1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1977

Night Sitting

[ Page

583 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Lockstead — 583

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 586

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 588

Mr. Skelly — 592

Hon. Mr. Chabot — 598

Division on the amendment — 601

Mr. Lea — 601

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1977

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): At adjournment, Mr. Speaker,

I was attempting to relate to this House why I intend to vote for the

amendment because of the fiscal policies of this government, and how

they relate, and how they are affecting people in my riding in regard

to ambulance rate increases, the closing of a youth centre,

unemployment in our mining industry, and some other matters.

But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that type of approach really

doesn't impress the members on the other side of the House, and so in

the hope that some of your members may change their minds and vote with

us on this amendment, I'm going to try using some cold, hard facts

based on Canadian statistics.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it is really the working people who are

paying for the 92,000 people who are currently unemployed in this

province, out of work largely because of that government's antiquated

fiscal policies, and I'd like to illustrate. In British Columbia, there

are about 1,038,000 who actually do work to produce the gross

provincial product. That works out to about $20,520 worth of goods and

services produced on average by each person who was employed during the

past year. How much more wealth would have been created if the rest of

the labour force had been employed? Well, let's have a look at it.

Economists contend that for a variety of reasons — transition

between jobs, mismatch of skills to openings, individual preferences —

about 3 per cent of the labour force in this society would be jobless

at any given moment. Let's accept that argument at least for the

present. That then leaves us with about 66,860 British Columbians who

were unnecessarily jobless during the past year — people who should

have been working and adding their economic value to the gross

provincial product. Some employers, of course, will argue that a large

proportion of that group are less able workers — the ones first laid

off, the ones last hired, or for any number of reasons — and therefore

are less productive than the average worker. Well, let's accept that

for the moment as well, Mr. Speaker.

All right. For the sake of understatement let's accept, too, that the unnecessarily

jobless group's productivity is only half of the average: only $10,260 per

person annually. Using those figures, it means that the needless unemployment

of this group lost an additional $685 million, Mr. Speaker, of wealth for British

Columbia last year. Somebody has to pay the cost for that economic waste, and

remember, I am not dealing with the human tragedy involved in these instances,

just with the cold, factual economic figures which this government should recognize.

How much does this useless waste of human resources cost? The loss

of some $686 million of productive wealth last year cost an average of

$660.87, believe it or not, for every single person who held a job, Mr.

Speaker. Roughly 18 per cent of our gross provincial product is

represented by the $3.8 billion in this year's budget, so it follows

that our budget suffers from an 18 per cent wastage factor as well. The

expenditure could have been 18 per cent greater with no increase in

taxes, or the taxes could have been 18 per cent lower with no cuts in

programmes, if only this millionaire government's vicious

I'm-all-right-Jack obsession with phony budget balancing had not

prevented it from giving a real stimulus to the economy instead of just

talking about it, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I enjoyed that interjection from the Premier.

At least he's listening — for a change. I hope you're listening

closely, Mr. Premier, because you might learn something.

In the United States, President Jimmy Carter, who is a fiscal

conservative, has just decided on a two-pronged programme of tax cuts

and rebates as well as public-works projects. Why didn't the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) figure out something along the same line to

help our own people, Mr. Premier, instead of wasting our productive

citizens who are presently on the unemployment rolls of this province?

That's what I would like to know. It's a serious matter, you know. It's

serious to me, Mr. Premier.

Last year the same Minister of Finance, for instance, slapped on a

40 per cent increase in the regressive sales tax. It so happens that if

that tragic mistake had been rectified by a similar sales tax cut in

this year's budget, there would have been enough stimulus to the

economy to turn it around from the crippling blow that that minister

gave it a year ago.

If these millionaires are too proud to learn that from a democratic

socialist, Mr. Speaker, why don't they listen to one of their peers, a

man who has made more money and far more sense than this cabinet?

"Retail business in B.C. is flat," said Mr. C.N. Woodward in 1976. He

correctly forecast that the province wouldn't come out of that slump

this year, and what did he blame? He blamed the ICBC increases and the

increase in retail sales tax to 7 per cent which took about $500

million out of the

[ Page 584 ]

consumer disposable income in this province. Who

ordered those increases? World business conditions or this government?

We know, don't we, Mr. Speaker? We sure do...and where they need it

economically. Then why does the nine-month statement tabled with the

budget predict a hefty surplus in last year's accounts, even after

millions have been squirreled away?

These increases last year and the one-sided call for restraint this

year were politically motivated, in my opinion. They were dictated by a

callous coalition, not by economic necessity. It appears to me that

it's the working people who have to once again carry the burden for the

unemployed in our province when this government should be accepting

some responsibility. The rich once again not only are getting off

scot-free, but in fact are getting a rebate from that government, as

you well know.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few more minutes and there is another matter

of quite great concern in my riding. This matter concerns everybody

living in British Columbia, but particularly in the coastal sections of

this province. This is the matter of the distinct possibility of large

oil tankers invading our coastal shores. I have an

article which is

dated Wednesday, January 25, in the Victoria Times , which says: "Socreds Strangely Silent on Coastal Oil Threat." That's the problem, Mr. Speaker.

Other members of this House have spoken about the threat of oil

tanker traffic on this coast, but what bothers me is that in spite of

correspondence from people all up and down this coast, particularly the

central and northern coast — and I am Sure that every member of the

House has received such correspondence — this government doesn't seem

to be moving. They have not said a word. We have not heard anything

concrete from the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . We just

heard: "Well, we're looking at it. We're thinking about it. We're going

to do this; we're going to do that." But we really have not heard that

government take a position, and I think it's about time they spoke up.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask the minister responsible to consider a

couple of questions. I think there are five or six questions here and I

hope that when the minister takes his place in this or another debate,

he will attempt to answer some of these questions.

I would like to know if all oil tankers entering the 200-mile zone

will be examined to determine their seaworthiness and their condition.

I'd like to know that. Are you thinking about it? Will all the oil

tankers entering the 200-mile zone be examined to ascertain the quality

and the condition of their navigational equipment? Are you discussing

these matters with the federal government? Have you thought about it?

Are you talking to your colleague, the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis)?

Will the oil tankers entering this zone be examined to ascertain the

qualifications of the users and of their navigational equipment? I'd

really like to know. We had a disaster, many disasters in recent times,

particularly on the east coast of this continent, just because people

did not take the time or the trouble and did not have the willingness

to pursue these questions which I'm asking you now, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to know if all these oil tankers entering this zone will be

examined to determine if their charts are suitable, up to date and

complete. Will personnel be examined to determine their qualifications

to correctly read and use these charts? I hope they will, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, will all the oil tankers entering this zone be required to

produce their insurance coverage? The reason I ask that last question,

Mr. Speaker, is that in 1971 the vessel Vanlene went aground off the

west coast of Vancouver Island. Fortunately it had a load of cars; it

could have just as easily been an oil tanker, but it had a load of

vehicles from, I believe, Japan. The Vanlene was a vessel registered

under the Panamanian flag out of Hong Kong, and there were some oil

spills. It was fuel oil....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Bawlf) holds up a little photo of a sailing vessel. Very

nice! No, it wasn't quite like that.

In any event, it was a vessel under the Panamian flag and it did

lose quite a large amount of fuel oil, Mr. Speaker. It cost some money;

I believe it cost the federal government $169,000 to clean up that oil

spill. The fact is that the federal government has yet to collect that

$169,000 from either the owners or the insurance companies. Are we

going to be faced with that as a provincial government in the future?

While I am on this topic I have one other item regarding oil tankers.

MR. SPEAKER: I would hope, hon. member, that you are going to relate it to the amendment that's before the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked! Do you know what

would happen to the economy of our coastal areas, the jobs that would

be down the tube, if we had a major oil spill in this province? My

goodness!

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Landlubber! (Laughter.)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Fishermen up and down the

[ Page 585 ]

coast and the fishing industry, a multi-million dollar industry in

this province, would be absolutely ruined if a vessel went down in

Hecate Strait or Queen Charlotte Sound.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To relate this to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, in The Vancouver Sun

on January 17 there was an

article by a Mr. Peter McMartin relating the

experience of Mr. Paddy Kelly, a sea captain working out of British

Columbia. In fact, the sea captain lives in the riding of the member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) .

This sea captain, who had spent many years at sea as a captain'and

had a valid British licence, on a trip through the Panama Canal was

able to obtain a valid master's certificate in Panama — a second ticket

— for the large sum of $25. He relates in his story that anyone could

have walked into that office and picked up a valid merchant captain's

ticket for $5 in Panama.

lnterjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The point I am making here, Mr. Speaker, is

that I would like to know from the Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and I hope that he will answer this

eventually what assurances we as British Columbians have from the

federal government for the people of British Columbia that no vessel

entering British Columbia's waters have on board masters with phony

Panamian certificates. I would like to know; I would like his

assurances. I strongly suspect that we have the situation now where

unqualified people are manning vessels in British Columbia waters. It's

of great concern to me if no one else.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the Premier's address this

afternoon, he referred to the federal-provincial negotiations taking

place in Ottawa regarding west-coast transportation. I would very much

like to know what's happening in regard to these negotiations; I would

really like to know. Are, we going to start negotiating again for

another 30 years while people in places like Ocean Falls, Stewart,

Kitimat, Namu and Bella Coola are waiting for some transportation?

MR. LAUK: Under this government, I think so.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I would suspect so. I'm deeply and genuinely concerned about this, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, I was going to quote from the latest edition of the

Ocean Falls Informer , which goes on at some length about how they feel

about this current provincial government and the approach it has taken

in regard to coastal transportation, but it's quite lengthy. I don't

think I will do that tonight because I want to talk about something

else before I sit down. But I just wanted to point out to this House

that there is a genuine concern up there. I have been speaking to

people in that whole coastal area very nearly every day, receiving

correspondence from these people every day. The point I wish to make is

that they feel cheated by both federal and provincial governments at

the moment; they feel let down by the people who are supposed to be

representing them in this Legislature and in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, I

know that I will have the opportunity to discuss this topic in more

detail in the future.

One last topic on transportation. Based in Vancouver is a firm known

as Coast Ferries. Coast Ferries serves in excess of 100 communities on

the so-called "lower coast," small communities from Howe Sound to

Rivers Inlet. I have a list of the communities. I am not going to read

all of these names but I know that many of them are familiar to you.

Most of these communities, Mr. Speaker, are situated in my

constituency. Last December Coast Ferries announced that they were

ceasing operations on this coast as of December 31, 1976, because of a

lack of funding from either the federal or provincial governments. Just

prior to Coast Ferries ending their operation in British Columbia, they

received a loan of some $300,000 from the federal government. The MP

who represents the area told the newspapers that he had approached Mr.

Lang and had received agreement from Mr. Lang for this subsidy. The

fact is that when Mr. Lang was asked about the subsidy, he said he

didn't know anything about it. But the point is that Coast Ferries did

receive that subsidy and said that they could continue operations to

the end of March, 1977. The end of March, 1977, is not too far away;

it's two months away. Mr. Speaker, because time is running out for over

100 communities on this coast, I'm asking the minister and this

government to start negotiations now with Ottawa or to make alternate

arrangements to make sure that service to these communities on the

lower coast does not come to a halt.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago Coast Ferries ceased operation for a

short period of time and the result was chaos — chaos to the loggers,

the fishermen and all the people who live up and down the coast. So I'm

asking that government now to seriously consider making a study but to

do what is necessary to make sure that service is continued to these

over 100 communities, most of which are in my riding.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll close my remarks and say I can see

nothing in this budget to make me support it. I'll tell you that I'm

going to vote for the amendment and against the budget.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human

[ Page 586 ]

Resources): Mr. Speaker, until the last remarks made by the member for

Mackenzie, I was actually quite impressed. As a matter of fact, I thought he

raised some very valid points. I was very disappointed that in the end of it

all he came out in opposition to the budget, because I believe or thought that

perhaps by now he might have been convinced that this is the most progressive

budget which has been placed before this House at any time, anywhere.

I'm certainly also impressed, I must say, by the number here

tonight. Actually, I can sympathize with you when we're undoubtedly

having to listen to much of what's been said previously. Perhaps the

choice might be to be at home or elsewhere. I certainly can sympathize

with the members here, but I'm hoping that perhaps I might impart some

sense on the opinions that have been, expressed from the other side

during these last two days.

I take exception, Mr. Speaker, to the contention that seems to be

implied time and time again from the other side that they are most

representative of the people and that they, in effect, are expressing

the wishes of the people every time they rise on the budget debate.

Actually it's very comforting to me to realize that my voice and

those that are expressed here are far more representative. In my

particular instance, as opposed to the member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Barrett), for example, I only had to run once for election; he had to

run twice.

Secondly, I'm also well aware — and this is comforting too — that

I, like most, if not all, members on this side still get back to the

constituency on a very regular basis and have good pulse of what takes

place out there and what the people are saying or thinking about what's

happening in government in British Columbia. That's certainly a whole

lot more than I can say for the other side, Mr. Speaker. All of these

members, I think, with the exception of the member for Victoria, who

has his constituency right here — he commutes regularly, of course —

I'm afraid may have lost touch.

Of course, I was very fortunate. I noticed today in the House we had

some letters presented, some very questionable material. It made me

think of the time that the former Provincial Secretary also circulated

a letter, as did the former Minister of Labour today, to the people who

were employed at a particular poultry plant in Surrey. Of course, it

was that particular chicken fiasco that was perpetrated by these

members that helped my election considerably.

Mr. Speaker, this is an accountable and responsible budget.

Certainly, when we compare it with what took place with the previous

administration where the thing of the day appeared to be waste,

squander and irresponsibility.... As was mentioned earlier today, the

money was being shovelled off the back of a truck by a free-lunch bunch

— a scandalous disregard for the public trust.

I think the people are well aware and I'm sure that as they express

their opinions, as they did during the election and as they do so often

when I meet them time and time again, they haven't forgotten that the

thing that we've been discussing most for the last several days — the

budget — is the very thing that defeated the previous administration

because they weren't able to even prepare a budget, let alone

administer a budget. I'm sure they, too, by now must be aware that the

people, when they originally placed them in office and gave them that

trust, weren't thinking of what would take place. They hadn't thought

of all of the things that might have happened of which we now are aware.

In my office, like all others, we see many consultants who were

hired and many studies that were taken on — consultants who didn't

spend too much time here, of course. I had one — or several — but one

in particular who was rarely in the office. Mr. Howard's cheques were

being sent to a post office box in Terrace. During the latter months or

perhaps it may have been for a year or more he lived in Quebec, and I

imagine his cheques were being sent to Quebec. The people hadn't voted

for this. They don't want to go back to that. This isn't what the

people of British Columbia wanted or bargained for.

Certainly when they heard of programmes that were to be initiated —

programmes that certainly in themselves could do a great deal of good

and that are now for a good part being continued — they hadn't

bargained on the way that they would be administered, where there was

no accountability whatsoever. Transition houses, for example, to aid

the people who were coming out of jail, were being run by former

convicts. I don't think that was accountability and that's certainly

not what the people had envisaged when these programmes were announced.

MR. LEA: What is a "former convict"?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The community grants — certainly, again, a part of the budget that is now being administered in an accountable way — were being administered in such a way by that previous

administration that the people lost complete confidence. Community

groups were receiving money to fund newspapers that were promoting a

particular political cause. The people hadn't bargained for that type

of thing and the people don't want to go back to that sort of thing,

Mr. Speaker.

There's the, story about the carrots. The former Minister of Human

Resources funded an organization on Vancouver Island to purchase land

so they could grow carrots on a communal farm. The communal farm is

still in the hands of the Good Earth Society —

[ Page 587 ]

or the Bad Soil Society, I'm not sure of the name — but the people

hadn't bargained for that. type of thing. They hadn't bargained for

this sort of accountability. That's not what they wanted. That's not

what they wished to go back to.

Transportation programmes that were implemented throughout the

province — and certainly, again, they are programmes that can and are

providing a good service and will continue to provide a good service —

were not being checked and were not being held accountable. Time and

time again we found that the service provided was much more than what

you could buy by hiring a taxi. The people of the province hadn't

bargained for that type of programme. They hadn't bargained for this

irresponsibility in the administration of these programmes. They hadn't

bargained to see their money being squandered.

The incentive allowances programme is, again, a very worthy

programme that should be promoted and that is worthy of good

recognition if properly administered, as it will be under this

administration. Through the incentive programme, the former minister —

the man who sat in my office — gave incentive grants to people who did

nothing other than hand out food vouchers in welfare offices. That was

not an accountable approach. Certainly that is not what the people had

bargained for and that's not what they wish to go back to.

We're also having to correct many of the programmes — in particular,

of course, one which has been discussed at great length — juvenile

facilities for the juvenile delinquents. The previous administration,

through their budgeting, had provided funds to implement so-called new

programmes and to do away with the existing programmes. Well, they did

away with the existing programmes, but they had nothing with which to

replace it. The judges went scrambling and wandering and worrying, and

we're now having to devise new programmes that will be effective, that

will be accountable, and that will reverse the trend which they allowed

to develop.

Fiscal responsibility: they devised a programme called Mincome, but

before they implemented the programme they failed to consult the

federal government to assure that there would be adequate cost sharing.

They brought about a programme for which no guarantee or assurances had

been received, hadn't even been asked for, a programme which was

provided for in their budget, but which again was one which might have

provided many more benefits had the proper negotiations been entered

into with the federal government. But they didn't have the time, the

ability, the know how or the responsibility to take it on. They simply

went on their way, they squandered, they wasted, and they are now

getting up time and time again and they are criticizing, through this

amendment, a very worthy budget, a budget which will be administered

properly and which will bring benefits to the people such as we've not

seen before.

But we will, in the process, do all that needs to be done to assure

that through negotiations we will obtain a fair share from the federal

government. When we brought about the increases in welfare, after two

years of nothing, to very many deserving recipients, we set out to

negotiate first. That expenditure of $17 million was largely picked up

by the federal government. We managed to negotiate, through a good

business approach, a deal whereby they picked up $13 million — a means

or a method which will allow us to again bring further benefits to

people in need. That is a responsible approach, and this is what the

people of British Columbia are now seeing, aware of, and supporting.

This is what they wanted; this is what they voted for. This is why they

voted against the administration which is now represented in the

opposition, who stand up time and time again and criticize us for the

very thing on which they failed so miserably, so badly, that they came

to a terrible, for them but good for the people, defeat.

It wasn't only in the area of welfare where the waste and the

squandering took place — it was throughout. Certainly in every ministry

we saw need because the services were not being provided. The moneys

had certainly been budgeted, but they were being spent in a way which

was not accountable. But welfare is one area where, over the last year,

I have witnessed it time and time again, as letters came in from people

testifying to the fact that the whole thing had been administered in a

non-accountable manner. We know now, as we check on the offices where

we are receiving good support from the workers, that there hadn't been

any accountability, that the thing had been allowed to go wild. No

blame can be placed on those workers, on those people. It must rest

with that administration that allowed it to happen, that administration

which had no system to assure that there was accountability.

They budgeted. We know that their budgets increased tremendously. We

know that they were providing funds for a good many programmes in

tremendous measure, but the returns were so few and so little. The

waste was horrendous. If there is anything that people deplore, it's

the waste again and again, time after time, in every ministry, as

existed then. That is why, Mr. Speaker, again, we are receiving

support, and that's why I'm hoping that perhaps they may think once

more about what's being proposed here, about the good which is being

provided for in this budget, about the programmes which will flow from

it which will provide further benefits to the people, and about the tax

cuts which are being provided to the areas where previously attention

should have been given but, for whatever reason, theirs and others,

were overlooked.

[ Page 588 ]

The propane gas, the mobile-home tax, and certainly the succession

duties again have been criticized by the people of the opposition. They

continually stand up and say: "This is of benefit to the millionaire.

These are the people that will benefit from it." But, Mr. Speaker, it

points out once again that they are not in touch, that they've lost

touch with the community, that they never ever were in touch, and that

in fact the people who are benefiting are those who have managed to

build up a little business over many years, through much hard work, and

if in order to benefit from the removal of these duties they must die,

but leave it to their successors who could continue on that business,

then all of British Columbia will benefit.

We want to build a strong economy where employment is available to

all those who need it. We wish to find jobs instead of welfare, or

instead of unemployment insurance. This can only be done if we

strengthen that part of the economy that can provide the jobs, and it's

not government. We've seen government enter into a number of

enterprises. Every one of them was a dismal failure. There were no

successes, and we have not heard anyone on the opposition side stand up

and speak about those acquisitions, and what happened, and how good

those particular moves were for the people of British Columbia, or the

people of a particular area.

Where was the expansion in those businesses and where were the

benefits? They moved in, they took over, and it cost the taxpayers

plenty. In many instances, it will continue to.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Vancouver Centre member says

"nonsense." Obviously, again, he's been in Victoria so long that he

doesn't know what's happening in those other areas. He's lost touch

like he's lost touch with everything else, and that's unfortunate

because he, too, represents people who are deserving of a voice and who

are deserving of representation.

It's pretty sad when they get up time and time again and spout off a

lot of negatives, a lot of nothings, a lot of which doesn't help the

economy and doesn't help British Columbia. I'm very pleased that I can

support this budget and that I can speak against this amendment. I will

continue to assure, through my ministry, as every minister in

government will, that the people will receive fair value for their tax

dollars; that the money will be well spent on worthy programmes in a

proper manner, without the waste, the squandering and the

irresponsibility, and that, Mr. Speaker, is what the people voted for

and that's what they will continue to vote for, and that's what they

deserve. I realize that as a matter of custom, these members on the

opposition will probably rise again and again to denounce everything

that is being proposed by government and, certainly, we will listen and

we will hear it not only once or twice but 100 times over the next

while. But the people are listening also, and they are measuring it and

they're assessing it. I'm sure that every time they will continue to

support what's right and proper. This is what they did at the last

election, and this is what they're telling me when I get out into the

community. They still are very supportive, and they will continue to

be, and I'm very proud of this budget. I speak against the amendment

and will vote against the amendment.

MR. LAUK: They want jobs. They want lower taxes.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Speaking against

the amendment, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) is not in his seat at the moment. I found his questions

most interesting, and if provided a copy, either by him or through Hansard ,

I certainly will respond to him in answer to those questions. I might

recommend that some consideration be given by the other side of the

House perhaps to enrol that member as critic for the Ministry of

Environment. He seems to have a feel for it and seems to have some

genuine concern for the environment and I welcome that.

The amendment to the budget has been described as frivolous and

perhaps very correctly so. The budget is never a popular time in lives

of Canadians or British Columbians. No budget time ever has been

because there are always those who are disappointed that they didn't

get what they thought they should be getting. There are always those

who want a little bit more. There are always those who feel that their

needs, or their wants, or their desires should be handled first by

other people, before those who are in genuine need get what they

rightly deserve. Our costs to service the needs of people in the

province of British Columbia — or in the country at large — have been

rising. They've always been very, very high. The problems mentioned in

the amendment have been common to our society for many, many years, and

all governments have had difficulties in maintaining levels of

unemployment and the treatment of elderly citizens. It's obvious, even

to those members across the floor, that no one party or government has

a monopoly on the concerns about people, whether they be unemployed,

ill, handicapped, or whatever their problems may be.

The opposition is confused because they come from a confusing

background. It's part of their style: they attempt to confuse others,

and on occasion they certainly do. They confuse themselves while

they're at it. The opposition tell us, by way of their amendment, that

they have a great concern about the

[ Page

589 ]

unemployed and great concern about the handicapped and the elderly.

I have no doubt that they probably have a great concern, as does this

government, as do almost all people who live in our society. There are

differences of opinion, of course. One of the differences of opinion is

that it is not the philosophy of this government that a person who is

so handicapped — whether it be by physical problems, mental problems,

or perhaps the lack of skill — should not be dependent upon government,

though assisted by government, of course. But it is the socialists who

enjoy people being dependent upon government because they feel,

therefore, that they have control over those people, and they can get

the vote of those people because they'll be afraid.

That's a long story, it's an old story, and it's a true story. And

it's something that the people of the province of British Columbia

understand, as they do in many other jurisdictions.

People of the province have faith in their province. They have

demonstrated this time and time again. The people who reside in British

Columbia have great resourcefulness. It is these people who will make

this government a successful government because they are willing to

contribute to the well-being of the economy. The great majority of

citizens in this province are not those who are writing the letters

complaining about what they are not getting from government. Certainly

there are many — hardly the majority, Mr. Member, unless your

mathematics is equal to some of your other comments. The great majority

of people are very proud to take care of themselves to the best of

their ability. They are very proud to share what they may have with

others who require help, whether personally or through their taxes.

We understand that the effective, lasting remedy to unemployment,

housing and the other social problems that are with us in society is a

buoyant, strong, steady economy. It is not some type of nonsense

involving either high borrowings and high interest rates on debt; it is

not increasing the budget by 100 per cent in four years. The people of

the province of British Columbia must be responsible for that money.

That money must come from somewhere.

It's of some interest, Mr. Speaker, that during the regime of this

group across the way, taxes in British Columbia which had to be

collected, moneys which had to be expended because of their budget, the

per capita cost to the people of British Columbia, money spent on

behalf of the citizens of the province of British Columbia.... They

wouldn't know what it is, what the per capita cost would be; they

wouldn't know because they very seldom ever referred to their budgets.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

In 1973, Mr. Speaker, the per capita cost to a taxpayer in British

Columbia was approximately $700 to cover their first budget of

approximately $2,315,000,000.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That was up from $631 in the previous year.

But we recognize that inflation is taking its toll. Naturally prices

are going up, costs are going up and costs of services to people are

going up.

In 1973, ending March 31, it was approximately $700 and a few cents

per capita. At the end of their regime, at the end of their management

of the economy, it was costing $1,403 per person, a 100 per cent

increase in four fiscal years.

This is an indication of why the people of the province of British

Columbia are not prepared to put up with this nonsense, this fiscal

irresponsibility. The idea that someone told them one time was: "All

you have to do is go out and promise more, more, more and more, and

they'll vote for you." They thought that would work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Empty promises.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: "Empty promises" was the name of your

campaign. Yes, I agree with you. You people unfortunately have a

capacity to believe in some of your own nonsense and rhetoric.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. In my many years of

broadcasting experiences that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

would share with me, I'm sure, we trained ourselves to hear only

intelligent comment. I'm afraid I missed all of the remarks of the

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). Would you to

repeat it?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, perhaps not.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, not only does he have an incapacity to think well; he can't hear overly well.

It was $700.40 per capita ending March 31, 1973.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I said four years.

Interjections.

[ Page 590 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It increased from that figure to $1,403 at the end of March, 1976.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Simple calculation. If someone had been

able to provide you with additions and subtractions in very simple

arithmetic, you may have been able to produce a budget that made some

sense. I'm so sorry for you.

The facts of the matter are very, very simple. The figures are a

matter of public record. Your incompetence so frightened people. The

fear that was in the hearts of many, many people of long standing in

British Columbia, the fear that caused many companies to flee this

province.... The reasons given were very straightforward and simple:

they simply would not put up with your nonsense. Many companies from

different constituencies in the province left, and you know that.

You're well aware of that. You drove them to Alberta, to Washington

state. You drove them to other parts of Canada and perhaps other parts

of the world. You've realized that. You probably even planned on that

because you people feel that if you can weaken the economy, you can

offer greater control over the people. Your ace in the hole is

dependency upon government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Like the giggling member from wherever he's

from — he knows that. He was engaged in that type of activity, where

people were coming for help from government, the last resort: "Please

help us. Please control us. Tell us what to do."

Many people were able to see through that, of course. The people

spoke in the last general election and their message was very, very

clear. Some of you managed to get back. In one incident, it took two

goes to get back, but it was done. Some of you just got back; some of

you will not be back.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's true — a lot will not be back.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Some of you will not be back; there's no question of that.

I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. members across the way that,

in my opinion, they have no right to suggest they have a monopoly when

it comes to the concerns about people and people's problems. But it is

repugnant when they choose to use those people in our society who may

be handicapped in some way, whether it's emotionally or physically or

mentally. To use these people to further their political goals is

repugnant.

Time and time again they have done it. You people, I hope, have

learned your les'on. You are attacking a budget which is a

contemporary, intelligent budget, a budget which is based on the

realistic problems of today. It is a budget designed to offer the

people of British Columbia responsibility in the spending of their

money.

A problem with people such as yourselves is that you lose touch with

money when it isn't yours. When it's taxpayers' money it's so easy to

spend. It's so easy to make outlandish offers for purchases of various

kinds. It's so easy to invest money into huge ideas that consume the

taxpayers' dollars.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You know that, Mr. Member, probably better

than any others on the other side. You know that yourself, because you

were responsible, as a minister, for much of that.

Mr. Member, the stories will be told and the people of the province will understand

that you people do not have a monopoly on emotions; you do not have a monopoly

on ideas. You do offer rather strange ideas at times and sometimes the people

are very, very suspect as to what your motives may be. The underprivileged people

of the province of British Columbia, whom you choose to use as political fodder

for your cannon, are insulted by your attitudes — that you can pick upon a person

who is handicapped in some way and say: "We are your champions. Vote for

us and we'll take care of you."

Time after time after time, case after case after case, we have

spoken with people as individuals or organizations who have told a

story time after time of those persons whose only asset remaining,

after a big government ground them into the ground, was their pride.

And even their pride was being taken away by some of your attitudes,

some of the suggestions made about what might be necessary for them to

simply survive — political nonsense.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The truth hurts, Mr. Member. The truth hurts.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), breaking with the rules of

that side of the House, offered some intelligent comments regarding the

tanker traffic. As I said, Mr. Member — you were not in your seat — I

would very much appreciate copies of your questions. I even have a

pretty good idea who wrote them. I hope it was you, but if it's the

person I'm thinking of, he's quite capable of writing such questions.

[ Page

591 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, no, no.

Mr. Member for Mackenzie, since you have expressed a genuine

interest in this, and although it is not particularly directly

associated with the amendment, but since it was part of your address,

perhaps I could offer you some information and share some of the

concern you seem to offer to this House regarding the shipping of oil

along the coast of British Columbia. In the latest communication to the

federal Minister of Fisheries and Environment, the hon. Romeo LeBlanc,

with respect to the possibility of an oil spill, we've asked Mr.

LeBlanc what the federal government's intentions are regarding

contingency plans in the event of a spill. We say to the minister that

we understand that the federal Ministries of Transport and Environment

play a role in such planning and related action.

lnterjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you mind, Mr. Member? You might get an

opportunity when they recognize the short, balding members for

Vancouver whatever. Okay? You'll have your chance, you never know — we

like to spread things around. Just do your thing — that's our

counterfoil. Don't get out of line.

Mr. Member for Mackenzie, since you're the only one who has

mentioned this in a serious way, I'll address my remarks to you,

through the Speaker. We have asked the federal government, the

minister, if they would define the relative roles in positions of the

two ministries at the federal level, and what we might expect that role

would be from the federal government regarding the preparation and

administration of contingency plans.

I asked the minister if we may inquire if a comparative-risk

analysis of oil-port possibilities for British Columbia is being

prepared. It's our understanding that the federal ministry had prepared

such work in the Atlantic Canada section. We remind the federal

minister that the Canada Shipping Act provides for posting a bond of up

to $150 per ton to cover any oil spill cleanup costs and payment for

lost and damaged resources. We have asked them if this provision is

operational and, if so, how is it to be administered. Apparently this

is a great mystery. What principles will apply in guiding payments for

environmental resource losses? What provisions does it make regarding

safety standards for oil tankers operating in areas which may affect

the B.C. coast?

We recognize that the maritime oil pollution problem is an

international one. We asked the federal government if they'd considered

intervention on the international scene, which might make oil-exporting

countries financially responsible and liable for any damage due to oil

spills, or tanker accidents in costs of clean-up.

Now, Mr. Member, I appreciate that these are not direct answers to

your specific questions, but I would be pleased to provide you with a

copy of the letter to the minister, if you desire, and perhaps you

might respond with your observations or comments.

Mr. Speaker, it is with no regret, whatsoever, that I find myself on

the side of the government to vote contrary to this amendment, an

amendment that obviously is frivolous. It's been suggested as being

frivolous by many and there's no question in the minds of those people

witnessing the debates that, obviously, it's frivolous. The members

from the other side have used the opportunity of the debate on the

amendment to speak about virtually everything and, since they opened up

the categories, members from the government side have responded.

I appreciate the comments of those members who take time to offer

sincere criticism of budgets or the throne speech, and those members of

the government who offer sincere criticisms when necessary, comments,

suggestions. As the member for Dewdney reminded us the other night,

it's a very sacred trust taking

part in the debate in this House and I

am sure most members of the House recognize that and use this as a

criterion for their speeches.

The opportunity to use the public's money for providing services to

people and for people, and using money in the Ministry of Environment

for the protection of the environment, for services, again, to people,

is a task that no one should take lightly. The Ministry of Environment

will be spending huge amounts of money. I regard it as a large amount

of money because I recognize that every dollar comes from the taxpayer

— one way or the other — and it's money that they expect — in fact,

demand — that we spend wisely, with no frivolous nonsense that may or

may not have occurred in the past in different jurisdictions.

We have a very sincere obligation to those citizens of the province

who want their money spent wisely. They very seldom complain about

government spending money because they recognize it's necessary. They

recognize that services are costly, that materials are costly, that

labour costs are costly, and that they must pay money. All they ask is,

please, once in a while try not to waste it, try not to squander it.

Let's not get these incredible stories of huge amounts of money that

have been introduced for something and have gone to waste — where the

idea, where the programme, where the company or whatever, has gone

completely bankrupt with public money, and all you have is another

Bonaventure fiasco at the provincial level.

The people of the province of British Columbia will give any

government an opportunity to display its sincerity regarding the

spending of the taxpayers' money. But once that is lost, that

government is in

[ Page 592 ]

trouble, as you well found out and deservedly found out. You can't

fool all the people all of the time, although perhaps some of you

believe that is possible. Maybe you can fool some some of the time — I

think someone mentioned the figure tonight. Perhaps that proved that

that old expression is correct.

There could always be more money spent in any ministry of the

government or in any department of the government and that, to some

simple minds, is a simple solution: spend more money, solve all

problems. Not, where does the money come from? That's not important.

You have the money tree, or you're picking up after the trucks that

shovelled it out from the rears that the Minister of Human Resources-

mentioned. Maybe that's where the money comes from. Maybe the money

trees are there. But the people of the province are not going to buy

that idea. Nor can they be coerced into believing that that is a proper

way in which to present a budget or a proper way in which to run a

government.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is frivolous, as I mentioned. There is no

reason to even consider report of the amendment. Although technically

it's properly worded — I believe they had able assistants in

researching the wording of the amendment — it's certainly without

substance, it's frivolous, it's unworthy of support and I'll be voting

against it.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the

member who spoke previously was mistaken when he called this amendment

frivolous because, of course, if that were the case then you would have

ruled it out of order a long time ago. In fact, he has attacked your

authority in this House when he suggested that you made an error in not

ruling it out of order and calling it a frivolous motion, so I expected

you to draw his attention to that fact.

You know, when the Premier adjourned the debate last night, he

suggested that he would bring all his big guns in tonight and show how

the opposition was abusing this House, and counter some of the

arguments that we had placed in support of this amendment on how the

government had destroyed the economy of this province, eliminated jobs

and destroyed the economic vibrancy of the province. As a result, there

is very little money left for the people who really need it — the

senior citizens, the handicapped and the people in this province who

are generally deprived as a result of the present government's policy.

It was obvious in the previous discussion on the amendment that the Premier

had issued orders to the ministers and the backbenchers to remain silent, and

it's pretty obvious when the members get up to defend the government's

position why the Premier ordered them to remain silent in the first place, especially

the member who just spoke. You know, it's a gutless tactic, Mr. Speaker,

to refuse to debate a resolution that's presented in the House, to refuse

to defend the government's position on the budget, and to refuse to challenge

in debate across the floor the positions that are put forward by the opposition.

We were not surprised — it was not uncharacteristic of the government to involve

themselves in that type of tactic — but we were grateful when the Premier did

choose to adjourn last night that he said he would bring in his big guns today

to challenge some of the things that we have been saying over the past few days

relative to this amendment.

You know, when the Premier got up to speak the first thing this

afternoon, he hauled out his old election speech and reeled off the old

cliches that he had used during his tour of the province in the last

election campaign. Of course, he left out the stuff about the secret

police — that's become a bit of an embarrassment. He hasn't been able

to find any allocations in previous budgets and, of course, I imagine

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has kind of pleaded with

him to keep quiet on the subject which she used to such advantage

during the last provincial election campaign to generate the type of

fear throughout the province that the Premier was talking about.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, no, I don't think she's capable of embarrassment.

But, you know, when he got up he mentioned tax decreases, that when

we were government we had carried on services and decreased taxes at

the same time. He mentioned that the taxes on mobile homes were being

decreased and that the total impact on the provincial government of

that decrease would be something like $4 million. Contrary to what the

member who just spoke said, we don't attack that decrease — we support

it. It's a good idea to decrease the sales tax on mobile homes and

components that go into mobile homes, and we support it.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Why didn't you do it? Why didn't your gang do it?

MR. SKELLY: The tax on propane: we've asked the government

over the past year and a half to decrease that tax on propane. All it

cost them was $600,000, and we congratulate the government for

decreasing that tax on propane. It's of benefit to many people on

Vancouver Island and throughout the province. I might add that for many

senior citizens who do live in mobile homes who do use propane for both

heating and cooking, this is going to be a tremendous advantage to

them, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) for

making that announcement — after some

[ Page 593 ]

continuous pressure from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and other members of this opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: But you know, Mr. Speaker, the total impact of

the tax on mobile homes and the tax on propane, eliminating those from

the budget, is $4.6 million, and that's in the budget speech. The real

decrease comes in the tax on millionaires. Again, succession duties —

this is in the budget speech — result in a reduction of revenues in

this province of $25 million; the reduction in the gift tax is

$500,000, for a total of $25.5 million. The taxes which the government

reduced to the benefit of the ordinary people of this province, and to

the senior citizens, and to those in mobile homes, amount to $4.6

million. But the reductions in the budget, the reductions in revenue

that they gave to their own clique — to themselves, to the people who

can afford the expenditure — they gave them a free gift of $25.5

million. They allowed them — their friends, the millionaires, the car

dealers — to dip their snouts in the public trough to the tune of $25.5

million.

What does that represent in terms of jobs? They said that by

reducing these taxes they were going to create jobs in British

Columbia, stimulate investment in British Columbia. But look at how

much capital is required, Mr. Speaker, to create a job. This comes from

an Economic Council of Canada report entitled: "People On Jobs: A Study

of the Canadian Labour Market." To create a job in the primary-metal

industry, for example — that's concentrating, smelting, that type of

thing — requires $45,000 in capital invested per job produced. So the

gift tax remission, if it's invested by those people who benefit, will

create 11 jobs — 11 jobs, Mr. Speaker, in the primary-metal industry.

Now I'm not saying it's not worthwhile to create 11 jobs — it's

probably better than this government will do through their own

programmes — but we have no guarantee from the people who profit from

that gift tax remission that they're going to spend that money to

create jobs in the province. They could just as easily take that tax

and invest it in Arizona or in Arkansas Lakeside Estates, or something

like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about Arkansas Lakeside Estates?

MR. SKELLY: Your Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is the lawyer for the company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): The Arkansas traveller. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: The Arkansas fellow traveller. Where was I? The

remission of succession duties: Mr. Speaker, how many jobs would that

create in the primary-metal industry? In concentrating and smelting

metals in this province — 555 jobs. If all those rich kids, who inherit

all that money and don't pay all that tax that they would ordinarily

pay to the province of British Columbia, invested that money in the

primary metal industries of this province it would create 555 jobs.

Again, that's more than the jobs the government intends to create

through their programmes. If we had a guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that

those rich kids would invest that money in the primary metal industry

of the province.... Because it takes $45,000 in capital investment in

the primary metal industry to create a single job in that industry in

British Columbia. So even if all that $25 million was spent in that

industry we would only have 555 jobs. As the former Minister of Finance

pointed out this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, there are 94,000 people

looking for work in this province — 94,000 people out of work. And if

all of the $25 million that we gave away to the millionaires in

succession duties were spent on job creation in the primary metal

industry, it would only produce 555 jobs. That's the total investment

programme of the present government. Manufacturing jobs? Well, it's a

little better here. It only takes $32,000 to create a job in the

manufacturing industry. By using all the gift tax that we have remitted

from the government to those rich people who exchange gifts of $10,000

or better between themselves: if they spend all that money in creating

new jobs in the manufacturing industry, they'll create 15 1/2 new jobs.

Now maybe one of our civil servants could work part-time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some of them do.

MR. SKELLY: Some of them do. Right. But 15 1/2 new jobs — the

total result of that giveaway of gift tax that the government could

have used in job creation programmes.

It's in the mining industry where money is more likely to be spent

in this province, Mr. Speaker, because basically, as a result of the

policies of the former Social Credit government and the present Social

Credit government, this province consists of industries that make us

basically hewers of wood and drawers of water. In the mining industry

it takes $208,000 in capital investment to create a single job. So the

gift tax will result in a reduction this year of $500,000 in the

provincial budget. That will create, if all those rich guys put that

gift tax into the mining industry in the form of capital investment to

create jobs, two whole jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: I could use them.

[ Page 594 ]

MR. SKELLY: Not bad. That's the economic development strategy

of the Social Credit government this year. Too bad about the other

93,998 people who are looking for jobs. Hopefully, they will rely on

those rich kids who got that gift tax back from the government to

invest that $500,000, that we lost as a government, into mining jobs,

and two of them will get those jobs. Maybe some of the rich kids who

are going to benefit from the succession duties — and a lot of them are

over there — invest all of that money into mining industry capital in

this province, they'll create 120 jobs. Now that's not too bad. There

are 94,000 people looking for work. That's $25 million that we gave

away out of provincial revenues to all those rich kids who least need

it, and if all of them spend that money creating jobs in the mining

industry by investing in the capital stock of that industry, they'll

create 120 new jobs. Won't those 94,000 unemployed people be happy with

the Social Credit government!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Just nod your head. But that appears to be the

total economic plan of the present government. They haven't announced

anything else. They say they are working on one. They've got all their

assembled talent in a closet somewhere, working on an economic plan for

the province of British Columbia. But so far, after two budgets

presented in this province, nothing has materialized in the way of an

economic plan except for the remission of gift taxes and succession

duties, that are basically a gift to the rich kids of this province,

the friends of that government over there. And there's no guarantee,

Mr. Speaker, that the tax remission from succession duties and gift tax

will ever be invested in jobs in this province.

Now the Premier mentioned the $100 million overrun. God, it's

getting trite. There was $384,000 spent in the Human Resources budget

in the year that we had the so-called $100 million overrun. They said

we were shovelling money out of the back of the truck. At least, that's

what the Premier said.

AN HON. MEMBER: $384,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three hundred eighty-four thousand?

MR. SKELLY: It's $384 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's not what you said.

MR. SKELLY: Thanks for correcting me — $384 million. I must have shovelled

out too much in the last reach there. This year they are spending $569 million

— an additional $185 million on top of the $384 million they said we wasted.

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): And you say we're not doing enough.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): You're not doing anything.

MR. SKELLY: You're not doing anything. It's waste when you

increase your budget for Human Resources by 48 per cent, and cut back

the benefits to the people in this province. Now I'm not saying that;

of course I wouldn't say that. Human Resources spent about $9 million

less than anticipated on funding adult-care programmes, John Noble

said. And the reason was that they didn't build intermediate-care

centres last year — the care centres they had anticipated. What does $9

million represent to the senior citizens of this province who require

intermediate and person care? What's that, Mr. Minister of Health,

through you, Mr. Speaker? Something like 2,000 people in care, who

aren't in care as a result of the fact that your Minister of Human

Resources underspent his budget, as a result of the fact that you

didn't bother taking time to draw up a policy to cover long-term care

in this province.

GAIN's budget was reduced by almost $20 million, reflecting the real

spending of the programme. Marolin Dahl, provincial co-ordinator for

day care, also said that her programme hasn't spent allotted funds —

current year's estimates are $15.9 million, next year's $11.1 million.

She is not aware of any cutbacks, but the established policy of not

developing new day-care centres will be continued. In spite of the fact

that the Human Resources budget has increased by 48 per cent in two

years, day-care centres haven't been increased; they have been cut

back. They said we wasted money when we spent $384 million in a single

year. This year they are spending $569 million with no expansion of

programmes.

They need two trucks to shovel the money out. Where is it going? We

haven't had any answers from the Minister of Human Resources or the

Premier, but it's getting a little trite to say that we overran the

budget by $100 million when they've increased the budget by another

$185 million over the $100 million that we supposedly overran, and they

are not doing anything with it. That's what I call profligate waste,

Mr. Speaker.

Where is the money going? No new day-care centres, no new adult-care

centres. What's happening with the money? They must be shovelling it

out the back of a truck. What a wasteful, profligate government! Never

caring, never sharing — that's what the Premier said, recycling his old

election speeches.

[ Page 595 ]

But what have they ever done? The Minister of Human Resources got up

— and, again, I guess the Premier just hoped that he would nod his head

— but he got up and made a speech about Frank Howard's pay cheques.

lnterjections.

MR. SKELLY: I wanted to ask the Minister of Human Resources about Tony Schmand.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Who was Tony Schmand? Tell us about Tony Schmand.

MR. SKELLY: Tony Schmand was a departmental investigator for the fraud squad.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he do for the department?

MR. SKELLY: Where is he now? He worked for them a short time.

I think he's an alderman in Delta. He was kind of moonlighting on the

side. You know, it's okay to do it if you're an alderman in Delta. But

if you're a cartoonist who attempts to take jabs at political parties —

on both sides.... Mr. Bierman was just as harsh on us as he was on the

Minister of Human Resources. Whatever happened to Tony Schmand? He got

sacked from the fraud squad, Mr. Speaker. The present Minister of Human

Resources didn't make this public. What did Tony Schmand do to get

sacked from the department? He was so young, so new in the department —

just got started. He just got started going through the office files in

Vancouver Island region, and he found the names of some single women

with children, on welfare. He decided he might pay social calls on

these women.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: They got a little frightened. They thought that

when a departmental investigator came around to pay a social call there

was the implied threat that they could be cut off welfare.

The Premier also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the deficit of $400

million. When he started off, it was $504 million earlier this year and

last year.

MR. LEA: No, $541 million.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, $541 million, and then it went down to $504

million, and then it went down to $400 million, and now it's down to be

mentioned something like $200-and-some-million.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: $260 million did he say? I guess he had to mention that because he had to disclose it in the United States honestly.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It was $261,447,790, and that includes the ICBC

cheque which they gave them with one hand and took back with the other

hand. It was a phony deficit. They created it for political reasons,

and he said that it's something he's going to keep. That interest — he

is going to keep it in front of the people until the next election.

You know, he accused us of using that $100 million overrun to buy

votes during the last election, but the Premier, in the next breath,

said that he was going to keep that $20 million in interest, deprive

the people of this province of government spending-power that could be

allocated to needed social services, to keep it in front of the people

so they would know what the NDP had done to them over the previous

years. The Premier had done it to them himself. He created the deficit.

He bloated the deficit out of all proportion. He paid ICBC the $181

million and took it back the next day, and he was forced to admit that

the deficit is half in the United States where you have to tell the

truth in disclosure.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Order! Withdraw!

MR. SKELLY: You don't have to tell the truth in disclosure in the United States?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, kindly address the chair.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you have to tell the truth when

you're placing a bond issue in the United States, and you have to

truthfully disclose the amount of deficit, and it was $261,447,790.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It was bought in Victoria, Mr. Member, not in the thrift shop at the Foothills Hospital in Calgary. (Laughter.)

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Your gut is hanging out.

MR. SKELLY: It's better than having no guts at all. I'm looking forward to you standing up in the debate, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down. I'll stand up right now!

[ Page 596 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: We were here before you.

MR. SKELLY: You can wait. I waited for you; you can wait for me.

The Premier mentioned that he was going to set up a fund in British

Columbia, as soon as the money was available, similar to the Alberta

heritage fund. The principle behind the Alberta heritage fund is that

you take money from non-renewable resources such as oil, you bring them

into the government treasury, into a special fund — take notes — and

you use that to diversify the economy of the province, because at some

time in the future the funds from those non-renewable resources are

going to disappear. But why didn't he start the fund last year, Mr.

Speaker? He could have raised coal royalties in the province by another

buck — just another buck — and he would have taken in $15 million that

would have been set aside in a special fund. Of course, he would have

lent it to B.C. Hydro, but he doesn't tell us that. That's $15 million

last year if he'd jacked up the coal royalties, and the coal companies

were expecting it. It could have been $20 million this year.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Go back to school.

MR. SKELLY: He would have had $35 million in his British

Columbia heritage fund this year, but he didn't bother raising the

royalties on coal this year because he had a campaign debt to pay to

the coal companies; a campaign debt that's cost us to date something

like $35 million on top of the $25 million that the people of this

province are losing that could be put into such a fund that could be

used to diversify the economy of this province, that could be used to

create jobs. The minister has given away, the Premier has given away to

the oil companies and the millionaires of this province $60 million in

two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remarkable!

MR. SKELLY: And the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) says we have no concern at all for the handicapped and for the

senior citizens of this province. We had enough concern to spend the

money when it was available on real assets for those people. It was our

government that developed Mincome. It was our government that

guaranteed those senior citizens $200 a month to begin with, and raised

it to $265 a month by January, 1975, These guys don't have any concept

of assets that are expressed in terms other than dollars, Mr. Speaker,

assets that create jobs, and jobs that can be passed on to future

generations.

Senior citizens' housing: that was one of the expenditures. That was

part of the so-called $100 million overrun. Senior citizens' housing;

that was part of it — programmes for adults in care — and that's an

asset that's going to be in place in this province, as a result of our

programmes, for years and years, and it's going to create jobs and it's

going to create healthful, happy home situations for senior citizens

and handicapped people. We did that when we were in government.

Recreation facilities. When we were in government we put $39

million, almost as much as the Premier let coal companies have in lost

royalties for the past year....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: More — $4 million more.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where did you get those foolish figures?

MR. SKELLY: That $39 million, coupled with money contributed

by individuals, and money from municipalities and recreation

organizations, built over $100 million in recreational assets in this

province. Ski hills, skating rinks...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ball parks!

MR. SKELLY: ...ball parks, horseshoe pitches, facilities that

can be used to develop the health and the happiness of people in this

province, are being used today and will be used for many years hence.

Those types of assets are in place as a result of a programme which we

started.

They attack us for spending that $39 million; they call it

profligate waste. That $39 million represents our share of $136 million

in recreational assets in place in this province that will be of value

to people of this province for years to come, and that's not counting

the human assets.

HON. MR. BAWLF: You had $25 million you promised when you were $3 million in the hole.

AN HON. MEMBER: Please don't quote figures.

MR. SKELLY: Listen to this guy quoting figures of the $25 million promises.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the guy who's giving away the royalties.

MR. SKELLY: First they started with a $540 million deficit;

then they went back to $504 million; then they went back to $400

million; now they're back to $261 million. When the truth is out there

probably will be no deficit at all.

Human assets, Mr. Speaker. They didn't want me to go on to this

part: day-care centres. I understand that one day-care centre was

created in this province every 16 hours in one year during our term of

office.

[ Page 597 ]

Children who can be cared for in day-care centres would have been

left at home with mothers who weren't working. Those mothers were then

allowed to go to work, allowed to develop the human dignity that some

of those members talk about over there, although they're not willing to

spend the needed bucks to assist in creating and fostering that

dignity. Those mothers could allow their children to be in good,

healthful, happy day-care centres while they went to work and developed

that human dignity.

Senior citizens from the age of 60 years were guaranteed a minimum income for the first time in this country.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The candidate who ran against me in Alberni said

the Socreds had invented the guaranteed minimum income. Twelve-hundred

and forty-nine people in the province qualified in 1972....

AN HON. MEMBER: But it was guaranteed.

MR. SKELLY: "But it was guaranteed!" (Laughter.)

If you could prove that you were absolutely destitute, if you would

go through a means test — and they talk about subjecting people to

indignities! — that that mean government put down, then you could get

that money, all 1,249 of them. And you could supplement it with cat

food.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: But I'm talking about the assets, Mr. Speaker,

that are at risk right now. I'm talking about the recreation lands of

this province; I'm talking about the wilderness lands of this province;

I'm talking about things that are irreplaceable now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. SKELLY: I've changed now. I'm talking about those things

that also contribute to the health and happiness of those people, those

things that our government recognized as permanent assets of this

province, assets that should be preserved for the people of British

Columbia and assets that should carry on forever as our heritage to

deliver to our descendants.

Look what's happening — the Stein River Valley. Where is the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)? He's out watering the plants

in his office, calculating the annual cut on those plants again. He has

ruled that the Stein River Valley, the only wilderness area within a

day's reach of Vancouver, is going to get logged. He told a public

meeting it would create 110 new jobs in British Columbia. There are

94,000 people out of work. Then he changed his mind at the end of the

public meeting. He said it was only 55 new jobs; like Social Credit

figuring, it will probably work down to nothing.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, and helicopters! I went up to Cranbrook a

couple of weeks ago. When cabinet was meeting in Cranbrook, Mr.

Speaker, two ministers went out to visit the Skookumchuck pulp mill.

They didn't take one helicopter out to the pulp mill — possibly one was

a Liberal and one was a Socred — they took two helicopters out to the

pulp mill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Waste!

MR. SKELLY: You talk about this former minister being

wasteful and using a helicopter to travel around the northeast sector,

but you guys take two helicopters to transport one minister per

helicopter from Cranbrook out to Skookumchuck.

lnterjections.

MR. SKELLY: A good chauffeur in the Premier's Cadillac can do that in 35 minutes.

The Valhalla Wilderness, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) met with some of the people from the

Valhalla Wilderness Society and they presented their proposal to him

today. That wilderness in the Slocan Lake area.... The member for

Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says that the Kootenays are choked

with wilderness right now and he doesn't want any new wilderness areas

set aside there. (Laughter.) It's okay if they put them under hydro

reservoirs.

lnterjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm just quoting from his last year's speeches.

He makes them up and I recycle them. (Laughter.) He says that the

Kootenays are choked with wilderness areas.

But the Minister of Recreation, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), none of

whom are with us tonight, met with the society advocating the Valhalla

Wilderness area, Mr. Speaker, and they got nowhere with this

government. They want to cut it all down — want to cut the north part

of it down. And it's a bit contradictory, Mr. Speaker, because at one

point the Minister of Forests says that he's going to take forest lands

away from the companies that aren't using their allowable annual cut.

They're going to take those timber rights away from those companies,

and on the other side he's saying: "Well,

[ Page 598 ]

we can't allocate forest lands to wilderness use because there's not

enough to go around, it's all over-committed." Of course he's not

taking back all the timber that was allocated to MacMillan Bloedel by

Mr. Williston, and which was allocated through the back door of his

office. He's not taking that back, that was allocated illegally. He's

not taking that back, but he's a bit contradictory. There is land in

this province for wilderness, Mr. Speaker. There is land in this

province for the wilderness experience, but that government is simply

unwilling to set it aside as heritage for our kids.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They talk about building up money, building up a heritage fund, but

they're not willing to set aside for our children that wilderness which

is irreplaceable.

But the major asset, Mr. Speaker, we have in this province, and the

most endangered asset, to pass on to our children is farmland. I'm very

proud to have been a member of the government party that first brought

in the agricultural land reserve and the Land Commission Act in this

province. Whether I'm re-elected next time or not, one thing I can be

proud of is that I sat in the House that passed that legislation and

created for our children, for my children....

MR. LEA: And voted for it, not against it.

MR. SKELLY: And my land, by the way, was frozen in that

agricultural land reserve. I was proud to have been a member of the

government that passed that legislation and created an agricultural

resource base for this province, and which had been endangered under

the previous government, and is endangered right now.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the present government has as its

policy, whether stated or unstated, the object of destroying that

agricultural land reserve. Today we say the perfect example when the

Land Commission voted to allow Mr. Terry, a friend of the former

Premier, represented by Leslie Peterson, a former Social Credit

Attorney-General, to change the use of that land and allow horse racing

and a parking lot for 600 cars, although they estimate that the traffic

out there will be in the neighbourhood of 4,000 people when the racing

season is actually on.

When he was trying to raise money for the racetrack, Mr. Terry circulated a

paper saying that that would bring into him an estimated $23.8 million in betting

receipts, of which he and his group, Meadow Creek Farms Limited, would take

10 to 12 per cent. This in in 1980, and he'd be making something like $2.5

million, thanks to a decision made by the Land Commission after it was muscled

into making that decision by the present Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

, who has no concern whatsoever for farmland.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I draw your attention to the fact that you have less than three minutes left?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I thought you were going to tell him that he was stating an untruth.

MR. SKELLY: That would be unparliamentary, Mr. Premier, and besides it isn't true that it isn't true.

What do you have to do, Mr. Speaker, to get farmland out of the

reserve in this province now? I was talking to some people on the Land

Commission, and they said most of the applications coming in today are

recycled applications. There is no change in the material facts,

they're just presenting new applications because government MLAs have

been telling people: "Don't worry, you don't have to change your

appeal. You only have to wait till we change the Land Commission." But

it appears, and to the credit of the present Land Commission, that

they've rejected 90 per cent of those appeals that have had no material

change in the facts in the appeal.

But two have been accepted. One was represented to the Land

Commission by Leslie Peterson, a former Attorney-General of this

province, and one was represented to the Land Commission concerning 320

acres at the south end of the Knight Street bridge which was removed

over the objections of the Land Commission because Robert Bonner

represented the interests of that group to the Land Commission and to

cabinet. It was removed in cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the amendment, and I think the

facts that I have laid on the table more than amply justify the support

of all members for that amendment. I recommend support of the amendment

to the Premier as well.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

I'll just say a few words in view of the lateness of the hour. I just

want to make one brief comment vis-a-vis the former speaker's claim

that if we had increased the royalty on coal by $1, it would generate

approximately $39 million.

MR. SKELLY: Fifteen million.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now we exported approximately 8.5 million

tons of coal last year, and at $1 a ton it certainly doesn't equal $39

million. So all his facts were made up! All his facts were erroneous!

[ Page 599 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How can you put any credibility in what that member has just had to say? No credibility at all!

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly about statements made by

the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) regarding the closure of

Texada Mines.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's about time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He talks about the closure of Texada Mines,

and he had to repeat the speech delivered by his leader because he

thought his constituents would want to hear a repeat from him. He

talked about the economic impact, and everybody recognizes that a mine

closure has an economic impact on a community. But I'll tell you that

never in the history of this province has a government been more

concerned and taken greater action on behalf of workers than they have

at Texada Mines. The Department of Labour, the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources, Manpower, and the various mines throughout this

province, endeavoured very thoroughly over the last several weeks to

ensure that each and every worker who was to be laid off at Texada Mine

would have a chance to be gainfully employed.

That member talks about the lack of morality of that company that

delivered jobs to people in British Columbia — 180 jobs for 25 years —

and he suggests they lack in morality. I'll tell you that the people

who were gainfully employed there for 25 years were happy to be

gainfully employed at high mining wages in this province.

What's the matter with that party over there, Mr. Speaker? What's

the matter with that member for Mackenzie? What does he suggest that

mine should do? Mine waste rock? That reminds me of that party's

philosophy with their mining legislation — Bill 31. What they did

rather than mine waste rock was turn ore into waste rock. Your punitive

tax measures denied the right of people to be gainfully employed in the

mining industry; forced professional people to go to other regions of

Canada, and to other countries as well, because they couldn't find

employment in exploration in British Columbia. They have the gall to

suggest that we didn't take an interest in the workers at Texada Mine

when these people showed a callous disregard for the miners, and the

ability of people to work in mines in British Columbia, with their

punitive tax measures.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): They'll never forget the NDP.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I'll make sure they'll never forget the NDP, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to speak very briefly about that little member for

Vancouver Centre. I don't know if he's the first member or the second

member or the last member, Mr. Speaker. He talked about big headlines

in the newspapers: destroying little investors' chance to make a dollar

in gambling their dollars on the stockmarket. He talked about the

Grizzly Valley pipeline. He claimed it was a hoax. Oh, that's a great

way to help the little investors in British Columbia, and I want to

assure you that the bulk of the investors in that corporation are

little investors in British Columbia. He said it was a white elephant,

Mr. Speaker. He said the pipeline would never be built.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's irresponsible!

HON. MR. CHABOT: What kind of nonsense is that, Mr. Speaker?

When he was the Minister of Economic Development he issued a

summary

report on development possibilities in the northeastern part of British

Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CHABOT: In June, 1975, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What did he say then?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Time won't permit me to tell you everything

he said. (Laughter.) Time is running out, Mr. Speaker. But that member

had this to say in his report: "Quasar Petroleum...." Oh, I thought the

announcement was first made on December 10. This is June, 1975:

"Quasar Petroleum plans to build a 18- to 24-in. diameter pipeline from

the Grizzly fields to Chetwynd."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, that was the Minister of Economic

Development in June, 1975, that last member for Vancouver Centre. Yes,

the man who now calls the proposed pipeline a hoax and a white elephant

had that to say when he was Minister of Economic Development.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Tell them why it wasn't built!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, he had the gall to suggest that

the reserves in the Grizzly Valley were established by Quasar

Petroleum, when I'm sure that he knows full well, when I know full

well, that the reserves were established by the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation. The reserves of natural gas are ample to justify a

pipeline to deliver 100 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. The

experts — and that member for Vancouver Centre is not an expert —

suggest that

[ Page 600 ]

there is in the vicinity of two trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Grizzly Valley.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's an attack against the

integrity of the professional people in the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

I don't take very kindly to those kinds of attacks. Mr. Speaker, that's

a shallow and callous statement he had to make. It's an attack against

the little investors of this province. No wonder the people are

wondering what those people are saying over there, Mr. Speaker.

They love documents being tabled, but they won't table the statement

or the letter written to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) by

one little investor in British Columbia vis-a-vis investments in

Cheyenne and Quasar, I'll read it; I'll table it too. A letter recently

written to the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:

"Your massive ignorance of how the price of trading

stocks can be affected by statements made by the people in the public

eye is for a change working for the benefit of the long-suffering

faithful shareholders of Cheyenne Petroleum. The publicity you have

generated regarding the naive Arthur Weeks' ownership of 300,000 shares

has considerably increased the trading price of Cheyenne stock.

"We shareholders have a long way to go before the

market price of our shares reaches the level it was prior to the

difficulties the NDP government caused the company. I am referring not

only to the general instability of B.C.'s economy created by the NDP's

activities, but to 1973, when Cheyenne's predecessor company, August

Petroleum, was negotiating a pipeline agreement with Westcoast

Transmission.

"Mr. Hart Horn, Leo Nimsick's executive assistant" —

and everybody remembers that jackboot guy — "asked the directors of

that company to not" — I repeat, "not" — "make a deal with Westcoast

Transmission. This action caused the companies involved — August, now

Cheyenne, and Quasar Petroleum — to cease negotiations with Westcoast

Transmission, and to sign an agreement with Alberta and Southern

Petroleum Corporation for a pipeline."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON.MR.CHABOT:

"Well, Dave, you had the deck stacked. After over $50

million of the shareholders' money being spent on exploration and

development, your government changed the rules. Alberta and Southern

were refused permission to build the pipeline, and you and your experts

insisted there were insufficient reserves of gas to warrant Westcoast

Transmission building a line.

"After your NDP government bought shares in Westcoast

transmission, and then appointed it the sole carrier of gas in the

province" — talk about insider trading! — "the equivalent trading price

of Cheyenne at that time was well over $5. The rather shady

manipulations of you and your cohorts drove the price down below 60

cents.

"I and many other shareholders suspect that your

actions in driving down the price of our stock could have resulted in

the NDP government or some other party being allowed to acquire

Cheyenne's asset at a very cheap price, and to hell with more than

5,000 shareholders after all. They're only gamblers and don't deserve a

tear.

"I am very sure you won't find your or any NDP

member's name on the shareholder list. You and your kind would find it

inconceivable to gamble hard cash on the quest and development of our

hard-to-find natural resources — much better to let others do that.

Then drive the price down and buy it up in the name of the NDP

government, as you did with the shares of Westcoast and B.C. Tel. Then

boast to the public about what a great coup you pulled off in their

name.

"It may not be ethical, moral or even legal, but if

you scream long and loud enough about the opposition, your own little

game will be overlooked.

"Too bad, Dave! If you hadn't called the election when

you did, you would have pulled it off. We welcome your call for a

complete enquiry into the trading of Cheyenne Petroleum, but let's go

all the way back to the beginning.

( Signed )

John N. Denton."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must draw to the hon. minister's attention that it is 10:30 and our rules of the House....

MR. LEA: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll listen to your point of order as soon as I

have made my comment. I'm not standing at the moment, so I'll recognize

the hon. member, if he wishes to sit down, as soon as I've finished.

The rules of the House, page 16, indicate that at 30 minutes prior to the ordinary time of adjournment

[ Page 601 ]

1 must call on the question on the amendment, and that, hon. members, is the precise time we are at now.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the debate,

both on the throne speech and the budget speech, you have cautioned

members of both sides of the House not to talk about the share

transactions that have taken place between Cheyenne and Quasar, and

we've tried to do that. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Allow the hon. member to make his point.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll agree that we have complied with that rule.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Allow the hon. member to make his point.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you feel that we've complied

with that rule, and after the Attorney-General took his place in this

House and cautioned members that if we were to speak about the subject

just mentioned by the Minister of Mines (Hon, Mr. Chabot), there would

be a danger, as in the Commonwealth case years ago, that this

commission could be called off. I would like you to caution that

minister...

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, hon. member?

MR. LEA: ...to use the same amount of caution we use on this side of the House. We've talked not once...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: ...about the shares trading. Not once.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What was your long-haired friend talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would be improper to take a

point of order when I'm putting a question in the House, but I

appreciate your comments and I'll certainly caution any members who get

on their feet and raise a point of order in the remaining debate that

takes place within the budget. The question is that the motion that Mr.

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

Supply be amended by adding the following:

"but this House regrets that in the opinion of this

House the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make provision for the

fiscal and human betterment of the majority of the people of the

province, particularly in respect to taxation, investor confidence and

employment opportunities, and does not protect senior citizens and the

handicapped from the effects of inflation."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Wallace, G.S.

Lauk

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

King

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Barnes

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Davis

Hewitt

McClelland

Williams

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Kahl

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Bennett

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Shelford

Schroeder

Bawtree

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

Strongman

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are now back to the main question.

AN HON. MEMBER: British Columbia grinds to a halt!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, we are probably

discussing the most serious motion that we will discuss all session. We

are discussing whether the government is putting forward a budget that

is going to meet the needs and the desires of the people of this

province. One only has to look at my riding and the way this government

has treated my riding over the past short while, and you will find

that.... I would hesitate to call it political revenge, Mr. Speaker,

because I don't think it was. I would call it bad judgment and bad

faith.

[ Page 602 ]

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), when

he took his place in the amendment debate, I think made a great deal of

sense because he talked about the kind of productivity that we have in

our society, and I think, yes, we have to talk about the productivity

in our society in British Columbia, but I think there's one difference

between that member's speech and the speeches I've heard about

productivity from other members of the government caucus. At least the

member for Fort George tried to put a little perspective into his

remarks and not only talk about the productivity of people who could be

considered labourers or tradesmen — those who are commonly referred to

by both sides of the House as working people. He took it a little

further, and he talked about the productivity of the professionals in

this country. He talked about the productivity of the business people

in this society. He talked about the productivity in the corporate

boardroom, and I think he put his finger on it. There is a lack of

productivity from the boardroom to the plant floor in our society. It's

true, but no one segment of the society is any more guilty than any

other segment. We're all guilty.

For the last 25 or 30 years we've been living in a fool's paradise...

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

MR. LEA: ...thinking that every year we could get more than

the last year; every year we could have higher wages, we could have

higher profits, we could have higher fees from the professional people.

It's been going on for 25 or 30 years — since the end of the Second

World War — with a few years of exception. But for the most

part it's

been a greedy, demanding, subjective society that only wants one thing,

and that is more, and we've wanted, as a society, to do less for what

we get. There's no doubt about it.

What we need in this province — and in every other province, and in

this country — is a government that does not pick out one segment of

society and say: "Smarten up. You show restraint. You start to

produce." We need a government that will not only say that about the

labouring people, the trades people; we need a government that says

that about every segment of our society, That's what we need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: We had a Minister of Labour (Mr. King) when we were

in government who came straight down the middle and told both sides

that he was there to arbitrate the disputes, showing favour to neither,

through himself and through his department. We now have a government,

Mr. Speaker, who stand up speaker after speaker — and I'm not including

the back bench; I'm talking about the government — and criticizes the

productivity at the plant level, at the working level, but it's time

that every segment of our society took stock of where we're at in 1977,

because if we don't we're going to end up in utter chaos — economic and

social.

We're going to have to start looking at the kind of rates that lawyers charge.

MR. LAUK: Withdraw!

MR. LEA: That's right. We're going to have to look at the

kind of rates that doctor charge. We're going to have to take a look at

the kind of demands that working people are putting on our society, but

we can't pick out one segment and say, "you're guilty," and let the

rest go. That's what we have over there, Mr. Speaker — a government

that says: "What's wrong with profit?" We say back to them: "Nothing is

wrong with profit." There is nothing wrong with being a professional

and charging a reasonable price for the services you render to your

fellow citizens in this society, but why is it always the working

people of this province, and in this country, that are singled out by

the old, hard-line parties as the only people who slacked off a bit in

the last few years? We all have. Every single one of us has been on a

fool's ride, on a roller coaster, not knowing where it's going to end.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Speak for yourself.

MR. LEA: I speak for myself.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We've got Solomon over here.

MR. LEA: You come over here if you're going to start going

after every segment of society and telling them to smarten up, but it's

your choice only to go after the working people. That is why you joined

the AIB programmes. That's why you support it, because you say it's

impossible to control prices. Maybe so. I know it's a difficult job to

go into the marketplace and control prices, but when you make no

attempt whatsoever, then it's definitely impossible.

MR. WALLACE: Just listen to Digger.

MR. LEA: You know, how many people in our society have more

than they need? Not just the super-rich, or the rich, but most of us.

Most of us in this society have more than we need — probably not as

much as we desire, but more than we need — and what are we going to do

about it? What are we going to do about this dilemma that faces us down

the road? We all know it's there — right, left, middle. Anybody who's

been involved in the public life of

[ Page 603 ]

this province knows that it's a short trip down the road to destroying ourselves, because we cannot live with any restraint.

But for the government to stand up day after day, not only in this

House but every time they address the public of this province, and

criticize working people for not pulling their share when they will sit

across there and agree with me that it isn't only working people, it's

people in the corporate boardrooms — and we all know that there are a

great many people in the corporate boardrooms of this province who

wouldn't last three hours in the corporate boardrooms of the United

States. We know that the corporate people's production down in the

United States is up from ours. We know that. We also know that in all

probability every segment of society in the United States, at this very

moment, is being more productive than we are. Statistics will bear that

out. But for that government to single out....

MR. WALLACE: What do we do about it?

MR. LEA: What do we do about it?

MR. WALLACE: Answer the question: what do we do about it?

MR. LEA: In this case, Mr. Speaker, he's wondering whether

the question is more important than the answer. There's only one thing

that we can do: we have to start using that which nature gave us, but

which we use very seldom. It's called common sense. It's not anything

to do with political ideology.

MR. WALLACE: Walter Hugo said: "The trouble is, common sense isn't so common."

MR. LEA: Well, it is since you moved to this country, Mr. Member. You brought a lot with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Productivity in boardrooms!

MR. LEA: Productivity in boardrooms, that's right. What about

the small businessman who over the last few years spent a great deal of

time on the golf course because everything was going along nicely —

profits are coming up, sales are picking up, just beautiful. Except

now, in these hard times, I know a great many small businessmen and

women who are saying to themselves: "We've got to get off the golf

course, back to our business and start working again" — for those 10

and 12 hours a day that small business people in our country have

traditionally worked, and for little pay, in hopes that someday they

can have a decent return on their investment of both money and hard

work.

MR. WALLACE: I wish I could get on the golf course, let alone get off it!

MR. LEA: The people on this side of the House, Mr. Minister,

know what I'm saying. They believe in profit on this side of the House;

they believe in free enterprise on this side of the House. The one

thing we don't believe on this side of the House is that there should

be breaks for those who are influential in our society, and no breaks

whatsoever for those who are not. That is what we believe. We don't

oppose you so much in a political ideological way. We oppose you

philosophically because you are what I refer to as "now" people.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this society, like those

of us on this side, who have a great deal of concern as to whether

we're going to survive as a species in this world — never mind survive

with any degree of wealth. But whether we're going to survive in this

world as a species is a question we are facing. We are facing that from

environmental risks, we are facing it from the insanity of nations that

are building armaments to the point where if one side pulls the

trigger, we all go. But there's a different approach on that side of

the House from this. On that side of the House they honestly believe

that when you see a bleak future you grab everything for you and your

friends now, and be damned with tomorrow because there's no faith in

that future. So what does it matter if you get a little greedy and you

take a little more than your share...

MR. LAUK: No vision, no imagination, no courage.

MR. LEA: ...and your friends take a little more than their

share? What does it matter? Because probably in the gut of every one of

us we have some doubt as to whether we are going to survive. Under that

kind of stress some people act responsibly and try to build for a

future where we can fend off what will possibly be our extinction, and

others just grab onto the gravy train, hold on and kick people off the

lifeboat if it means they can survive.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Graham, wait until you read this back tomorrow.

MR. LEA: Never mind me reading it back tomorrow. You know,

Mr. Speaker, when I read my speeches back they flow like music.

(Laughter.) When I read the speeches of the member for Esquimalt it's

like a man who went crazy with a juke box, pushed every key at once and

got nothing out but a bunch of garbled tunes and music. That's all you

get out of there.

But I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, that those people over there on

the other side, in those government benches, in their hearts of hearts

know that I'm

[ Page 604 ]

telling the truth — that unless we smarten up, not only will we

destroy the society in which we have become accustomed to living, the

society we live in in British Columbia, but we'll do it for the whole

world.

And what's their answer, Mr. Speaker? Take off succession duties and

let the rich get richer. They turned down a decent budget for the homes

for senior citizens. And they let the rich get richer and they grab on

with their greed and their short-sightedness. Mr. Speaker, it isn't

that they care or don't care. It's that they've lost hope. And when

people lose hope they can oftentimes act irrationally.

It's hard for political parties in debate not to call each other

names. It's hard not to act in a vicious and mean way sometimes. It's

hard. But it's a lot harder for people who have lost hope to control

that kind of emotional energy and intellectual energy.

I look across the floor, Mr. Speaker, at some of those members and I know down deep they are good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. LEA: Most of them, all of them. I know nothing very bad about any of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Down deep they're shallow.

MR. LEA: But what they have is a bad case of losing hope for

the future and trying to grab more than their fair share for themselves

and their friends as we go down the tube economically and socially.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn this debate until the next session of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1977, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada