1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1979

Morning Sitting

[ Page

23 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget address. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 23

Budget debate.

Mr. Stupich –– 25

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 30

Mr. Lorimer –– 32

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 33

Mr. Barnes –– 38

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Pari Mutual Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Funds Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr.

Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 11).

Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 40

FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HALL: I would like to have the House welcome today two visitors

from the state of Mississippi, Mr. Roosevelt Jones and Mr. Bob Reid, accompanied

by Ernie Clarke, the third vice-president of the IWA Regional Council No. 1.

The

gentlemen from Mississippi, Mr. Speaker, are visiting western Canada,

Alberta and British Columbia to acquaint us of the conduct of their

employer, Husky Oil Ltd., and some of the reprehensible activities that

are taking place in Mississippi.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today are approximately 25 grade 11 students

from Claremont Secondary School in the constituency of Saanich and the

Islands. They are accompanied by Ron Bergeron, teacher, and I would ask

the House to welcome them.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker,

I would like to ask you and the House to join with me in welcoming 29

students from the Edward Milne High School in Sooke. They are here this

morning to see the democratic policies evolving from House and are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. John Bergbusch, who himself is a very

active person within the school system. In addition he is the president

of the Colwood Ratepayers Association. I would like you all to welcome

them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am very

pleased today to have with us in the gallery a group of friends from

the Princeton Community Services, in Princeton. This group is very well

known to myself, to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), and to a former Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm), all of whom have been entertained by them when in Penticton.

The

group includes Joyce and Austin Fraser, Pat Reid, Henry Gunther, Erin

Lee, June Marchand, Chris Kelly, Carol Lukes, Betty Welsh, Gail Fraser,

May Carter and Bonnie Taylor. I would ask the House to please make them

welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it being budget

day and a ceremonial day, with the permission of the House I will turn

up the lights so that there will be ample lighting for the television

cameras.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year 1977-78, which were

tabled on March 22, 1979, be referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the report of the auditor-general for the

year ending March 31, 1978, which was tabled on April 2, 1979, be referred to

the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Motion approved.

ESTIMATES OF SUMS REQUIRED

FOR THE SERVICE OF THE PROVINCE

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

a bill intituled The Estimates of Sums Required for the Service of the Province

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, including

Schedule A sums required

by Her Majesty to make good certain sums expended for the public service

for the period ended March 31, 1979, and to indemnify the several officers

and persons for making such expenditure, recommending the same to the Legislative

Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply,

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I move, seconded by the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), that

Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee

of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We'll put the question to this motion a little later.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I just thought I'd try, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the "sunshine budget" is back.

is my pleasure to introduce to this first session of the thirty-second

Legislature the budget proposals that were delivered to this House on

April 2, 1979, to the last session of the thirty-first Legislative

Assembly. Associated with this budget, of course, are the estimates of

revenue and expenditure which were presented at that same time.

Soon

after the budget proposals for 1979-80 were delivered to this assembly

a provincial election was called. During that election campaign the

government declared that the budget of April 2 would be returned to the

first sitting of the subsequent legislative assembly for debate and

implementation.

We are today following through on our budget

proposals to the people of British Columbia, and we propose now to

implement the budget proposals that were outlined to the previous House

to fund the province's social programs, create new jobs and stimulate

investment.

This budget was tailored earlier this year to

the specific economic and fiscal objectives of government and to the

needs of the people of British Columbia.

Our objectives have

not changed in the intervening two months. This budget is designed to

fund and enrich social programs for everyone in need, to develop

activity and job opportunities in this province, to increase the

purchasing power of individuals and business by reducing taxation, and

to encourage individual and corporate investment.

Mr.

Speaker, I do not propose to read the April 2 budget into the record of

this House [Laughter] — but I might. Many members are familiar with it

because it has enjoyed wide

[ Page 24 ]

publicity.

I would like just to summarize the main points in the speech to refresh

the memories of those members who have been returned to office, and to

acquaint those new members of this assembly with the broad outlines of

this government's proposals. Some of the proposals are, of course,

already in effect.

First of all, we are providing more for social programs:

Health

care will receive $1.2 billion, 27 percent of the total projected

budget — one of the highest percentages of health spending by any

provincial government.

Education receives $1.1 billion, nearly a quarter of the total budget.

The

third-largest share of the budget — $648 million goes to Human

Resources. The income- assistance budget is increased by $72.7 million.

new dental care program for British Columbians not presently covered

under an existing dental plan will be developed by the Ministry of

Health.

Municipalities will receive $141.7 million from this budget — a sizeable contribution to assist with local development.

proposal has been made to provide developers or building owners who

adapt buildings to the needs of the handicapped with an accelerated

write-off or income tax credit.

In this budget we are also

encouraging new investment by individuals and corporations to create

more jobs. The exemption under the Corporation Capital Tax Act is

raised to $1 million to take the tax off 3,000 firms. Last year we

removed this tax from 13,000 other firms, and this will make a total of

16,000 freed from this burden. A new type of investment company — we

call it the small business venture capital corporation — will be

encouraged to finance high-risk enterprises. A special tax deduction

will be allowed British Columbia taxpayers who place their funds in

these venture groups. And a special dividend tax credit of 5 percent is

proposed for all British Columbia residents receiving dividends from

British Columbia public corporations.

Mr. Speaker, the

budget which I am quickly summarizing also detailed this government's

plans to distribute shares in the British Columbia Resources Investment

Corporation to all citizens of this province. As of June 6, about seven

million shares had been applied for by British Columbians, on the basis

of five free shares to each citizen. As you know, citizens of this

province also have the right to purchase additional shares up to June

15. As of June 6, sales were about $37 million. This response, Mr.

Speaker, indicates to this government that the people of this province

have a strong commitment to individual ownership.

To continue, Mr. Speaker, with this

summary: in this budget we are cutting taxes.

April 2, at midnight, the social services tax was reduced by one

percentage point to 4 percent. This produced the lowest sales tax in

this province in 25 years, and the lowest sales tax of any province in

Canada that imposes the tax.

At the same time we exempted vitamins and dietary supplements, diabetic and ostomy supplies from sales tax.

introduced a policy that will not require a low-income person to pay

more British Columbia income tax than federal tax. This will save

65,000 taxpayers an average of $89 this year.

We have increased the renters' tax credit by $50 to a total of $150, beginning this year.

have initiated this year a permanent increase of $100 in the annual

homeowners' grant for all homeowners in the province. Mr. Speaker, this

raises the basic grant to $380 and the grant for senior citizens and

persons receiving the handicapped or war veterans' allowance to $580.

Homeowners who are now receiving property tax bills all over this

province should see a sizeable reduction in the taxes they must pay as

a result of this measure.

Personal income taxes will be

reduced significantly on July 1 this year. This will involve a

reduction in the personal rate to 44 percent from 46 percent — to the

second-lowest personal income tax rate in Canada. This change will mean

tax savings of up to $65 per year for a family of four with income of

$23,000.

Assessments on farm and agricultural reserve land

will be reduced 50 percent on December 31 to reduce the burden of

school taxes.

The parimutual betting tax has been reduced one percentage point.

A provincial political contributions income tax credit has been introduced.

And all operating costs of regional colleges are to be taken off the shoulders of local taxpayers.

These

tax reductions are widespread and significant. We believe they will do

much to lighten the burden on all taxpayers, and stimulate the economy

by freeing millions of additional dollars for consumer spending.

Also in this budget we are using revenue surplus to create more jobs.

addition to the regular budget estimates, I am reintroducing four

special appropriation bills to use surplus funds from the last two

years to fund a number of public projects. These projects will create

an estimated 8,000 new jobs in 1979, and more in the future, and will

provide developments of lasting value to the people of this province.

The

$140.5 million surplus from the 1977-78 fiscal year will pay for the

$100 increase in the homeowner grant. It will also provide for the

reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension of the British Columbia

Railway, for accelerated programs and highway construction, forest

management, youth employment experience programs, construction of

recreational facilities, and a payment due on our provincial debt.

The

surplus from the 1978-79 fiscal year will provide $80 million, as the

budget indicates, for these projects: $10 million for the proposed

Vancouver trade and convention centre; $2.5 million for the proposed

Victoria convention centre; $25 million for a sports centre or stadium

in the lower mainland; $5 million for a low-interest program to help

small- and medium-sized business in metropolitan areas; $7.5 million

for purchase of additional shares in the British Columbia Development

Corporation; $5 million for industrial research; $25 million to

stabilize health and hospital operating costs.

This has been a quick review of the budget to refresh the memories of the hon. members.

The

budget, as I said on April 2, provides wide-ranging tax cuts that are

designed to stimulate the provincial economy and help build for

prosperity in our province in the 1980s.

I urge hon. members to join with us in implementing these programs so that the citizens we all represent may

[ Page 25 ]

enjoy the benefits that will flow from these changes as quickly as possible.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER:

Perhaps before we proceed to the debate that remains, members may wish

to have the documents in their hands. Perhaps we can have a short

recess while these are distributed.

The House took recess at 10:31 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:33 a.m.

MR. STUPICH:

First I'd like to join with those who have congratulated you on your

re-election as Speaker. I would have hoped that there would have been a

different party representing Chilliwack. But when it comes to Speaker,

I wouldn't hope for any change at all as long as that party is going to

be government. I do congratulate you. You have served the House well in

the past, and I look forward to you serving us well in the future. If I

should stray, and if you should have to call me to order sometime, it's

just because I have miscalculated how far I think I can get away with

it.

I'd like to welcome in particular the new members of the

House. When I first was elected in 1963, it was the habit of the older

members then to welcome new members to what they called the most

exclusive club in the province. It's a habit that seems to have been

dropped in recent years. I think it's worth recalling that it's a very

difficult club to get into. It's very limited in membership. There can

be only 57 members at the present time. It carries with it all kinds of

responsibility. Sometimes the rewards are more imaginary than they are

real. If nothing else, you can certainly say that membership in the

club has no job security associated with it, as some of us have found

out to our sorrow in the past.

I must confess that it's with

some trepidation that I rise to speak on the budget. The last time I

spoke on the budget, the Premier called an election — not that I'm

concerned about what would be the outcome of another election. I don't

think that the voters really want to go through a third election in

this short space, so I'll take a chance on it. I'll perhaps not be as

lengthy as I was the previous time, and the Premier isn't here, so he

may not think to call an election this time. You're counting on him not

to call an election, I assume.

"The 'sunshine budget' is back," the Minister of Finance

tells us. Well, Mr. Speaker, the "sunshine budget" when it came in

on April 2 had a real sunshine colour to it. It has kind of faded in the interim,

hasn't it? It's a very pale edition of the "sunshine budget,"

and I suppose that's understandable. You will note that all of the 18 NDP

MLAs who were here when the original "sunshine budget" was introduced

were returned, even though in some instances they had to find new constituencies

to represent. But the same cannot be said for the government party. They lost,

I think, some seven seats although they managed to pick up two from other parties

that were represented in the previous Legislature and are not in this one.

I think it's understandable that the government is not so keen, not so

bold with the colours on its budget in June 1979 as it was when the

"sunshine budget" was introduced the day after April Fools' Day. As far

as the comments about the budget, my position hasn't changed. I spoke

about the budget when I travelled around the province. I spoke about

this government's conduct of the affairs of this province, and partly

as a result of the increased knowledge of what this government had done

in its three and a third years in office, representation from that side

of the House was reduced; representation from the NDP members was

increased.

I think the people of the province came to

realize that a lot of the sunshine in this budget, or perhaps all of

the sunshine in this budget, was on the cover itself. When you get into

the contents of the sunshine, as far as the people of this province

were concerned, the contents were somewhat lacking. Mr. Speaker, the

examination that I conducted of the budget when I spoke on April 3,

1979, tried to show that the three major issues facing the people of

the province today were not really dealt with in that budget. They were

discussed during the campaign. Increasingly the people of this province

felt that the Social Credit Party was not the one to deal with these

problems, increasingly they came to support the NDP, but they didn't

get quite far enough by the time May 10 came around.

It is

obvious that the arguments I used then, the arguments I'm going to use

today, and the arguments that my colleagues will be using are that the

tragic unemployment record of this government, the devastating effects

of inflation on the people of the province and the increasing degree of

foreign ownership and the loss of control of our own economy are

concerns that are held by the people of the province of British

Columbia. They are concerns that are not met within the budget that we

have before us now. There is an accelerating loss of our people as a

people to deal with unemployment, to deal with inflation and to deal

with the other real economic problems that face British Columbians.

These three great and increasing problems catch the attention of

British Columbians as they watch their government, and they watch it

especially today on the introduction of this budget when, perhaps, they

hope there will be some change — change that would show on the part of

this government so recently chastened in the provincial election.

There

is nothing to show that the government is any more concerned about the

112,000 unemployed than they were when they tabled the

sunshine-coloured budget on April 2; nothing to show that they have any

more concern about the problems of the elderly in trying to meet the

rapidly increasing cost of living; nothing to show that they have any

more concern about the increasing sell out of our land, natural

resources and our capacity as a society to govern ourselves. The answer

given in this budget by this government is some idle braggadocio.

think I'm going to mention just a couple of instances of that

braggadocio. I'm reading now from the introduction to the budget tabled

on April 2: "This budget marks a substantial advance in reducing the

drag of big government on the individual." Well, Mr. Speaker, if that

is a desirable goal — I'm not arguing that right now — they must be

making haste very slowly. The budget that we introduced in the spring

of 1975 called for expenditures of $3.22 billion. For comparison

purposes we would have to remove from that the capital accounts in

public works then and the capital costs in B.C. Ferries, since those

two have been removed from budget. We then come in with a budget of

$3.1 billion; that's just four years ago.

[ Page 26 ]

The

budget before us now has not changed from the one before us a couple of

months ago. It calls for expenditures in estimates of almost $4.6

billion, but also details additional expenditures of $220 million,

which brings us up to $4.8 billion. And when you look at the record of

over expenditure that this government has built up — in excess of $200

million a year, Mr. Speaker — there's little doubt but that we are

heading for a $5 billion expenditure in the year 1979-80. To say that

that is a significant reduction in the rate of government spending — to

go from $3.1 billion up to $5 billion in the short space of four years

— is, as I suggest, making haste rather slowly.

"Three years

ago when I stood in this assembly to resent our first budget" — I am

reading from the budget again — "we were wrestling with the sorry

results of runaway government spending and debt accumulation." Well,

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, we were spending not nearly as fast as

the present administration is spending and, more than that, we were

spending on investments and on building up assets that were producing

revenue for the people of the province and that were giving the people

of the province an increasing role in governing the province of British

Columbia.

In our term in office, in that period of three

budgets, we added to special funds, perpetual funds and the like some

$330 million. We invested in shares of various corporations some $78

million, all of which were producing revenue for the people of the

province: Westcoast Transmission — $25,457,000, a good investment

because this government sold it for 50 percent more than that; BCBC —

an investment of $25 million in shares of that corporation, which was

opposed by the Social Crediters, and today they're saying they're going

to put some more money into it — in April they said it — so they're

staying, but the amount is still small; Kootenay Forest Products —

$14.5 million, sold to BCRIC; Plateau Mills — $7.6 million and the

price went up 50 percent the next day; Panco, much maligned Panco cost

$4.8 million — sold for in excess of $15 million; Ocean Falls —

$790,000; Canadian Cellulose — $1, and I'm told by lawyers that that

dollar that is called for in such contracts is not paid out. That's the

kind of thing that we were spending money on, Mr. Speaker. These were

good investments that the NDP administration made on behalf of the

people of the province.

But what does the Social Credit

administration have to show by way of lasting benefits, by way of

increasing the role of the people of the province in governing their

province? What do they have to show for the $4.5 billion that they

spent last year, or for the $5 billion that they will be spending this

year? Precious little, Mr. Speaker, in the way of lasting benefit for

the people of the province.

"When the previous Social Credit

administration left office in 1972" — I'm quoting from the budget again

— "the incoming administration was handed millions of dollars in cash

and securities to begin work. Three years later those millions were

gone and we were staring at a provincial debt of $261 million." Well,

Mr. Speaker, up to this point it's been bragging; but in that

particular statement it's not just bragging, it's lying. There was no

debt when the Social Credit administration arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the hon. member's not attributing

an act of lying to any member in the House.

MR. STUPICH: If any member thinks that I am, Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite pleased to apologize to him.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be entirely out of order to attribute....

MR. STUPICH: I'm not attributing it to anyone individually.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH:

There's no question in my mind that there's no truth to the statement

that there was one dollar of provincial government debt when the Social

Credit administration arrived in office on December 22, 1975. That

story has been told around the province, but not one shred of evidence

has ever been produced.

There was a Clarkson Gordon report,

when the government told the Clarkson Gordon people to add up some

figures and to show that the province was $405 million in debt. They

were just given the figures and told to add them up, and they did that.

They disclaimed it in their statement; they said it was not an audit.

But

even those figures couldn't be made to stand up, even with the

profligate spending of this administration in an attempt to make the

picture as bad as possible. By the time the end of the year finally did

roll around the figure had been reduced to $261 million. What happened

to the other $145 million between January and March? They knew that

that was not true, those who used these figures.

HON. MR. MAIR: Tell us about ICBC.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asks me to tell them about ICBC.

You'll recall that we put a question on the order paper as to what the

cash account of ICBC was on the day the NDP walked out of office. The

answer was something in the area of $26 million on the day we walked

out of office.

If that member wants to talk about Crown

corporations as opposed to government accounts, let's talk about B.C.

Hydro, let's talk about B.C. Rail, let's talk about the school district

financing authority, let's talk about the hospital financing authority.

If you want to get into Crown corporations, there was real debt — debt

that was built up by previous Social Credit administrations. B.C. Hydro

was increased under us, but it was the Columbia River deal that built

up the debt on B.C. Hydro to such fantastic heights in such a short

time.

I'm not denying that there were debts in Crown

corporations. But there was not one penny of debt in government

accounts on December 22, 1975. I challenge the Minister of Finance to

produce anything from his comptroller-general to say that we were one

penny in debt on December 22, 1975.

There was a suggestion

by one of their campaigners that the NDP could be associated with the

National Socialist Party. As a member of the RCAF during the war, I

certainly took offence at that remark. In my mind, anyone who would

repeat that would have no difficulty at all in crawling under the belly

of a snake. But to associate us — a party with the humanitarian

principles and record of this party — with that kind of a party, is

pretty low politics. It was the leader of that party who said if you're

going to tell a lie, make it a big

[ Page 27 ]

lie.

If you're going to tell a big lie, tell it often and often, and over

and over. Eventually people will come to believe it. That's the way

they have made some people in this province believe that there really

was a debt on December 22, 1975. But there is no evidence. Just tell a

lie. Tell a big lie, and tell it over and over, secure in the knowledge

that you are never going to have to prove it.

To get back to

the budget, as I say, with the idle braggadocio in the speech, apart

from now agreeing to spend sums of money taken needlessly from B.C.

taxpayers over the last three years, this government intends to do

really nothing about the three main problems of the province that I

have mentioned and that I will mention again and again.

There's

record unemployment, despite the fact that our forest industry, the

most important industry we have in the whole province from the point of

view of unemployment, thanks to continued high United States demand and

the low value of the Canadian dollar, has never had a better record. In

spite of that, to buoy us on, we still have record unemployment that

this government seems unwilling and unable to do anything about.

Members of the opposition have pointed out in this House, and will be

pointing out over and over again, that the record of the Social Credit

government in dealing with the problem of unemployment is bad. It is a

record of failure — failure to act, failure to care. Indeed, not only

has this government stood idly by while unemployment grows, but they've

actually participated in creating more unemployment. Remember the

shutdown of the Railwest car plant. I believe it was opened up briefly

during the election campaign. I'm not sure if it is still open. There

was a loss of 260 jobs from that one positive action on the part of

this government to create unemployment. A loss of some 420 jobs on B.C.

Ferries resulted from a positive act to create unemployment. A loss of

some 300 jobs on the BCR extension was one more positive act to create

more unemployment.

Ordinary British Columbians had an

opportunity to reflect on this budget during the campaign. They became

more concerned about it, and must be wondering sometimes about the

reduction to 4 percent in the sales tax. Perhaps some of them will

remember when this same government increased the sales tax by 40

percent, from 5 percent up to 7 percent. Perhaps some of them will

remember that it stayed there until the federal government provided the

means for a partial reduction. Now there's a reduction down to 4

percent. Perhaps some of them are going to start wondering how long it

is going to take them to recover at the rate of one cent on the dollar

for the cost of that political action on the part of that party.

the original budget — since I've had a little more time on this one —

on page 8 and again in the pale version this morning, they talk about

some of the changes in tax. I'd just like to mention a couple of them.

They have eliminated succession duties and gift taxes. Mr. Speaker, I

ask you, which party was it that introduced succession duties and gift

taxes in the province of British Columbia? You will recall which party

it was, and it certainly wasn't the New Democratic Party. They are

going to reduce property taxes. You will also recall that every year

but one in which the NDP was in office, the homeowner grant was

increased. You will also recall there has not been a general increase

in the homeowner grant since the 1975 election until this year. They

waited until they were ready to call an election,

Indeed,

they waited until the day before they called the election to say that

they were going to increase the homeowner grant. There wasn't one

general increase in the homeowner grant between elections. That's the

conduct of that party. In our case it was increased every year but one.

They

raised the personal income tax, and then this year they are proposing

to reduce income tax. Mr. Speaker, you remember who it was that

increased the personal income tax by 2 points on the anniversary of the

date that it is now being reduced. And you'll remember, Mr. Speaker,

that when that legislation came in, increasing the B.C. personal income

tax by 2 points, the legislation was no trouble at all — it was letter

perfect. It was debated in the House and it was passed by the House.

This

year, after having had almost four years' experience in office, they

bring in a bill to reduce taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, if you had the

opportunity to read that particular legislation, I think you would come

to the conclusion, as some of us did, that in effect it reduces income

tax by only 1 point. I'm told that one of the gentlemen of the press

went to the Premier and asked about this, and said: "Well, how come the

budget speech says 2 percent and the bill says 1 percent?" And the

Premier responded: "Well, we must have made a mistake, because we

intended it to be 2."

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

increasing taxes, they like that. They have no trouble at all writing

the legislation even when they are brand-new in office. But when it

comes to reducing it, it hurts. They make a mistake writing that

legislation, so we get only half the reduction. I expect the bill

before us will deal with it properly.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Go on to your next point.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I'll accept that invitation and get on to my next point.

My next point is inflation. Would you really like me to talk about

inflation, Mr. Minister of Finance? It's a human problem. Maybe you

don't appreciate human problems. It's awfully difficult for millionaire

car dealers, who may have made a practice of rolling back odometers, to

be concerned about a human problem, and inflation really is a human

problem. It's a problem for many people in our community — one that you

haven't experienced personally.

This minister in this budget

gives good evidence that he really hasn't appreciated the problem. It's

not one that bothers him at all. The percentage stays the same, so he

just jacks up the prices.

This budget equals their own

record for inactivity in the matter of unemployment. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, setting aside for the moment their own additions to the

problems, this government's response to inflation has been total

paralysis.

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you show up at the TV station, Evan?

MR. STUPICH:

Well, maybe we should raise that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the Leader

of the Opposition. I wanted to discuss this. I spoke in the House and

the Minister of Finance spoke in the House, but there was really no

opportunity to discuss it then. There might have been had we gone into

estimates.

I was invited to appear on TV and to discuss these matters with the Minister of Finance, and I accepted the

[ Page 28 ]

invitation.

I said: "Well, will he come?" "Oh, yes. He's already agreed to

come...." "Well, that's great. I'll come any time at all. Tell me

when." And they told me when. On the day before I was supposed to

appear there, my secretary was a little suspicious, I suppose — we'd

heard absolutely nothing about it and the TV station was saying nothing

about it — so she tried to phone them, and couldn't find anybody in

authority at the TV station who could say whether or not the Minister

of Finance was indeed coming. She tried all day. She tried on the

Tuesday again, and just before I was leaving my constituency to catch a

plane to attend that TV debate, where the Minister of Finance and

myself could sit down together with a chairman, if you like, and

discuss the budget, I was told that it was not convenient for the

Minister of Finance to appear that day. When my secretary finally got

through to someone who could tell her that much, she was asked: "Well,

would Mr. Stupich appear on another day?" And without even consulting

me, she said: "Oh, yes. You just name the day and he'll be there." Mr.

Speaker, I'm still waiting to hear when that day will be.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the kind of debate that I'm sure that the minister

likes. He has spoken, and he knows he doesn't have to speak again. He

doesn't have to justify any of this stuff; he doesn't have to explain

it today. He's spoken once and if he gets to his feet again the debate

is over. That's the kind of debate he wants, where there is no

opportunity for discussion between us.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker,

to get back to what he said, my next topic is inflation. Let's refer

again to that famous, or perhaps infamous, report of the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture, and in particular page 155, which

reveals that for the first time since 1957 in the province of British

Columbia the working people of the province are now experiencing a

steady decline in real income. Now that's quite a commentary on this

government and its concern about inflation.

That's something

against which to measure the economic performance of this particular

government, something against which to assess this minister's idle

boast about benefiting the people of the province, and finally

something against which to compare the Socred campaign slogan —

remember it, Mr. Speaker, from the previous election? — "Get B.C.

Moving Again." You remember that slogan, don't you, Mr. Speaker? How

many British Columbians do you suppose understood what was meant by the

slogan of the then Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) when he

was campaigning in 1975? I wonder how many British Columbians would

have voted for that curious coalition if they had known what that meant

when they said they were going to get B.C. moving again.

When

he delivered his speech on April 2, in a rare but entirely fitting

burst of modesty, the Minister of Finance declined to take credit on

behalf of the government for the sustained high world demand for forest

products, for recovery of copper prices or for the windfall revenues

that have derived from the disastrous decline in the value of the

Canadian dollar.

But this minister and this government do

have a good deal to do with the health of smaller businesses, because

the prosperity of small businesses — retail and professional and the

like — relies entirely upon the prosperity of the other British

Columbians that I have been discussing. And what is their record there,

Mr. Speaker? The hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) mentioned

this yesterday during the course of the debate. In 1975-76, according

to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, there were 197

business bankruptcies, That number has increased each year since then,

and for the year 1978-79 that figure stands at 684, more than three

times the 1975-76 rate.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Maybe

he'd like me to get on to the next part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, to

the matter of the ever increasing foreign control over our land, our

natural resources and our economy. I believe that the people of British

Columbia are profoundly concerned about this very fundamental matter,

because unless and until we are able to deal effectively with it, we

will be unable to deal in any satisfactory and lasting way with

inflation, with unemployment, with the absence of secondary industry,

or with any of the range of economic problems that confront us.

What

has been the record of this government when it comes to foreign

ownership and foreign control? It's repetition but foreign takeovers

increased from 9 in 1976 to 26 in 1977 to 39 in 1978. You'll recall,

Mr. Speaker, that it was this government that put pressure on Ottawa to

make it easier for foreign takeovers to become effective. And you'll

recall that it has been their attitude to sell B.C. out as quickly as

possible to the highest bidder, regardless of the economic consequences

for the people of British Columbia.

Those are the concerns

of ordinary British Columbians the broad context against which they are

judging the performance of this government in the three most vital

areas of concern: inflation, unemployment and foreign control of our

economy.

There are other concerns, Mr. Speaker, when you

read this budget. Of course, one of them has to be the often repeated

boast about staying within some self-imposed limit of 5 percent. The

fact of the matter is that this budget does not stay within 5 percent.

I gave you some figures earlier. By the time you add to the estimates

the $220 million in surplus funds that are also being voted in this

session, the $70 million in B.C. Ferries capital, the $55 million in

BCBC capital, plus the normal $200 million overrun — at least it's

normal under this particular administration — the increase will be much

more than 5 percent; it will be much more in the area of 15 percent.

I'm sure that the municipalities of this province, the hospitals and

the school boards would find it very easy to live within a 5 percent

budget increase goal if, when they read 5, it was understood that there

could be a 1 in front of that, which is what this government has done

in effect.

Others of my colleagues who will be speaking in

this debate will be, I'm sure, dealing with other contrasts between the

NDP administration and the Social Credit administration. Despite being

reviled, Mr. Speaker, our administration year by year invested public

money in adding to provincial assets to create more jobs and security

for the people of British Columbia. It purchased Can-Cel to maintain

employment and to increase employment. It acquired a significant

position in Westcoast Transmission that produced revenue that was

available to the people of the province on the basis of need, not

greed. It created a B.C.-run insurance corporation that.... Although

this government fought against it, argued against it and made all kinds

of threats, when they actually came to deal with the

[ Page 29 ]

problem,

they made very little change. We set up the B.C. Petroleum Corporation

— again, a move that was opposed violently and vigorously by the Social

Credit opposition at the time — a corporation which in some four short

years of life produced more revenue for the people of the province than

the previous biggest earner in the province. BCBC in 1978 produced more

revenue for the people of the province than did the liquor

administration branch — the first time it has ever been beaten. But

don't worry too much, Mr. Speaker. At the rate at which liquor prices

are going up and gas prices aren't, I'm sure that the liquor

administration branch will soon produce more revenue than BCPC for the

people of the province.

The government boasts about the

sales tax cuts. I've already dealt with that. We know that they're

cutting the increases that they put into effect in the first place, and

now they are going one point further. I notice that with some of these

they talk about permanent changes. With respect to the sales tax, they

don't talk about that cut being permanent. I wonder just how permanent

that particular reduction will be. We warned them at the time of the

effect of the increase from 5 percent to 7 percent, but they went

blindly ahead with that because they were doing it for political

motivations rather than economic.

Income tax. I've already

talked about the increases and decreases. The budget now says that no

low-income person will pay more B.C. income tax than federal tax, and

65,000 taxpayers will benefit from tax reductions ranging up to $89.

The tragedy of the situation here in B.C. and the tragedy of the budget

is that there are 65,000 income tax payers to whom the saving of $89

will be extremely important. I don't think the Minister of Finance

realizes that. Also, there are many others who are not even paying that

amount of tax who would welcome some action on the part of this

government to control inflation.

A new type of investment

company. Well, I guess we need a new one to do the job that the Federal

Business Development Bank is not doing in B.C., to do the job that BCBC

is not doing, to do the job that the Ministry of Tourism and Small

Business Development is not doing. So let's create another corporation,

and maybe we can find somebody else who isn't doing anything for the

people of the province.

An issue that has always been

important in my mind from the time I first entered the Legislature

after the 1963 election is reforestation. I've been interested in this

topic ever since I read a precis for a book, which was never published,

in the mid-1930s. The author was talking about the rate at which we

were harvesting the most accessible and best timber in the province and

leaving the poorer timber for later generations, and not replanting. I

was reminded of it when the Sloan commission on forestry, in two

separate reports some ten years apart, tried to warn the people of the

province about the danger of not replanting trees in these areas that

were being cut. I believe the second Sloan commission report said there

were 25 million acres in the province that were not sufficiently

restocked.

I spoke on that subject every year when I was in

the opposition between 1963 and 1969. I urged my own government and we

did much about it. But the budget for the last year under the previous

Social Credit administration provided only $5 million for

reforestation. It would be nice to spend $100 million on it, but you

can only increase at a certain rate. By 1976, some three years later,

our budget had quadrupled that figure. The total budget itself had

increased by a little over 100 percent, but the amount made available

for reforestation went from $5 million to $19.8 million. That was real

progress in a period of just three years.

By 1978 under this

new Social Credit administration the one that is so concerned about

people, so concerned about private industry, so concerned about doing

something for the province — our estimate of $19.8 million had gone all

the way to $19.8 million. It hadn't changed a cent. But they did

provide a special fund. They had some money to get rid of, surplus

funds, and they said: "Let's throw $10 million into reforestation."

They are doing the same thing again this year.

The estimates

for reforestation haven't really changed, from $19.8 million up to

$20.7 million — less than a million dollars. There is another $10

million there from this special fund to do an extra job in

reforestation. That's great! I'm glad to see that extra $10 million.

I'd be more pleased if they'd spend it. I don't think they will. The

interim statement we received, dated January 31, 1979, shows the record

of spending in 10 months — you know that we don't plant trees in

February and March in those areas. The statement shows that the $19.8

million which was provided in estimates was underspent by $5 million

and the $10 million from the special fund was underspent by almost $4

million. So they provide an extra $10 million and then don't spend $9

million of it. That's real progress. I think that's perhaps the most

pressing problem in this province: to get on with planting some of

those 25 million acres that Chief Justice Sloan was worried about some

20 years ago.

I don't expect them to do anything about it.

Their record shows they have no real interest in building up anything

for the future. Their only concern is to tax to the maximum now and to

get away with spending as little as they possibly can. When the next

three or four years rolls around, and they feel they have to go to the

people, they can once again throw in the surplus from accumulated years

of overtaxing and underspending, blow it all in that one short election

period, and ask for re-election on the basis of that record.

This

budget, apart from returning to the taxpayers a tiny fraction of what

was needlessly taken from them by this government, does nothing to

solve the three very grave problems that beset the British Columbia

economy. It does nothing and attempts nothing to alleviate the

disastrous unemployment situation in the province. It does nothing and

attempts nothing to alleviate the increasingly severe inflation which

so viciously gnaws at the incomes of the elderly and the poor.

does nothing and it attempts nothing to halt or even to slow down the

rate at which our land, our resources and our economy fall into the

hands of giant foreign corporations. It does, of course, finally — and

perhaps as

an act of deathbed repentance — spend the sums of money

which were senselessly taken away from B.C. taxpayers in the earlier

years of this government, and which, if spent in an orderly manner over

those years, might have prevented some of the problems we have today.

This

budget does nothing. After three years of financial strangulation by

this government, the people of the province needed a budget with some

vision, some imagination and some courage. Instead of that, we have the

same old budget that we had on April 2 — a budget of fiscal deceit and

economic paralysis.

[ Page 30 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It's my pleasure to rise in this debate today in support of this budget

presented by the Minister of Finance. Of course, the first thing I'd

like to do is to congratulate the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) for his appointment and election as Speaker of the House,

and the appointment of yourself (Mr. Rogers) as Deputy Speaker. I would

also like to congratulate all the new members, and particularly those

two members who moved and seconded the throne speech yesterday, the

member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) and the member for Peace

River North (Mr. Brummet), and congratulate them on an excellent motion

and the seconding of that motion in the throne speech.

rise in some surprise about the speech which preceded me because I got

the feeling, listening to that speech, that the member opposite, and

perhaps some of his colleagues, were planning not to support this

budget. That surprises me because it's such a good budget. It also

surprises me because I distinctly heard during the election campaign

comments from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) that the

members of the New Democratic Party, if elected to government, would

implement the proposals made in the previous budget. So I don't

understand how any member on that side of the House could, in all

conscience, without a serious split and defection from the support of

the Leader of the Opposition, vote against this budget when that vote

should come forward. I expect that it was simply a mistake on the part

of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in giving the impression that

there was some thought of the members opposite voting against this

sunshine budget.

I just comment very briefly on a couple of

the things that the member for Nanaimo has said in his address. He

seems to be worried about the increases in government spending that

this government has had over the past term, and that's included in this

budget as well. I'd just like to say that this government is not

against increased government spending. What it is against is increased

waste, as we saw by the NDP government rule in this province. We're not

against investment, but we don't believe that the investment of

taxpayers' money should be in things; rather, it should be in people.

That's what's reflected in this budget: a great investment in the

people of British Columbia and in the needs that the people have for

social programs, for health care, for education, for help for those who

are in need, from the handicapped to the children of this province.

That's what you find in this budget.

The member for Nanaimo

talks about all the investment that the previous NDP government had in

things like Panco Poultry, Can-Cel, Peace River Dehy and all those

kinds of things. He says that's the kind of thing we're spending our

money on. That's the kind of thing they spent the people's money on.

We'll spend the people's money on the people, where it belongs.

also picked out one quote that the member for Nanaimo mentioned about

"no evidence of any debt." Well, the people of B.C. want to know, if

there's no evidence of any debt, how come they're paying interest of

something in excess of $20 million a year.

How come they're

paying interest if there was no debt? How come they're paying enough

interest to pay for our entire Pharmacare program and our entire

ambulance service for a year? If there was no debt, how come? I've

never heard anything so ridiculous or stupid in my time in this House.

The

member for Nanaimo also makes mention about "the great takeover by

foreign corporations in this province and the sell-out of British

Columbia to foreign corporations." You know, the members opposite have

a great habit of using statistics to their own advantage. I suppose

everybody is guilty of that to some degree, but that government, and

particularly the previous speaker, have a habit of using statistics

like a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than for illumination.

had an interesting experience during the election campaign, Mr.

Speaker, and that experience was evidenced in a newspaper ad that the

NDP took out based on this subject that the previous speaker talked

about, the great sell-out of British Columbia. I didn't really have the

opportunity — and some members may have — to really check all the

companies which were listed — and I am sure they were listed in every

constituency in the province — these companies which were supposedly

sold out and were taken over by foreign investors and all of this kind

of thing. But, you know, I did spy two which, because they were in my

constituency, I wondered about. One of them was Panco Poultry, which

was supposedly sold out to some great foreign firm. But do you know who

Panco Poultry's farms were sold to? British Columbia farmers, Mr.

Speaker. They were sold to British Columbia farmers, who bid on those

farms and are now growing produce on those farms.

One of the

other companies was West Fraser Mills Limited, which has its head

office for retail sales in Langley, my constituency. They have a number

of retail stores around the province. The member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) has told me an interesting story about West Fraser. It used to

be called Quesnel Forest Products, I believe, when it first came here.

And the member for Cariboo informs me that, when they first came to

British Columbia, the man who started that company — yes, he came from

the United States; a lot of people have come to British Columbia with

their money and investment from the United States — came with $15,000

and a desire to invest in what he felt, like many of us, was a great

province. Apparently not long ago that company's worth was reviewed,

and it was in the neighbourhood of $80 million. That happened in a span

of some 20 years, a little better than 20 years since they came to

British Columbia and invested in this province.

The point I

want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that these were.... Yes, they came from

another place to come to British Columbia, but they were great British

Columbians in their way, because they invested in our province, they

showed confidence in our province, and they helped to make the wealth

that allows us now to deliver those services that are needed by our

province. It is a disservice to those people to say that they are some

kind of leeches on society in coming into British Columbia. They've

contributed greatly to our province, and they'll continue to do so, and

we'll help them in every way we possibly can. So if those two companies

were indications of the kind of research that the opposition used to

prepare that ad, then its research is just as bad as it has always been

— and that's pretty bad.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the

impression I get that the opposition is going to vote against this

budget. What are they going to vote against? Are they going to vote

against increased health care? Do you know that since this government

took office, provincial payments to the hospitals have increased from

some $370 million in 1975 to

[ Page 31 ]

almost

$650 million this fiscal year? That is almost double in less than four

years, and that is proof, if there ever was proof needed, of the urgent

priority that this government places on the health care of the people

of this province. Are they going to vote against that?

Sure,

there's some need to look at the increasing costs of health care, and

we're doing that very seriously. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

we are in.... You know, the other day I was reading an

article in the U.S. News and Business World Reports

which pointed out that last year in New York city 25 hospitals closed

their doors, bankrupt. One hospital in Miami city is today $25 million

in debt. That is not going to happen in British Columbia, because we

have the kind of government which will ensure that the economy will

allow us to make sure that that doesn't happen in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, it is no accident that British Columbia is continuing to

increase social services at a time when every other government in

Canada, for sure, is cutting back on services. We're increasing with

long-term care programs, with Pharmacare, universal for every citizen

of this province, with denticare to be introduced in this fiscal year.

It is no accident that we can do that when everybody is cutting back.

It is good management, good investment practices, the good husbanding

and stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars in this province that allow

us, the only province in Canada, to continue to increase our care to

the people in need while others are cutting back.

Are they

going to vote against long-term care? Is that what they're voting

against? For the first time in the history of this province people who

were formerly required to dissipate their life savings to provide care

in long-term care institutions now have that care at a basic rate of

$6.50 a day. Are they going to vote against that? That's what it sounds

like.

Do you know that besides providing care for people in

institutions now at $6.50 a day, we're allowing people to maintain

their own sense of dignity and worth when they reach a certain age and

disability by allowing them to stay in their own homes, by providing

with the care that allows them to do that. Today we're spending $1.5

million every month to help people stay where they want to be, in their

own homes. And they're going to vote against that.

Are they

going to vote against dental care for the people of this province?

We'll be introducing a dental care program in this fiscal year. It will

be a comprehensive program, and they're going to vote against it. Are

they going to vote against the largest hospital construction program in

the history of this province? It sounds like it. Hospital construction

in the years 1972 to 1975 was absolutely neglected. Today we have from

one end of British Columbia to the other a massive program of hospital

construction. Are they going to vote against the rebuilding of the

Vancouver General Hospital, which is underway now? Are they going to

vote against the new Victoria General Hospital which is being

constructed today? Are they going to vote against the reconstruction of

the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria which is about to begin? Are

they going to vote against the reconstruction of St. Paul's Hospital in

Vancouver which is now underway?

Are they going to vote

against the rebuilding of a new Grace Maternity Hospital in Vancouver?

Are they going to vote against the new hospital in Delta? They voted

against it once. I would imagine they'll vote against it again.

notice neither of the members for Coquitlam-Moody nor

Maillardville-Coquitlam. But are they going to vote against the new

hospital in Port Moody? They voted against that one once too. Are they

going to vote against it again?

Mr. Speaker, are they going

to vote against money for the reconstruction of Prince George Hospital?

Are they? Are they going to vote against the reconstruction of the

Kamloops Hospital which is underway now?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll bet they do.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You bet they'll vote against it. That's the largest construction program in the history of this province, underway right now.

Are

they going to vote against income tax reduction, the second lowest in

Canada? Are they going to vote against sales tax reduction? I just want

to ask what they're going to vote against. The indication is that

they're going to vote against this budget. I don't see how they can.

Are you going to vote against the increased homeowner grant — $580 for

seniors and handicapped, $380 for others? Are they going to vote

against that? If you're going to vote against that, just nod your head.

Yes, they're going to vote against that.

They're going to

vote against the surplus distribution, which includes $25 million to

help us to pick up some of the deficits that have built up for

hospitals around the province. Nod your head if you're going to vote

against that one too, Mr. Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm nodding my head because you're putting me to sleep.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You've been asleep for 20 years, Mr. Member. It's about time you woke up. [Laughter.]

The

previous speaker also made mention of some of the things that were said

in the election campaign. He pontificated about why certain people

voted the way they did. I guess that's all history now. We are

government at the will of the people of British Columbia. We will

govern to the best will that we possibly can for all the people of

British Columbia. There was some talk during the election campaign

about Medicare. And there were some people in this province who

attempted to say that Medicare was in some discredit in this province

and threatened by actions of government at whatever level. I want to

assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that Medicare in British

Columbia is as strong as it's ever been, and stronger than it's been at

many times in our history. Our commitment to Medicare in British

Columbia is strong and growing and will never change.

It's

interesting that the day before the election, with all of the lies that

were told during the election campaign, a headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail

on May 9 was: " B.C.: Where Doctors Don't Leave Medicare." It goes on

to give a glowing report about the situation that we have between our

medical profession and the government in British Columbia. It's a good

one, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud of it, and it will continue.

The

previous speaker talked about low politics. Well, Mr. Speaker, that

party invented low politics and during the election campaign it sank to

its lowest ever. They used a manure-spreader approach, just spread dirt

over everything and no matter how much truth is told, there will be

some left, and we'll take advantage of that which is left. That's

[ Page

32 ]

the kind of election campaign that was carried on, Mr. Speaker.

Lies,

fear, distortion. Lies about hospital care, lies about health care,

lies about Medicare, all of them lies and fear. And you know, my phone

in the minister's office in Victoria....

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, order, please. One must not impugn the fact that a member

lied, and if you're referring to an election campaign and specific

actions there.... But any member who is in this House....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, I understand there were no members during the election campaign, but there were people....

MR. SPEAKER: I know you're aware of that, but you're on the fringe, and I just want to bring it to your attention.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Right, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, and I wouldn't do

that to this House. But there were people in the election campaign and

there were lies, and I suppose the people of the province will put the

two together. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be here to support what

I feel is the finest budget ever put forward to this House. I want to

ask those speakers on the opposite side of the House if they're going

to vote against those things about which we've been talking today. If

they are, then they should hide their heads in shame. They should not

be calling themselves representatives of the people. This is a good

budget; it's a positive budget. We intend to be a positive government,

and I'm proud, Mr. Speaker, to support this budget by this government.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to take my place in this

debate and especially now since I've been given a copy of the budget

which is the subject of our discussions today. I'd say it's very nice

to be back after a three-year somewhat forced sabbatical, but I find

that on returning nothing that much has changed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're over there; you were over here.

MR. LORIMER: That's one change, a temporary change.

I just don't know where they found this chair, but I have to use it for the time being.

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your election, and also the Speaker on his election.

I'd also like to congratulate the leader of our party who led a very, very

strong election campaign, a campaign that discussed the issues that face the

people of this province and the problems that face the people. This campaign

contrasted greatly with the campaign of the Premier, the hate campaign conducted

by the Social Credit Party who continually relied on name-calling in its attempt

to stay away from discussing the issues. The only time they tried to take credit

for any accomplishments was when they talked about the Marguerite , the SeaBus,

the trains or the Royal Hudson , all brought in by, of course, the New Democratic

Party. The result of this, of course, has been a substantial increase in the

number of seats on this side of the House with a corresponding reduction on

the government side.

just hope that the party on the other side will have no problems

regarding leadership, and other matters that often face a party that

reduces in size substantially after an election. I hope there is no

discussion, because it's a disruptive force. I hope that you are all

very, very satisfied with the result of this election and with the

leadership thereof.

There have been a number of changes

since I last left this House — not too many, but there have been some.

The former Liberal and Conservative rump groups are sitting there with

the remaining Social Credit members in an unhappy union, each group

attempting to look like the willing partner in a coalition, each one

secretly blaming the other for the misfortunes and problems that are

basic to government from day to day. It's difficult.

There

are not too many changes. I note that the Liberal rump group of Friday

morning are missing except for the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Hon. Mr. Williams), who is going to speak a little later. I would

guess that the others are lined up at the AirWest dock. Things do not

change that much.

I'm certainly sorry that our old member

and friend from the Social Credit Party ranks, Agnes Cripps, the former

member for Vancouver South, is not with us. I always considered her to

be a very good Social Crediter. She was on her second attempt for a

comeback but, unfortunately, she was shut out because she made the

fatal mistake of being a life member instead of a new member. I'm very

sorry that she is not with us.

I'm somewhat disappointed in

the remarks made by the new Minister of Health, the member for Langley

(Hon. Mr. McClelland). I'm sorry he's not here right now, because I was

going to discuss a few things with him. I made some notes, for some

reason or other — here they are.

MR. KEMPF: Are they on the budget?

MR. LORIMER:

Just about as close to the budget as the Minister of Health was. He was

talking about Panco Poultry and the sale of Panco Poultry to British

Columbia farmers. I would doubt if Cargill would be really that happy

to be called a British Columbia farmer, or that the developers who

bought the land of Panco Poultry, those who could buy land provided

they had more than $100,000 to put up on the land, would class

themselves as farmers as well. The land will be farmed temporarily. It

will be farmed until the subdivisions take place.

He failed

to mention the sale of Gray Line Tours to Greyhound of the United

States, or the change to having the buses driven by American citizens

rather than by the people from British Columbia. The bus drivers are

now looking for other employment.

I was very disappointed to

learn, shortly after the election, about three or four days after, that

there will be cutbacks in the hospital financing, and this was to be

the policy of the Social Credit government. It was only a few weeks ago

that our accusations of the cutbacks that we could anticipate were

vigorously denied by the Social Credit Party. A week after the election

it was announced that 75 positions, nursing and other personnel, would

be removed from the list of jobs at the Burnaby General Hospital. Some

[ Page 33 ]

would take effect immediately; others would take effect through attrition.

is not good enough for the Minister of Health to say that he is not to

blame, that the blame is with the local hospital boards. These boards

are attempting to do a job without the assistance, sympathy or

understanding of this government. Physiotherapists, orderlies,

specialized nurses were told their services were no longer required.

Some delays in carrying out the cutbacks may take place. In truth, the

end result will be the same.

At the present time in Burnaby

there is not enough staff to keep the hospital at full capacity. Some

of the wards are closed because there's no staff. The minister was

talking about building more hospitals; there's not much point in

building hospitals if you don't staff what's presently there. The

waiting lists for hospital attention are going to increase. History is

repeating itself: this government is trying hard to catch up to the

former Social Credit government of 1969, when we had the cutbacks in

hospitalization, school construction and so on.

On the

extended care wing in Burnaby they've done something else: they've cut

off the cablevision which formerly was in place. These patients in the

extended care wing have limited recreation, and cablevision is a very

cheap solution for a way to spend some of these long and boring hours

for the people who are confined. I'm sure that even this government, if

they tried, could immediately look after this simple problem of giving

some help in the way of cablevision to the residents of the extended

care wings in the Burnaby hospital.

You are not fooling the

people of Burnaby into believing it is the fault of the hospital

boards. I've had many calls from residents of Burnaby regarding the

reduced health care, and I have told them that the blame is squarely on

the head of the Social Credit government. I've told them that this

government has had its priorities mixed up. It's a government that

wipes out succession duties on millionaires' estates at the expense of

health care and a government that has failed to put people first.

Burnaby, of course, is just one example. The same thing can be said for

hospitals throughout the province.

Looking

through the estimates quickly, I regret that there's not a significant

sum set aside for the improvement of our transit systems in this

province and the commencement of a light rail service on the lower

mainland.

There are two ways in the modern urban

society to move people. One method is the use of the automobile, which

requires more and more highways criss-crossing through the

neighbourhoods of our urban centres. This solution has been attempted

by many cities in North America. The financial and social costs of such

a solution have been far too great: the social costs of destroying

neighbourhoods, the cost of construction of new bridges and highways,

the widening of streets, and the choking up of the core centres of the

cities.

I'm very disappointed with the history of the last

three years of this government with reference to transit. Between 1972

and 1975 the bus and trolley fleet was more than doubled in an attempt

to get transit off the ground. Services were given to a number of

municipalities not only in the lower mainland and Victoria area but in

the Interior and the coastal regions of this province. It was a start

in getting the transit answer to the movement of people, not only in

the large urban areas but also in the smaller areas.

The

North Vancouver to Vancouver ferry system was designed, and the SeaBus

was basically built and put in place by the time of the election of

1975. The Fastbus services were put in place — a new concept of moving

people quickly. Negotiations were taking place with the CPR for a

commuter service on their rail lines to Haney, and later on to Mission.

The support services for a light rail system were basically in place,

and construction of such a service was the next logical step in our

effort to have people moved rapidly, economically and efficiently in

the lower mainland and Victoria areas. I have no doubt that the initial

light rail services would now be in place if our program had been

carried on by this government.

Nothing positive has happened

since the election with the exception of the completion of the SeaBus

terminals. The fares were doubled immediately, and the frequency of

service was reduced. Seven minute service was reduced to 10-minute

service, 10-minute service to 15-minute service, half-hour service to

hour service, and so on. Some routes were redesigned in order to save

money, but this resulted in a substantial decrease in ridership and in

service to the communities involved. One prime example, of course, is

the rescheduling and reoperation of the Coquitlam run.

The

number of vehicles in actual operation in the Hydro fleet has been

substantially reduced since 1975; the population has increased. The

operating deficits due to the loss of riders and poor service have

increased. The number of drivers has been drastically decreased. It

will take two years of active and aggressive operation in the transit

field to bring it back to the level of 1975. It's a terrible record for

this government.

Their solution was to create an urban

transit authority, a UTA; these initials might mean "unlikely to

assist," and that's about what happened. UTA, of course, is an excuse

to transfer the cost of transit onto the local taxpayers, to stop the

requests and demands from municipalities and regional districts for

better transit services, because better transit services would be a

cost now payable by the local taxpayer in a substantial measure.

This

government has failed to come to grips with the real problems of moving

people in a modern world, in our modern urban centres. Not only has

there been no progress, but there has been substantial decline. It is

now becoming the responsibility of local governments to see what they

can do in their small way to assist in the movement of people.

would like to pass on a warning to the people of this province, to

those who rely on transit services in our urban centres, that in the

new scheduling which will take effect in about a month's time they will

see a substantial decline in the services provided, not only in the

frequency of operations but in the hours of operations daily. It

certainly may be necessary for them to call upon their friendly

second-hand car dealer to make a deal in order to move around in the

city and so further the congestion of the city streets in an already

impossible situation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of

all, I want to say that the previous speaker said that he wanted to

congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. I made a note of this,

because I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. On

election night there was nobody happier in British Columbia than the

Leader of the Opposition, because he didn't win the election. He knew

that had he won the election, he would have been faced with a task

which he could not do. He tried

[ Page 34 ]

once

and he failed. I watched him on television. That man was so happy that

he had lost the election that his smile was from ear to ear. He revelled

in the very fact that he had lost the election, so that he didn't have

the responsibilities of governing this great province. So I want to

congratulate him. As a matter of fact, I was happy for the people of

British Columbia, and he was happy for himself.

Mr. Speaker,

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you as Deputy Speaker,

and take this opportunity also — the same as the other members of the

Legislature have done — to congratulate the member for Chilliwack (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder) on being elected, nominated or given the post of Speaker

for a second term in this thirty-second parliament. I think that speaks

well for the Speaker, and I'm sorry that he is not in the chair. While

the member for Chilliwack has been in the Speaker's chair, and while

you've been Deputy, there has been a continual improvement in the

decorum in the House. The Speaker and yourself are both fair; you are

firm, you're witty and you're pleasant. I have noticed a continual

improvement in the members' attitudes and the members' actions in the

House. I'm sure that that is going to continue to even greater heights

so that British Columbia will be looked on as a model of parliament for

the rest of Canada.

I want to congratulate the new members

who were elected and who will be serving in this Legislature for the

first time. I want to congratulate also those members who have been

here before and who are returned. Some of those members were part of

the socialist government when they were government from 1972-75. I

noticed particularly yesterday that they're carrying on their same

attitude, particularly the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). He was

very sincere in what he was saying, even though he didn't believe in

it. That's the way they used to operate when they were government.

also want to give my hearty congratulations to the mover and seconder

of the throne speech. Certainly the speeches were of very high quality,

very well delivered, and shining examples of the type of speeches you

are going to hear from this side of the House from now on. I also want

to say I'm very happy to be back here representing that great

constituency of Peace River South. As the member for Peace River North

(Mr. Brummet) yesterday said, it is the area which is maybe not

recognized by the rest of the province as it should be. But it makes a

great contribution to the economy of the rest of the province.

Certainly the area has had good representation in members in the past.

The member for Peace River North and myself will continue to see that

that area again is well represented for the next 20 years. In that area

there was a great sigh of relief on election night. I think it is the

first election I've ever seen in my life where projects were set to go

ahead but, instead of subject to financing or subject to arrangements

or subject to authorization by a board of directors, the agreements

were made subject to the outcome of the election. That's right, subject

to the outcome of the election to see that good government was

returned. That just shows those who are investing in this province did

not want a return of socialism.

Now it is not my intention to refight the last election. However, I do want to make a couple of comments. As you know....

MR. MACDONALD: You were awfully nervous.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, I was awfully nervous for you, my friend. You came up into my

riding and you tried to make some inroads. But the people up there

remember, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East. They remember when you

were minister in charge of the petroleum industry. They remember how

Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and the whole Peace River country.... They

remember it. They'll never forget. That's right. It became a ghost

town. Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, the whole Peace River country, just

became a ghost town. They'll never forget you, my friend. They'll never

forget you. I tell you, my friend, when you were in charge of the

petroleum industry, you didn't dare be on the road between the Peace

River country and Alberta. You would have got run over by things

leaving the area, by oil rigs leaving, seismic crews leaving,

construction crews leaving.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They don't want you back either. They'll never forget you. I want to tell you how they'll never forget you.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, may I just interrupt long enough to remind all hon.

members that it is traditional to address the Chair during debate.

Please proceed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you're

back, because in your absence I said what a tremendous job you were

doing as Speaker of this House and how you would improve the decorum

and the actions of the members. I said there would continue to be a

great improvement. I'm glad to see you back, sir.

However,

I'm glad to support this budget. I'm certainly glad to be part of the

Social Credit Party, who, during the years from 1975 to 1978, took the

economy of this province from one on a decline, growing slower than the

rest of Canada, people leaving the province, no confidence, to one of

the fastest, soundest growing economies of any province in Canada. That

is what we accomplished in three and a half years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about bankruptcies?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Member. I intend to talk about

bankruptcies in just a moment. I'm afraid you might be eating your

words over there when I'm finished. Yes, I'll talk about bankruptcies

in just a moment, if you can just contain yourself. You see, you

people, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)....

MR. KING: No, member for gerrymandering. You remember.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, you're the gerrymander all right. Anyway, you hate to hear the

real facts. You tried to spread an aura of doom and gloom over this

province during the election. And the people of this province didn't

buy it. They didn't buy it at all. Employment in this province is at an

all-time high. We have a record of new job creation second to none in

Canada. The problem is that the socialist opposition over there do

really not want the economy to

[ Page 35 ]

function.

They want, at every turn of the wheel, to ruin the economy of this

province so that they can go around and say we did a bad job.

Their

leader, shortly after he became Leader of the Opposition again, said in

Halifax: "Things are bad in British Columbia, and I'm happy." Was he

speaking for the workers of the province or was he speaking for the

socialist party? No, they don't want it. And they have been

unsuccessful in painting a picture of doom and gloom.

But,

Mr. Speaker, we have a record of improving the economy, improving

services to people and at the same time reducing taxes that is the envy

of every province in Canada and of every state in the union and of

every economic enterprise anywhere in the world.

I noted —

and this is typical of the socialist opposition — the remarks of the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He's great at criticism, but did not

have one single, solitary, positive suggestion as to how we could

improve the situation — which is already good — not one positive

suggestion. You know, that's typical socialism. They're great

criticizers. But ask them what they would do and you've got them

stumped, because they have no suggestions. They're great criticizers,

great at knocking down, great at tearing apart, but they don't have one

single, solitary suggestion.

I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, we talk about the workers in this province and we talk about

wages. Under the previous Social Credit government the workers in this

province became more prosperous than in any other jurisdiction, and

unionism flourished. The workers in this province are well off. They

have security. They know that there is investment taking place so that

their jobs will be there in the future, and they didn't have that under

socialism. You know, socialism is great for creating poverty. And

that's exactly what it does; it creates poverty.

Now we had

a socialist government in Great Britain for a number of years, using

basically the same type of policies that that socialist party over

there would use. As a matter of fact, they've got a couple of members

that came over from the Old Country not too long ago and they're trying

to bring those policies and impose them on British Columbia, the same

terrible policies that brought that great nation down almost to the

lowest in the world. Let's take a look at it. We had a socialist

government in Great Britain. Workers' wages in Great Britain under a

Labour government fell far behind those in any other nation in the

European Economic Community. Now is that good for the workers? Under

that socialist government, with basically the same policies as you're

espousing here in this Legislature and espousing in British Columbia,

they had the greatest labour strife that they had ever known and

greater than in any other country in the European Economic Community.

But

they're great to criticize, they're great theorists; but when you test

their policies in actual government, they just don't work. And they

didn't work in the three years that you were government, because you

took an economy that was strong and growing and.... You had a couple of

good years because decisions had been made that couldn't be reversed.

You had a high demand for lumber and good prices and you had a high

demand for minerals and good prices — you had a couple of good years.

But if you follow all the charts, whether it's employment,

unemployment, investment, no matter what it is, it goes well for

'73-'74, but then, when the chickens come home to roost in the last

year, unemployment in this province jumped from 62,000 to 95,000.

MR. BARBER: What is it today?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Today it's around 99,000. Sure, unemployment went up the first year we

were government from 93,000 to 98,000. Then it went again to 99,000. It

has remained practically stable since. At the same time that our

unemployment has been remaining stable our record of employment has

been increasing. In other words.... You understand, Mr. Speaker, and

this is the thing that that opposition over there tend to forget.

Now

they talk about foreign investment. They talk about takeovers by

foreign companies. I think he listed some 76 companies that had been

taken over by foreign interests. I want to tell you.... There's their

premier. He says he's against foreign investment, foreign takeovers,

and yet he travels around the world trying to get investment to come

in. But while he's talking about foreign investment, he doesn't tell

you the number of companies that are being formed in here and the

number of investments that are not takeovers. They try and paint a

picture that we are selling out the province.

I want to give

you an example, Mr. Speaker. They tried to get investment in the

province while they were government, but nobody had any faith in them

and nobody had any confidence in them. They talked about foreign

investment. "Oh, we don't want it." They went to Japan and tried to get

them to build a steel mill; they went to England and tried to get them

to build an oil refinery. What did Callahan do in England? He made a

deal with Henry Ford. Ford went in there because the workers were lower

paid than they were in any of the other countries. They gave them

concessions on taxes for years and years and years. If a free

enterprise government had done that you would have said: "Oh, a

sellout to a multinational corporation." But the Labour government in

England did it. You'd do the same thing.

MR. KING: Don't point your finger at me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Aren't you the House Leader? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

pointing at any specific member over there, but I'm pointing about

their policies. That's what they do. They talk one thing and they do

another. Sure, they got the Ford plant, they got the engine plant in

England — special deal, special tax concessions made by the Labour

government to a multinational corporation with headquarters in that

big, bad United States.

Well, as I say, I don't wish to

refight the election, Mr. Speaker, but the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), who was their chief spokesman on the budget, talked about

tragic unemployment, which is not the truth. Admittedly in their last

year of government more people were leaving British Columbia than were

coming to British Columbia. That trend has been reversed and we have

people flocking to British Columbia, because they have confidence, to

seek new opportunities for themselves and their families.

talked about inflation. Mr. Speaker, I guess he forgot to look at the

facts, because inflation in British Columbia during a socialist

government rose to be the highest in Canada. If you look under a Social

Credit

[ Page 36 ]

government

in British Columbia, instead of being the highest in Canada, we're now

one of the lowest in Canada. And he talks about inflation.

Mr.

Speaker, they've got all these suggestions, and they talk about social

services. They try and make the people of this province think they have

a franchise on social services. What did they do when they were

government? Nothing. We've done more for the people of this province,

before and after, than they did. You'd better believe it. And now that

we're bringing in new social programs in the budget, Mr. Speaker,

they're going to vote against it. They're against social services. They

talk a good line, there's nothing there to back it up.

remember, Mr. Speaker, the last six months of 1975. The Caterpillar

stopped in the middle of the road because you froze everything in this

province. You knew that you were going downhill financially; you knew

the financial ship of state was sinking. Your leader abandoned the

ship, tried to jump overboard, passed it over to the member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich). He knew it was too late. You tried to call a snap

election to hide the finances under the rug, but you froze everything.

You froze programs.

You talk about the cost of education.

They were going to bring in a program to fund the local colleges, and

what happened? They didn't have any funds so they cancelled the program

in the dying days of their days as government. They don't fool us, Mr.

Speaker.

As I say, I don't want to refight the last

election, but during the election campaign there was an NDP hack by the

name of Friesen running around the province saying that he represented

the small business community. Well, I don't know, what did he have —

half a dozen NDPers with him or something? He certainly didn't

represent the small business community.

Then the socialists

were talking about 597 bankruptcies in B.C. in 1978, and only 63 in

Alberta, and only 49 in Saskatchewan. "Oh, 597 bankruptcies — the place

is going to the devil!" they said. I don't know who did their research

for them, but there were some bankruptcies in British Columbia, there

were some bankruptcies in Alberta, and there were some bankruptcies in

Saskatchewan and Ontario and Quebec. And do you know why? Mr. Speaker,

I'll tell you why. Because we were on a trend to make credit too easy.

But

what are the true facts? The true facts are that in the province of

Alberta last year there were 1,260 bankruptcies. The truth of the

matter is, Mr. Speaker, that nobody actually keeps accurate records

of bankruptcies. But these figures are compiled by the past president

of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta. But that's the

type of fear campaign and misuse of facts that they were floating

around during the election campaign.

I want to tell you the small business community in British Columbia is alive

and growing, and I want to tell you it's going at a great rate. Last month,

the month of May, 1,617 new businesses were formed in the province of British

Columbia. Every month these statistics come out there is an improvement because

the small business community has confidence in this government. That's why

it's improving. Extra-provincial companies: I think that the NDP identified

some 78 in three years. There were 138 new extra-provincial companies formed

in the province last year. That's people coming from outside the province.

We can play with statistics all day, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

those chaps over there, or that group over there will never understand them.

They'll never understand figures and they do not want to know the truth;

they do not want to know the truth, Mr. Speaker.

They

say they're great for the small business community. What was the first

thing they did? They brought in the Corporation Capital Tax Act, a tax

on small business, not only a tax on small business, but hours with

accountants filling out the forms, red tape and an impost on the small

businessman. That's what they did for the small businessman. They

brought in the Public Works Fair Employment Act which forced the small

contractor to be unionized before he could do any government work. It

broke many of the small contractors and many small businessmen in the

province, my friend. That's what they did. That's how they helped the

small businessman. Certainly in the first months in this ministry I

identified numerous small businesses and small manufacturers that were

leaving and had left this province because of that government over

there.

Mr. Speaker, what has this government done for the

small businessman? One of the first moves we made was to remove the

Corporation Capital Tax, which helped 18,000 small business. It

relieved them from that burden of not only the extra taxes but the

burden of having those forms to fill out every year.

signed the first DREE agreement with Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, to provide

funds in many areas for the small businessman. What did they do when

they were government? Absolutely nothing. Their leader went down to

Ottawa and was known as the Crown clown, the laughing stock of the

Premiers. Did he do one single, solitary thing for the small business

community in signing programs in Ottawa? Not at all, absolutely nothing.

brought in, Mr. Speaker, the Low Interest Loan Assistance Program to

help small businessmen and small manufacturers. We set up industrial

commissionaires throughout this province to assist the small

businessman with the government programs that we were bringing it,

taking the small businessman by the hand, pointing out to him what

programs were available and helping him. Did they do that? Mr. Speaker,

they did absolutely nothing.

We set up business information

centres throughout the province to help the small businessman through

the chamber of commerce, which is made up of small businessmen. Did

they do anything while they were government, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely

nothing in that regard.

We recognize the importance of the

small businessman, and we set up a special ministry for small business,

Mr. Speaker. What did they do? Absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact,

they created a climate which made it almost impossible for the small

businessman to function in this province. We recognized that government

red tape was harmful to the small businessman, and we set up a Minister

of Deregulation.

The Tourist Industry Development Subsidiary

Agreement, Mr. Speaker, helps the small motel operator, helps those in

the tourist industry. What did they do? Absolutely nothing.

set up a special $2 million fund for the food processing industry to

help the small person who wanted to process or reprocess our

agricultural products. What did they do? Absolutely nothing.

[ Page 37 ]

set up a $2 million fund for aquaculture to help those in the shellfish

industry. What did they do, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing.

We set up a special ARDA program to allow those on the coast who wanted to get into the fish-processing industry.

gave the British Columbia Development Corporation a mandate to bring

onstream industrial land so it would be easily accessible to small

business and those who wanted to go into business. What did they do?

Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker.

We brought in tax relief on

production machinery. The British Columbia Development Corporation

worked with the Bank of British Columbia to bring in long-term credit

for the small businessman. Fifteen programs and more to come, Mr.

Speaker.

We've brought in 15 programs, and there are more to

come — 15 positive programs for the small businessman in this province.

And they say they're for the small businessman.

A lot has

happened in the last four years. A lot more will happen. There's a lot

to be done. This government has probably ploughed more new ground in

the field of economic development and new programs than any other

province in Canada. I'm not saying that we've been 100 percent correct.

We will analyse our programs. We will look in the mirror, as it were.

We will see how we can improve them, how they can mesh together, how we

can better help the business community in this province. We're not

saying we've been 100 percent perfect. I will say we've brought in new

programs, made innovations and brought about a climate of economic

stability greater than any other province in Canada. We may have made a

few mistakes, but we did something. We have more programs going aimed

at economic development in this province than any other province in

Canada.

I'm proud of those programs. We'll analyse them, and

we'll take a second look. We'll analyse the role of the department. I'm

not afraid to look in the mirror at how the department has been

functioning: whether we should have more promotion in our overseas

trade promotion; whether we should be bringing more buyers; whether we

can do more in the development of our overall natural resources. We'll

take a look at those. We'll look at how the small business portfolio

fits into the overall economic development, tourism, and the whole

deal. We'll take a look in the mirror. We'll try to improve them. We

don't accept the status quo in this government. We're always looking

for new ideas. We will plough new ground and we will move forward.

doesn't matter what area you look at. The record of this government is

outstanding. I don't care whether it's the record of economic

development or the record of the tourist industry under our great first

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). What did

they say about tourism when they were government? "Yankee go home."

Here I see an

article in the paper this morning: "Tourism Traffic Up 12

Percent." When they were government, what was the record? You'd read

the same headline: "Tourist Traffic Down 12 Percent." That's a record

of solid achievement.

We're doing great things for the ski

industry in British Columbia. In a very few short years British

Columbia will be the Switzerland of the world. Europe will take a back

seat to British Columbia when it comes to the ski industry. Those

mountains were there, the snow was there and the climate was there when

they were government. And what did they do? Absolutely nothing. But no

matter where you go in this province today there are new developments

taking place in the ski industry.

Manufacturing firms are on the increase.

Our

agricultural community is growing strong under new policies this

government brought in. All they talk about is farm income assurance.

But under that government, going the way they were going, if they'd

have been in government another two years there'd have been no farm

income assurance because there'd have been no money to pay for it. They

had it on a contract basis so that the farmer, every three or four

years, had to come over and negotiate. Is it going to be a policy, or

not going to be a policy? It was this government that made farm income

assurance a solid policy of government, so that the farmers don't have

to worry about it being taken away. Farmers of this province realized,

because we have a strong, sound and going economy, that there will be

money to pay for that income assurance program. They won't have to

worry about it.

I don't care whether it's our record in

developing the petroleum industry; the mining industry; the forest

industry — any industry you want to talk about. We have a good, solid

record of development, but not only in the industries. Our record in

labour relations shows a vast improvement over that government. I'm not

going to talk about the statistics, but we have a record second to none

of any province of Canada, where we had the worst situation when we

became government.

I don't care whether it's new programs in

education. Under the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), there's

the great new program to bring in high technology industry research

development. It's new. We're ploughing new ground. And when that

program is finished it'll be the greatest program not only in Canada

but in North America. I think the Minister of Education might have

something to say about that.

Whether it's our new programs

in human resources, programs in education, our new programs in health;

whether it's our record in protecting the environment; whether it's our

record of sound fiscal management — regardless of what it is, we do

have a good record of government. They don't like the facts. They don't

like us saying that. But that is the truth.

If you listen to

their speeches, all they do is harp and criticize — not one solid

suggestion. I think somebody over there this morning mentioned the

British Columbia Railway. When they were running the railway, it was

being run into the ground. What's our record there?

MR. BARBER: How about the plywood?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, he talks about the plywood. If they'd have been government there

wouldn't even have been a rail line there to put plywood under. They

take one piece of plywood.... I'll tell you why that piece of plywood

is there. It's because of new industry going into Fort Nelson with

heavy, heavy loads, because of economic development.

The

workers on that railroad do not appreciate the carping criticism that

that opposition give. The workers there are proud. Management has a

high morale. The

[ Page 38 ]

railway

is running well and it's making money. I won't even tell them. Oh,

maybe I should tell the new members the financial picture of the

railway. The last year your leader was president it lost $23.8 million.

Last year, under a new independent board of directors with a little bit

of business sense, free from political interference, the railway made a

profit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I

tabled the financial statement in the House. Do you want me to do your

research for you too? If you did it, you wouldn't be able to understand

it anyway, my friend, so we'll let it go at that.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. May I remind the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber)

that an occasional outburst, although out of order, might be tolerated;

but constant interruption cannot be tolerated.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the House is going to improve under your great guidance and leadership.

don't want to refight the election campaign. What we're interested in

on this side of the House, particularly in this ministry — and I mean

this sincerely — is to hear some good, positive suggestions as to how

we can improve it. If I hear any good, solid, positive suggestions, or

the members want to come to my office and sit down with a particular

problem, I'll welcome them. But I can't stand this continual, harping

criticism. We maybe haven't done everything right, but we have a good

record. If you have any suggestions for improving it, if you can help

me to improve the economy of this province, if you're really sincere as

MLAs and sincere in representing your own constituency, you're only too

welcome to come to my office or to give me suggestions across the

floor, and I will certainly listen. You are not doing the province any

good, you're not doing your constituency any good, by refighting the

last election and by trying to pour doom and gloom over the economy.

Bring you’re suggestions.

You say you want to improve

things; tell us how you're going to do it. Give us your suggestions;

tell us how you would improve things. I'll tell you, we'll listen. But

I'd like to hear some suggestions. Tell us what you'd do and we'll take

a look at it; we'll analyse it. That's what we should be doing in this

chamber, sitting down and having some constructive debate. If you want

to debate the economy, sit down and give me your suggestions. We'll

analyse your suggestions, and certainly we'll make the final decision

because we're government. I'd like to hear from you what you would do,

but not political suggestions. Let's get down to some concrete, solid

debate. Tell us how you would do it, what the results would be, and

we'll take a look at it. But I'm sick and tired of you just harping and

carping and not having your facts straight.

I want to see

that the workers of this province have a secure future. I want to see

that there are jobs available for our young and growing labour force.

You're not going to help them, and I'm not going to help them by

dickering back and forth across the floor and not having any positive

style of debate. I hope that during my estimates you come to me and

give me some concrete suggestions because, as I said before, I'll

listen. Some of the members opposite have come, from time to time, with

a positive suggestion, and I think you've been well received, and I've

tried to help you. I hope that you will take that attitude in this, the

thirty-second parliament of British Columbia, so that we can work

together for the good of the workers in this province, and not for our

own political rhetoric.

MR. BARNES: Since charity begins at home, I will congratulate myself and my colleague upon our return to the Legislature.

Following

that, I will congratulate you, sir, and your Deputy Speaker on your

return. Having said that, I would like the House to join me in

congratulating Mr. Alan Passarell of Atlin, who, I understand, has won

by a landslide of one vote over the former member. It just goes to show

you, Mr. Speaker.

The former speaker suggested that if we

had any suggestions, they would be glad to listen and cooperate. I

merely suggested that we all join in congratulating a member who has

won by a desperate battle with the former member for Atlin, and not a

single hand moved on those tables. Just incredible! I can't believe

this. [Applause.] Okay, that's better.

I think, with

respect, that we should wish the former member well in his new

ventures, whatever they may be. And I mean that sincerely.

Mr.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I just can't speak without

commenting on your attire. As all of us, Mr. Speaker, must realize that

the former Liberal member looked more like a pallbearer in the old days

as a Liberal, and now he's gotten rid of his black suit. I'm wondering

if the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) will be following him

next. It's very colourful.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, I would suggest that perhaps any debate on

attire might better fall under a motion to be introduced in that

regard. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand that we do have an agreement with the Whips, so that some other matters can be taking place.

I'm

not going to be able to get into the text of the comments I had hoped

to make. However, I would like to just suggest to the former speaker

that the last time this side of the House made some suggestions, the

Premier jumped up irate and ran out and called the election. So I don't

know how he expects us to cooperate with him. Every time we suggest

something they get excited and run out.

Now the budget, of

course, that we have before us has been before us before. We wanted to

debate it, and had some criticisms to make, and the government didn't

have enough confidence in us to accept our comments at that time. That

was prior to the calling of the provincial election. So they tried to

use the promises of the budget as a means of convincing the electorate

that these so-called "sunshine goodies" would be forthcoming. Now we're

back, after having gone to the public under those conditions, to find

that the government's majority has been reduced significantly. The

opposition has been increased, and we have a

[ Page

39 ]

budget that had been dubbed the "dead-duck budget" by the former

leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Now, I guess, we can call

it the "re-sunshine-cloudy budget. "

It is significantly

reduced in size, and it was not very enthusiastically presented by the

Minister of Finance. Nor have any of the speakers in support of the

budget been all that enthusiastic. In fact, everyone seems to be

talking about everything else except the budget. At this stage, I'm not

going to get into some of the suggestions that I would like to make.

They're quite significant. They're very important. Certainly there has

been no attempt in this budget to deal with the serious problems of

unemployment. Despite what the minister may have said about their

concern in ensuring that small businesses can compete successfully in

our free enterprise system, I have documented evidence of a number of

small businesses in the constituency of Vancouver Centre, in the

downtown area along Robson Street and on Denman Street, which are all

marginal, and have virtually no protection whatsoever in terms of their

ability to compete. In fact, they are being gobbled up by the day by

larger capital interests.

Certainly we'll be talking about

their concern about small business, the survival of small business, and

their ability to compete without having to pass on inflationary costs

to the public in trying to sell their services.

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

3 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

4 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PARI MUTUEL BETTING TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Pari Mutuel Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

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

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1977-78

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979.

Bill

7 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA TRADE

AND CONVENTION CENTRES FUNDS ACT

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

a bill intituled Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act.

Bill

8 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LOWER MAINLAND STADIUM FUND ACT

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

a bill intituled Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act.

Bill

9 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SPECIAL PURPOSE

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1979.

Bill

10 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

(1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment

Act, 1979.

[ Page

40 ]

Bill 11 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

13 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:47 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada