1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1641 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Reports Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

annual report, 1978.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1641

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Administration of Justice. Mr. Leggatt –– 1641

Sunshine Coast ferry service. Mr. Lockstead –– 1642

Electronic price scanners. Mr. Levi –– 1642

Government housing corporation. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1643

Budget debate.

Mr. Hyndman –– 1643

Mr. King –– 1647

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1650

Mr. Leggatt –– 1653

Mr. Ree –– 16.56 Mr. Hall –– 1657

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1661

Division –– 1662

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Finance estimates.

On vote 85.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1662

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I have the

pleasure of having my wife Lillian here, but she is here today with two

friends from California: my cousin Coby Vink and her friend Donna

Westwood from Palo Alto, California. Also visiting with us is Dr.

Rodney Foxwell from Langley. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a few friends to

the House today: Mr. Brian Hambley, school board chairman of School District

34, Dr. Morton Jacobs, his wife Dee and daughter Anne, and 13 students from

Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. Would the House please make them

welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like the House to welcome four people in

the members' gallery who are representing Vancouver–Little Mountain today. Would

you please welcome Peggy Lee, Flora McIntyre, Elaine Wong and Shirley Klok.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us today is a Mrs. Dorothy Pickeral from Penticton. I ask the House to bid her welcome.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year 1978.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LEGGATT: I see the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

is here, and I'd like to ask him a further question on the statement

that he made last week with respect to the matter concerning his Deputy

Attorney-General. In the report to the House last week, the

Attorney-General indicated that based on his interviews with regional

Crown counsel Weddell — this is in the Mickey Moran case — it is clear

that, contrary to the report of Chris Bird in the course of the

telecast, Brian Weddell had no complaint about Deputy Attorney-General

Vogel's interference in the Moran case. My question is this: would the

Attorney-General indicate to the House whether the interference that is

referred to in his report took place prior to the charges being heard,

or was that interference subsequent to the charges being heard?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my discussions with regional

Crown counsel Brian Weddell indicates that there was no interference

from Mr. Vogel before, during or after.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister advise the House whether

there was any conversation or communication at all between Deputy

Attorney-General Vogel and Mr. Weddell?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if there was — and I'm not saying that there was-there was none in respect to this case.

MR. LEGGATT: Perhaps the minister could advise the House

whether the question of the refusal to take a breathalyser charge was

discussed by the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Vogel, with any of the

Crown officials.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It was not discussed.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Attorney-General

concerns the report that he made. In his reference to the Wendy King

case he indicated that the chief constable in Vancouver and the

deputies were satisfied that Mr. Vogel was giving a lawyer's opinion

when he expressed the opinion that he would prevent the calling of John

Farris as a witness in the Wendy King case. Now that the minister has

had a chance to inquire into this matter with eminent counsel, can he

advise the House what that lawyer's opinion was? Why was an opinion

given that Mr. Farris would not be an appropriate witness in that

particular case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, based upon the evidence that

was made available to the Deputy Attorney General during his discussion

with two police officers, the indication was Mr. Farris could give no

evidence which would advance the Crown's case, which is one of the

criteria to be considered.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, could the Attorney-General

please inform the House, in light of the answer he has just given, why

Mr. Farris was subsequently subpoenaed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it was

in this House or elsewhere, but I've already answered this question a

number of times. I'm happy to do it again if the Leader of the

Opposition doesn't know.

Subsequent to the decision which was made by Crown counsel having

responsibility for that case in December 1978 — that Mr. Farris would

not be called because he could not advance the Crown's case — the

matter of the use of wiretap evidence was considered by other Crown

counsel who are specialists in this field. It was based upon their view

of the matter that the decision was changed.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question to the

Attorney-General. Did the Deputy Attorney-General ever say anything,

either to a meeting of police or to other people concerned with that

case, to the effect that if a subpoena were to be issued to Mr. Farris,

he would have it cancelled — or words to that effect?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that he did not use those words.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General what words he did use?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am advised that during this lengthy discussion undertaken between the Deputy Attorney-

[ Page 1642 ]

General and the two police officers, the Deputy

Attorney General made it clear he did not believe that Mr. Farris'

evidence would advance the Crown's case, and therefore he should not be

called as a witness. But I have to remind the members, Mr. Speaker,

that there were no charges laid at that time.

MR. MACDONALD: I have just a short supplementary question on

that. Would the Attorney-General then check as to whether, following

that statement of the Deputy Attorney General, he at any time indicated

that if somebody else issued a subpoena he would see that it was

withdrawn or cancelled or something of that kind? Could the

Attorney-General come back to the House and give us that answer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to take the question on notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Has the Attorney-General now decided to provide

the House with a list of the witnesses who were interviewed and

examined in respect to the inquiry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is the member making reference to the review I conducted of this matter?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: My statement set them out, Mr. Member.

MR. LEGGATT: I wonder if the minister would clarify his last

answer. Is the minister telling us that the persons named in the

statement were the only persons interviewed by either himself or his

assistant in his inquiry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the ones mentioned in the statement

were the only ones I interviewed.

SUNSHINE COAST FERRY SERVICE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways, who is also responsible to this Legislature for the

activities of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

On or about March 10 of this year the B.C. Ferry Corporation assured

myself and residents of my riding that a supplementary vessel would be

placed on route 7 between Earls Cove and Saltery Bay, serving

theSunshine Coast-Powell River area. Today it's been confirmed that

B.C. Ferries will not now be doing so, leaving the people of the Sun

shine Coast and the Powell River area without adequate service and

waits of six or eight hours during the peak summer period. My question

is: can the minister assure the House and the residents of theSunshine

Coast that a supplementary vessel will be provided for that route

during the peak summer period?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll have to get that information for the

member but I believe this may involve a ferry stretched from 50-car

capacity to 70-car capacity. That could be the reason. They think the

larger vessel can look after the increased traffic.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate that, but I remind the minister

that that ferry was stretched well over a year ago. We did have a

supplementary vessel all last summer, after the ferry was stretched. In

spite of that we still had waiting periods of up to four hours.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is: has the government decided to

discontinue the use of resident commuter cards for residents of the

Sunshine Coast and Powell River area and the Gulf Islands?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll come back with the information

regarding the extra vessel. To answer your last question, the

government hasn't decided anything.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the minister for taking that question

as notice — the second question; it wasn't my last question. This is my

last question: has the B.C. Ferry Corporation decided what amount, if

any, ferry rates will be increased this year and, if so, when?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order; the second

part is not.

HON. MR. FRASER: You're referring to future policy, but I

might say that the government haven't made any decisions at all. As a

matter of fact it isn't before the government at the present time.

ELECTRONIC PRICE SCANNERS

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At the present time, a number of

supermarket food stores in B.C. are utilizing electronic scanners to

calculate food bills, and these stores have discontinued individual

product pricing. This practice in other Canadian Jurisdictions and in

California has led to some consumer confusion. Can the minister advise

the House if he or his officials have held discussions with retailers

and/or the Retail Council of British Columbia with regard to the

desirability of retaining price stickers on individual products in

situations where the electronic scanners are used?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Some discussions have been held.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister advise whether he has reviewed the

situation in Ontario wherein an informal agreement exists between the

government and the Retail Council of Ontario to maintain the use of

price stickers?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The situation in Ontario has been reviewed

by ministry officials. I'm not sure what conclusions they have reached

from those studies. Yes, that information has been part of our study.

MR. LEVI: Has the minister requested that retailers in

British Columbia maintain individual product pricing where electronic

scanners are introduced?

[ Page 1643 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have not requested that, no.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister advise whether he has reviewed the

Quebec legislation which requires that price stickers be maintained on

products sold, despite the use of electronic scanners?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the use of scanners in any

jurisdiction has been reviewed by ministry officials, and the

information gathered will be used for our analysis of what would best

be suited for British Columbia.

MR. LEVI: Has the minister initiated a study or requested

reports on the use of electronic scanners and individual product

pricing? Is that something that is happening at the moment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes.

MR. LEVI: Would the minister undertake to make those reports available

to the House when they are completed?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING CORPORATION

MR. GABELMANN: I direct my question to the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing. On March 20 last, in answer to my question whether

the government had decided to re-establish the Housing Corporation, the

minister replied that "we already have a housing corporation in the

province." The Housing Corporation chairperson, Mr. Thomas Toynbee,

some time ago announced the final disposition and the liquidation of

the corporation. Has the minister instructed Mr. Toynbee to reactivate

the Housing Corporation pursuant to his answer on March 20?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have a housing

corporation called the B.C. Housing Management Commission of British

Columbia. In reply to your question regarding the Housing Corporation

of B.C., which was involved in the acquisition of rental units in

British Columbia such as Casa Loma, we have no intention of

reinsituting that corporation.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Members will remember that as the House closed

on Friday I undertook to bring to the House an opinion. You will recall

that an hon. member, responding I believe to the general sense of the

House, withdrew certain words he had uttered in the course of debate.

When it appeared that another hon. member, upon taking his place in the

debate, was about to repeat those words, objection was taken. At that

time I expressed the opinion that the effect of a withdrawal of words

spoken was, so to speak, an expunging of those words from the record in

the House, but not, of course, from the official record of the debate

as reported by Hansard .

The question then arose as to what extent, if any, the objectionable

words, without being repeated, could be alluded to in the course of

subsequent debate. As the dignity of the House has been preserved by a

withdrawal of the objectionable words, which as I have said may not be

repeated, it is my view that the general freedom to pursue a proper

area of debate should not be unduly limited simply because in that area

of debate unparliamentary words have previously been used.

I do not feel it wise, however, for the Chair to endeavour to make a

ruling to be construed as applicable in all future exchanges of a like

nature. The particular circumstances must always govern, consistent

with order in the House and preservation of the general freedom of

debate.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and join in

the debate on the budget as we move into its closing hours. Because my

place in this debate comes toward the conclusion of the remarks of

many, in the course of my address today I would like to consider a

number of topics which members have addressed, in an effort to

highlight those areas in which there is, as one might expect,

disagreement between the government and the opposition, but also to

highlight with some interest some areas in which the group to your

left, Mr. Speaker, has had some positive and supportive words to say to

the government. I must say I'm going to be fascinated to watch, as the

vote takes place, the degree to which the opposition benches arc full.

Perhaps some sudden afflictions of cold or the flu will cause certain

members to your left who had some good things to say about the budget

to be temporarily removed from this chamber.

One of the issues that clearly has produced divided opinion in this chamber is the debate surrounding the Marguerite .

I think it's fair to observe that the opposition has taken a

fundamentally different view than the government as to what should be

done with the Marguerite , and

its future. I found it most interesting that last week in a

Victoria-based newspaper which is, I think it's fair to say, certainly

no great friend and usually a critic of the government, appeared a

column by the editor. Because it is written by a Victoria journalist

and produced in a Victoria newspaper, one would assume the commentary

is somewhat balanced from the point of view of Victoria citizens. It

appeared in the newspaper Monday , the issue dated March 21-27. It's an editorial by Derry McDonnell entitled "On Free Enterprise and the Marguerite ."

As I say. the interesting thing about this editorial is that it comes

from a Victoria-based newspaper whose editorial record, generally, is

to be critical of the government. The comments of Mr. McDonnell are

quite interesting in addressing, if we might put it this way, just who

is right on the issue of the Marguerite ,

if one stands back from the government and from the opposition in this

assembly and seeks the independent view of, in this case, a well-known

Victoria Journalist.

Reading from that editorial, Mr. Speaker, the comment is as follows:

"But was the basic decision to get rid of the Marguerite

justified? Unquestionably, yes. We'd be willing to bet not more than 10

percent of those 40,000 people who signed CFAX's petition have ever

travelled on her, especially during the peak tourist season. If they

had, they would know that whatever charm she exuded because of her age

and design and

[ Page 1644 ]

workmanship, she had more than lost in inadequate seating capacity,

fuel inefficiency and clumsy handling facilities at each end of her run...."

"So what was the Marguerite ? A vital link in the

Island's transportation system? A unique mini-cruise ship on a par with

the Love Boat? Not on your life. She was merely the part-time fuel pump

for Victoria's part-time tourist industry, and that's all she was.

What's more, age, overloading and rising fuel costs were threatening

her with cardiac arrest.... "

"So there you have it. This was a sound decision taken

by the government… We rate the degree of difficulty at 8 and give them

7.5 for execution and style. That's 59 out of a possible 80, or 74

percent. Not bad."

Mr. Speaker, for many who followed the Marguerite debate it's been

difficult to stand back and get something of an independent view as to

the correctness of the decision. Certainly the correctness of the

decision has divided this House during debate. My observation in

passing is that it's interesting to see a locally based newspaper,

generally not supportive of the government, to endorse as

unquestionably correct the decision that's been taken.

So the Marguerite issue is one that clearly has divided government

and opposition in this debate, as has the question of financial aid to

independent schools, provided for in this budget. Now last year, 1979,

was an election year. It appeared, Mr. Speaker, that the group on your

left sought to endorse the government's program of financial aid to

independent schools. So it appeared from literature circulated by them

during the election.

This year it's 1980, a new year. Last year's election is a year

behind us, the next election is not likely in the very near future, and

the position has changed. Again we see dividing us, as one of the

benchmarks by which the public can define its preference, its choice on

the policy issues in provincial affairs, the question of financial aid

to independent schools. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, this session the

position of the opposition will be advanced with some refreshing

unanimity. We'll watch with interest during the estimates of the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) to see whether all members of

the opposition join in the general opposition position of opposition to

financial aid to independent schools.

Turning to an area of somewhat more interest and curiosity, there

have been some common themes of agreement during this debate. I find it

refreshing that members of the opposition have been prepared to send

some accolades on various topics to ministers and the government. I

think it's a constructive sign for provincial affairs. I think it's

useful, as we approach the debate and the vote today, to review some of

the areas in which opposition speakers have had positive things to say

There is first the question of the new forestry program — the

massive long-range infusion of capital into our precious renewable

forest resource. It's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that a number of

opposition spokesmen have given the government credit for taking the

initiative in establishing that program. In that respect, on both sides

of this House, members are as one.

Also, in terms of our energy policy, while some members of the

opposition have had reservations about the scope and extent of the

energy policy in the budget, it's clear also that some members have

given credit for some of the tax incentives provided to encourage

energy-saving. The government's recent low-interest loan program has

again drawn some support from members to your left, as has the downtown

revitalization program, a program that will commit $25 million towards

the regenerating and rebuilding of some downtown cores throughout

British Columbia. So in those areas I think it's refreshing and good to

see a commonality of view between some members of the opposition and

the government.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to add BCRIC to one of the general topics

of budgetary relevance that had drawn some support from members of the

opposition. When the recent BORIC acquisitions were announced — the

acquisition of an interest in MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. and the taking of

an option with respect to Kaiser Resources Co. — I believe it's correct

to say that the word "sensible" was used by two members of the

opposition in speaking on behalf of their caucus on those two steps. I

would have thought that meant there was again some general common,

positive feeling both on your left and your right, sir, as to the

policy of the government in this regard.

However, after listening to the member for Coquitlam Moody (Mr.

Leggatt) the other day, I'm not sure if that's a fair analysis, because

as I listened to him I derived the impression that he thought the

option on Kaiser and the acquisition in respect to MacMillan Bloedel

were a little too conservative and cautious. If I heard him correctly,

his reservation or complaint was that any of the investments so far

undertaken by BCRIC were those permitted as permitted investments under

the Trust Companies Act, and were just a little too conservative and,

gosh, not risky enough at all. There was certainly a strong suggestion,

if I listened to the member correctly, that BCRIC should perhaps be

involved in somewhat riskier ventures or investments than those

permitted under the Trust Companies Act. If those remarks be true, Mr.

Speaker, that member would appear to be suggesting that he doesn't wish

to see sensible investments being pursued by BCRIC, but rather he would

like to see BCRIC looking at investments not permitted under the Trust

Companies Act and of a risker nature. I hope we'll hear more from that

member on those comments as the session continues. So I don't think we

can say that in terms of the recent BCRIC moves there is the unanimity

which at first appeared when a couple of the members to your left

described them as sensible, because subsequently we've had a call for

more risktaking by BCRIC.

Mr. Speaker, the major area where I'd like to compare some of the

comments of the government and the opposition is that of housing

policy, because the general questions of housing provision, supply of

accommodation, rents and mortgage interest are ones of proper concern

to all of us in this assembly. Because it's a major topic of concern

today, I think it's extremely worthy of note, Mr. Speaker, that on one

major aspect of housing policy there has been, through this debate, a

widespread and very strong common view between the government and the

opposition as to one of the major steps that should be taken right away

by the federal government to assist British Columbia in what is a very

unique accommodation problem. That's the question of capital cost

allowances either under the old MURB program or programs of a similar

nature which give to prospective private sector investors in the

housing market some incentive to come in

[ Page 1645 ]

and crank up the supply of rental housing and housing for home

purchase. I want to say more about that in just a moment, because I

think it's very remarkable that the opposition, who are not normally

committed to strong free enterprise concepts, have strongly endorsed

the return of the capital cost allowance — very much a private sector

concept — as one of the major steps that should be taken in public

policy in Canada today to get the ball rolling.

Along the way, the opening question really is to what degree the

government at the provincial level is properly accountable for the

housing crunch that is on today. Generally, in my submission, the

commentators write and the analysts say — and our position would be —

that the prime responsibility is that of the federal government. The

federal government is the level of government which directs and

controls fiscal and monetary policy, meaning our interest rates and our

tax rates. Interest rates directly impact on the development of housing

and the ease or difficulty with which housing can be acquired. Tax

policy determines depreciation policy, which, again, is a major force

in determining how much of our housing stock will be built. I think the

fairest estimate is that at the provincial level efforts can be made,

but in the area of housing the responsibility must be that of the

federal government. As I've listened to the debate, it would appear

that the opposition would disagree with that view, suggesting strongly

that somehow the solution to the housing problems currently facing

British Columbia lie largely at the provincial level. That's

intriguing, because if one reviews the cyclical nature of housing and

goes back to 1975 when again there was a housing crunch underway in

this province, the echo from the members of the New Democratic Party

then was somewhat different than it is today.

Cast your memory back, for example, to February and March 1975,

about five years ago, when in the cyclical nature of the housing

industry we had a problem similar to that being faced today. On

February 11, 1975, there was a headline story in the Vancouver Sun :

"Rents, Prices Rise, Vacancies Fade." The story opens as follows: "If

you're out to rent or buy a place to live in it's hard to see how

things could get much worse. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

has just reported that the apartment vacancy rate in greater Vancouver

in December was effectively zero." A couple of weeks later the headline

in the Vancouver Province was: "Apartment Vacancies Dive." The

story opened: "Fewer than 100 vacant apartments were found in a survey

of the lower mainland in December by the CMHC." In a separate story

about the same time was this: "B.C. House Prices up 36 Percent."

Five years ago British Columbia faced the similar difficulty of a

severe shortage of rental accommodation, rising house prices and high

interest rates. The member for Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was then

Minister of Housing. In the Victoria Daily Colonist , April 19, 1975, he

had this to say about the basic level of responsibility for that kind

of problem: "The slump is partly a national and partly an international

phenomenon caused primarily by rising interest rates as governments

have tried to counteract the inflationary impact of the energy crisis."

Well, it's five years later, and the member for Nelson-Creston now sits

on your left, Mr. Speaker, and, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus,

there's apparently been a conversion and his view of the world is

different. He and his group apparently have the new-time religion whose

fault the housing has become now. It's no longer a national and

international phenomenon; now it's apparently a provincial problem to

be dealt with.

We will not shirk our provincial responsibility, for the reasons I'm

going to point out. But I think, in passing, it's fascinating to note

how about ten feet of purple carpet can drastically redefine in the

members' minds the real reasons for and the sources of the housing

problems in Canada today.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where you stand depends on where you sit.

MR. HYNDMAN: Precisely. Well said, Mr. Member. In the course

of the debate, though, I think we've seen the group to your left

recognize the truth of the answer that the responsibility is federal,

because a number of the opposition — and quite correctly — have joined

with government speakers in calling on the federal government to

reinstitute the capital cost allowance form of incentive in an effort

to get house-building, accommodation-building and rental construction

in this province moving again. I think the number of those speakers who

have called for a re-entry of that kind of policy really reflects their

underlying agreement with the fact that it's basically at the federal

level that these problems have to be addressed.

If there is a thing I want to stress today it is to call on Ottawa —

adopting the words of the Finance minister's budget, at page 30 — to

immediately reintroduce, at least for British Columbia, incentives to

increase the supply of rental accommodation and housing through a

reintroduction of the capital cost allowance program. Members on both

sides of this House have called for such a reintroduction. I think it

is fair to say that call today is a unanimous view of this assembly.

Not a speaker in this debate has spoken against the re-entry of capital

cost allowance incentives. I think it's fair to say the overall

judgment of this assembly would be that that would be a very

constructive and much-needed step in British Columbia today.

The benefits of the federal government's taking such a step are

these. First of all, it's the kind of policy which can immediately be

implemented at the stroke of a pen. All it's going to take is an

amendment to the regulations under the Income Tax Act, and that can be

done virtually immediately in Ottawa. Apart from the immediate nature

of the remedy, it is a very specific remedy which can be applied to the

specific case of British Columbia. It needn't necessarily be applied

across the board, across the country.

The fact is that the vacancy rate in British Columbia is the lowest

across Canada, for a couple of reasons. In addition to our being back

to a program of sustained and solid economic growth, the general

migration into this province is at its highest level in 25 years,

including non-workforce as well as workforce people. I think a fair

case can be made that British Columbia is in a unique situation in its

vacancy problem.

If the new federal government is concerned to show that it has a new

desire to understand, deal with and remedy the problems of the west and

the Pacific Rim, this would be a very positive first step forward to

show that Ottawa is attuned to the needs and requirements of the far

west. It's a simple program. It's easily implemented with a stroke of

the pen. It can be done on a pinpoint basis to deal with British

Columbia only, or perhaps only those parts of British Columbia where

the problem is severe. The solution can be retracted when the problem

has been solved. When, cyclically, the housing

[ Page 1646 ]

stock is built again and the problem has been solved, Ottawa can,

with a simple stroke of the pen, modify the program or, if felt

necessary, terminate it.

This is a time and this is a geographic area where this kind of

program is needed again. It can be implemented right away. If we

believe what we read — that the new government of the Prime Minister is

sitting in Ottawa, concerned to show that it's listening to the west,

monitoring our concerns and anxious to help — in the area of the return

of capital cost allowance incentives to spur the construction of rental

accommodation and housing for people, now is the time to act for

British Columbia.

I mentioned a moment ago that on both sides of the House in this

debate there has been welcome and, in some sense, surprising agreement

that the program of capital cost allowance incentives should be

returned as one of the major ways to do something about British

Columbia's housing problem. But having said, Mr. Speaker, that on both

your left and your right members agree that this program should be

reintroduced, there is between the groups to your left and right a

difference in perception as to what that program is. Today I hope to

clarify, for the benefit particularly of the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), the nature of that program.

A return to the capital cost allowance incentive system — a return

to the MURB program is not an example of government intervention into

the economy, thereby showing free enterprisers that sometimes you have

to rely on government. Rather it is a step away from government

intervention in the economy and is a step back to letting the private

sector do its own thing as the solution. What I would like to make

clear today is that the first member for Vancouver Centre, in calling

quite correctly for a return of the capital cost allowance incentive

programs to aid housing. Is endorsing and embracing — I would say

warmly embracing a return to a private sector principle. It is not the

case, as he suggested, that the MURB program with a capital cost

allowance program constitutes government intervention in the economy as

an example to free enterprisers of how sometimes even the private

sector has to ask for the government to get involved.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to go back historically and outline

briefly the history as to why the MURB program came into effect and why

it was discontinued. In doing that, I think we'll sec that all of those

who call for the return of MURBs, for the return of CCA incentives, are

calling for a return to the private sector, are calling for government

to take a step back from interference with housing.

If you cast your mind back to pre-1972 in this country, you would go

back to a time at which the federal government had not become largely

involved in housing programs. The private sector, up to 1972, was

heavily involved in the provision of' housing, rental accommodation,

and apartments. Particularly in the sixties and the late fifties,

particularly during the time of British Columbia great resource boom,

when all kinds of people were moving here and requiring accommodation,

we did not have the kind of accommodation crunch that we've seen in the

seventies. The reason is that the private sector was doing an excellent

job of providing an ample supply and an ample choice of rental

accommodation and housing on its own. The reason was very simple. It

had nothing to do with political philosophy, nothing to do with party

labels. It had everything to do with the centuries-old system of

accounting — the accounting system that everyone uses, which takes

account of depreciation as a permitted deduction from income in

determining expense and in determining profit.

The concept of depreciation is based on the very simple and correct

concept that tangible assets wear out over time and have to be

replaced. If you have a tangible asset on your balance sheet, it is

wrong to suggest that it maintains its original value over the years,

if in fact it's wearing out. For example, a wood-frame apartment

building ultimately must be replaced. Therefore on your books of

account you must periodically show its depreciating value as it wears

out. And that's what happened. Wood-frame apartment buildings could be

depreciated at 10 percent. It's not a question of socialism or free

enterprise, it's a question of accounting. But because depreciation is

not a cash expense wherein each year the owner of a building has to

write a cheque for the amount of the depreciation, because it's not a

drain on cash flow, the result of being allowed to take depreciation as

an expense against your apartment rental income is that you maintain a

cash flow that enables you to go on building other housing and further

apartments. The system works very well. You are able to do this largely

through funds generated yourself, you needn't go out and borrow

high-interest mortgages, and rents stay modest.

All through the sixties in Vancouver, we saw how well the system

worked in terms of apartment accommodation. Landlords were competing

you could see the landlords stringing signs from apartment buildings:

"Move into my building"; "Six months rent free"; "Win a trip to Mexico"

landlords competing for tenants, competing for their goodwill, and the

best kind of rent control in the world at work. If your landlord didn't

treat you well, there were five vacancies in the same block and five

landlords after you and, boy, that kept your landlord on his toes. And

that's how it should he.

Well, about 1972, Mr. Speaker, the planners and the think-tankers in

Ottawa decided somehow that this accounting concept of taking

depreciation was all wrong it was a mistake, it was some kind of break

for people and it should he abolished. And so in the 1972 federal tax

overhaul, we saw people prohibited from taking depreciation on

apartment buildings. In spite of the predictions, the inevitable

happened, Denied the normal accounting right to take depreciation,

people stopped building apartment buildings. The supply of

accommodation dried up, prices rose, a crisis emerged. The government

stepped into the marketplace and took away an accounting right and

caused the problem. The private sector was doing a first-rate job in

this province of developing accommodation. As a consequence of the

government stepping in and interfering, and taking away the

depreciation right, there was the predicted accommodation shortage

across this country.

What did the government do? Well, they tell you they brought in the

MURB program, which was a modified right to once again take

depreciation. But that was a step back to the private sector — the

government stepping back from its interference and saying to the

private sector, at least partially: "All right, you can go back to what

you used to do before we interfered." So the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I'd respectfully suggest, is wrong when he

implies the MURB program is some kind of government intervention that

has solved the accommodation problem. The MURB program is the

withdrawal of government from its interference and a tacit recognition

that government interference

[ Page 1647 ]

with the private sector housing process of the sixties caused most

of the housing program problems of the seventies. We're saying today —

and speakers have said this through this debate — that a return to a

full capital cost allowance system is the best way to go to generate a

rental accommodation and a housing stock in this country at prices

people can afford.

I wanted first to point out that in this debate on both sides of

this House there has been a call to the federal government to

reinstitute the depreciation tax incentives which have built so much

apartment rental accommodation and housing in this country. I hope the

message goes out to Ottawa that on both sides of this House that call

is going forward. But in saying that I do want to point out and stress

that what we're calling for is a return, if you like, to a pure private

sector system. We're not calling for government aid or government

intervention; we're calling for government to correct its incorrect

interference with depreciation accounting systems.

There are a couple of other areas in this debate where both sides of

the House have had differences of view. There's been a question of the

degree to which the government should be involved at the provincial

level in the actual production of housing stock. Members on your left

have called for a return of a Housing Corporation of British Columbia

type of f vehicle. The members on our side, Mr. Speaker, have suggested

other alternatives. Again, we tend as humans to forget but if we go

back five years and wish to review in

summary the experience of the

previous government with HCBC and its involvement in attempts to

provide housing, we can't do a lot better than to read a Victoria

comment of February 1975 written by Barbara McLintock in the Vancouver Province .

It's a commentary on how the then NDP government was doing with the

Housing Corporation. The heading across the

article read as follows: "A

Comedy of the Absurd With a Bad Script.'' I don't wish to recite in

detail case after case of difficulties that emerged with HCBC

attempting to provide and produce housing. The difference in this

debate would be that members to your left arc suggesting direct

reinvolvement, the way HCBC used to be involved in housing. I'd suggest

to you, Mr. Speaker, that that just didn't work.

Again the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) made some

reference to HCBC projects in his area that he's visited where people

now seem happy and the projects are well managed. I don't believe he

mentioned what was at one time called Mountainwood, which is just

adjacent to him in Burnaby, but I think the experience is the same with

all of them. It took the vending of those projects to the private

sector to get them fixed up, filled and well managed. That's what it

took. I think the regrettable experience shows Lis that a better route

to go than the direct provision of lumber and nails is, instead, for

the government to create the framework or the climate within which, on

a competitive basis, the private sector is invited in to participate.

Let me illustrate how that is working under the budget of the present

government.

I'm suggesting that history tells us direct efforts at housing by

the provincial government generally haven't worked in this province.

The HCBC experience of the previous government, I'd respectfully

suggest, caused a lot more problems than it solved. In the core of

Vancouver one of the prime problems to be addressed, if you're talking

about solving the housing problem, is the creation of land. It's not

just a problem of structure on the land. It's not just a problem of

people having the buying or the rental power to afford the Structure,

although that may be a problem in other parts of the province. In the

core of Vancouver we're virtually out of land, and, therefore, the

housing problem in the core of Vancouver has the added burden of

producing the land or the space on which additional housing can go. In

this budget — and I'm glad the minister's here — through the excellent

work of BCDC a couple of initiatives are going forward which are going

to provide better chances for more exciting housing in greater

Vancouver. The first is the Lonsdale Quay redevelopment at the foot of

Lonsdale in North Vancouver, as well as the major revitalization of

downtown New Westminster. In both those cases, through the initiative

of the BCDC, we're going to have in land-short Vancouver some exciting

new places to live. As well, Mr. Speaker, on the north shore of False

Creek as part of the whole B.C. Place complex, we'll see new,

innovative and exciting places to live, and that is going to be the

results of government doing no more than setting the competitive

framework within which the private sector is invited to come in with

its imagination, its energy and its competitive drive to produce the

best housing possible. That's the other way to go and it's a better way.

Mr. Speaker, I'd love to go on and on about this great budget. In

closing may I just compare the broad psychological views of the

opposition and the government toward the budget and the future of the

province. It's an area, regrettably, where there is a big difference

between the two groups in this assembly. On your left, the opposition

member for Maillardville has told us that the "rainy clay" has arrived

in British Columbia. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

has told us there will be a depression in British Columbia early in the

1980s. He has advised British Columbians to sell their stocks and

bonds, sell their homes, hoard gold — and, I presume, "stuff your gold

in jam cans and stuff those in the mattress." Well, that's one view,

Mr. Speaker; it's the opposition view.

I think the Minister of Finance puts it pretty well for the

government and members of the Social Credit Party: "Into the eighties

in great financial shape." That's where we are, and that's where we're

going. Our Minister of Finance is prepared to back his view up with a

five-year economic forecast, and all members of this government are

prepared to back that up with optimism, faith in our future and a great

faith in our people. Those who feel that way about our great British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, should join in the vote and support this budget.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had

to make some remarks with respect to the large new budget which the

government has introduced. Perhaps, just before I address myself to the

precise contents of that document, Mr. Speaker, I might be indulged for

recognizing some of the members of the government side of the House who

have been elevated since the last session of the Legislature, and some

of those whom I think arc entitled to some special recognition as a

consequence of their conduct over the past year since the House last

met. I'd just like to make a few of those special recognitions today, I

think it's an appropriate time to hand out some awards to government

members.

I'd like to dedicate to the Premier a life-size looking glass and a

vote of confidence from Ray Loewen, Ed Smith and George Kerster, Mr.

Speaker. I think he's earned that this last year.

I think the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

[ Page 1648 ]

McCarthy) has some special recognition coming as well; I think that

minister deserves a fine pair of leather gloves with the right index

finger missing off one hand.

I think that Judge Larry Eckardt also deserves a fine pair of

leather gloves, perhaps with an additional index finger on the right

hand, the one missing off the minister's right hand.

The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), I think, has

earned distinction. I'd like to deed to him a free ride on the Royal

Hudson as a tourist promotion, Mr. Speaker, because I think he deserved

better things in the tourist area than he got, quite frankly.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — I would like to will

to him something that he sorely misses: a final draft of next year's

energy policy. And I would like to dedicate to the Minister of Energy

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) a first draft of last year's energy policy, Mr.

Speaker.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) should not be overlooked,

that lovable Whip from the government side. I would like to extend to

the member for Dewdney a vote of confidence and another glass of Fraser

River water. I think he's earned that. I think the new Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) would do well to pay attention to the

startling results of that glass of Fraser water and consider bottling

it and serving it free to all our tourist visitors in the province over

the coming year.

I think Dan Campbell distinguished himself in government service,

and I think that he deserves a return flight to Ottawa and perhaps a

thousand-dollar bill of spending money, Mr. Speaker. I think that's the

least he's entitled to.

I would like to see George Lenko recognized, and I would extend to

him an old copy of A Man called Intrepid , autographed by the Minister

of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker.

I think Ron Greig, a chap who used to labour with great dedication

in the Premier's office.... I'd like to extend to him a city map of

Victoria for when he next comes out, because no one has heard from him

since he left the Premier's office, and I think he might indeed get

lost.

Jack Kelly. I think you've all heard of Jack Kelly, and I think he

deserves recognition for faithful service to that government's

objectives. I'd like to dedicate to him a letter from the Minister of

Human Resources declining to accept his resignation. I think that would

make him feel better — it would be similar to the gold watch treatment

to those long-service employees.

Ellen McKay. I'd like to see her receive a job offer from Austin Taylor, Jr.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), who just spoke.

I would extend to him an autographed copy of Great Expectations , signed

by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan).

Ed Smith. Remember Ed Smith? I'd like to send him an application

form for the job of Social Credit Party's chief caucus researcher. I

think he might be in reasonable line to apply for that job.

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

to him a leadership draft from four Fraser Valley constituencies.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) — a leadership draft from "Whistling" Smith.

To the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) — a new telephone with a

cord long enough to reach his associate deputy minister's office.

To "Whistling" Smith — a new pocket calculator to meet the challenge of computing party finances.

To Austin Taylor, Jr. — a fair return on investment. To the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — a duplicate of Ray Williston's key to

the cabinet chamber. To the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — a personal portrait by Karsh.

Mr. Speaker, I think they're all entitled to the recognition they

deserve. I don't think we in this House should be too stinting in our

recognition of government achievements. We should be prepared and

willing to recognize them from time to time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it was entirely out of order, but the House seemed to enjoy it. Please proceed.

MR. KING: Well, I'm not sure it was, Mr. Speaker, since there's some cost involved, and that's what the budget deals with.

I want to make some remarks regarding the proposal put forward in

the budget for the great expenditures.... I think the last speaker

referred to them as "a massive long-range infusion of capital into the

Forests ministry's five-year plan." I want to serve notice on the

Minister of Forests that I intend to ask a great many questions of him

and his staff when his estimates are before the House. I do want to

congratulate the minister with respect to — do you feel threatened, Mr.

Minister? — pulling together a great wealth of data contained in the

five-year analysis put together by his department. There's a lot of

good information there, and that in itself is useful to members of this

House, and certainly useful to the public as well. But I do not see any

revolutionary new plan for increased intensive forest management in the

province of British Columbia. I do not see the budgeting of any major

infusion of capital with respect to intensive forest management in this

province. I want to put on the record my understanding of the budgetary

provisions contained in the budget statement and in the material

associated with the minister's five-year plan.

The suggestion is that over the next five years we have $1.4 billion

to be dedicated to intensive forest management. That's the inference to

be taken from the budgetary comments, and certainly that's the

inference to be taken from the minister's report. But, Mr. Speaker,

according to my understanding — and I hope the minister can correct me

if I'm wrong — what he has done is simply take the annual budget of the

Ministry of Forests in total, add that up over a five-year period and

say: "Look, this is the money that is going to intensive forest

management." Well, that, of course, is nonsense. That figure, in the

area of $785 million over the next five years, is the total budget for

administering the Forests ministry, including the minister's office,

the general administration, the funding of all the field offices, the

fire protection program, and all those myriad details associated with

the ministry which in no way relate to intensive forest management or

new initiatives in regeneration.

The other large figure contained in the estimates is obtained, as I

understand it, by a change in accounting procedure — that is, by taking

the total amount spent by the private sector companies, which is

deductible from stumpage costs, and changing it from an expenditure by

those private companies to an expenditure by the government. That's

fine.

[ Page 1649 ]

That 's legitimate, but the point is that there's not one nickel of

new money contained in that bookkeeping procedure. It is simply a new

method of calculating the expenditures by the, private sector which are

ongoing in their own programs of silviculture and forest regeneration.

That leaves us, then, with the grand sum of $146.6 million to be

allocated aver the next five years to intensive forest management. When

you divide that sure into a five-year budgetary program, I suggest to

you and to the House that that is a pitiful sum to apply to the urgent

need of intensive forest management in the province of British Columbia.

We require expanded nursery capacity. We require increased research into genetic

improvement of species. We require major site preparation in terms of ensuring

the success of seedlings planted. In addition, we have a backlog, in terms

of unplanted area. Of 1.8 million acres — almost 2 million acres that have

not been adequately restocked. In order to come to grips with that backlog,

to say nothing of the financial wherewithal to just maintain current annual

regeneration, we are in no way addressing ourselves to the problem financially.

I suggest that it's a bit of a sham for the government to proffer this plan

as being an infusion of massive new capital funds into the forest sector. In

fact it's a very small amount, and in my view it in no way comes to grips

with the large capital needs in terms of ensuring that our forest industry is

going to be a healthy one and provide a sound enough resource base to maintain

our current even flow of allowable cut so there will not be reductions in

forest production in this province or large-scale lay offs of individuals dependent upon that industry for their livelihood.

I put this view forward now so that the minister might have an

opportunity, before his estimates come before the Legislature, to get

more precise details on the source of the funds outlined in the budget

and to persuade me and to persuade the House that my assessment is not

a correct one. Quite frankly, I hope that is the case. Because the

forest industry is so fundamentally important to the economic

well-being of this province. I hope I'm misinterpreting the figures the

government has put forward. But I think it's only fair to advise the

minister that this is my understanding and, indeed, this is the

appraisal I have received from people in the private sector and from

some of the major industries in terms of understanding the capital

figures contained in the budget. So the onus is clearly on the minister

to persuade me and to persuade the Legislature that the program he has

put forward is somehow being misunderstood.

During the throne speech debate I very briefly raised the question

of a change in the assessment on agricultural land. In raising this

question and saying that it was initiated by order-in-council I seem to

have incurred the wrath of the former Minister Of Finance, the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Well, I know that during the

last session of the Legislature enabling legislation was passed; I

believe it was Bill 31, the Finance Statues Amendment Act.

Nevertheless, the precise formula for reclassifying and calculating the

basis upon which an agricultural classification could he preserved was

indeed developed by the cabinet and put out by order-in-council I

believe it was order-in-council 1710 — toward the end of the last

session, at the end of June 1979. My Only error was In saying it was

after the session ended: I concede that. Nevertheless, it did not co me

to the attention of the House. There are literally hundreds of

orders-in-council put out every week by the cabinet. It's virtually

impossible to keep track of all of them. But that's not the paint. The

point is that literally hundreds of people in my riding and, I suspect,

all around the province –– certainly in Okanagan North — were unaware

of the formula change in the assessment of agricultural land.

Now I don't argue with the government's motivation, their objective,

which is to bring farmland into production. I can understand that and I

approve of that direction. What I do not understand and strongly

disapprove of is doing that in a scattergun kind of way, which provides

no recognition for those pioneers who are now living on farmland at

ages beyond 65, or for those handicapped people who live on farms, and

who, because of their disability or because of the inevitable debility

of age, cannot maintain farm production. Under those circumstances,

this particular application of a minimum earning requirement to

farmland is virtually chasing them off the land.

I cited the case of one gentleman in his eighties who had farmed this parcel

of land all his life, and whose taxes were slated to increase from $I to $2,900.

It's true that, subsequent to a visit to my office, he was able to go hack

and appeal to the Assessment Authority and have that classification changed.

He was one of the fortunate ones, Mr. Speaker. I have in my possession here

files on, I'd say, at least 35 people who were not successful in their appeal

to the Assessment Authority . I'm not going to take the time of the House to

read out each and every one of these letters complaining of the fact that they

were taken by surprise by the government, and that there was no flexibility

in the program, and that senior citizens who had pioneered in the agricultural

sector in this province are being dealt with in an extremely punitive way by

a government order-in-council that was, in fact, introduced after secret deliberations

of the council rather than through full debate in this legislative chamber.

That, in my view, is a heavy-handed way to go, an unfair way to go, and it

weighs most heavily and unjustly on the senior citizens and the handicapped

people of this province, who are not land speculators.

I make this appeal to the government, and ask the government to

reconsider their policy, at least to the extent that anyone aged 65 or

anyone drawing a handicap disability pension who has lived on a farm

for l5 years should he exempt from the minimum earning requirement

set for speculators and other people. That is a simple policy change

that is required I believe that the government entered into tills

situation rather innocently. I don't think it was their intention to

punish seniors and handicapped. But now, having seen the particular

device in action, and having been able to touch bases with the regional

assessment authorities. Who have recognized that it's a burdensome and

unfair kind of provision for seniors, I think it would he most

appropriate for the government to reconsider and bring in the policy

amendment which I am advocating.

The requirement that they should have lived on the farm for 15 years

would ensure that they were, in their own n right, bona fide farmers

and not someone who had just purchased for a quick capital gain. The

exemption for those people 65 years of age or over would he a

recognition that they had made a contribution to the economy of the

province of British Columbia and that they should not be forced off

their land in their twilight years. There are grandfather clauses

provided in a whole variety of statutes, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest

this is certainly one where a grandfather clause should he provided so

people can continue to live in the surroundings they've enjoyed most of

their lives.

[ Page 1650 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The only flexibility in the proposed legislation as it stands now,

that I am aware of — and I have been in touch with the Ministry of

Agriculture; I've received correspondence from the deputy, who kindly

laid out his policy understanding for me, and I've been in touch with

the assessment boards — is for those people who newly acquire a farm

and require large capital investment to get it into production. It's

called the emerging and developing farmland classification, and that's

a good provision for young people going into farming, who are required

to bring it into production within a set plan and with certain

undertakings of capital investment. But the status of a senior or a

handicapped is altogether different. I'd be most willing to share my

file on this matter with the members across the way.

I just wanted to say in conclusion — I'm going to have a good deal

more to say about this when the ministerial estimates are before the

House.... What I'm seeking are some reasonable responses from the

ministers on that side. I do not seek to score political points on this

issue. People are suffering out there, and I want the minister to

understand that and address himself to it, not to engage in a "who can

score the most political points on the backs of suffering people."

I just want to conclude by noting that the former speaker referred

to massive capital investment in forestry. I want to tell him that the

only massive capital investment I can see is in travel expenses for the

ministers. I've had a look at the budget and at the increases in the

various important ministries Really, I see no higher increase beyond

inflation in forestry than I see in any other area of government

responsibility. Would you believe that in 1979 the travel expenses for

the ministers of the Crown were $338,759; in 1980 they are up to

$467,835 — an increase of $129,076 in one year just for travel expenses

by the cabinet. That's a 30 percent increase. The Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the gentleman who has just taken his seat are

suggesting to us that there is some significant capital cost increase

in the Forests ministry. I suggest to you that the increase in budget

for intensive forest management does not even keep pace with the

budgetary increase for travel expenses by those wayward ministers on

the other side, and I think that's a shame.

It's significant that the Premier enjoyed the highest increase of

all — no, I guess it was the second highest increase. The highest was

to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and

that's a new portfolio. It went from no dollars to $30,000. The

Premier, the guy who is going to set a tone of fiscal restraint and

great responsibility... his travel budget went from $33,775 up to

$55,000. It's an increase of over $21,000 in one year for travel.

That's the guy they call "Bunker Bill," Mr. Speaker. No wonder he's not

available when the press or the opposition want to get in touch with

him or, indeed, when federal ministers want to get in touch with him.

With a travel budget like that it's no wonder that he's seldom

available to deal with the real economic issues of this province.

I'm going to conclude now but I do hope that the Minister of Forests has taken

note of the comments that I've had to make and will come into his estimates

prepared to give out more precise information and respond in a specific and

an honest way to the many questions that the opposition benches are going to

have for him. That is a request that I put forward most genuinely to each and

every minister on the government treasury benches.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, just before beginning, perhaps I might

offer to you, because I haven't had the opportunity before, most sincere congratulations

upon your new appointment. I'm sure the day will come when you'll be thankful

— on pay day, if at no other time. But we appreciate the control you've

exercised over the House and the dignified approach that you have to your position,

and we hope that it will be contagious.

It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King), especially when he's leaving the House. I have a message

for you, actually, just before you leave, Mr. Member. It was in

relation to your effort in your awards program in which you billed

yourself as being original, scintillating and witty. I just wanted to

advise that member that I have just received a note that said: "We wish

to afford a vote of confidence in the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. We

the undersigned offer support and guidance to our boy. Stick to the

railroading. Signed, Mother, Dad, Audrey, your kids and Dave Barrett."

So I suggest to the member that it was.... Try again. It's known as

the Wes Black formula.

I was also listening with great interest to the member's comments

about the assessment formula in relation to seniors, and I was

surprised that in expressing his concern he didn't make mention of the

fact that there are a number of opportunities for the seniors that he

described to take advantage of provincial programs that would assist

them.

First of all, if their land is overassessed, of course, there is the

board of variance where adjustments can be made. Secondly, Mr. Speaker,

if it is a small holding there is the opportunity for seniors to have a

property tax deferment. This was a program that was brought in by the

NDP, and I must say quite candidly that it's not one that I tended to

favour at the time, and I really am not that favourably impressed with

it at the moment. Nonetheless, it does offer an opportunity for

seniors, if they want to stay on their property and feel that their

taxes are too high, to defer those taxes indefinitely, and then the tax

burden can be recovered from their estate. What appeals to me more is

that there is the home and homesite family severance, so if it's a

holding in the ALR and the family has worked it for years, there is an

opportunity for the mother and father, or the seniors, to remove a

portion of land to live on themselves, and to pass the rest of the land

on to their family who are younger and can farm it more actively, or to

sell it, as they see fit.

I would also like to ask that member what his position is when he is

talking about the seniors and their opportunity.... I would also

remind you, before mentioning anything else, that there's an additional

$50 homeowner grant for elderly people, which increases their homeowner

grant to $630 per year. This would be of great help on most pieces of

property held for that time which they would want to live on and which

would have a tax assessment in the neighbourhood that member is

describing.

I wonder where that member stands in relation to the young family

living on the so-called smallholding or pony farm. What does he feel

about them? They are taking land, developing it and utilizing it. They

are providing a lifestyle for their children which is beneficial; it

gives them an opportunity to learn about agriculture and to have

animals and learn

[ Page 1651 ]

how to manage them, whether they are horses, pigs or sheep. I wonder

what that member would say when those people say: "In essence, we are

holding land for the future and future food production, for when it is

needed and when it's economically viable. We are, in fact, managing

this land well and providing an environmental contribution by providing

green spaces for our municipalities and people who like to drive in the

country." I wonder what his position would be there. Would he advocate

that there should be assessment relief for them also? Does he

acknowledge that the preservation of agricultural land in the future

can take many forms, not just active production of food, which in fact

may not bring an appropriate sale price to justify its cost of

production.... What would his position be there? Does he agree that

there are multiple ways in which land capable of food production can be

preserved, and it need not be in the traditional style that he and his

party have advocated? Does he feel that small-production marketing

should in fact go through a marketing system? Or should it be a

free-market approach? Should it have the opportunity to undercut the

orderly marketing system, which frequently is assisted in the area of

recovering costs of production by the taxpayers of the province?

I listened to his comments very carefully and am very sympathetic

should there be people in the plight that he described. I believe there

is the opportunity to relieve that plight, in terms of existing

legislation, in terms of the homeowner grant, and perhaps in terms of a

new attitude on the part of all members of this Legislature as to how

land capable of producing food can be preserved in a realistic sense

for the future when it would be needed.

The budget itself and the debates surrounding it have been of

particular interest to me. I find the budget very exciting. I find it

contains a lot of original ideas. I don't suppose one would class it as

sensational, but I'm not sure that the job of government is to be

sensational. We had rather a lot of that in 1973, '74 and '75; we

almost sensationalized ourselves out of the forest industry, the mining

industry — expertise in these areas. We sensationalized ourselves out

of our right to own private lands, and into higher taxation. We

sensationalized ourselves into the national sensation where our Premier

was considered a buffoon in Ottawa, and where our presence at the

bargaining table was described politely as a joke. So I would suggest

the approach taken by this budget has taken into account that

sensationalism is just that. What the people of this province expect

from their government is not sensationalism but imagination,

dedication, leadership and capability — and that is in the budget.

It's disappointing, in reviewing the debate, that the objective of

the opposition hasn't been what I understood it to be and what I hope

we practised when we were in opposition: to advocate either new

programs or restyling programs in a manner that was practical at the

time and financially possible. I haven't heard any of that from the

opposition during this debate. In fact, speaking of sensationalism, the

only sensational or revealing remark they have made was that of the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who has not only displayed in

this House his willingness, but went on public television and said "My

one objective is to destroy this government and cause an election."

That philosophy has been prevalent throughout the debate on this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that that's the exact opposite

of what the public of this province demand. They are not interested in

an election. They just had an election, and they made very clear that

they want a free enterprise government with a conscience and with an

understanding of people's needs; with the capability to develop the

type of economy that is healthy and in which individuals can exercise

their own purchasing choices and their own development opportunities

and choices. That's what this budget does.

To suggest that a budget of this stature — when you compare it to

the rest of the budgets in Canada — is worthy of nothing more than to be

torn apart in a negative way, leading to an election that the people

don't want and can't afford and which would preclude the ability of the

administration and the people themselves to implement the benefits of

this budget, is nothing short of irresponsible and, I believe, Mr.

Speaker, has been rejected by the people. Certainly when I was in the

interior and in Vancouver on the weekend, I found people appalled that

any responsible member of this Legislature, at $30,000 a year plus

expenses, would have no more objective than to sit in this House to try

to destroy this province. They expressed to me their desire to have

much more value for the dollars they are paying all of us. I would hope

that is the approach reflected in this budget, and I believe it is.

We've heard cries that the budget doesn't do anything. would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it does provide economic stimulus to the

province, it does continue the government's policy of fiscal

responsibility, and it does enable British Columbians to benefit from

the opportunities of the 1980s by setting a budget policy with a

longer-term approach and with more forward-looking perspectives. And it

does provide a number of government initiatives in support of both the

people and the industries of this province.

We've just heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) show

once again his inability to understand the forestry program. I'm not

going to go into the details — I'm sure the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) is quite capable of doing that — but I would bring to

your attention that there is a $1.4 billion five-year forest management

program, and that this has been received by the industry with loud

acclaim, stating that it is the first time there has been a long-range

program, that there is the money to back up this program and that over

the last three years the effort has been made to have the plant in

place to carry out this program.

In speaking of plants I would refer directly to the constituency of

Okanagan North, which I have the honour to represent, where we see one

of those plants coming into fruition. We have a new forestry research

seedling orchard where we know that money is spent to develop new

silvicultural practices, and the seedlings needed to carry that out are

developed in such a way that they have a very high survival rate. When

we look through history in other provinces — and I don't want to be

negative about them — we see where millions and millions of dollars

were spent on silvicultural and reforestation programs that were wasted

because the research had not been done, the ability was not there and

the plant was not in place. Mr. Speaker, that is not the case in

British Columbia. We will enjoy good value for our dollars, we will

enjoy a very high survival rate of this imaginative program, and it

will benefit all of us. In the ministry for which I have responsibility

— it's new, and I'm very pleased to have it — I would say that this

aspect of the forest industry, along with many others, will do a great

deal to benefit the industry of tourism.

They say that the budget is too high. I wonder what they would like cut out. An energy development program? Are

[ Page 1652 ]

they opposed to the $10 million for this new energy research and development

agency? Or the $1.5 million for pilot projects for examining methods of recovering

more oil from existing resources? Or the $1.8 million for accelerated construction

of access roads to northeast natural gas fields? Do they oppose those? Mr. Speaker,

you talk about long-range planning, you talk about putting your dollars into

an area that's going to provide jobs and provide the valid information and infrastructure

for those jobs to be there and for the tax revenues to continue the type of

needs that our British Columbians will have in their budget. I ask why they

would vote against that. Frankly, I support it.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just our word. The forest industry in these areas has

applauded us for stabilizing and bringing certainty to the industry. I would

mention Mr. Bill Hamilton, head of the Employers Council, who applauded the

government's statement that the federal government should tend to its own concerns

of resource management and not interfere in the resource management of British

Columbia. That's the exact opposite of the position taken by the NDP when they

were in office. As you know, they were willing to trade away the management

of some of our prime resources for no other reason than to have them nationalized,

to perpetrate a philosophy that they believe is most successful, but which has

proven most unsuccessful in every other jurisdiction of the world.

Mr. Speaker, the chamber of commerce, which is the business organization of

this province, are pleased at the budget, and they suggest that it should be

supported because it reinstates resource management, and because it shows foresight.

They are impressed with the removal of the sales tax from home heating fuels

and home electricity. They also said that they had suggested that to the government

last year and were pleased we had taken their advice. They are happy with the

reduction of sales tax on fuel-efficient cars. Are the opposition opposed to

this? I believe these are all imaginative, sound programs and policies, and

they have been brought about not by tax increases, as happened under the NDP…

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when the members stand up, time and time again

applauding the budgets that were brought in under the NDP jurisdiction, the

time they were in office, that the increase in spending the government experienced

at that time was brought about totally by increases in taxation — sometimes

punitive and confiscatory taxation —

whereas this budget and its capabilities

are brought about by sound management, by an ability to understand the economy

today and its future, and by an ability to harness the positive forces of people

and the positive forces of an economy in the world, which is somewhat difficult.

They've brought it about through tax reductions to encourage people to start

at home. That's where policies begin — at home. To conserve on fuel utilization

and energy utilization — do you call that unimaginative?

The next thing they say is that we're not spending enough. Here we've reduced

taxes on small businesses, we've brought in a program which will allow people

to pool their resources for venture capital, to provide much-needed money for

small businesses in British Columbia of a venture nature, and they themselves,

as individuals, enjoy the benefit of income tax reductions. Are the NDP opposed

to that? But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, Health ministry expenditures have

risen to $226 million, the highest in our history; the Medical Services Commission,

$345 million; Hospital Programs have been allocated $795 million; and Human

Resources spending has increased 17 percent to $763 million. We have the highest

spending on human health in this province in our history, and at the same time

we are removing taxes from prescription drugs, those other factors that are

needed by people in relation to their health practices, and we see the increase

in the homeowner grant.

What about our municipalities? The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) has received telegrams and phone calls. There have been public

statements by municipal leaders and the UBCM to say that never in the history

of any free society have the municipalities received as many benefits as they

do in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to read, for your interest, how this affects the

constituency of Okanagan North. Revenue-sharing, which is an unconditional grant,

represents a contribution of a 34 percent increase in British Columbia. Vernon,

which is the central city of Okanagan North, last year received $946,258 and

has a 21 percent increase this year to $1,144,631; Coldstream, an 18.9 percent

increase in unconditional grants this year, from $245,826 to $292,262; Armstrong,

in the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke's (Mr. King'

s) constituency — and

he neglected to mention this, I noticed — had a 19.2 percent increase from

$115,499 to $137,645; Lumby — and you know where Lumby is, this very exciting

metropolis which is one of the centres of the forest industry in this province,

and which will benefit a great deal from the continued forest management program

— received a 20.6 percent increase in their unconditional municipal grants

from $55,375 to $66,809. Mr. Speaker, this can only come about through a budget

that has evolved from management, from understanding, and which includes tax

cuts. Yet the opposition says that there is nothing of benefit in the budget.

What about the $25 million program for downtown revitalization? I applaud that

— I think it's one of the most imaginative programs introduced this year

in some very imaginative considerations. As Minister of Tourism, I would advise

you that this is not only a shot in the arm to the municipalities, but this

is a shot in the arm to the tourist industry. Most importantly, this is for

us, the citizens, who use our downtowns, shop there and drive to work through

them every morning. We can drive through and say: "My, it's good to be

alive! Isn't this attractive!" It makes our lives more pleasant. That is

one of the major objectives of this government. It's not only to have British

Columbia be bountiful in the eighties but to have it be beautiful, not only

for ourselves, which is most important, but for those who come to visit us.

Again, that can only happen through this type of budget.

There is much I could say, but there are other members who want to talk. I

could go on about the highway acceleration program and what this means to the

constituency of Okanagan North. We have Nahn's corner being blasted here and

there right at this time. The paving on Monashee Highway 6 will link the Arrow

Lakes to the Okanagan in a manner that wasn't dreamed of ten years ago. Those

people who shop and visit within our area and who have been isolated up until

now will have an opportunity over the next two or three years to reach a populated

area safely and in comfort. I applaud the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) for that.

Looking at the constituency of Okanagan North, in less than eight months, through

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

we have

[ Page

1653 ]

ten new industries, all of which have received assisting grants to help them

expand their manufacturing capability or to start new manufacturing industries.

Lumby, Fauquier and Cherryville have all received these funds –- funds

which wouldn't be available if the NDP government were still in power, as we

know from their record.

When I look through Okanagan North's record this year I see the money that

went to cultural and recreational development, helping people develop a more

interesting life for themselves and develop their talents and in turn provide

more in British Columbia for this very vital and exciting tourism industry of

the future. People in the future will look to do things. They will come not

only to see our natural attributes and to enjoy our fine restaurants and accommodation;

but they will want to play with us and will want to know our cultural feelings

and be a part of that. Through the assistance of this budget people in all communities

will have the seed money they need to get started, not only, as I mentioned,

for their own development and for their community's enjoyment, but to be part

of this vital industry which provides more jobs to more people than any other

industry we know of.

Mr. Speaker, this budget represents a strong statement of confidence in British

Columbia. It's a budget that builds for our people in the 1980s and prepares

us and gives us the opportunity to plan for that future. It's a budget that

serves people. Everything in this budget that is done is done for people. It

is a responsible budget, it is sensitive and it is forward-looking. On top of

this, it gives us as citizens the opportunity to enjoy not only the personal

freedoms that we aspire to in British Columbia but the financial freedoms, because

in doing this it contains the tax cuts that we need so that we have just a little

bit more money in our pockets to make our own choices about how we want to spend

that money. That's an important part of personal freedom.

I fully support the budget. I believe the people of Okanagan North, whom I

have the honour to represent, would be very disappointed if the opposition didn't

show faith and concern and support the programs that we've outlined by voting

for the budget. So I would ask them, through you, Mr. Speaker, to be true and

loyal to those people they represent, to support the wishes of the people of

this province and to support this type of budget with this type of opportunity.

Certainly I intend to support it with pride.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to congratulate you

on your appointment. I've been up several times, but it has slipped my mind.

I do apologize. I sincerely hope you have a successful tenure. It's a very difficult

job — maybe a short tenure, given the vicissitudes of this place. Again,

my congratulations.

I did want to say, first of all, that I was most interested in some of the

remarks made, particularly, by my colleague who sits to my left, the second

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). He waxed somewhat eloquently, both

Friday and today, around a number of issues which had been raised prior to his

remarks. Particularly, he seemed somewhat concerned about the remarks I had

made around the economic strategy that seems to be developing in the operation

of BCRIC. He suggested I was standing up saying BCRIC should be making riskier

investments. I wouldn't characterize them as riskier; I would say more imaginative.

Why would I suggest they should be more imaginative? Well, if one looks, first

of all, at the annual report of BCRIC, you can recall the great sales job done

on the people of British Columbia about the purpose of this particular corporation. This was going to

be a corporation which would marshal the savings of British Columbians, and

would be a marvellous tool in an engine of development for the province. It

would create employment; clearly it was going to solve all of the things that

hadn't been solved in the private sector. This was going to be the private-sector

engine which would take the place of the role of government in the economy.

In fact, the first annual report shows a couple of things that are interesting.

As of December 31 the investments of BCRIC located outside of the province of

British Columbia were 23 percent. This great British Columbia corporation that

was to be used as an engine and a vehicle for developing the province is now

taking the savings of British Columbians, the investments of British Columbians

and the assets which previously we as British Columbians all owned in the Crown

corporations and is, to a large extent, now using those assets to invest in

Alberta. I'm not opposed to developments and investments in the energy field.

It's clearly one of the areas we must seriously look at. But I ask the second

member for Vancouver South to think about this. I seriously question the advantage

of using BCRIC and taking the savings of British Columbia to invest around the

world. Surely that was not the purpose of this particular corporation. So when

I rose and suggested that BCRIC was becoming nothing more than another holding

company, I think the first annual report will reflect that. It invested in MacMillan

Bloedel. It decided that somehow or other an investment in Canadian Pacific

wasn't appropriate. It hasn't yet invested significantly in trying to repatriate

the economy in British Columbia, which surely should have been one of its major

responsibilities.

My friend and colleague from Vancouver South had some very interesting things

to say about housing. He deplored government interference. I think some of his

phrases are worth quoting. "Setting the competitive framework, " he

suggests, is the answer; "selling to the private sector, developing a climate

in the private sector." [Applause.] I'm glad the member approves of that.

I want to explain to my colleague that, in fact, the housing market has never

been in the private sector. When most of the people in this room bought their

homes they bought them at interest rates which were subsidized by Central Mortgage

and Housing Corporation. Many of the people around this province bought their

homes at 6.25 percent or 6.5 percent, guaranteed by Central Mortgage and Housing

Corporation to the bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the prevailing rate.

MR. LEGGATT: It was not the prevailing rate. That rate is artificially

determined. If it were the prevailing rate it would be a higher rate. The only

reason for the guarantee was to keep that rate at an affordable level; it has

always been that way. Surely the members of this House are not arguing that

people can now pay 20 percent to the bankers and moneylenders and still have

a reasonable housing program. It just won't work that way. It's simply impossible

to ask capital to be rewarded at that particular level from the sweat and hard

work of British Columbians. So when my friend from Vancouver South suggests

we leave it to the private sector, the private sector will determine that interest

rates in the housing field are going to go to 20 percent. I hope my colleague

and friend will stand up in his constituency and say that he

[ Page

1654 ]

supports 20 percent interest rates for housing. Those will be the interest

rates you will have to pay, because that is the logical conclusion of saying

you should have pure housing in the free enterprise sector. It's because that

is the international and national rate of capital. As the Premier of this province

has pointed out many times, that's a rate we can't do very much about. I don't

accept that we can't do very much about it. It is a rate that's untenable for

the average income-earner in the province of British Columbia, and we have to

interfere in it.

My colleague did not comment upon the government's attempt to interfere in

the rate, which is the $200 million program at 9¾ percent. I presume that's

one of those pieces of government interference he thinks should be left alone,

that the government should stay out of the market. What are they doing interfering

by setting that 9¾ percent and using my tax money and your tax money and everybody's

tax money to subsidize that particular rate? Clearly, the reality is that the

government hasn't interfered enough in the housing market. Instead of a $200

million program, they should have advanced a $1 billion program, and that $1

billion program should have been provided at 9¾ percent. The figures show

that the cost to the treasury would have been a modest $40 million a year. That's

a very good and wise investment of the taxpayers' money in the province, and

that would have created employment in the housing industry where, clearly, the

major demand is now. The major demand for growth and employment is in that industry,

and that would have created thousands and thousands of jobs all across the province

of British Columbia.

Now I do congratulate the government for the $200 million program. It's a good

program. But it's not enough, and it isn't a program that is planned, in terms

of consistency, with land available. There should be a long-term program in

terms of providing serviced lots....

MR. HYNDMAN: To the private sector?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes — to the private sector. I would agree with the

member for Vancouver South that small building contractors should have more

land available to them to provide that housing stock. The problem is that because

of the law of supply and demand in terms of land, you can't do it without interfering

in the private sector. And that's where the agricultural land reserve and the

conflicts come in. Now, the pressure on the ALR is going to be just tremendous

to again provide more serviced land for the thousands and thousands of young

people who are now wanting and demanding a house, because we give them that

dream. You can't take that dream away; it's still there. Everyone wants to own

their own home; they want a chance to participate; and, yes, they even want

to sell it at a profit.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Would you take that dream away?

MR. LEGGATT: I wouldn't take that dream away, but my friend from Dewdney

will take that dream away if he doesn't see that the private sector can't fulfil

the dream. The dream can only be fulfilled with a proper combination of public

and private cooperation in terms of the provision of housing stock. Government

has made a modest first move, not properly planned, but nevertheless they've

stumbled onto something that might work out next year — if they're still

here. I want them to seriously consider a $1 billion program in terms of housing.

Don't worry about B.C. Place and all of the monuments you want to build to get

yourself re-elected; just provide housing stock to the thousands and thousands

of young people in this province who need it and who demand it, and you'll go

a long way towards starting to cure two of the major problems in our economy:

inflation and unemployment.

When we talk about the private sector.... My colleague for Vancouver South

no doubt likes the system of the free market in the way we develop capital,

the way we provide capital to people who need it. That's the traditional concept

in British Columbia and Canada which has been through the development of the

private banking system in Canada. In Canada we have five major banks: the Royal

Bank, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Montreal, the Bank

of Nova Scotia, and the Toronto Dominion Bank. As a group, they make enormous

profits and they pay very little tax. As a group — and this is important,

Mr. Speaker — they hold more assets than 200 of the largest corporations in Canada,

other than financial corporations. Just think of it! Our five major banks control

more assets than the 200 largest non-financial corporations all rolled into

one. Do you know they make Imperial Oil and General Motors of Canada look tiny?

Each and every one of those five big banks has a return on equity higher than

Imperial Oil, and they do better as an investment than the entire petroleum

industry, which has been doing superbly and is at an all-time high.

They still can't touch what has happened in Canada in terms of what we've done

in promoting that cautious group of individuals in Toronto called the Bay Street

bankers. They are unreal. Let's look at their tax rate. If you are earning $15,000

a year in British Columbia — that's not very much above survival — you pay

18 percent. That's exactly the rate that the five major banks in Canada pay

in tax. Mr. Speaker, that is a national disgrace. We have allowed those five

banks and their smaller colleagues — there are six more that are still very powerful

— to grow and grow and to dominate the financial institutions of Canada

to such a degree. And then my friend from Vancouver South says: "Let the

free market handle it." Five banks dominate the financial decisions of

this entire country. They make this government look very tiny. It doesn't matter

very much what Social Credit does here. The five banks are laughing all the

way to the bank. You can't let the free market do that, because that is not

a free market. The institution of banking has now dominated and controlled the

economic life of Canada. We need to interfere in that private sector, and the

government must interfere in that private sector in a very major way.

When we've looked at the overall budget to try to see what it's done and what

it hasn't done, there is a group of citizens in our community which continues

to be ignored by the budget. The reason I suspect they're ignored is because

they don't have very much political clout, and that's young people between the

ages of 15 and 24. At the present time, if you look at the unemployment rate

in that category on a Canada-wide basis, about 12.6 percent are unemployed;

387,000 young people in that group who are available for employment are unemployed.

It's now 14.4 percent, if you went to the unadjusted figure. In British Columbia

that figure is 13.5 percent of young people aged 15 to 24 who are

[ Page

1655 ]

available for employment and are unemployed in the province of British Columbia.

This isn't really a partisan question, but I think we have to start looking

at changing the way society operates in terms of its young people. I have strong

reservations, for example, around that movement which is so opposed to compulsory

retirement. I was a little disappointed, for example, that Kathleen Ruff, who

did, I think, such an excellent job in the province of British Columbia, chose

to lead off her first program on "The Ombudsman" with the CBC by protecting

a pilot who obviously wasn't suffering any financial pain from his worries about

having to retire and possibly allow some young fellow to come along and be a

pilot. We have got to think seriously about opening the bottom end of the employment

scale for young people; grey heads can't continue to control all of those positions.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about grey beards?

MR. LEGGATT: Grey beards too.

But, you know, I listened to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) get

up and tell me how imaginative the budget was. It's not an imaginative budget.

I think anybody, trying as we will to be as objective as possible.... I'm

saying there are some things in there that are interesting, but imagination

it doesn't have.

There's nothing in here to create employment. Let's look at some of the things

that can be done. In terms of job training, by the way, the amount that this

government has been spending in regard to job training and in regard to post-secondary

education has continued to decline in real terms, both in terms of the amount

that the federal government has been.... The federal government has been

picking up all the slack and this government has simply been sitting back allowing

it to increase its investment.

But, again, employment can no longer be created in the traditional way. The

fact is that the investment that has received a guarded accolade, or a guarded

bouquet, in the forest industry cannot, if it continues to operate in the same

way, provide significant new employment. The reason is that at the present time

most of the capital expenditure of the major mills has been made. Crown Zellerbach

and MacMillan Bloedel have made very significant investments; the purpose of

those investments is to improve their competitive position and also reduce their

labour force. The more capital intensive the industry becomes the less people

we are able to employ.

So what's the answer, since we're trying to put ourselves out of the business

of employment in the labour force? Well, there's nothing the matter with a billion

and a half. I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) here; I'm glad

to see he's listening to this debate. It could perhaps be more. The trouble

is that it's very late. The statistics now show that we will have, in a period

before the turn of the century, 35 percent less fibre in the province of British

Columbia than we have now. That's going to mean less employment no matter how

many ways we slice it. The kind of intensive forest management that's necessary

to even keep our employment level at the present has to be even more than the

five-year program the minister has announced. I see he's shaking his head. I'll

be interested to hear what he has to say in terms of what is an appropriate

amount in terms of maintaining the present employment level and maintaining

the present fibre levels in terms of the total industry.

But, nevertheless, you have to create new forms of employment. Let me give

you some examples. Along the Fraser River, for example, there are literally

hundreds and hundreds of man-years that should be employed to take the wood

off those beaches to provide, I would say, free wood, to people who wish to

burn it, or modestly priced wood. Tremendous numbers of man-years could be employed

simply in cleaning up every river in the province of British Columbia, using

that wood resource to fire our homes, encouraging the turnover from oil, as

has been done to some extent — and the government, I know, has taken away the

sales tax on wood-burning stoves; that's good. Now we can start providing people

with fuel at a very modest cost, if we simply organize the removal of wood debris

up the coasts and along the rivers. There is a tremendous employment potential

in that area that has never been tackled.

I mentioned earlier the question of the private sector and the provision of

land in terms of housing stocks. One of the difficulties we're having lies in

this problem of seeing municipalities unprotected from the pressure of industrial

development. I mean that a council such as Langley, Abbotsford or Chilliwack

is constantly under pressure from its own citizens to remove land from the agricultural

land reserve in order to improve its revenue position and reduce the mill rate.

Now I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that's an example of what bad planning

is all about. Industry, I believe, should be developing a pool of funds with

special grants and aid to those municipalities which have a significant

section

of their land in the agricultural land reserve. When they have that significant

section of land, it seems to me they should be entitled to go to the fund that

has been developed by industry, in order to protect their farmland.

I see no reason why the citizens of a farm community should be in a position

of, in essence, subsidizing other communities in order to protect this valuable

resource, the agricultural land reserve. So it seems to me that if the government

wished to show some imagination in this field they would develop a formula around

an industrial tax from which there could be a pool. Farm communities could call

upon the pool to assist them in terms of the actual revenues required, and to

some extent remove the pressure they're getting from their own citizens to remove

farmland from the reserve and place industry in the area.

The other advantage of that is that it stops the whipsaw effect of every municipality

constantly competing for industrial development. The result is that in many

cases they're willing to give away the store if only they can get an industry

there which will improve their tax base. I'm suggesting that the right answer

is to rationalize that, to provide an appropriate pooling arrangement rather

than an equalization arrangement.

The other aspect briefly dealt with previously is that this budget

does not come to grips with the question of foreign ownership. I'm

somewhat concerned that we still haven't seen legislation in the

province of British Columbia to deal with the purchase of land from

abroad. There are a number of other jurisdictions.... Prince Edward

Island, I guess, has one of the oldest laws which restricts

non-resident land ownership. You can only buy 20 acres in Manitoba.

Alberta has legislation which restricts foreign ownership. I'm not

saying that we should be absolute purists about it; I'm aware that

there is a role of some kind. But I believe a balance has to be struck,

Mr. Speaker. I believe that we would look at either

[ Page

1656 ]

size limitation or area limitation in terms of foreign investment, because

if we don't, young people will never have an opportunity to own anything in

the province.

I'm always happy to put the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) to sleep, because I know he's the kind of person who enjoys it.

The non-Canadian investment in B.C. farmland is probably even more of an emergency

and a crisis. Here again, I think we all need to take a very serious look at

that kind of investment.

One of the ways to develop surpluses, by the way.... I've gone on far too

long; I can see that. One of the interesting ways to develop surpluses is not

to tell people about the programs you have in place. I want to put on record

that the present Pharmacare program provides for 80 percent of the cost of drugs

to be reimbursed by the government on claiming it with the program. At the present

time there is no notice that I've been able to discover that that refund is

available to the citizens of British Columbia. I have some serious questions

to raise, Mr. Speaker, as to why this government hasn't gone on record as notifying

the people that they're entitled to those refunds. We are looking at a great

many people who will not have an opportunity of presenting their claims, for

two reasons. One is that they're not notified. The only notices are in drug

stores, and obviously unless you're buying drugs constantly, you won't be reminded

of them at the time.

But there's another problem, and that is that those carriers of the plans,

who are traditionally under extended coverage, have different deadlines for

claims under their plans. They have deadlines in June, etc., which means that

those who are filing with the extended plans are missing the deadline under

the government plan. I know this is simply a matter of planning and bookkeeping

and so on, but I'm hopeful that we will see some advertisement to the people

of British Columbia that they are entitled to file 80 percent of their drug

expenses over the first $100 by March 31. It seems to me a worthwhile and useful

expenditure to notify people of the benefits they have under that particular

program.

I'm going to conclude this rather boring address by saying that the one thing

this budget has been clearly short on is imagination. I live in hope of seeing

another look at job creation, and a more imaginative approach to the cost-of-living;

but we'll see what develops.

MR. REE: I was most interested to listen to the awards from the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) this afternoon, and I have considered the

appropriate award, bequest or wish that we might have for him. It is that at

a very early date, and certainly not later than the next election, he enjoys

the benefits of his pension.

Interjections.

MR. REE: His legislative pension, obviously.

I've listened to the debate going on here for the last three weeks, and I'd

like to commend one of the members of the opposition, the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), for his honesty in a comment that he made early

in the session, when he asked the Speaker for some arrows so that he might be

able to shoot them at this side because they did not have any of their own.

It appears that this has been the modus of the opposition since this House has

sat, and particularly during the debates — all of the arrows that they

have been able to muster have been provided from the fourth estate, and they

have not been able to come up with any of their own. In light of that, I would

like to correct the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) in his impression

that we have been alleging that the opposition have possibly been controlling

or have an interest in the media. Mr. Member, I suggest that the media has had

the control or direction of the opposition to such an extent, in fact, that

the other day on the radio — I believe it was on CJOR — the hotliner, in

answering a question as to why he took the position he did, indicated that it

was required because the media had to be in opposition, and that that might

be because the opposition is not doing the job it's supposed to do.

At any rate, it's been most interesting to listen to the arguments and the

debate coming out with respect to the budget. The antagonism towards any power

development in this province.... Well, we can go back to the original two-river

system, which was opposed by the opposition back in, I believe, the sixties.

They're adverse to the Rossland Dam, the Site C development, to the Cheekye-Dunsmuir

line. They would possibly like no power on the Island here, so that we would

have no night sittings; but they just seem to be adverse to any development

of power. Their B.C. Petroleum Corporation policy of penalties with respect

to lack of drilling frightened the drilling operators out of the province, so

there was no development during their period of 1972-75. All of this opposition

to the development of power has finally allowed me to see what NDP actually

means, and it's not necessarily New Democratic Party. I think it's just the

"no dam power" party. That to me is just what the NDP stands for.

They want no dam power in this province. Their only suggestion for power comes

from that member for Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who, I think, supports his

colleagues out of Saskatchewan in dealing with nuclear power. Again, there is

a definition of the NDP for that — it's the "Nuclear Development Party,"

and I feel this is more indicative of their policies, or lack of policies, than

anything as far as a new democratic party is concerned.

I listened to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) here. The other

day he was criticizing the surplus of $500 million that the government has from

its previous budget, its revenues from last year, and he was indicating that

in any organization 5 or 10 percent out in its calculations as to its revenues,

the comptrollers or the planners should be fired. I might suggest to that gentleman,

I don't think he is probably capable, or that many of us here are capable, of

anticipating our revenue for the next year within 5 percent — that is, if we have

any enterprise, we cannot calculate what our revenue in the next year would

be. I cannot do it with any certainty, within 5 percent of what my actual revenue

will be. I'm sure that any member over there who has any interests outside his

remuneration as an MLA cannot calculate what his revenue will be for the next

year within 5 or 6 percent of what it actually ends up being.

He also indicated that it was a dreadful mistake to have this surplus. One

other member indicated that a surplus was just as bad as a deficit. I feel that

a surplus certainly cannot be as bad as the deficits we sustained during 1972-75,

which we are still paying for; and, in fact, last year and this year we have

had to pay $26 million towards them. That is $26 million which could have been

used for other developments within the province — for assisting in homes,

accommoda-

[ Page

1657 ]

tion, medical care, hospitals, highways, social services — a number of projects

which we are all losing because the opposition wished to invest its money in

diminishing-return projects rather than in projects that this government sees

fit to invest in. It is utilizing its revenue in appreciating projects —

projects which will give a return to the province, give a return to the people

of British Columbia, to free them from costs in the future.

Again, the member from Coquitlam-Moody was uttering a quasi-platitude about

the $200 million mortgage program by suggesting that it should be $1 billion

and not $200 million. Well, if we had been in the position to offer a $1 billion

mortgage program — which I think would be a very desirable program for

the people of the province, although there are other things the people need

— it would have been criminal of us, because we would have been taxing

the people of the province too heavily in the past to pay for this and subsidize

housing.

It's most interesting to note that the member for Coquitlam-Moody supports

the provision of property, building lots, to private contractors. It was always

my understanding that the opposition were adverse to home ownership. I wonder

whether their policy has changed in the last while, since they've been in opposition

and are trying to get votes from that segment of the community.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I found it interesting that that member is moving further away from the seat

of power on the opposition benches. I don't know whether that's an indication

of one thing or another; but he seems to be further removed from the leader's

chair this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: They let him in for question period.

MR. REE: What questions?

He did seriously criticize that $500 million surplus. Well, without that surplus

.... Look at the benefits and the programs that are being instituted for

the benefit of the people of the province in this year's budget — the additional

moneys that are available for hospitals and medicare treatment, for transportation,

for highway expansion, for the development of the highway system in the lower

mainland, the Annacis Island freeway, additional moneys for education, for medical

care, and for our denticare. The plan for the implementation of the five-year

forestry program, which is being proposed, will bring continual benefit to the

people, to maintain employment in the province and to maintain a usable yield

from forestry, without the industry of the province suffering in any one particular

year. We are planning for energy self-sufficiency. If we had not had this surplus,

we would have not been able to do a great number of the worthwhile programs

which the government is entering into in this coming year. Mr. Speaker, this

is a very sound and solid budget. It has been well thought out and planned for

the people of the province now and in the future. I must endorse this budget

as I know every member of this assembly should do.

MR. HALL: As this debate now draws to a close, I think I should tell

you that I will be the last speaker from this side of the House. [Applause.]

Is that welcome relief or congratulations; I'm not sure.

I want to go over the debate in some detail. I've sent out for more material

because I know the Minister of Finance particularly wants to fully understand

what it is we've been trying to say from this side of the House and what his

colleagues on the other side of the House have also been trying to say in the

last ten days.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I have a message. As often happens with ceremonial

occasions, one of the awards that my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

was giving out was missed, and that was a gift to the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf). It's simply a storage box for his collection of old cassette tapes.

I know he'll enjoy that in the years to come and cherish it as he looks back

on his memoirs and records of the peak periods in his career as chairman of

the Social Credit caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the budget debate, the fifth debate since the return to power

of the minister's party, has covered a fair amount of territory. We've seen

the ministers on the other side of the House, from the treasury benches, rise

to support this budget. We've seen the members of the opposition oppose the

proposals in the budget from a number of points of view. We've seen the supporters

of the government telling us that it's just what is required to meet today's

problems, and on this side of the House we've taken our places to demonstrate

that the plan that should be the case, the basis of the budget, that should

be the modus operandi of the treasury benches in the next few years, is woefully

inadequate.

Indeed, I think we demonstrated to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no plan

on the other side. There is no economic plan on the other side upon which to

pin this budget. In the debate, for instance, on the amendment, we, the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and myself in particular, said that just by throwing

money at a problem, it won't go away. If there's a capsule comment that could

reflect the state of mind of the Minister of Finance and his advisers about

this budget it is simply: "If you've enough money and you've got some problems,

just put them together and they'll go away."

Mr. Speaker, that isn't going to happen. It won't go away. The problems facing

the government and British Columbia won't go away because of this budget, no

matter how much money the Minister of Finance has to apply to those problems.

I don't want to go over the ground again of the problems of unemployment, cost

of living and interest rates that we dealt with in the amendment. Overtaxation

to produce surpluses guaranteed by underexpenditure is the story of this budget.

That's how we get to the bottom line that seems to attract so much attention

from the treasury bench spokespeople on the other side.

The story of the budget, the $5.8 billion — not the two pieces of legislation

we'll be discussing tomorrow — is how it's going to meet the problems and

how it's going to play its

part in the role chosen by the government to meet

and to enter today's economic world. We've often been accused in budget debates

of not putting any flesh on the bones of criticism. We've been criticized in

the past by members opposite for not putting forward some proposals, that because

we're against the simple arithmetical calculations we're against those expenditures.

That's not so, Mr. Speaker. Our vote against the budget is against the government's

economic strategy, against the government's plan.

Our votes about the economic expenditure of dollars will

[ Page

1658 ]

come in vote-by-vote discussion whether they're for or against. We've been

critical in the past four budgets. We've always put forward constructive proposals,

as well as being harshly critical. I think every single member on this side

of the House has put forward proposals during the last ten days. If the members

opposite don't choose to hear them, that's their problem. But I'll tell you

this: all we've heard from the other side is a refighting of the 1975 election,

a paraphrasing of all of the false advertising of the 1975 campaign and adulation

about $5.8 billion.

The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), all of whom

have spoken in the debate and who don't understand what it is that the

opposition is trying to say, and that's fair enough in the debate.... I

now include the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis). Three

of those members, and here I don't include the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour, seem to have been overwhelmed by the sheer size of

the budget. When I listened to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour I

was just reminded that he, as distinct from every other member on the

other side who could have just as easily used last year's budget speech

debate this year.... He is one Socred in this House who couldn't use

last year's budget speech this year-one member only. Last year

everybody who spoke in the budget debate was full of admiration. They

talked about "getting things under control," "realistic increases in

levels of expenditure," "tight belts," "don't do anything that we

haven't already told the municipalities to do." The member for North

Vancouver-Seymour said that he admired that approach. It's the first

jurisdiction anywhere in North America, I think he said, that took this

position, and he welcomed it. That member can't say that today. That

member cannot use the same budget speech of 1979 in 1980.

Mr. Speaker, we've had some critical things to say and we've had some proposals

to make. This budget fails, in our view, to develop a coherent, economic strategy,

one that would create opportunities for employment, one that would see the economic

base of the province diversified. A strategy that would do that has got to start

somewhere, Mr. Speaker. It may as well start with the Minister of Finance —

a brand new, shiny minister. Such a strategy must begin with the natural resource

sector since that's the backbon