

six months or nine months in advance. In other words, they must invest

in the land and then wait for nature and their good management to

provide the end result, the product that they will sell. They must be

able to pay cash to the labour that they have to have. They must buy

their supplies, fertilizer, etc. They must maintain and repair their

equipment and at the same time harvest the crop. In some instances they

must wait five or six months beyond that date in order to receive

payment for their production.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to look at a program whereby the farmer can be

relieved of some of that burden. It seems to me to be somewhat of an

injustice when the investments of that farmer — in his land, his

buildings, his equipment and his labour — has to be made, in some

instances, 12 or more months in advance of when he gets a return. But

there must be some way, some program that we can develop so that

government can assist in that way.

Mr. Speaker, other issues in agriculture that face us are the

environmental conflicts that we have. That may seem strange. An

environmental conflict? I thought the farmer was the greatest

environmentalist we ever had — the man who tends the soil of this

province. But we do have conflicts. We have a beef industry in this

province that is growing, is aggressive, and wants to finish its B.C.

product here, instead of shipping the calves or the yearlings back to

the Prairies. They want to finish them here. So I have to tell you that

we have conflicts. We have conflicts with (

a) environmentalists; (

b) those people who are anti-everything; and (

c) local governments. We

have those problems when we are attempting to expand that industry. We

run into roadblocks. I hope to be able to work with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to resolve some of those

problems.

We have problems with hog farms. Yes, the hog farm is not the nicest-smelling place in the world.

Interjection.

[ Page 1476 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the farmer.

However, I would just like to say that we have a great potential in

the hog industry in this province, but in many cases, on agricultural

land, land that is owned by the farmer himself, zoned agriculture, he

can't put in a hog farm because the urban encroachment is coming upon

him two or three miles down the road. We don't want to have it there.

We've got to resolve some of these problems. We've got to resolve

the problems of the use of chemicals to control our knapweed problem in

this province. Every time we attempt to do something we run into those

"anti" people who say, "No, you can't do it," and kick up such a fuss.

We've got a whole cattle industry that is based on having our our

grazing land available and yet it is being overrun by knapweed and our

hands are tied at every turn. I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to be

aggressive in this area and the agriculture industry and the ministry

are going to have to speak out fairly strongly if we want to see better

self-sufficiency in this province.

MR. KEMPF: What about the wolves?

HON. MR. HEWITT: And I guess, Mr. Member for Omineca, the wolves are certainly a problem in your area, and I agree with you.

We've got other problems, Mr. Speaker. We have problems of labour

costs in agriculture. As I mentioned before, the impact of high labour

costs on our packing houses is substantial, mainly because, though I'm

not objecting to the rates that are paid to workers in packing houses,

etc., as I said before, the farmer is at the bottom end of the food

chain. He can't pass on that increase, as the supermarket can, to the

consumer because he's competing with imported products, and the

imported products come into this province and he has to meet that

market price or he can't sell his product and so he's faced with higher

costs. The other members of that food chain can pass their costs along,

but not him; he is limited in what he can do. He is at the bottom end

of the food chain. We have the processors, we have the wholesalers, we

have the retailers and we have the consumer, who says: "Let's keep the

price of food down." Yet he's doing all that at the expense of the

producer.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, I'm just stating the problem. We will have to work to try to resolve those problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that this

problem occurs in agriculture, but it is there. It is a major problem.

I think if the agricultural industry is going to survive and prosper in

this province we have to address these problems. Other problems that

we're faced with in agriculture are transportation, as you know, energy

costs and, of course, the final one, which is the imported product. In

regard to the member for Prince Rupert's (Mr. Lea'

s) comments, I had

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) pass me a note here and I thought I'd just raise it, because

he kept saying that the way we got all this surplus money was through

overtaxation of people. That's what he said and he knows it's not

right, but he'll say anything in this House because he just wants to

point out that this government is a good government and managed the

funds well, and the economy is sound and as a result we have funds to

be able to spend.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development very kindly

passed this back to me and I'd just like to mention the drilling rig

operating days in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to hear it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, they don't want to hear it. Well, I

wanted to bring this up. You may recall that the minister tabled it but

I thought I'd mention it because it was such an excellent report.

MR. LEVI: He didn't table it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Did he not table this one?

MR. LEVI: He did not.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I tabled it this morning.

MR. LEVI: One page.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I'll table it again, if you like.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if we look back here, starting '72 to '73, and

I'm going May 1 to April 30, which is basically the operating year,

total operating days in B.C. were — this is '72 to '73....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was government then?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, for a good part of the time, of

course, it was Social Credit, and I imagine just after the election it

went like this. It was 5,471 days. In '74 to '75 it dropped to 3,692;

'75 to '76 — 3,440; '76 to '77, it starts to move up — there were 5,000

operating days in '76-77; '77-78 — 10,953 operating days; and May 1,

1978, to April 30, 1979 — 13,803 operating days. That means people are

working; they're receiving paycheques, the companies are working; the

suppliers to those companies are working and the economy is booming as

a result.

I'd just like to comment also, because it was raised yesterday in

regard to this $200 million interest rate program.... You know, I

find it hard to understand that the members....

MR. COCKE: You find it hard to understand anything.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I find it hard to understand the members of the opposition; you interjected too soon.

I find it hard to understand why they would not identify and

recognize the value of a $200 million program. Let's say that it's

money that's lent out, which you acknowledge, and as the money goes

out, of course, it will be repaid. But let's look at it in total, Mr.

Speaker, which they failed to do. Under the $200 million program, the

activity in the housing industry which will result.... I think it

was the member

[ Page 1477 ]

for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who touched on the fact that it was only

helping those people in single-family dwellings at the price of a

$95,000 home. He wouldn't say and didn't say that it helps people in

regard to mobile homes and modular homes and it helps in regard to

rental accommodation — all through the building sector. All wage levels

of people.... It's to assist them, but the ceiling is $95,000.

But the point I want to make is that injecting those funds into the

economy would result in about 8,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, in the

construction and allied industries in this province. It would assist in

using B.C. product, because in that program it said that B.C. product,

in regard to lumber, etc., should be used; it provides rental

accommodation when we have problems with rental accommodation in this

province; and finally, it affords the opportunity for many people to

own their own home.

I'd ask the members opposite: what's so wrong about that type of a

program? I think, Mr. Speaker, that the comments made about that

program should be ones of total support. The only reason we could do it

is because we had the funds, and we didn't get those funds from

overtaxation of individuals or withholding people services in this

province. We got those funds because of a sound, progressive economy in

this province.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes, and I would like to just

refer to a letter to the editor — and I'm sure I'll get a rise out of

the members on the opposition on this one. It was written by Andrew

Cleminson from Richmond. It says:

"Maybe at a time like this political parties should look back at the words of a not insignificant human being:

"'You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging

thrift; you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong; you

cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage-payer; you cannot

further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred; you cannot

help the poor by destroying the rich; you cannot keep out of trouble by

spending more than you earn; you cannot build character and courage by

taking away a man's initiative and independence; and you cannot help

men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for

themselves'. "

Mr. Speaker, I read that in the letters to the editor, but I'll tell you where else I read it. I read it in Newsweek magazine.

MR. COCKE: And the tears fall down your cheeks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster is out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just pointed out

those words. Although it's been debated in the press, I can only say

that the letter to the editor said those words came from Abraham

Lincoln. I would think that those words could apply today.

We often talk, Mr. Speaker, about the Waffle Manifesto in this

House. We often talk about the fact that socialism means control of

industry, control of the commerce and control of the finances of a

country by the state; that's really the definition of socialism. I

would like to think that those statements I made in regard to that

letter to the editor are the Social Credit philosophy, because they

mean that there is an opportunity for the individuals in this province

to gain some thing in this province. I think it means that governments

are there to assist those who are in need of help and to encourage

people to obtain their goals for themselves.

I'd just like to quote from the budget in closing. The Minister of

Finance said: "Our resources are rich and varied and our people are

skilled and energetic." Mr. Speaker, this government and this budget

allow for individual opportunity in this province. It has provided for

the health and welfare of our people; it has provided for education of

our youth, therefore our investment in our future; and it has provided

for the protection of our elderly and our handicapped. I'm pleased and

privileged to support this budget.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed privileged to take my

place in this debate, which has been marked by a good-spirited exchange

between members, if not always in order. And I've noticed that that

spirit has spilled over into the hallways on occasion. It is a

commitment that I think all members have to their own particular point

of view.

One of the factors that contributes to that spilling over into the

hallways is an item in the budget which I don't know whether to welcome

or not. We've noticed that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) has been completely unfettered in this particular session of

the Legislature, and I have been puzzling why that should take place.

With unlimited energy he has thrown himself into this debate. I

discovered a small item in the budget that's permitted this to happen:

they've taken the tax off windmills. He hasn't been the same since.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your firm guidance of the

debate and for the instruction you have given to the members of the

House. Generally, if I may be permitted to make this observation, most

of the contributions to the debate have been very good. I note that due

to recent problems within the Social Credit Party they have been

confined to one researcher for their backbenchers, because they're all

saying the same thing. But at least there's an inflection in tone that

varies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few general words abut the Canadian

scene. I welcomed your very good greetings, just this week in the

House, on Commonwealth Day. I think it's important for all members to

reflect on how important it is that we understand that Commonwealth

Day, and Commonwealth participation in world events, are part of a very

important role that we all positively contribute to. It has a role in

the Canadian scene. Even during the height of political diversity that

exists in this nation, none of the parties on the national scene have

forgotten their role in the Commonwealth, and that is good. Mr.

Trudeau, Mr. Clark and Mr. Broadbent restated a commitment to the

Commonwealth and the Confederation.

I did detect, with some hesitation and then with a note of sorrow,

that the once-great Social Credit Party has shifted its policy. We need

to have a clear-cut statement from this group governing this province

about whether or not they are in complete agreement with their national

party. It is with regret, Mr. Speaker, that we note that Fabien Roy,

the leader of the Social Credit Party, has decided to support the PQ in

the referendum vote in Quebec. I would hope, for the sake of all

Canadians, that we would have a clear-cut statement from the Premier of

this province that he separates himself completely from the position of

Fabien Roy and the national Social Credit Party. It may mean setting up

another party, but that will be no difficulty to many of the cabinet

ministers.

[ Page 1478 ]

They've been through a number of parties, and that trauma will not

be difficult for them. I think it's important that we hear from the

leader of the government in this province that Social Credit does not

speak for them, and they don't speak for Social Credit.

Now, in terms of the recent federal election, Mr. Speaker, I was

chagrined at the gratuitous comments made in the budget speech about

the newly elected federal government. Being a government of this great

nation and attempting to hold it together during its political

adolescence is difficult enough. Mr. Clark, Mr. Trudeau — now Prime

Minister again — and Mr. Broadbent took responsible positions during

the federal election campaign about policies, philosophies, and their

opinions about current problems in this country.

The people of Canada — almost all of them — went to the polls, Mr.

Speaker, and made a decision. That decision was to return a Liberal

government to Ottawa, although no Liberal candidates were successful in

western Canada except those who crossed the floor — they found a new

career. But I'm talking about federal Liberals; I don't want to confuse

the members opposite. Lo and behold, we got a federal government, and

here in British Columbia the citizens chose to elect 16 members of the

Conservative Party and 12 New Democrats. I regret those spoil-sports,

those cry-babies — I can't describe them any other way — who, because

the candidate they wanted to get elected didn't get elected, had to

talk about western alienation and western separatism.

I don't like to mention my good friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

The man has suffered a great ordeal lately. He's so hard up to sign up

members in Social Credit that he's chasing sasquatches to get their

membership money. Things are so tough now, he even wants to associate

into an economic union with the United States. Is that the policy of

Social Credit? Is that the separatism?

MR. COCKE: God made the country north and south.

MR. BARRETT: And turned him upside down! Mr. Speaker, it's

one thing to have a little fun with the member for Dewdney, because

everybody knows he provides comic relief. Even in the midst of all the

scandals he provides comic relief, but there are some serious moments.

I want to refer to a statement in the budget that concerns me as a

Canadian and should concern all of us British Columbians. I quote from

page 29 of the budget speech, and this is a budget speech allegedly

authored by a former Tory, former Liberal, now Socred. He knows about

all the parties — I don't see why he should be so particularly bitter

about one:

"The next few years will see important decisions made

at the national level, and it will be of utmost importance to ensure

that the interests and concerns of British Columbians are appropriately

reflected. The federal election results could make this more difficult

and the government of British Columbia will, therefore, have to pursue

intergovernmental affairs with more vigour."

Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken. Their choice of elected

representatives is free and open. I don't think casting aspersions on

the choice of the electorate in terms of western regions or eastern

regions serves any useful purpose in the budget speech — not at all.

But more important, I find it a little bit much to read that in the

budget speech remembering that the leader of this government didn't

choose to vote at all.

I understand René Lévesque didn't vote either, but at least he stuck

around. That's a pretty expensive excuse not to vote — to have to go to

Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I can't think of a greater failure for the leader of a government,

at a time of crisis in this nation, to make the statements he did about his

attitude towards voting and not vote at all and then, worst of all, come back

and instead of saying, "I made a mistake; I should have voted," start

making excuses as to why he didn't. I agree with my colleague, the hon. member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard), when he put it in eloquent, understandable, simple

language, which I will not repeat here, about how they will greet the Premier

when he goes back to Ottawa and complains about the federal government. One

of those fellows is going to lean over — on national television — look him right

in the eye and say: "And how did you vote?" And what is our Premier

going to say then? "Well, I was in Hawaii. I thought about it." Or,

"I didn't like the idea." Or, "I was mad at Fabien Roy."

There is no excuse, Mr. Speaker. This province has been let down, once by his

not voting and twice by the lack of an apology in not voting. What is the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) going to say to pupils about that?

If anybody knows the value of one vote it is the member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell), and if anybody who knows it better than the member for

Atlin, it is the former member for Atlin. I find it a little bit

regrettable — no, more than regrettable — that the Premier is up to his

usual lack of facing up to problems that he has created by giving poor

excuses about not having voted.

I suffer from a habit of going into the library. I would think that

if this government wanted to protect its reputation on a 24-hour basis,

the first thing it would do is close down the library. They keep old

speeches, old federal papers and old statements made by cabinet

ministers and by government leaders. Some of them are not so old. I

want to refer, in relation to this budget, to a document produced by

the Premier of British Columbia, Premier William R. Bennett. I intend

to refer to the Premier on occasion because I have noticed that among

certain cabinet ministers there seems to be a complete absence of

identifying themselves with the Premier. They talk about the budget,

they talk about expenditures, but they don't talk about their old pal

anymore.

I listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) speak for 40 minutes this morning and not once mention his old

pal Bill. He talked about backbenchers in the opposition. Look at his

face going red — you see that? Look! Look! I touched it! You see that,

Mr. Speaker? He doesn't want to be associated with the captain when

he's making a move to become first mate. Ahh! Look at him! Smile! Oh,

it's beautiful. I love that photogenic smile. It's even more automatic

than that of the guy he is trying to replace.

But I notice that when he spoke today he didn't talk about his former pal, the Premier.

Art not without ambition; but without

The illness should attend

it.

My friend, thou wouldst be great....

We'll go into Lady Macbeth later. [Laughter.] If you can't find a

Brutus, you can always find a Lady Macbeth. One way or the other,

you've got to do the job, boys. And you know what's happening if you

don't. You're all going to go down together. You're going to sink

faster than the Marguerite ever will!

Being a student of the library, I went in and got this

[ Page 1479 ]

document out. What did I discover? I discovered the new A plus B

theorem of W. R. Bennett, the Premier of the province of British

Columbia, as of February 1978. Lo and behold, on page 10 he says:

"For the period of at least three years all

governments should restrain spending growth to a rate of at least 1

percentage point below the growth rate in the economy, rate of growth

of gross domestic product for the federal government and rate of gross

provincial product for each province, each one related to the federal

and provincial government budgets. By way of example, if a provincial

economic growth ran at 10 percent, unadjusted for inflation, then

government spending would not grow at more than 9 percent, unadjusted

for inflation."

I believed the Premier intended to follow through this A plus B

theorem. Lo and behold, I went into the library, read past budgets and

have come up with the results of his formula as it now applies to his

government's budget. Why, in the year 1978-79, when this thesis was

approached, that was the year they followed it. As a matter of fact, I

think it occurred almost simultaneously. Does anyone in this chamber

think that the Premier had previous knowledge of what the budget

increase would be? Does anyone in this room think that Treasury Board

would let him know? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. Budget secrets are

well kept, so we must assume that it is only coincidence that the

Premier was right on in 1978-79.

The gross provincial product growth, on page 58 of the 1978-79

budget, was $31,353,000,000 — up 12 percent. The budget, under the

Premier's theory for that year, was up to $4,438,000,000 — an 11

percent increase. One year, one formula. Don't take into consideration

that both statements were made at the same time — that is the budget

and the formula. The actual spending that year was up close to that 11

percent.

Year two in the theory of the three-year plan is 1979-80. The gross

provincial product growth was up to $34,438,000,000 — up 10 percent.

Premier Bennett's formula on the proposed government spending should

have had the budget go up to $4,837,000,000 — a 9 percent increase

reflecting a 10 percent increase in the gross provincial product

growth. What was it up that second year? It was up to $5,270,000,000.

What was the increase? Not 9 percent, but 19 percent, more than double

the Premier's own formula. Did they rip up any of these copies of the

1978 statement? We saw the pious stage performance of the Premier as he

went back to federal government conferences, pronouncing in a tome-like

voice that this is the way the governments have to control their

spending — and in the second year of his formula the spending went up

to 19 percent.

This year is important. It is year three of the formula. Let us

examine what has happened this year under the Premier's formula. The

gross provincial product growth is $37,892,000,000 — up 10 percent. The

formula says to limit the increase to 9 percent. That would be a budget

of $5,272,000,000. No, Mr. Speaker. Taking into account the overruns —

I don't want this next statement to appear anywhere in public — which,

incidentally, were the highest this province has ever seen in any

single year.... Do you remember what they used to say about

overruns under our administration? Yes, we did have overruns in Human

Resources expenditures. The highest overruns in that $300 million-plus,

Mr. Speaker, were on blacktop — cover every thing. A new letter to the

editor — cover it with blacktop. A new whisper of a campaign — cover it

with blacktop. There was over $300 million in overruns, most of it in

expenditures on highways and not a penny of it approved in this chamber.

What do we find this year? Why, we find not the Premier's formula,

but a doubling again of the Premier's formula and an increase again of

19 percent.

Any person who has a commitment to a thread of honesty in political life and

to the philosophical pronouncement in terms of trying to define their approach

to government versus the democratic socialist approach to government....

This government says: "We want to cut back. Governments shouldn't be the

big gouger of taxes. We should limit our expenditures to a precise formula.

He announced this publicly, and then did exactly the opposite. This government

cannot be trusted in any area of fiscal statement in the province of British

Columbia.

I wonder what those good Conservative Party members, many of whom

support Social Credit, think about their approach to fiscal

responsibility. I must say that it strains credibility. It's not enough

to have all these other problems the government has which they are

incapable of handling and which continue to grow. The only relief we

have from those problems is the joy we see on the Premier's face when

it's a cabinet colleague, rather than he, who is in the glue for a

week. It's not very nice. It certainly strains credibility outside of

the other area when you examine their performance related to what

they've said they're going to do.

I'm sorry that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

is not here and that the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is

not here — oh, there he is.

The member for North Peace River made a very serious allegation

during his speech. He said that the NDP government had stolen Plateau

Mills. Now, Mr. Member, I don't normally pay too much attention to a

backbencher; they've got enough problems of their own. There's only 11

of you and you're all hoping to make the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I thought it was this member who said that we stole it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whoever said it, it was true.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, members should be responsible for

statements they make in this House. I challenge any member to go out in

this corridor and tell the press, or anyone else, that Dave Barrett and

the New Democratic Party stole Plateau Mills, and I will slap the

biggest libel suit on those people they've ever seen in their lives.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps you're new, and you're only a high

school principal, and you realize that you're not completely

responsible for your statements to adults; but in terms of your own

students, don't you come in here and lecture us with statements that

are absolutely false and only serve some kind of mixed-up political

purpose.

I say it again, Mr. Speaker, that if those members believe we stole

anything, then let them put their mouth right out in the open, have the

guts to say it outside this House, instead of

[ Page 1480 ]

that political slander that goes across the floor of this House and

is not based on fact. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I had to bring that

up and I'm sorry that I had to refer to the corridors. But I'll bet you

one thing: not one of them will call a press conference and say that we

stole anything while we were in office.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about where some of the money came

from. My other...the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips). I was going to call him my good friend, but I don't feel

that well disposed this week; maybe next week he'll be back to being my

good friend again. Last night his emotions got the best of his rational

behaviour, and that's a very thin line. I'm willing to forgive him, but

it'll take a few days. He speaks about the gas. Why, we all know where

a significant amount of this money comes from; it comes from the

British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, the most successful publicly

owned petroleum corporation in the history of North America.

Mr. Speaker, it was on this side.... I know you will remember,

along with other members, the 14-hour madness speeches given by the

member for South Peace River, attacking the Petroleum Corporation. I'd

like to remind some of the newer members what that member said at that

time.

I quote from the Times of Saturday, October 13, 1973: "'We're

heading — not walking, not even running but galloping head first — into

a complete socialist state in British Columbia.' said Don Phillips.

'They have created a jungle of bureaucracy in the corporations that

will take years to untangle,' he said in attacking the Petroleum

Corporation."

I quote the 1973 Hansard , on page 874. He said about the British Columbia Corporation:

Another thing that bothers me from the Premier's remarks is the

fact that out of all of these profits that the Premier says he is going to turn

back in to pay for schools and pay for hospitals and pay for this and services

to the public....

He didn't believe that any of that money would ever be made or would

be turned back to the people. I quote from page 875:

I don't see

anything in this act that says that this money is going to come back

into general revenue. No way. What in essence will happen is that for a

large number of years — 10 to 20 years — the taxpayers of this province

will be building up a conglomerate company that will cost the taxpayers

of this province millions and millions and millions of dollars out of

general revenue, and that millions and millions of dollars out of

general revenue will pass into this company without one word from this

Legislature….

Mr. Speaker, by the end of this year, $1.5 billion will come back

through general revenue to the citizens of the province of British

Columbia through that corporation which they voted against, because

they said it was socialist. When they're questioned about it now they

say: "Oh, it's just a tax-collecting agency." Half of the surplus

they're going to have this year is a direct result of the publicly

owned British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. And, Mr. Speaker, I would

think — even with a little whimsy — one of them might get up and say:

"You know, that wasn't a bad idea." If you want to soften our hearts,

and if you want to allow us to think that you've grown into some

maturity of understanding in the parliamentary system, stand up once in

a while when you've made a mistake, and say so. Stand up once in a

while and say: "That's not a bad idea; it worked out all right." If it

isn't, why didn't you kill it? Why haven't you killed the Petroleum

Corporation? I don't want to add misery to the point, Mr. Speaker, but

I'd like to remind you and the House that the first $25 million in

profit made from the Petroleum Corporation was used to buy up 13.5

percent ownership in Westcoast Transmission that El Paso was ordered by