1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 6, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6543 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, first report.

Mr. Stupich –– 6543

Crown Proceeding Act statement for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6543

Oral Questions

Use of vessel Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Lockstead –– 6543

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Lauk

Mr. King

Orders of the Day

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 7).

Report and third reading –– 6545

Financial Administration Act (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 41 –– 6545

Mr. Stupich

section 43 –– 6546

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Howard

Mr. Lorimer

section 54 –– 6547

Mr. Stupich

section 60 –– 6548

Mr. Nicolson

section 62 –– 6548

Mr. Nicolson

section 63 –– 6549

Mr. Nicolson

Financial Administration Act (Bill 27). Report and third reading — 6550

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9: Premier's office –– 6550

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Lauk

Mr. King

Mrs. Wallace

Tabling Documents

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services annual report, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6568

Erratum –– 6569

Appendix

Amendments to Bills –– 6569

MONDAY, JULY 6, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Visiting our province,

and with us in your gallery, sir, this afternoon are four citizens of

that great sunny state of California: Mr. Nicholas Watry, Mr. Michael

Light, and their wives, Elizabeth and Jane. I would ask the House to

make them very welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: Visiting us in the gallery today is an old friend, Alderman Les Garrison, and a friend, Monica Woldering, from Coquitlam.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

We have in the members' gallery today an international visitor from

Ottawa, and I would ask all members to welcome Mr. Valentine Fomitchev.

who is the first secretary of the embassy of the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics in our national capital.

HON. MR. McGEER:

In your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have a visitor from

Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. Miss Deirdre Daley was at

college with my daughter and has heard so much about our House, and I

know the members won't want to disappoint her.

MRS. DAILLY:

In the gallery today are two young men on their first visit to the B.C.

Legislature from Burnaby North. Their names are Tom Erskine and George

Finlayson. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is Mr. Larry Selby from

Cranbrook, British Columbia. I would like everyone to welcome him.

behalf of Ernest Hall, Chairman, Mr. Stupich presented the first report

of the Public Accounts and Economic Affairs committee, which was read

as follows and received: Report number 1, legislative committee room,

June 30, 1981.

" Mr. Speaker: Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

"Your

committee. chaired by Ernest Hall, has held ten meetings. Officials of

the auditor-general's office including the auditor-general Mrs. Erma

Morrison, officials of the comptroller-general's office including the

comptroller-general, as well as various ministry officials assisting

the comptroller-general appeared before the committee.

"During

the meetings the committee reviewed the report of the auditor-general

for the year ending March 31, 1980, and made inquiries as to matters

reported therein by the auditor-general, the comptroller-general and

various ministry officials. As well the committee received a

presentation from Mr. Jean-Pierre Boisclair from the Canadian

Comprehensive Auditing Foundation relating to the

section on the

comprehensive audit in the auditor-general's report.

"Upon request to the Chairman of the public documents committee,

it was resolved that in accordance with the Public Documents Disposal Act approval

be given to the destruction of various public documents, as listed in the submission

to the public accounts committee for 1981, insofar as the following ministries

are concerned: Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Education, Health, Human Resources,

Labour, Lands, Parks and Housing, Provincial Secretary, Environment, Attorney-General,

Industry and Small Business.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Ernest Hall, Chairman."

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon.

Mr. Curtis tabled the statement for the fiscal year ending March 31,

1980, in accordance with

section 15 of the Crown Proceeding Act,

Revised Statutes of B.C., 1979.

Oral Questions

USE OF VESSEL

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary, who is

responsible for protocol. Can the minister advise who requested the use

of the Queen of Prince Rupert for the junket of the Premiers to take place during the Premiers' meeting in August?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie continues.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the minister, who is responsible for

protocol for this government, would be good enough to reply to that

very serious question. Who requested the use of the Queen of Prince Rupert ?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, this minister does not have specific responsibility for the ferries of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, those who have questions will have an opportunity to ask them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I will then direct that same question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. Can that minister tell me who requested

the use of the Queen of Prince Rupert for the junket of the Premiers during the Premiers' meeting in August?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

First of all, in response to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, it's

not a junket under any circumstances. What the Premier is providing is

an opportunity for the Premiers of our country to see what British

Columbia truly looks like. We're proud of that, I hope you'll be proud

of that, and I hope you'll be totally supportive.

Interjections.

[ Page 6544 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) please come to order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I'll try one more time. I will ask the

Minister of Transportation and Highways if he will answer my question. Can the

minister advise who requested the use of the Queen of Prince Rupert for the

junket of the Premiers to take place during the Premiers' meeting in August?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know who asked for it, but I know the board of

directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that I'm a member of and which

is responsible to the government, acceded to the requests. We're

delighted to do so to show off our province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Since it's quite obvious the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations don't appear to know what's happening

between the governments of this country, I will direct this question to

the Minister of Transportation and Highways. How many days will that

vessel be out of service? One, two, three?

HON. MR. FRASER: The flagship of the B.C. Ferry fleet, the Queen of Prince Rupert ,

will be out of service for one northbound trip only from Port Hardy to

Prince Rupert to accommodate very important people of Canada.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a question to the same minister. If the purpose of the trip was

to promote the B.C. Ferry service, why were the Premiers not invited to

travel on a regular public sailing? Are you ashamed of the regular

sailings? Tell me, why were they not invited to travel on a regular

sailing?

HON. MR. FRASER: To answer the member for

Mackenzie, the Queen of Prince Rupert was offered to took after these

very important people along with their staff and, I might say, the

press. I said before that it's the flagship of the fleet. We want to

show off the finest and largest ferry fleet in the world. That is the

proper vessel to do it, rather than a regular run.

MR, LOCKSTEAD:

It has been brought to my attention that the vessel will be out of

service for three days. So I ask the Minister of Transportation and

Highways if he can confirm that the cost of operating the Queen of'Prince Rupert from the time it is taken out of regular service to the time it returns to regular service is going to be $106,198.

HON. MR. FRASER:

The figure used by the member for Mackenzie sounds like socialist

arithmetic, which I never pay any attention to. I know that it won't

cost that much. As a matter of fact, I look on it as an investment, not

at all as a cost to the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the same minister, who sees this as an

investment and not as a cost. Could the minister advise the House how

it is an investment in the promotion of the B.C. ferry service to throw

tourists and paying passengers from B.C. off the regular service? What

kind of reputation does that give the service'?

HON. MR. FRASER:

To the member who just asked how it is an investment, I think it is all

investment to show off what we have in this province. These people are

all friends of ours, and we want to show what a great ferry fleet we

have. To answer the other part of your question about throwing tourists

off, I would remind you that in two short years, during which your

party opposed it, we have increased the capacity on the north run by

two and a half.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this will be a lengthy explanation.

Your people opposed the Queen of the North

going on that run. It is on the run, supplying two and one half times

the capacity we had even in 1979. Regarding this one trip that the Queen of Prince Rupert

will miss, no tourists…. They were all advised long ago that we're

picking them up either the day before or the day after. They were told

about this in April, so you're a little late.

MR. LEGGATT:

Perhaps the minister would like to check these facts to see if they're

correct. This ferry travels at the busiest time of year, and it's

traditionally been at capacity, so when it was removed from service,

you removed a capacity ferry. That's the loss of 80 cars and 450

passengers and the additional revenue loss of $28,000. In view of that,

Mr. Speaker, why can't our poor Premiers take a public service and see

what the ferries are really like?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's observations, but he really

doesn't understand. We haul lots of tourists and lots of people. But

you know, that one trip alone will be a great saving, because we have

huge losses on every trip we make….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. FRASER:

It's all on the public record of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. You just

voted for a $63 million subsidy for this. Maybe we'll have a saving by

having a short run from Victoria to Vancouver.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Time is fleeting.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is to the same minister.

Given

the same logic that he has expressed in the House, surely we should be

taking it out of service three or four times, and to make even bigger

savings. You're still stuck with the problem of failing to promote that

service to the north by throwing B.C. paying passengers to the wolves

in favour of the Premiers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is the member's question?

MR. LAUK:

I'll tell you what the member's question should have been, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister is so concerned about saving money, what is he going to

do to make up the $22 million loss by their stupid decision to do away

with the Marguerite last year? Is he going to pay it out of his own pocket?

[ Page 6545 ]

Well,

seeing that he won't answer, I'll ask the question to tile Provincial

Secretary. Would he advise if movies will be taken of this trip

involving the Premiers of Canada?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They're going to have a still on board? That may save some money, but not for the medical service.

Could

the Provincial Secretary answer the question? Are Douglas B. DeHeal and

his group going to be on board, making movies of the Premiers' visit

here?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As has already been stated by the minister responsible

for ferries, the media have been invited to attend this function, as I'm

sure they'll wish to do. Obviously, pictures will be taken.

MR. LAUK:

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary can direct his mind to a very

simple question. Are Doug Heal and his group going to make movies of

this extravaganza for later use?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm

wondering if the member does not want to have any kind of

representation or pictures taken. I can't answer that question of how

Mr. Heal's office proposes to cover the event, but I'll be happy to

take it as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon.

members. In question period, only one member has the floor. That's the

questioner. The same rules that usually apply in debate would apply in

question period: he's not to be interrupted.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister assure the House that any films taken by Mr. Heal and any other government service at this visit on board the Rupert will not be used at a later time by the Social Credit Party for election purposes?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As has been clarified on many previous occasions, there would be no publicity of such an event for election purposes.

MR. KING:

I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The

ferry service has announced that the Ferry Corporation will absorb the

cost of the trip, because it gives a chance to spread the word about

B.C. Ferries across Canada. Could the minister explain to the House,

why cancelling a potential full booking and thereby inconveniencing

thousands of tourists from B.C. and around the world contributes at all

to the promotion of the B.C. Ferries service? Can he explain that to

the House, please?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member I would say to the

first part of your question that we're proud to show off the B.C. Ferries

fleet and we will absorb the cost to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. To the second

part, no tourists or passengers will be inconvenienced by that fine vessel the

Queen of Prince Rupert not making one northbound run.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders,

Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE (ALL TERRAIN)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Bill 7 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 27: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. which is a further clarification. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

HON, MR. CURTIS:

I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. That

again is a clarification which is appropriate. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that I understand

this. As I read

section 41 it gives the cabinet tile authority to borrow any

amount of money that it may want to borrow without coming back to the Legislature.

HON, MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I would not agree with that observation

by the member for Nanaimo, because

section 41 commences: "Where this or another

act confers on the government authority to borrow money, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may…authorize the Minister of Finance to borrow money…." Therefore

any act which has a borrowing limit would apply here, and the borrowing limit

would be part of that authority. I certainly assure the member that that is

not the intention, with respect to unlimited borrowing authority in

section

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

section 43.

[ Page 6546 ]

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'll try again on

section 43 with the same question. This

section would appear to me to give the cabinet the authority to borrow

whatever money it may want to borrow without coming back to the

Legislature.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Section 43 is temporary

borrowings. I realize that the hon. member for Nanaimo will have had in

opportunity to assess that which is intended here. Bearing in mind that

we are updating

an act which is many decades old, there may — I hope

not — occur an opportunity in the future when some temporary borrowing

is required. I think that the interests of the Legislature — if I may

express a personal point of view — are well cared for by the fact that

that temporary borrowing must be reported to the Legislature.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not quarrelling with the

section before us. I just

want to make sure I understand it. In legislation already passed in

this House, the government has increased its borrowing power this term

by some $4 billion. I want to make sure that I understand here that

what the minister calls temporary borrowing is for a period of one

year, and that it gives the minister, by recommendation to the cabinet,

the authority to borrow as much money as he thinks is required for as

long as one year without coming back to the Legislature — no limit at

all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to

section 43,

that is correct. Subsection (1) says the L-G-in-C may authorize the

Minister of Finance of the day to borrow for a period not exceeding 365

days. It is therefore to be seen as a temporary borrowing, which,

again, is the

section heading. There is no reference to the Legislature

in this context; but later there is a report to the Legislature that a

certain amount of money was borrowed for a given number of days.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, this is the procedure that the federal government

embarked upon some years ago which has got that government into the

silly position of currently borrowing millions upon millions of dollars

every Thursday of every week throughout the year, primarily for

refinancing — the treasury bill approach of the federal government.

This lays the groundwork for this government doing exactly the same

sort of thing. It's not a question of whether or not that's reported to

the Legislature. The federal government reports every Thursday what

their treasury bill sales are. All that is accomplished there. I

foresee the same thing happening here. We will get into the same kind

of procedure if this carte blanche is given to do this sort of thing.

If you borrow 180-day treasury bills, or you borrow 360-day

money, you can roll that over every year, every six months or every

three, months, whatever the case may be, and get yourselves….

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

You can. The bill before us permits that type of operation to take

place. I think we can't embark upon a condemnation of the federal

government for this procedure — justified as that is — and yet now ask

the Legislature to embark upon exactly the same course.

HON. MR, CURTIS: I differ from the

interpretation of the member for Skeena. This is temporary borrowing. There's

no question about it. The treasury bills — the borriwngs which occur

weekly, or very often at any rate, as far as the federal government is

concerned — are not reported to Parliament in quite the same way. This

is where there is insufficient money for the continuation of government

activities in special circumstances. The authority is then given to the

L-G-in-C to authorize the Minister of Finance of the day to obtain a

temporary loan and then to report on that. I would think that at the

time of the report there would be considerable debate in the

Legislature or in a committee.

We were silent on this point

to a certain extent, although I will refer members to

section 30 of the

existing Revenue Act where a similar provision is shown, without,

however, some of the safeguards which have been built into the new

section. If the members opposite would like to took at

section 30 of

the Revenue Act, which is existing legislation…. I'll read it very

quickly, if I may, Mr. Chairman:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in addition to all

other money authorized to be raised or borrowed by any other act, and in anticipation

of provincial revenue, may borrow or raise in the manner and at the time he

deems expedient, by the issue and sale of treasury bills or notes payable out

of the revenue within the fiscal year in which they are issued, money that is

considered necessary to meet the lawful expenditures of the province for the

fiscal year."

Section 30 (2) says:

"A recital or declaration in the order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

authorizing the issue and sale of bills or notes under this

section to the effect

that the amount authorized is necessary to realize the net sum required to

be raised or borrowed is conclusive evidence of that fact."

the contrary, we have strengthened the authority given to the

Legislature in this particular section, adapting it for the Financial

Administration Act. There is existing legislation which would have

permitted the same.

MR. HOWARD: Which, I think, is probably no justification for continuing the practice.

think the minister is in error in suggesting to the House that there

will be ample opportunity to debate whatever borrowings may take place

under this

section when the borrowings are reported to the House. The

minister knows there is no opportunity to debate a particular report.

The opportunities for debate are limited to subject matters then before

the House. An annual report of a department or a report under this

section will not become the subject of debate per se in the

Legislature. That opportunity may arise under the minister's estimates,

or in a budget debate, which is a wide-ranging, all-inclusive type of

debate, which usually results in passing reference to a number of

subject matters. But no opportunity will exist to be able to

specifically deal with the borrowings contemplated under this, to

identify and demarcate them by saying: "This is what you're debating,

and we want the Legislature to pay attention to this particular subject

and vote upon it." The opportunity, as I said, might occur under the

Minister of Finance's estimates, which is a kind of wide-ranging debate.

foresee in this that all the government is seeking to do is move in the

stupid direction that the federal government has been moving in for a

long period of time — that is, a lot of short-term borrowings on a

rollover basis. I know how abhor-

[ Page 6547 ]

rent

borrowing is to the minister and to this government. They want to hide

it in everybody else's jurisdiction — all the Crown corporations and

the like. Still and all, this lays the groundwork for an abuse of the

financial responsibilities of government and of this ministry. I don't

think the House should have anything whatever to do with this

particular proposal before us. It's just fraught with too many

difficulties for the future. There's too much opportunity for abuse —

too much chance to put this province directly into debt, in addition to

the indirect debt that this government has got us into over the years,

to put us into the position of being able to engage in a regular,

recurring set of short-term borrowings simply to retire debt that may

be coming due on any particular day. It's completely analogous to the

procedure followed by the federal government in its treasury bill

program.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would refer

section 42 — not for debate purposes, but to assist members of the

committee — wherein there can be no rollover of the debt which is dealt

with in

section 43. So in that respect the situation is not analogous

to the one in Ottawa. I will be happy to discuss this at length with

the member in committee, or with other members. I can't imagine a

financial administration act in a province which does not allow for

some temporary borrowing. In examining this, we….

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, I am concerned about borrowings by governments. There's far too

much borrowing by governments for operating purposes. We have thus far

managed to avoid that, and hopefully we shall continue to avoid that in

British Columbia, and not run into debt in order to carry out the

operations of government in any given fiscal year. But there could very

well be those occasions — a disaster, an economic disaster…. There

could be any number of reasons why the government would have to borrow

on a temporary basis in order to continue the operation of government.

This

has the sort of controls that I think should be built in. The member

and I disagree on that. I feel that the controls are quite tight.

Again, they are tighter than in the legislation which has existed for a

number of years.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose, had it not

been for the previous legislation which we have dealt with and

discussed. where the government has vastly increased its borrowing

power, we perhaps wouldn't be quite so concerned about this one. We

wonder just what is going on here with all this need to apparently be

ready to borrow a lot of money. I can appreciate what the minister

said, that it's not too different from the legislation already on the

books. But I would remind the minister that this House used to sit from

seven to nine weeks a year and then adjourn until the next year. But

now we are in continuous session, in the sense that when we do adjourn

we adjourn to the call of the Chair and can be called back at any time.

I would think that if any emergency does take place in the province it

should be something known to the members of the Legislature, it should

be information available to the public, and the government should not

give itself the unlimited power to borrow money even for 365 days on

top of all the other borrowing authority that it has arranged for

itself in this session.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman,

what concerns me about this

section 1 is that the government hasn't

been able to control its borrowings, and the debt of the province,

through its Crown corporations and so on, has doubled in the last five

years. We've seen an increase in borrowings of a great amount in the

legislation so far this year, and here's another area where borrowings

can be substantially increased further. It is because of this that

there is great concern regarding this particular section, as far as I

am concerned.

Section 43 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Gabelmann

An bon, member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 44 to 53 inclusive approved.

section 54.

MR. STUPICH:

section 54(2), we read: "A statement of the public debt

outstanding…and of all borrowing transactions…will be included in

public accounts." It has been the habit of this administration not to

table public accounts until just about one year after the end of the

year in question. Tabled accounts for the year ended March 31, 1980,

were tabled in the House in March 1981. So I take it from that that the

government is not obliged to provide us with this information in this

detail until public accounts are tabled, which could be as much as

approximately one year after the end of the fiscal year in question.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Actually, Mr. Chairman. It would be by December following the end of

the fiscal year or the commencement of the next session. I would think

that in practice it will occur most often in December of the calendar

year following the fiscal year which has ended the previous March 31.

MR. STUPICH:

I think that means then, Mr. Chairman, that the details of money

borrowed. say in April, would be revealed to us in December of the

following year. That's the

[ Page 6548 ]

worst

possible situation, I realize, but it could be money borrowed in April

and the details reported in December of the following year.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, but with the exception of the temporary borrowings, which are

dealt with in

section 43 — reflecting back there — which must be

reported in a much tighter time-frame.

Sections 54 to 59 inclusive approved.

section 60.

MR. NICOLSON:

This

section departs from the previous Revenue Act inasmuch as what it

is doing is allowing for recovery of public funds which may have been

collected — and I guess the most obvious example would be sales tax —

and not remitted to the Crown. I don't suppose anyone would argue with

that or perhaps even with some stiffer procedures. But I note that in

part (1)(

b) it also applies to people who have received public money

for which they are accountable to the government and have not duly

accounted for it. In other words, somehow the government has paid out

money, supposedly authorized by the comptroller's office, and the money

has been paid out on the basis of some voucher, I would expect. Then in

retrospect it is discovered that the voucher was not adequate and they

have tried to recover some of the moneys. By order of the minister the

government can…. It need not even be signed, but it would be treated as

if it were signed by the minister. It can be certified to be a debt of

public moneys, and a copy of the account stated by the Minister of

Finance and certified by him is evidence that the amount stated in it

is due and payable with interest.

Well, even that, of

course, is not too much out of keeping with the previous Revenue Act,

but this instrument then goes on to become evidence in a later section.

The upshoot of it is that compared with the old

section 26, I suppose —

and

section 26 refers back to

section 25 of the Revenue Act — it means

now that the Crown will be able to use this as evidence and garnishee

from a third party.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, no, that comes later.

MR. NICOLSON:

I know it comes later, but it builds up here because these are the

people to which these later sections shall apply. As I say, I have to

rise on

section 60 because I think it is a completely different matter

where people might be collecting public funds. People are collecting

sales tax. If you come up with a different figure on the amount of

sales tax that should have been remitted by a certain date, if they've

been holding it back. If they've been putting it into short-term

investments or some other misuse of the funds, that's one thing. But

the government is also saying that where they've paid out a voucher,

obviously — I can't imagine why they would pay something out if there

wasn't a voucher submitted, if it wasn't authorized by the comptroller

— then, on review, they find that they are in disagreement, they are

going to create an instrument in this particular

section which in

subsequent sections will enable them to recover without recourse to the

courts. In other words, they could….

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, no.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, they can require a third party to make payment to them. I would like the minister's explanation.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, the third party, I think, with

respect, we should leave until a later

section —

section 63 is one

which comes to mind, and there is an amendment in that section. This

deals with evidence. There was considerable discussion in the drafting

of this legislation. This is evidence only, best evidence; it is always

rebuttable. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is no intent here to

circumvent the normal procedures which would be available in all of

this when discussing it, first of all, conceptually and then looking at

it in terms of legislation. We wanted to walk the very fine line

between what is properly money due to the Crown, the public's money,

and the interests of the individual, the safeguarding of the individual

who is required to handle public money.

I submit, Mr.

Chairman, that we have covered both sides of the question quite well

but if it errs, I think it errs on the part of the individual. That

amendment which comes later — and I shouldn't speak to it — is yet

another indication of that.

This is not the final, absolute finish, the end of it. It does go to court, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 60 and 61 approved.

section 62.

MR. NICOLSON:

Well, here the time that is given…. If a person is ordered to supply a

proper voucher, they are given not less than 14 days after the date of

service of the direction on them. I think that 14 days, if it is a

small outfit that is providing service to the government, where the

head of the company might have left…. Or it could be a store, a little

electronic repair company servicing some Ministry of Highways with

communications equipment in Nakusp, B.C. I use that example because I

had an example where the government took over a year to pay a voucher

to a little electronics firm in Nakusp, B.C., and here the government

tells the small business person to supply this form within 14 days. I

just say that if that person happened to be in a vacation period —

caught, perhaps, sometimes during Christmas holidays and various other

times in the year — I think that 14 days is cutting it a little bit

fine. I would think that 30 days would be a lot more reasonable.

Fourteen days is fine for a big supplier, but not for some small

company.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I hear what

the member has said. It is permissive. The Minister of Finance may

direct this person to deliver this account, statement, return, whatever

it may be, within not less than 14 days. Frankly, in earlier drafts, we

were looking at less time, Mr. Chairman. I think one draft, as I

recall, spoke about seven days — not less than seven days. We could

argue as to whether it should be 10 days, or 21 days. It seemed to me

that 14 was about right. I wanted to guard, again, the individual, in

terms of an over-zealous administrator in government who would say: "We

want it right now; you must have it here within 48 hours." We don't

want that. This is, however, a document which belongs to the Crown….

Interjection.

[ Page 6549 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

"A statutory obligation," my colleague the House Leader (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) interjects. With respect to money being paid to a supplier, I

would remind the member that, of course, we now pay interest on overdue

accounts. That's a new policy which was introduced last year. That

overcomes the difficulty to which he alluded there. We could debate

whether it should be not less than 14 or 21 days. Frankly, after very

careful consideration, seven days wasn't enough. It seemed that 14

would be about right to require this to be returned, again remembering

that it's permissive.

Section 62 approved.

section 63.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 63 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON:

The amendment still doesn't address the problem that I see here. It

says: "Where a demand is made on a third party under this section, the

Minister of Finance shall in the same manner and in the same time

notify the debtor." That means the there shall be notification to the

debtor as well. That's okay; I'm in favour of that: but it certainly

doesn't answer my objections, which I'll debate after.

Amendment approved.

section 63 as amended.

MR. NICOLSON:

Having created a debtor under

section 60 — the debtor that I'm talking

about is the person involved with vouchers and providing service for

government, not being a collector for government — then the Minister of

Finance may demand of a third party who might owe money to this person

"that the money…"

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, like a bank or something.

"…payable

by the third party to the debtor be, in whole or in part, paid to the

Minister of Finance on account of the debtor's liability to the

government.

(2) The third party shall pay the money demanded under

subsection (1) to the Minister of Finance forthwith…." That is a

departure from the previous Revenue Act, where you created evidence to

support a proceeding for recovery, but a person had a little bit more

due process of law. Obviously if one looks beyond to

section 64, it

says: "Nothing in this Act affects or abrogates the right of the

government or any other person to institute any civil or criminal

proceeding…."

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay.

This means that if the government have decided that they aren't happy

with the voucher, they then create a debt against this person which is

due and payable with interest. They can then issue an order to a third

party to recover those funds. That's it. That's the person's day in

court. Then if the person wants to do something about that, I suppose,

the person would have to go to the courts to recover. It would appear

to me that for most of these things the government is saying: "We've

made a mistake. We paid out some money."

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, this is a debt.

MR. NICOLSON:

How else do you pay out to people except with vouchers and so on? "We

must have paid you too much. We weren't satisfied with the first

voucher, even though it was screened by the comptroller. We paid it

out. Then we're saying that on review we aren't satisfied with this

voucher. You supply us with a better one. If we don't like that, we're

going to recover the money from you." I'm talking about where you'd be

recovering money under this section. This person is put on to the

defensive, and the government puts them at jeopardy. Having had that

money withdrawn from them through a third party — something that is

owned to them — then the government says: "If you don't like it, take

us to court and sue us." I just cannot support this

section 63.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member and I have a difference of opinion with respect to just how

this

section would work. I think that the Crown must have access to a

third party. I would suggest that it is not simply because the

government has made a mistake. This is indeed common practice. For the

government of the day not to have this access to third party I think

would be a disservice to the public of the province, whose money is in

question.

The third party is likely not to be some

individual, but could very well be a major corporation. I think someone

interjected, "a bank." We want to be able to get to the Bank of

Montreal — I don't wish to single them out in the example — or a major

Canadian bank and say: "We have to access this money, and we're

notifying you. We have to access; it's owing to the Crown." I would

commend to the member the need for this kind of procedure.

MR. NICOLSON:

The minister then is not arguing that this is simply a rewriting of the

old Revenue Act. He is saying that this is new legislation, right?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This is new.

MR. NICOLSON: It is new. Thank you.

What

I think would be at least a little bit more fair would be that the

Crown could perhaps order that the funds from a third party be held,

pending the government initiating some sort of a civil — or criminal, I

suppose — suit. But what you are doing here is taking the money, and

you say that the Crown doesn't have access. Well, the Crown does have

access if they want to go through the same routine that any other

business would have to do, and that is to go to the courts. Where

you've been taken, you go to the courts.

How far is this

going to extend ? Are you now going to allow all major corporations to

apply to a third party without going through the courts?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. We're dealing with government here.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a different kind of law for big government. I guess I understand what you understand this to be, and I disagree.

[ Page 6550 ]

Section 63 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lorimer

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 64 to 116 inclusive approved.

section 117.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 117 as amended approved.

Sections 118 to 175 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27. Financial Administration Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 27, Financial Administration Act, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, before we proceed, I would ask leave to table a report of

the ombudsman of British Columbia, Special Report No. 3 to the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia: the Cuthbert Case.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 9: Premier's office, $664,544.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, before I start into the substance of my estimates, I

would say that last week I on behalf of the government and the Leader

of the Opposition on behalf of his party had an opportunity to express

the regrets of this House and, I believe, all British Columbians on the

passing of Terry Fox, and to send our regrets and our sympathies to his

family.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As you may

be aware, Mr. Chairman, Terry Fox ran a Marathon of Hope, and that

Marathon of Hope struck the hearts of peoples not only across our

country and within our own province but around the world. He ran the

Marathon of Hope to raise money for cancer research. As you know, at

that time — in the fall of 1980 — our government, on behalf of the

people of British Columbia, donated $1 million to cancer research

through the Canadian Cancer Society. Earlier this year, while Terry was

still living, we were able to set up a living and continuing memorial

for Terry while he was alive, and one which will now best express what

he set out to do — conquer not only cancer but all disease. We set up

the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation centre in British Columbia to

assist in a very major way not only the fight against cancer, but all

disease. As its first project, the centre will be undertaking major

initiatives in the field of cancer research.

Today on behalf

of the government, but for the people of B.C., I wish to announce a

further commemoration in honour of the memory of Terry Fox. As you

know, Terry fought his fight. He shared that fight with us in his

Marathon of Hope. That became his mountain to climb. Mountains are a

symbol to all of us of daring to try, and of things that must be

conquered. While that was his mountain to climb, we felt that nothing

would be more fitting at this time in British Columbia than to name a

mountain in honour of Terry Fox. This mountain which we are designating

Terry Fox Mountain is located seven miles north of Valemount, B.C. It's

eight miles east of Tête Jaune and 200 miles north of Kamloops. It is

visible from the Yellowhead Highway, It is in the Rockies in the Selwyn

range. It's 13 miles southwest of Mount Robson. Had it not been a

practice that has been ruled against, I would have brought pictures and

maps showing the location of this mountain, and showing the committee

its majestic grandeur. They are and will be available to members of

this House, not only to see pictures of the mountain but its location

on a map. They will be made available to members of the media during my

estimates, for locating and viewing the mountain.

I'm sure

all members of this House would agree that, along with the continuing

memorial of the Terry Fox Medical Research centre, now Terry Fox

Mountain will put in place in a geographic way a reminder for all time

of this outstanding

[ Page 6551 ]

young British Columbian and Canadian. Today it's my pleasure to announce Terry Fox Mountain in the location I've just mentioned.

Dealing

quickly with my estimates, Mr. Chairman, you will find out that one of

the largest items is for travel. A large part of that cost is the

increased interprovincial meetings, and interprovincial and federal

government meetings that have taken place over the last few years, and

which will substantially increase in the year 1981-82. As the incoming

chairman of the Premiers' conference for this year, I would expect that

the travel requirements will be more onerous than they have been in the

past, in consulting with my colleagues across the country on a number

of items important not only to governments, but to the peoples of each

province, of each region and of the country as a whole. As such, I not

only expect a number of interprovincial meetings but, as projected, a

number of federal-provincial meetings and conferences as well. Let me

say that during this last year, and in fact leading up to last

September, while it did not detract from the ability of this government

through our ministers, officials and advisers to deal with the problems

of the economy, to make suggestions and to consult — I know that's been

dealt with in the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Small

Business Development and the Ministry of Finance........ I wanted to

say that a large part of my travel was connected with the

constitutional proposals of the Prime Minister and a request for

consultation with the provinces that required a good deal of travel and

a good deal of public attention.

I did want to make the

point that…. It has probably been canvassed in the estimates of other

ministers, as I say: Industry and Small Business Development. Finance,

those social services ministries that must continually meet with their

counterparts and with the federal government to negotiate or discuss

what is and has been, and hopefully will be, a very good ongoing

relationship.

However, I would like to get back to the

constitutional discussion, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as it strikes at the

very heart of our country. I don't think there is a Canadian in any

part of this country who, deep down, doesn't want to see the

constitution in Canada. I don't think there is a Canadian who wouldn't

want to see an end to the endless debate and divisions that have been

caused during the constitutional discussions. I don't think there is a

Canadian who does not want us to succeed in preserving the strong

federal system which we have in this country.

What must be

made clear, Mr. Chairman, is that a federal system is distinct from a

unity state; a federal system calls upon a partnership between

governments, and in this case it is provinces and the federal

government. That was the concept of the country, a country that started

not just in 1867, but in the 1840s with the marriage of what was Upper

and Lower Canada, or what was called in assembly Canada West and Canada

East. It was from discussions following that, in 1864, that led to

Confederation among four provinces in 1867.

As you may be

aware, Mr. Chairman, six provinces were involved in those discussions

in a very real way; the two provinces that did not choose to join at

that time, of course, were Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

However, four founding provinces did, in fact, create a federal system

in which distinct powers of authority, distinct areas of ownership were

given to the provinces or were retained by the provinces,

whereas in

the national interest distinct powers were given to the federal

government, and in some key areas there were concurrent powers where

there was a concurrency of jurisdictions between the federal and

provincial governments.

Since 1867 and with the resultant

joining, either by acts of the Canadian parliament or by agreements

such as with the Crown colony of British Columbia or Newfoundland, we

have now arrived at a country of ten provinces within a federal system.

It is interesting to note that as much as we take our federal system

for granted and the uniqueness that it has, it is important to remember

that Canada has developed differently because of this federal system

than other parts of North America. In fact, it was that very wish to be

different, that very wish to build on the strengths of our differences,

whether they were regional, whether they were geographic, or whether

Canada was going to develop on the strengths of allowing our people to

be different as well…. We did not develop the melting-pot philosophy of

the United States or their strong, centralist attitudes.

have in this country a history of recognizing the various ethnic

origins of the people who make up Canada, and in our multicultural

policy — that is now defined as a multicultural policy but is a very

fact of Canada's uniqueness and diversity — we build on those strengths

rather than asking people to submerge them. And so it was that a

federal system allows us that same opportunity on a regional and a

provincial basis. There can be differences; and the provinces have a

unique partnership arrangement with the federal government. For 114

years our country has been served very well.

However, from

time to time in its history there have been attempts to not only bring

the constitution to Canada — it has never been here; we are under the

act of the British government — but there have been attempts to change

and make easier the ways in which the federal and provincial

governments can work together in arriving at solutions which require

agreement. As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, under the present

constitution the provinces, in their own jurisdictions, have been and

will continue to be able to make changes to the provincial constitution

without agreement from the federal government. The federal government

in turn has been able to make changes in those areas in the

constitution within the federal jurisdiction, and in the future they

will be able to do that. Where we need agreement, and where much of the

controversy has been created, is in those areas in which there must be

agreement between provincial and federal governments. That is where one

government is either surrendering or wishes to intrude — in the

national interest, perhaps — into the jurisdictional area of the other.

I must say it has been possible since we've become a country for

federal and provincial governments to conclude such agreements. I say

that only to bring to the attention of this Legislature that in the

past it has not been impossible for federal and provincial governments

to work together in areas requiring agreement.

What do we

have before us today? We have before us a situation, Mr. Chairman, that

requires the goodwill and more than just flag-waving patriotism to

resolve. It is going to be very difficult to resolve the present

constitutional debate. For what we have now is a departure from the

practice and convention of the country, in which up until now, through

every Prime Minister and all of the Premiers, it has been necessary to

achieve agreement amongst them all before making an intrusion into the

power of one or the other — particularly, as it would be in most

instances, a federal intrusion into the provincial power. I would say

the proposals that are before the Parliament of Canada and before the

[ Page 6552 ]

Supreme

Court of our country, as initiated by the Prime Minister, defy the

tradition and convention that has served this country so well.

The

difficulty is, Mr. Chairman, that it has created divisions where there

should be no divisions, because those divisions perhaps are both inside

and outside the country. It has created a strain on the government in

Great Britain: the possibility that they will be asked to make a

decision for Prime Minister Trudeau, on an agreement he couldn't

achieve within our country.

Is there an alternative'? I

think there is. At this time let me say that British Columbia has, from

the beginning, tried to be a part of the solution and not a part of the

problem leading to the constitution.

I would like at this

time to pay great credit to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

of this government, the Hon. Garde Gardom, who, during this past….

MR. MACDONALD: He looks tired.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The second member for Vancouver East says he looks tired, and he

should, because during this last year he undertook on behalf of our

government a mission in which he called on governments all across this

country in an attempt to try to bring them closer together to end the

deadlock and to find a way out of the confrontation which was

developing. He didn't do it with a lot of fanfare. He did it because,

politics aside, he was concerned about the future of our country, and

where that confrontation was heading.

A lot of the work and

initiative that he carried out on behalf of this government led to a

meeting of eight Premiers earlier this year, on April 16. It was at

that meeting that we were able to achieve what I consider to be a

reasonable way in which the people of this country, regardless of their

philosophical beliefs about whether rights should be in the

constitution, or whether offshore resource ownership should be extended

to provinces, or whether provinces should have sonic say in

international marketing…. Leaving those items of substance aside, the

accord we reached on April 16 presented us an opportunity not to

disregard those items of real interest to many Canadians and of

differing opinion among skilled and experienced legislators. What it

did provide was an opportunity to achieve the number one goal: to have

our constitution in our country. It would have achieved that this year,

1981, the fiftieth anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, which

ended Canada's colonial status, and it would also have provided for the

removal of the rigidity that has perhaps prevented resolution of these

items in our country before now, as unanimity has been the tradition

and practice of the country. That accord received the signature of

eight provinces; that is twice the number of provinces that formed

Canada in the first place. One of the signing provinces was the key

province of Quebec, which has a unique place in this country and which

until now has had difficulty with some of the proposals that have been

signed and agreed to by other provinces. Certainly we can go back to

other conferences where the holdout was the province of Quebec.

What was this proposal? The proposal was an accord containing an amending formula

that allows for two-thirds of the provinces and 50 percent of the population,

plus the federal government, on any item needing agreement. That is greater

flexibility, Mr. Chairman, than we've ever had before. It has been agreed

to by the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec,

Nova Scotia. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and it is available today

to receive the signatures of the two remaining provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick,

was meant as an opportunity, then, for all provinces to come together

and provide a means for having our constitution in our own country. It

provides the flexibility of an amending formula, as I say, that will

allow us to get on with the job of developing a made-in-Canada

constitution that will in effect allow Canadians, and Canadians only,

to deal with those items of substance that are currently on the list of

12 or 14 items on the agenda for discussion and change in the future.

It means that we would not have to go to Great Britain to ask them for

the BNA Act or a Canada Act, which would be another act of the British

Parliament. We could in effect take this accord, with the amending

formula, and the present BNA Act, with amendments, and make them bills

of the ten Legislatures of this country and of the Parliament of

Canada; we would in effect be writing our own constitution in Canada.

We would not be going as supplicants to Great Britain to get another

act of the British Parliament to deal with the Canadian constitution.

We would be writing our own constitution and providing the mechanism

that would allow us to get on with the job in our own country.

Surely

that is not unreasonable. It doesn't take away — in fact it enhances —

the opportunity for those who believe that rights should be in the

constitution rather than in the laws of parliament and legislatures. It

means that they can be discussed, debated and adopted if they utilize

this formula in our own country. It means that those who wish to

discuss provincial rights, resources, education, immigration…. None of

those things is eliminated from discussion; there is a greater

opportunity for discussion in a Canadian way, in our own country. There

is a greater opportunity for those who propose those things and who

have strong views on them to be able to achieve resolution in this

manner.

I don't know why some are so fearful of their

position in the things they advocate in a constitution that they would

rather operate in a unilateral way, asking Great Britain to do the job.

than to bring it home and have those items on the table of Canadian

confederation with an opportunity in this more flexible way to have a

greater opportunity of achieving success. If they're confident of their

positions, they should look for this better way — this Canadian way —

of making amendment in the future to the Canadian constitution. They

should not be timid. They should be optimistic. Those who feel strongly

that rights are more properly protected within the constitution have a

greater opportunity with this amending formula of achieving it and yet

keeping alive the unity everybody talks about within this country.

Instead of being done in a unilateral and divisive manner that not only

has divided regions but in some cases parties and families over the

issue, you could be able to achieve that debate in what would be the

Canadian and the rational way: that's within our own country.

don't feel the accord can be considered anything other than our

greatest opportunity to achieve this end. The accord is really an

answer to the resolution that this Legislature passed last December

when we called for a simple patriation with an amending formula. That

is what eight governments have been able to achieve. That's in the face

of some, both in this Legislature and on the national stage, who have

said that

[ Page 6553 ]

such

agreement was impossible. They are the ones who are negative in their

outlook and unable to be positive about their country or have the

confidence in their colleagues across this country to be able to

achieve such agreement. Rather than just saying that I believe in

Canada, I always like to say that I have that confidence in other

Canadians that they can achieve these types of agreements. They're not

impossible. There are some that said they are. But today we're that

much closer with eight provinces as signators to the accord, which I

think is a step forward within this country.

I would hope

that in the coining months, regardless of court decisions, we can get

back to the bargaining table in this country and to deal in a specific

way with the non-controversial aspects of patriation and amendment and

do the items of substance in our own country. I know that some members

in this chamber may feel strongly about certain aspects that the Prime

Minister contains in what he calls his patriation package. But they

would have the opportunity to debate those further in Canada in the

traditional way if we follow this course.

I want to say that

my office and this government have been flooded with mail from across

the country from ordinary citizens and politicians alike urging us to

get back to the bargaining table, trying to persuade us to get together

and try to find a way against what is unacceptable to anyone with any

sense of perspective of the history of this country — that is,

supporting unilateral action. I can't quote everyone who has phoned me

or written. I must say that those phone calls often come at home on a

weekend, on a Sunday, and from other parts of the country. I would like

to read into the record a letter I received from a parliamentarian, who

writes:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"As you are likely aware, I have recently announced my intention

to oppose the resolution before Parliament which is intended to amend and patriate

the constitution of Canada. Apart from reservations that I have regarding some

of the substance of the resolution, I have three major concerns which arise

from the unilateral process which the federal government has undertaken. First,

I believe that this process is creating, and will continue to create, divisions

in our country."

I think we can all agree with that.

"Second,

I fear that the current action is damaging intergovernmental relations

and will seriously jeopardize future constitutional reform.

"The

third concern was recently expressed by former privy council clerk

Gordon Robertson, who stated that the price of patriating the

constitution without broader provincial consent will be the loss of

public confidence in government itself.

"Clearly a change of course is required. In my statement

to the press of February 18, 1981, I proposed a return to the conference table.

I am convinced that if the current confrontation is to be resolved, the lead

will have to be taken by you and your counterparts in the other provinces. While

it would be preferable if the federal government were to agree to a new round

of federal-provincial discussions, it does not seem to me to be necessary to

await movement from Ottawa. The emergence from a premiers' conference of

an agreement on a package of constitutional reform and a clear expression of

willingness to address the central concerns of the federal government at a subsequent

federal-provincial conference would give focus to that majority element of public

opinion which is opposed to the unilateral aspect of the federal government's

initiative, but which lacks an alternative to support. There are, no doubt,

very real…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you that time under standing orders has elapsed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have one more paragraph, and then I'll table it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would appreciate an intervening speaker. The rules are quite explicit and that could be done.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I defer to the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll continue:

"There

are, no doubt, very real difficulties which arise from the principled

opposition of some governments to the entrenchment of a charter of

rights and from differences of opinion over the correct amending

formula. However, I believe, as I am sure a majority of Canadians do,

that no problem is insurmountable if approached with flexibility and in

a spirit of compromise.

"In conclusion I

believe that now is the time for the provinces to initiate a return to

the conference table. Hopefully a package of constitutional changes can

go forward based on consensus, the very minimum being an amending

formula on patriation."

"Sincerely yours,

"Lorne Nystrom."

I will ask leave at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, to table this document.

MR. BARRETT:

This is an unusual year. For the first time in my memory we have the

Premiers' estimates as the very last part of the estimates during the

session, rather than the very first. This is the first time that I can

recall the leader of the House putting himself behind the troops

instead of in front of them.

It is interesting to note that

the Premier made not one mention in the estimates of the state of the

economy of British Columbia, or of his own government's stewardship or

of the problems which exist for the ordinary citizens of British

Columbia. We were offered a rehash of his confused position on a

constitution, when the whole matter is sub judice in front of the

Supreme Court of Canada.

I find it interesting that the

Premier chose, rather than to face the House earlier on, to come in on

a matter which deals with something other than the real problems which

are facing the people of British Columbia and quietly expect his

estimates just to go through with a nice polite discussion of, as I

say. his confused position. It's up to him to explain to the people of

the province why he has chosen his estimates to come last. I don't

suppose it's a big issue with any citizen out there, but in terms of

the tradition of this House it is very interesting to note that when

the heat comes on, the last one to face the heat is the Premier of

British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I thought the Premier would

have addressed himself to the fact that under his stewardship this

province has doubled its debt. I thought the Premier would

[ Page 6554 ]

address

himself to the fact that in 1976 the debt of British Columbia was $4.5

billion, and that at the end of the fiscal year of 1982 it will be over

$10 billion. He has driven the debt of this province up 100 percent in

five short years — as a leader of a government that said "pay as you

go." Well, that certainly is true. We are paying the Americans, the

Europeans and everyone else who will loan us money at an unprecedented

rate of interest as we go along. The figures I quote now are figures

released by the government itself. Social Credit has doubled the debt

of the people of British Columbia in five short years. Because of the

mandate the government has, they have asked for and received

unprecedented legislative approval to drive us even further into debt

and into the arms of moneychangers and moneylenders throughout the

world.

There has been no reduction in the pace of grabbing

money up, no reduction in the pace of putting future generations in

jeopardy with this amount of debt, and no explanation. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Chairman, we've seen that the whole approach to public

business is to hide it on a shelf, hide it in a drawer, keep it secret

— such as the energy policy and energy decisions. We've had no public

hearings on vitally important matters such as to the location of gas

pipelines. We've had no public hearings or input process in any of this

— just pile up the debt and hope for the best. Do you deny that the

debt has doubled, Mr. Premier? Do you deny that under your stewardship

we're going to be over $10 billion in debt early next year, without any

reasonable explanation from those Crown corporations?

Every

single citizen of this province has seen the debt load under Social

Credit go from $1,800 per person in 1975 to $3,900 per person in 1981.

All British Columbians now must understand that the government has

borrowed $3,900 in their name and in the name of every single member of

their family. What does this mean? This means that when interest rates

were around 10 percent in 1975, people were faced with an $1,800 per

capita debt. They could handle it. With interest rates now up to 16 and

17 percent and a per capita debt that has more than doubled, taxes must

go up in British Columbia just to meet the cost of interest payments.

Interest payments almost match some of the more recent budgets in

British Columbia. They haven't quite caught up, but they almost reach

it. Every single man, woman and child in this province now must pay

interest on $3,900 a year, let alone touch the principal.

Public Accounts

shows that there has been a shifting of the debt too, a refining of the

old shell game that's gone on under this administration and this

Premier. Public Accounts

shows the following debt taken out of budgets from the old

pay-as-you-go system, and now deliberately put into borrowing funds:

B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority — $58

million; B.C. Buildings Corporation — $86 million; B.C. Ferry

Corporation — $15 million. And of course we've had this whole episode

of the minister selling off his ferries so we could buy them back.

That's truly Social Credit monetary theory: mortgage everything you've

got so you can buy it back.

We just sold a ferry to Royal

Trust for $6 million more than we paid to have it built, and we'll pay

for that ferry three times over just to get the chance to buy it back

to say it's our own. Will the minister tell the Premiers when they're

travelling on their special day on the special ferry: "You should have

pride in British Columbia's fleet, even though Royal Trust of Toronto

owns most of it"? Will you be handing out a little brochure to those

Premiers telling them how you sold off our ferry fleet to the eastern

financiers so that we get a chance to buy our own ships back? Will you

stamp a little souvenir card for them and say: "It's nice to travel on

Royal Trust ships"'?

MR. MACDONALD: We lease them, though.

MR. BARRETT:

We lease our own ships back. When the Premiers come on do you think for

one moment that they'll be told by Doug Heal, the Premier or anyone

else: "This really isn't our boat; we just sold it and we get a chance

to buy it back at three times what we paid for it"? Is that what you're

going to brag about when you're on the ferry? Knock all the ordinary

citizens off; you don't want to be seen with the riffraff'. I don't

blame you for not travelling with the riff-raff; they might ask you

some questions about the debt, about taxes, and about other problems in

this province.

When was the last time the Premier got out of

his car, walked on the ferry and spent a couple of hours on the ferry

with ordinary people of this province? His father did it. I did it.

When was the last time the Premier deigned to walk on with the ordinary

people of British Columbia and stand in line, and wait for a hamburger

and see how much you're charging people for terrible service on the

ferries? Why don't you let the other Premiers see that the special food

you'll be bringing on for that special day for them on Royal Trust's

ferry is not the standard fare for ordinary citizens of British

Columbia? Just keep the riff-raff away from the Premier. Don't let him

be bothered with citizens.

And if any citizen has a problem

with the debt or the overwhelming tax burden that I'm coming to now,

just tell them: "Don't worry; the Premier is working very hard on the

constitution. If you've lost a night's sleep worrying about paying your

taxes or your home payments or trying to come to Vancouver Island to

meet your relatives, don't worry about it; the Premier's worried about

the constitution." Thirty-five minutes of discussion here today, and

not a single word of concern about the ordinary people of British

Columbia and the problems that they have as ordinary people.

Yes,

Mr. Chairman, I know why the Premier wanted to wait until the dying

days of the session. It's just another one of his clever tricks. I

didn't say dirty tricks. Thinking that he can draw attention away from

the real problems is just one of his clever tricks.

What

about the record of who is paying taxes in British Columbia under this

government? Well, I want to tell you a very interesting statistic,

based on the government's own records. The mining tax revenue of

British Columbia was down $8 million last year. Mines are supposed to

be booming, according to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

The taxes for mines were down $8 million last year. The mineral land

tax has been cut by $500,000; the coal mineral royalty revenue has been

cut by $800,000; the oil and gas fees and permits revenue is down by

$100 million; the forest taxes have been cut by $65 million; the total

natural resource revenues are down 57 percent. Is there any citizen in

British Columbia who has had any of their home taxes, or the sales tax,

cut by any percentage by this government?

Some of these

corporations are eastern-based, and the Premier comes skiing down a

hill and says, "CPR, don't come out to British Columbia," so Noranda

comes out instead. While these corporations are stuffing money in their

suitcases and taking it back to bad old Ontario, the Premier is

[ Page 6555 ]

vilifying

the Premier of Ontario for not supporting his position on the

constitution. Why should the Premier of Ontario worry? Those people are

taking money out of British Columbia by the trunkful, because taxes are

being cut on those corporations while the citizens of British Columbia

have to pay.

Yes, and what about the people? All the people

out there must understand that in the last year alone their taxes have

gone up 37 percent under Social Credit. While the corporation taxes

have gone down 57 percent, the people's taxes have gone up 37 percent.

Mr.

Chairman, it is interesting to note, too, that we have hidden indexed

taxes for the first time. Every time somebody buys a litre of gasoline

now, they don't have to worry about the taxes being increased in this

Legislature. By law, that tax is now automatically built in at the gas

pump. It's a sneaky way of taking money from gas users in British

Columbia; it's a principle that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) said he would never go for, until he had to vote for

it in this House.

What does that mean, Mr. Chairman, in very

simple terms for the ordinary people, under that man as Premier, where

the debt has doubled and the per capita debt has gone from $1,800 to

$3,600 and individuals, taxes have gone up in a dramatic way? Last

year, before the budget, the individual taxes on citizens were $1,091

per capita.

[Interruption.]

MR. BARRETT:

That poor baby up there, while it is gasping for breath in the

galleries, must understand that last year it only had to pay $1,091 in

taxes through its parents, and this year the poor parents are stuck

with $1,492. While that child gasps for air, Mr. Chairman, the parents

gasp for sustenance and hope for relief from this problem, but there's

not a bit. What about the poor little companies? Let's hear it for the

poor little companies and what the Premier has done for the poor little

companies.

A year ago natural resources paid the people of

British Columbia $443 per person in taxes. This year those companies

only have to pay $254 per person. On a per capita basis, the companies

have had a cut in their taxes of almost 60 percent. The people have had

an increase of 37 percent. What would you rather be, little child, a

baby or a company? The way it costs nowadays, if you had the choice,

you might think twice.

It is all done in the name of Social

Credit accounting and accountability. Pouring on debt, cutting taxes

for the corporations, and the working people and those who are on fixed

incomes have to carry the burden. They have doubled the debt in five

years. If this pace continues, Mr. Chairman, there will be little hope

for optional expenditures.

What is the impact of this

tremendous increase in the costs of taxation and services? Mr.

Chairman, we have heard in here a litany, a catalogue, of the colleges

in this province having to cut staff and programs. While the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is saying that we don't have trained

people to take jobs, job opportunities through rational training is

being cut every single day because the budgets of small colleges are

being cut throughout this province. A hundred thousand dollars to take

a little ferry ride! It is symbolic, Mr. Chairman, of the stupidity and

priorities of this government. A hundred thousand dollars would put

some people to work training carpenters and electricians in this

province, but they have to have a day off to travel across on the ferry

to see what is going on.

Now we come to the increase in

taxes, and the Premier's word. I hate to do this, Mr. Chairman. I hate

to read the Premier's word back to him, because the Premier thinks in

24-hour dimensions. "If I said something a year ago, well, I meant it

then but I don't mean it now. That was appropriate at the time." That

was his standard response when the letter from Etienne Reuter came from

the EEC pointing out that the Premier had indeed been over in Europe

flogging uranium. Yes, Mr. Chairman, in April 1978 the Premier said

that the sales tax was cut to 4 percent and it would never go up again.

Do you know what "never" means in Social Credit? It means "well, hardly

ever." Do you know what happened, Mr. Chairman? Why, a few days later a

backbencher, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), got up and said…. It's

right here in Hansard : "Our

Premier made a commitment to the citizens of British Columbia that the

reduction in the sales tax is here to stay." We see it in a newspaper

article from the Vancouver Sun ,

where the big, black headlines read: "Reduced B.C. Sales Tax Here to

Stay, Says Bennett. There is a long-term commitment: straightforward

honesty and planning for the citizens of the province, and the

opposition is frustrated." Well, it is straightforward honesty to say

one thing and do another; it's straightforward honesty, Bennett-style —

and let's have that on the record. Most people, when they give their

word that they'll never increase taxes again…. Well, they don't do it.

But this fellow comes in here and talks about the constitution — and we

assume his is okay — and about the history of Canada, but he neglects

to mention that he, as a Premier of a province, made a solemn promise

never to raise that sales tax above 4 percent again. Yet this year he

stood up and voted for the raise.

MR. HOWARD: He sounds more like Trudeau every day.

MR. BARRETT:

You know, when it comes to teaching the Prime Minister a few tricks for

becoming a Nijinsky in the political field, no one can do a pas de deux

faster than the Premier of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Wait till Richard Green reads that!

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, my good friend the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is

trying to be minister of defence for the Premier. I appreciate that.

After all, you old Liberals have no ports to go to anymore. You're at

the end of the line; you have to defend the coach even though you don't

like it. I have never heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

make a public speech praising the Premier.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you have.

MR. BARRETT: I haven't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you have.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, if that's true, then the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was

the last one to praise the Premier publicly. I guess the conversion is

now complete. Are you praising him now, Mr. Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations?

[ Page 6556 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have all along.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you have. You've numbered the times, have you? Mr. Chairman, that's a matter for a separate debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, now that we've brought order back to the House, we'll

deal with some other statements by the Premier. We've showed how the

Premier said that the sales tax would never be increased, except hardly

ever, and then it went from 4 percent to 6 percent, and he voted for

it. What about inflation? Why, last December we came here and the

Premier was asked: "What are you going to do about inflation?" "Don't

talk about it now," he said to my colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich). "Don't worry about it. I'm going to send the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to a conference back in Ottawa." That's what

he promised.

The night before the conference was to take

place, where was the Minister of Finance? The Premier promised that he

would send the Minister of Finance to this important conference. The,

Premier and the Minister of Finance were in Vancouver and went to see

the play "Little Orphan Annie," and they ended up in a nightclub

afterwards. Where else would a fan of Daddy Warbucks go after seeing

"Little Orphan Annie"? Daddy Warbucks and the 14 millionaires over

there know exactly how they do during inflation; millionaires make

money during times of inflation; it's only a problem for ordinary

people. The Daddy Warbucks syndrome. I hope you paid for the nightclub

yourself; I assume you did. But if the newspaper report is incorrect, I

hope that the Premier would correct it. But after "Little Orphan

Annie," and under the influence of Daddy Warbucks, they went ahead to

fight inflation. It reminds me of the great fight that the former

Minister of Highways used to have against poverty: he used to throw

rocks at beggars. That was the way he approached the problem, Mr.

Chairman.

It's that same kind of attitude that we witnessed

even today when we tried to get an explanation of why they've taken a

ship out of regular service with the ferry. "Why," he said, like Marie

Antoinette, "let them swim." Do you think that they're going to get

ordinary ferry hamburgers on that little one-day trip'? Not on your

life. Do you think they're going to brown-bag it? For a hundred grand

they're going to eat good. I hope at least — and let's all pray for

this — that when the ship is going by, the ordinary riff-raff

travelling to and fro will get a royal wave on the way by. I hope it's

the whole hand. I hope it's a decent gesture. That's all that the

ordinary people can expect, Mr. Chairman.

What's he done

about rising interest rates? Why, nothing. On the same conference that

he was going to send the Minister of Finance…. There was no sending of

the Minister of Finance. Can the Premier tell us why he didn't keep his

promises on the sales tax and sending the Minister of Finance to that

conference?

The Premier made allusion to the fact that he couldn't bring a map in today

because we had a new ruling, for the first time ever in the history of this

House, about showing charts. What was the chart that we could have shown had

we been able? We would have shown a chart that to date over $59 million

could have been cut from the fat of this budget in terms of advertising, travel

and wasted money. But of course we can't show charts. If I were allowed

to show a chart, Mr. Chairman, this is the chart that I would show. But I can't

show charts, so I'm not going to show the chart that I was just showing

to show that I couldn't show a chart, because the people might be shocked

in seeing a chart-showing here in British Columbia. Some $59 million of taxpayers'

money is being wasted for silly expenditures by this government with no thought

whatsoever.

One

expenditure that the Premier never mentioned was the $20 million

birthday party he gave his child known as BCRIC, when he took the

assets that belonged to all the people of British Columbia and gave it

a $20 million going away present and said: "Here, tell the citizens how

you can buy a piece of the action." He certainly did. The Premier said:

"This is my baby. These shares are worth $11 or $12. I'm going to sell

them to you for $6." People watched the Premier of British Columbia on

television. So help me goodness, Mr. Chairman, there were still people

that day who believed the Premier of the province. They went out and

bought BCRIC shares at $6. They're now down to about $4.80. Have you

had your lesson in capitalism, folks? Have you had a piece of the rock,

right in the head? Guess who denies the parenthood of BCRIC, Mr.

Chairman? It is the Premier of this province: "It's got nothing to do

with me. I was just its father. I never expected it to be born and mess

up its diapers the way it has done. Now that it's done that, it's got

nothing to do with me. That's not my baby." If it's not your baby,

let's get back to the people of British Columbia the $20 million of

taxpayers' money that you wasted on launching that child.

used to hear those dulcet tones on television and the Premier being

interviewed saying: "This is your chance to get a hunk of British

Columbia." Edgar Kaiser believed him and got the biggest hunk of all.

For the next two months he'll continue to get $700,000 a month. Do you

know how much $700,000 a month is, Mr. Chairman? I'll show you how much

$700,000 a month is. Under this administration $700,000 is enough to

buy two houses in the city of Vancouver, You've done nothing to relieve

people in terms of homeownership. You've done nothing to relieve them

in terms of taxes. You've given away a major asset worth over $450

million. You've doubled the debt of the people of British Columbia.

You've dropped the taxes on the corporations, and you've upped them on

ordinary citizens. And today you want to talk about the constitution

and hope the time goes by quickly. You've broken promises on sales tax

and about sending the minister back east to conferences, and today you

want to talk about the constitution.

Debts, growing

immorality — oh, yes, we should touch on a little bit of that, and I

suppose we will today. Where was the first letter on the dirty tricks

scam to come from in terms of using public funds and a politician's

office as Premier for fund-raising? Where was the first signal to come

from in terms of the standard of behaviour that we were to expect from

that Premier and his office? The first letter was to come right out of

his office to Social Credit members asking them to join the Social

Credit Party. They had cheques along with his letter. He didn't know

then, and he doesn't know to this day, the separation of politics and

being Premier.

You're the one who told the citizens of British Columbia

that you're going to root out this business with the dirty tricks. All

we've seen is a rearguard battle by your cabinet

[ Page 6557 ]

fighting

off the inquiries by the ombudsman, who's attempting to get to the

bottom of that filthy mess that's left a scar on politics here in

British Columbia and will leave that scar for a long time. We've seen

it all, but I never thought for the life of me that on the day that

they had carefully selected to protect the Premier best of all, right

down to the end of the session, the last ministerial estimates and the

first time in my recollection that a Premier didn't lead but followed

his troop, just like following the mounted cavalry after most of the

band has past…. There's somebody along to sweep up, and there he was —

the Premier. What was the audacious announcement today? "We're going to

take a ferry out for a ferry ride." He doesn't want to be seen in

public or rub shoulders with ordinary citizens. I understand that more

than anyone else. I understand you and I understand your fears. I don't

blame you for not wanting to be seen with the people. I understand

that. With your record, you've got no other choice.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It's hard to respond sometimes to the Leader of the Opposition, who is

more concerned with his personal verbosity and revenge for having been

defeated twice in elections — once in a very personal way — than

dealing with the problems of government….

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Yes,

there are problems in British Columbia, which we face. That member

talks about inflation. Inflation is a problem for the country. I'll

deal with it. I'd like to point out that this government came in

following the most inflationary government that this province has ever

had. The Leader of the Opposition asked about three questions during

that long talk. I'll deal with them if he wants to listen. We had

inflation when we came in; British Columbia was the most inflationary

province in Canada. I remember that. I think the Leader of the

Opposition remembers it, because he was a large part of it — he was

Premier at that time. I remember the years 1974 and 1975, when British

Columbia's inflation rate was far above the national average. That

inflation rate is measured by the cost-price index. I would say that

there was steady improvement in the cost-price increase, using the

federal government measurement, in the city of Vancouver in the years

1976 to 1980. Vancouver and British Columbia were below the national

average on a continuing basis for the first time not like under the

previous NDP government.

I must admit that in 1981 there have been tremendous pressures on British Columbia

and North American tax policies and on the monetary policies of the Bank of

Canada, which are not the policies of this government and which have been opposed

by this government at first ministers' conferences on the economy. There

are now some Johnnies-come-lately making a noise about high interest rates, because

they think it will do them some good in a partisan way. Those people have been

good only in jumping on a problem when it's possible to get some benefit,

not to offer a solution. In identifying the problem, I would point out to the

members that this government, when given its first major opportunity, made economic

proposals. Perhaps it wasn't the political puffery that appeals to the opposition.

It was a very real set of economic proposals at the economic conference. and

it was described as such by other governments attending that conference and

by those who seriously viewed the conference, not for what they hoped to see

as wrong but for new suggestions they hoped would be advanced to do something

to bring some planning between federal and provincial governments to deal with

the Canadian economy. At that time we took a strong stand against high interest

rates. Goodness knows, they've gone higher since.

remember one of the things that the NDP ridiculed this government about

and wouldn't support was provincial appointments to national

institutions, so you could plug a provincial viewpoint into bodies that

make national decisions. I can remember when we advocated having a

provincially appointed representative at the Bank of Canada and at

other national institutions, and the New Democratic Party ridiculed it.

It's funny that those who either ridiculed or ignored it are now

advocating the very same thing. But there again, it wasn't politically

smart to do that in 1977 or 1978; there were no Brownie points to be

picked up on the partisan market. Forget about the good of Canada;

forget that there was then an opportunity to stand up and speak out.

But, no, at that time it was easier to either attack the proposals as

foolish or to ignore them.

In my view, high interest rates

are not only damaging to every Canadian but to the Canadian economy as

well. But you're not going to resolve this economy overnight, Mr.

Member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and Mr. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett). It's now going to be a very long, slow

process to have a made-in-Canada economy that doesn't become the tail

of the dog to the American economy. It is very hard when things which

would have prevented the situation we're in now — control of government

spending, control of costs related to GNP, realistic taxation and

pricing in this country….

I know that it is popular for

some, because everybody drives a car…. Not everybody who drives a car

stops to think about the national energy situation, or the replacement

for oil, or ending our dependence on imported oil. So it's nice to have

opposed any oil-price increase back then. I can remember the great,

hysterical. high-pitched speeches in this House, that often scare

babies out — that have in the past and did again today. But 1"ll tell

you, if we had faced our oil pricing dilemma a few years ago, if we'd

faced our dilemma of the high cost of government — a high cost which

was built up in the period when the federal Liberal government was a

minority government held captive by that little band of NDPers down

there, who forced them into high spending, and they went into high

borrowing to pay for it….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

You want to talk about high interest rates? You talk about the cause

and you talk about the solutions. I've heard a lot about the negative

economic policies of the NDP, who are the most negative group that I've

ever seen. I'll tell you. you have one member among you who is known to

be the most credible economic spokesman for your caucus. That's the

member who was given the job of leading economic development when your

party was government. I'd like to share with this House then — I wasn't

going to do this — what your own member predicted. After the election

of 1979 and in the report of a speech by the economic development

minister in the NDP government. we had a set of economic predictions,

which, I presume, were the official New Democratic Party predictions of

what was going to happen to the B.C. economy in 1980 and 1981. It is

useful, now that we have some time, to look at how these predictions

[ Page 6558 ]

worked out. Here is the headline from the Sun ,

August 13, 1979 — that's less than two years ago — and this is what the

headline says: "B.C. Faces Depression, Lauk Tells Convention." Then it

goes on to say: "British Columbia faces a major depression in the early

1980s, NDP MLA Gary Lauk said Saturday." He said continuing oil-price

increases and massive public and private debt will send unemployment

soaring.

Well, in fact.,our unemployment rate that he said

would be soaring is at some of the lowest figures we've had. It's

certainly far lower than during any period of the NDP government. In

fact, in January of this year we had perhaps the lowest figure since

the federal government started keeping statistics. So we've had a

continuing trend of growing employment under this government, something

you don't hear from those members over there. Here he is saying just

two years ago that unemployment would soar and land values would

plummet. Right now he's wrong on both counts, and every British

Columbian will know it because we've got a chance to took at the

economic expert for the NDP. As it says: "Lauk told the annual

convention of B.C. Young New Democrats" — the things he's saying that

turn out not to be true shouldn't be allowed near children — "at the

Britannia Community Centre." He said we're facing something pretty

serious.

"'The free market system is hitting a

reef,' Lauk said. 'We owe ten times what we own.' The former Mines

minister" — they were wrong there; I think he was Minister of Economic

Development; he might have been Minister of Mines as well — "in the

previous NDP government claimed a recession sparked by higher energy

costs will boost unemployment to more than 14 percent. Lauk said the

recession will turn into a depression when unemployment forces

homeowners to turn over heavily mortgaged property to banks and

mortgage companies, creating a glut of land and forcing down land

prices.

"A depression will happen first in the United States, but

will eventually drag Canada down, although B.C. will be able to stave off a

recession for a short time.

"'I think that in a year you are going to see layoffs

in the lumber industry, and in two or three years you will see it in the pulp

industry.'"

Here's what he said: layoffs in the lumber industry and in the pulp industry. Then he goes on to say:

"'I don't buy that Marxist stuff. We are not a totalitarian

party. I'm in favour of a mixed economy, which Canada has always had.'

While disclaiming any skills as an investment counsellor, Lauk said people who

are now buying gold will be in a good position in a recession, while investment

in land and buildings will not be safe in a few years. 'People who are buying

stocks and bonds are insane,' he added."

Well, since he gave that advice gold has dropped, land has gone up, houses

have gone up, unemployment has gone down, employment has gone up. You've

got 50,000 more people working in jobs in this province, far more than when

he made that speech. Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, it gives you some idea of the economic

ability and sincerity of that party. Obviously that was good politics to scare

people. The politics of fear and scare has always been a good tactic — frighten

people in hospitals, frighten people when they are sick and frighten people

into thinking we are going to have a depression.

What

I am thankful for is that almost two years after that set of

predictions, we have a far different situation. I am glad of it. We

have more people working than ever before in this province. We have

had, on a yearly basis since we became government, a lower unemployment

rate. We have more people working and, yes, as part of Canada, we share

that opportunity with other Canadians. Because we share that

opportunity for people to work and earn their way in life and earn an

opportunity to be able to provide for themselves and their families,

British Columbia has been under some pressure from other Canadians, and

that has created some problems. There is no doubt about it. It has put

pressure on the existing housing stock. It has accelerated the problem

created by the shortage of serviced land available for housing and the

agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt

that that calls for government trying to respond to changing

conditions. But rather than the condition of having to respond to a

government and province out of control, as we did when we took office

in 1975, we're now having to deal with the problems of our own success,

because rather than people leaving, people are coming back. People are

coming to join us. I see them every day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The Leader of the Opposition says: "When do you get out and talk to the

people?" Well, just about every day and certainly every weekend. Not

only did we talk to them, but they spoke back loudly in Kamloops during

the by-election, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. We didn't shaft a loyal

NDP member to bring in what was supposed to be the most popular

candidate and then run off to New Zealand. We stayed and explained….

Oh, the Leader of the Opposition has left, I guess, for New Zealand

again. He's looking for the other 2.5 million people who didn't show up

to his dinner.

Anyway, I want to say that we have problems.

What about housing? Our government has not been devoid of doing

something for housing. I will say that this government was anticipating

problems. Last year we introduced our housing initiative program to

supplement a number of other major provincial government initiatives

that have been set up by a previous Social Credit government. They

brought in the home-buyer's grant and the second mortgage fund. Do you

remember those great Social Credit programs? They still continue.

Now

what did the housing initiative program do? Well, what it did is set

the climate for British Columbia to have constructed within our

province in 1980…. With just 11 percent of the country's population, we

had 25 percent of all the housing starts in Canada last year.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, and the worst housing prices in Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Coquitlam-Moody says the worst housing prices — because

everybody wants to come. I acknowledge that. That's the problem. You

see, when we get a Socred government in B.C., everybody wants to come

and they push the price of housing up. I want to remind the member for

Coquitlam-Moody that I can remember 1974 and 1975. You were in Ottawa

then, but you are one of the ones who has chosen to come back and put

up the price of housing for everyone else. You had to come back. Well,

you haven't completed your job. You've only gone half-way.

[ Page 6559 ]

Anyhow,

I would say that if you had seen, as I have, communities like Terrace….

I'll talk about Terrace, because I remember visiting up there when

there were empty houses for sale, which the people had left because

they had no buyers. The community was in the economic doldrums. The

people were in despair. We had walkaways. You couldn't give your house

away. People were leaving, and there was no employment. Today Terrace

is a booming community. Their problem today is not filling those houses

that the people had walked away from; it's building them fast enough,

as is the problem in the rest of the province, to accommodate our

growing population. It's a population that isn't growing just at the

normal rate of provincial growth, but through migration of other

Canadians coming to this province.

Now I agree with you:

it's a problem. We will be dealing with it. I'd like to tell you that

over and above the housing programs now, our housing construction

starts continue at an accelerated rate over the large number of houses

built last year. It's impossible for us to completely remove ourselves

from the national climate of high interest rates. That's one of the

difficulties we've got: the high interest rates of the federal

government. It's difficult for a provincial government to utilize the

taxes of our citizens, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), to

counteract a federal financial policy of high interest rates.

That's

the point I was making. We were trying to get them to change their

economic policies from federally initiated policies to truly national

policies that would be developed in concert with the provinces, over

three and four years ago. That's when we talked about many of the

financial proposals we made that dealt with a lot of recommendations

that were made by the Economic Council and economists. They weren't

dreamed up in some fuzzy world that you like to describe as Social

Credit, They were a real attempt to try and deal, as we could as a

government concerned about our province and our country, with something

about the economy.

Sometimes you can't wrap the correct

solutions in good political slogans. Perhaps political sloganeering is

part of the problem we have in this country. The good political

pitchman whose political speeches often sound like those that you would

get from the fellow selling salad-makers at the circus — perhaps they

catch the people's attention and prevent some politicians and some

governments from undertaking the very real tough decisions that have to

be made.

I have to say that the decisions will not be

popular in this country. We witnessed it with the Clark federal

government. They tried to talk tough. They talked about a gasoline tax

increase of 18 or 19 cents, and they were turned out by a party who

said that they wouldn't do it. Now the gasoline costs have gone up by

the federal government much more than those proposed.

Mr.

Member for Coquitlam-Moody, you know both the federal and the

provincial scenes, and you know the national energy policy is a large

part of our problem.

In British Columbia we also have the

high cost of social services. There's no doubt that in many cases we're

the cutting edge for the rest of the country in costs and salaries. We

have the highest salaries and wages in the country. That reflects in

the cost to government and in the ability of the government to serve us.

The

Leader of the Opposition mentioned taxation in his remarks. He talked

about a fall in resource revenue as a measure of whether the province

was prosperous or not. He didn't relate it to people working or to a

decrease in unemployment or employment. As a socialist and a government

operator, he only relates it to what income you can get to government.

I think it's very dim in his memory. If many thought he had forgotten.

Let them be reminded by his attitude today that the mining-tax

proposals of his government put people out of work. I've often said,

and I'll say it again, that the hand of government in an area such as

forestry and resources where there are escalating world prices…. We

don't set the prices in B.C. We're selling primarily outside the

province. The hand of the government should not be so big in the pot

that it inhibits the ability of those firms to continue operating and

of the people to continue working.

It was a point that the

former government and the present Leader of the Opposition still miss.

Our commitment is more to people working than to government being part

of the problem and having taxation so onerous like the Mineral

Royalties Act which you brought in. In effect, it would be there

whether markets were high or low and then force companies to shut down

and lay off people, because you cared more about big government and

going out and saying how much you could tax the companies, if only they

were working. We remember that, but let it now be made clear to those

who thought that the leopard had changed his spots. They still have the

very same philosophy. They measure everything in how much government

can suck out of an economy, regardless of whether it hurts people,

forces business to shut down or creates unemployment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Now the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) giggles and says:

"Where were you?" I'll tell you what. You want to talk about

businesses. We've had a record number of incorporations of new small

businesses coming into this province each and every year. With over

20,000 new small businesses starting last year, this year we have an

increase of between 30 and 40 percent in the number of new companies

over last year.

I want to tell you something. Mr. Leader of

the Opposition and Mr. NDP. British Columbia was the only province in

all of Canada last year where we had a reduction in bankruptcies. And

you don't care about that. He frowns because that's not important. He

says: "What does it mean in revenue to government? That's only people.

That's only small business."

You may think about your

big-government revenues and ways in which you can suck the revenue out

of the people. You may stand up and make a speech about how forest

revenue or mineral revenue is down. Well, I'll tell you, it's very

simple: the international prices are down, and we have a tax on

profits. But I'll tell you what: those people are still working. They

haven't been driven out of the province as they were in 1974 and 1975.

The hand of government hasn't scooped for so much that business and

people were driven out. They're still working. The facts speak for

themselves: more people working, lower rates of unemployment.

talk about taxes. I can remember when we had some great debates about

the tax on small business. I can remember an organization going around

this province in the last election saying they were independent — Mr.

Len Friesen, a good friend — supporting the NDP. I'm waiting for his

congratulatory letter, because of course he knows that it was the New

Democratic Party and the Finance minister of that day — if I

[ Page 6560 ]

can

remember who was Finance minister — who brought in the capital tax that

taxed not only the equity but the debt borrowed to provide the equity

of small business.

This government has reduced and taken all

those small businesses off the iniquitous capital tax that hurt small

business. Businesses that had to borrow money…. Can you believe

it? Little businesses. They didn't tax just the money they put in for

shares; they taxed the money they had to borrow at the bank. Who

introduced it? Can you remember? Who remembers who introduced that?

Well, we've reduced that, and that's part of the figures where the

Leader of the Opposition says we've reduced taxes on business. You're

darned right. And small business now has one of the lowest rates it has

ever had in British Columbia — 8 percent of provincial taxation. But I

would suppose that's part of the reduction that the Leader of the

Opposition opposes.

The tax on business is reduced, yes.

Small business in this province gets a break — it gets a big break. We

have reduced the tax on small business, yes. I will be willing to go

out and share that information with the people — that you oppose those

things we've done to assist the development of small business, which

has helped to create the employment. Because I guess it's not just the

people who are struggling to start those businesses; it's the ones who

are working.

You know, most people don't want to deal with

your big government or big revenues when you talk about this. They'd

rather have a job and earn and pay their own way. That's what most

people in this province want. That's why I think that while things

aren't perfect in this province economically — and I readily admit that

— compared to both the national economic situation and the

international economic situation as it applies to North America,

British Columbia is better off than it was in the years 1975, '74 and

'73, and it's certainly better off than it has ever been.

think that those are the things, as I talk to British Columbians around

this province…. It may be that some don't wish to listen to the

people but wish to sell them their own version. The people are going to

be very skeptical of people who not only keep predicting things to them

that don't turn out to be true, but keep telling them that things are

bad when now they've got a job, they don't have to abandon their house

and they've got more equity than they had before. I think they're going

to question it.

Sure, we've got a lot to do, and this

government will continue to do it. And we'll seek advice. I seek advice

from the opposition. You don't have to tell me the problems; I know the

problems. I'd like some advice on some of the solutions. We'd be very

appreciative in this House to receive suggestions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members will have an opportunity to speak when they are recognized.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that in those areas there has been a lot of improvement in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK:

I'll just take a couple of minutes. I'm very flattered that several

times during the past three or four years the Premier and the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) have quoted a

speech of mine that was three or four years old.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Two years? Well, I always enjoy hearing my own speeches; there's no question about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It must be that you give the same speech every two years.

MR. LAUK:

Well, no, I don't have to. Obviously, I just give it once, and you'll

give it three or four times. I wonder why the Premier and the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs flatter me by reading out the speech

so often. I think they're a little bit worried by the warning in there

for this government.

The Premier talks about federal

spending and provincial spending. He talks about the inflation-fuelled

economy caused by the federal government. In fairness, it should be

pointed out that the largest percentage increase in government spending

in Canada in the past two years has been here in British Columbia. The

most fantastic increase in government spending has been right here

under the stewardship of this Premier.

In August 1979 I said

that massive public and private debt would bring about an increased

cost of housing, inflation and interest rates would make housing

inaccessible. Therefore people would not be able to sell their homes,

and foreclosures would take place. I warned the government of the day

that unless they brought back the Housing Corporation and housing

programs, the people would be left unprotected. The Premier asked for

advice. I gave him advice two years ago; I gave him advice four or five

years ago. Did he listen to the advice from the hon. member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann) a month or two ago in estimates when he talked

about the housing crisis? — not a word in response. He wants advice but

he doesn't listen to it.

He says there's a reduction in

bankruptcies this year in British Columbia and that the number is the

lowest anywhere in the country. That's because in the previous two

years it was the highest anywhere in the country. There aren't any

businesses left to go bankrupt, after the two years prior to last year.

Small businesses starting out — he's talking about incorporations. If

I've heard that old saw once from that side of the House I've heard it

a hundred times. Anybody can incorporate a company. They incorporate

companies every day. Husbands and wives incorporate companies, one

against the other and another on the side, and you've got a little

business incorporating three or four times in a year. What does that

mean? It means nothing. It means that we lawyers make a lot of money

incorporating companies. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the

economy. It's not an indicator for the economy. The Conference Board in

Canada — no economic institute, no economic advisers anywhere in the

country use incorporations as a measure of economic development. No one

except the Premier of the province of British Columbia uses them. Why?

Because it's just a front.

There is massive debt. This side

of the House predicted the problems that this government would be in

when there was massive debt, and they have ignored us. I said that

anyone who buys stocks and bonds would be unwise to do so in an economy

that was fuelled by inflation. But I will say this: I had no idea how

important my advice was to the average BCRIC shareholder. The Premier

of this province said: "You've got to learn about stocks. You've got to

learn about the stock exchange." The other day the member for

[ Page 6561 ]

Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem) said: "It's the great casino in the sky. It's a sacred

institution — the stock exchange on Howe Street." Everybody down there

should be wearing masks today. Who is that masked man who just sold us

the BCRIC shares? I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman. The only person who

benefited was the man who looted the BCRIC treasury, aided and abetted

by, and with the knowledge of this government — that was Edgar Kaiser

Jr. He looted the BCRIC treasury. He looted it in front of our very

eyes. And this Premier has the nerve to stand up and quote one of my

speeches and say: "Well, you know, gold has gone down," or something

like that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I gave a

solemn warning then to a group of friends — and I say so in this

chamber — that this government has not acted responsibly. I blame the

federal government too, but this government cannot escape

responsibility. Massive debt, public and private, if tolerated, fuels

inflation and causes a disruption in the economy that will increase

foreclosures and bankruptcies. It can be avoided with good, sensitive

people policies, which this government ignores. Accept advice? Never!

His eyes are closed and he's deaf and dumb when it comes to policies

for people. But when it comes to giving breaks to big corporations,

he's all ears and all eyes.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

the Premier has learned a few things since being elected to the

Legislature. I don't think he's as good a politician as his father was,

but certainly his speaking ability has improved. I congratulate him for

that. He has learned a few other things too. He has learned that when

he's under attack and challenged to account for the performance of his

government, it is useful to use a political diversion. The Premier

frequently does that. When he's challenged to account for the record of

his government today, he reverts to the NDP years of 1972 to 1975 or

some other era in British Columbia's history rather than taking the

onus which he holds as Premier of this province to account for the

economy, to account for the social fabric of the community today.

quoted my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

He quoted from a speech wherein certain predictions were made, and he

said that was only a year and a half or two years ago — in August 1979.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Premier that he might well

have quoted from a business editorial in the Vancouver Sun ,

dated June 18, 1981 — just last month, not a year and a half ago.

"B.C.'s Outlook: Inflation Cited, Less Immigration. B.C.'s economic

growth rate, bogged down by inflation, the ills of trading partners and

housing affordability problems, will not nearly equal that of the past

two years, a B.C. central credit union analysis released Wednesday

predicts."

The Premier is fond of talking about all of the

in-migration, the population explosion, and the jobs created in the

province of British Columbia. Some rudimentary homework, Mr. Chairman,

would show the Premier that over the historical prospective the

in-migration to the province of British Columbia, despite economic

circumstances, has been in excess of 3 percent, the highest in the

nation. That has something to do with the lovely province that we are

fortunate enough to live in. It has something to do with the climate —

not the political climate. Mr. Chairman, but the climate per se.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is that why they left when you were government? Were the trees less green when you were government?

MR. KING:

I know when I talk about climate the wind starts to blow from the

north. But it is not that kind of hot air that attracts people to the

province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask all hon. members not to interrupt the member who is now speaking.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, the same business analysis done by the central credit

union of British Columbia and published just last month in the

Vancouver Sun has this to say: "The province's 14.2 percent

inflation rate. fuelled by last year's enormous growth in greater

Vancouver housing prices, is now the highest in North America. It will

remain relatively high in 1981, not only in Canada but in North

America." And the Premier gets up and brags about the healthy state of

the economy.

Well, Mr. Chairman. I can understand that.

You're a rich kid from Kelowna: you're not bothered by inflation. You

make money on it. All of the 14 millionaires on that side of the House

think inflation is wonderful. They see their bank accounts bulge. But I

want to tell him that the working people of the province, the majority

of whom are unorganized and not enjoying the protection of a trade

union, but slaving under the pitifully low minimum wage law in this

province, don't think it is funny. They are not very comfortable with

the highest rate of inflation in North America. They can't afford a

home in this province. The young people in the province today do not

have a ghost of a chance of owning their own home in the foreseeable