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, JANUARY 26, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

333 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Floating Homes Regulation Act (Bill M-201). Mr. Rogers.

Introduction and first reading — 333

Oral questions

WCB chairmanship vacancy. Ms. Sanford — 333

Confederation discussion with Premiers. Mr. Wallace — 334

Share purchases in Quasar and Cheyenne. Mr. Lauk — 336

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 337

Mr. King — 343

Mr. Calder — 348

Mr. D'Arcy — 353

Mr. Kempf — 355

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would

ask the House to join me in greeting in the galleries Mrs. Mae Ross,

who is a very valued constituency worker of mine.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Mary

Robinson, who is the president of the College Faculties Federation of

British Columbia, and Mr. Ferris Adams, who is from my constituency and

is a well-known breeder and trainer of race horses.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

gallery today are two friends from the Coquitlam constituency, Wayne

and Bonnie Hall, and I would ask the House to join me in making them

welcome.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to advise the House today that a member who

represented that great north country, partly which I represent, in the

House of Commons for a number of years under the Social Credit banner

is in the gallery, and I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Bert LeBoe.

Introduction of bills.

FLOATING HOMES REGULATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Rogers, Bill M-201, Floating Homes Regulation

Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Oral questions.

WCB CHAIRMANSHIP VACANCY

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): My question is to the Minister of

Labour. It's now a year since the Workers' Compensation Board has been

without a permanent chairman and I'm wondering if the minister would

inform the House how many people interviewed for the position of

chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board have refused the job

because under your administration the position has become too political.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is none.

MS. SANFORD: How many people have been interviewed for the position?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take that

question as notice. The figure at this moment I don't know. I did know

as of a month or so ago, and I'd be pleased to make that information

available to the member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, a further supplemental: how many people now on the minister's list are yet to be interviewed for that position?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Two, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Supplemental. With the Workers' Compensation

Board some time ago it was recorded that there were 1,000 board of review hearings

that had been heard but were awaiting decision. To the nearest hundred, how

many are now awaiting decision?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, could the minister, at the same

time as he is taking that as notice, find out the month for which the

boards of review are currently processing those hearings — that is to

say, hearings that were held back? In what month are they now finally

reaching decisions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious length

of the question posed by the member for Nelson-Creston, I would suggest

that in accordance with the rules he place that question on the order

paper.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, come! You don't know to the nearest month.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): A further

supplementary question: I would ask the hon. minister if he could tell

us how many people whose appeals are awaiting the compensation board

have applied for social welfare while their appeals are pending. How

many have applied?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to find the answer for the member.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: could he also find out how many have applied, how

[ Page 334 ]

many have been accepted, and how many have been turned down as well?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. minister heard the further supplemental question.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to ask the minister, in view of his firing of Mr. Ison without

consulting with that chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, and

without reasonable severance pay, if it is not true that the problem we

have today is a result of the shabby treatment by that minister, and if

that is not part of the problem of finding a new chairman for a board

that has been without a chairman for one year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's a question that demands an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are aware of the rules of the House as well as anyone in this House is aware of them.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I want to know if the minister is going to answer. Is the minister going to answer or not?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): What about the people who are suffering? Don't you care about them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Shabby!

CONFEDERATION DISCUSSION WITH PREMIERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Premier, if he could just restrain

his interjections for a moment: in view of Premier Levesque's statement last

night in New York that the important question is not whether or when Quebec

will separate but how, and in view of the Premier of this province's recent

reaffirmation in this House of his government's commitment to Confederation,

and in view of the obvious speed with which events are moving in this national

crisis, can the Premier tell this House if he is taking any steps to initiate

discussions among the other nine provinces so the nation as a whole can become

better informed of the consensus of opinion of the nine provincial Premiers

as to how, perhaps, they should go about preserving Confederation?.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response to the

member for Oak Bay, I don't think every speech by the Premier of Quebec

means that events are fast-moving; it means that he is sharing his

opinions outside the country, along with the opinions he has already

expressed inside the country. But if we measure events as to the

desires of the people of Quebec, then recent public opinion surveys

show that they are moving the other way since the election, and fewer

of them today agree with separation than when the election was held.

But I do want to assure the member that the Premiers haven't waited

till after the fact in getting together and dealing with the

constitution or considering how to deal with Canada. We've been

meeting, as you know, since I have been Premier, all of this last year

on constitutional problems and on ways in which the constitution,

should the Prime Minister's wish be met, could be repatriated to

Canada, and how we could improve the constitution.

Along with these discussions, we've also had ways in which we could

strengthen the country. This has been ongoing; these discussions will

continue to be held. So I would like the member to know specifically

that we haven't waited until after the fact. These discussions have

been going on since I was Premier.

I do not feel events are running away with Mr. Levesque. The only thing that's running away, perhaps, is his oratory.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the Premier

is correct in his quoting of public opinion polls, these in themselves

are not as reliable as the power that resides in the hands of a

Premier. In light of the Premier's answer today — and I acknowledge

much of the validity of his answer — is the Premier of British Columbia

making any arrangement to meet privately with Premier Levesque so that

at least the public in British Columbia can be kept informed on what I

believe to be events that are moving more rapidly than perhaps was

formerly the case, so that at least our Premier can keep the people of

this province up to date and well informed as to the ongoing plans and

policies of Premier Levesque in relation to the various steps, upon

which he appears to be embarking unilaterally, as if separation was

already an established fact?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't plan on holding any secret meetings with the Premier of Quebec.

MR. WALLACE: I said "private"; I didn't say "secret." I'm very sensitive about secret hearings.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The business of our country is too important to hold these meetings in

[ Page 335 ]

isolation. They might be misconstrued. I'm prepared

to meet with the other Premiers with Mr. Levesque. I'm certainly not

out to arrange any unusual alliances or hold any unusual discussions,

if that's what you're suggesting. I know other Premiers have suggested

alliances with the Premier of Quebec and with a party. (Laughter.)

That's not what we consider in the best interests of the country.

I put this for the information of all of the House: our cabinet

ministers are continuing to meet with other ministers in their various

capacities under the auspices of meetings arranged by the government of

Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On the contrary.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): That minister there made a separatist statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You might find it unusual, with your

position and your history in Ottawa, to realize that being a positive

British Columbian doesn't necessarily make you less a Canadian. It's

provinces that has brought us to this situation, and that is why our

ministers speak out for a more positive way in which we can build a

stronger Canada.

I take exception to your remarks that any minister who is innovative

enough to speak positively on ways we can improve this country will

hurt it, when so many people are caught up in the negativism of

separatism.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier not

consider that the remarks of a minister who suggests that any powers in

Canada which adhere to the federal government are only those on which

unanimous consensus can be reached by the provinces, means, in effect,

acceptance of the programme of the Parti Quebecois and are, in effect,

a separatist statement by a minister of his government? They were made

in this House the other day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano

is being argumentative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, like one of your ministers!

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I suggest is this: If you look in

history, this country wasn't built by a federal government that was

suddenly there; it was built by the provinces getting together.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: In fact, that's how this country was built.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, a supplemental

to the Premier following his last comment and the one prior to it. Do

you therefore endorse the statements made by the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his speech to the House during the debate? Do you

endorse his statements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes or no.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes or no. If I may continue my supplemental:

The hon. Premier just stated that he thought it was a very fine thing

to have remarks made, such as were made by the hon. Minister of

Education, so obviously he knew what the remarks were which were made.

Do you endorse them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has

made many fine speeches in this House with which, I believe, we all

concur. But I want to refer back to the speech he made the other day.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want to listen?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You just heard it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

MR. LAUK: You just heard it yesterday. Do you endorse him or not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, the hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say exactly what I

believe, and I'm not going to hand out speech notes outside the House

that I'm afraid to say once I get inside, as did the member from

Vancouver Centre.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I noticed one of the newspapers quoted the

speech notes and reported them in the paper, a speech of that member

yesterday, but...

[ Page 336 ]

MR. LAUK: Do you endorse it or not?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes or no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...they never quoted your speech notes.

Anyhow, I'd like to respond to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly). The Minister of Education's statement, as I understand it,

called for more opportunity for the provinces to have more flexibility

in powers and taxation and in developing programmes. That's been a

position I've advocated all along, and one with which I agree

wholeheartedly.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the question of the

member for Burnaby and to enlighten the Premier. The specific comments

of the Minister of Education to which he referred were that the powers

of the federal government in this country should be only those that are

unanimously agreed to by all of the provinces — meaning, in particular,

those agreed to by the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec. Does

the Premier endorse that statement by his minister or not?

MR. LAUK: Yes or no.

MR. GIBSON: Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. GIBSON: That minister should be fired from the cabinet!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Talk about a lack of intestinal fortitude on the

part of the First Minister of this province who will not even support

his minister's statements...

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question?

MR. LAUK: ...or make a clear statement as to this province's role in Confederation.

[Mr. Speaker rises]

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member has a question, please ask it.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

SHARE PURCHASES IN QUASAR AND CHEYENNE

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Economic Development: did the

minister discuss with anyone the advisability of purchasing shares in

Quasar or Cheyenne Pete prior to December 2, 1976?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think that question will be handled...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...by the judicial inquiry.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary. There's no rule of sub judice

affecting the parliaments of this country. In any event, the ordinary

rules of sub judice, if applied, would not apply to that question.

Could the minister please answer yes or no?'

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Is the minister going to hide behind a judicial inquiry that does not bar him from answering this question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he afraid to answer?

MR. LAUK: Will the minister consult with Mr. Justice Kirke

Smith and find out that he is indeed entitled to answer this question

in this House? The inquiry is going on and that minister can answer

this question without affecting that inquiry. I know that, and you can

consult with the judge and find out for yourself. Now will you answer

the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member please take his seat for a moment?

I would like to bring to the hon. member's attention, and to the

attention of all of the members of this House, that Campion on page 129

states that: "A matter referred to a royal commission is not subject to

a question on the floor of the House."

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is not a royal commission.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It is not a royal commission.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a commission of inquiry, which has the same status.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. First of

all, Mr. Speaker, the rule you've quoted does not apply to a judicial

inquiry; secondly, will we have the time taken by your unasked-for

order back in question period?

[ Page 337 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a public inquiry.

MR. BARRETT: It's a public inquiry.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, just for a point of

clarification, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) intimated

he'd been talking to the judge or he knew something about the way the

inquiry was being held.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to ask him if he's been talking to the judge.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Are we to have the time, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The question period has been terminated for a few minutes now, hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...in a disgraceful effort to deliberately deceive....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Take your seat, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. [Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the budget.

First, however, I would like to bid a warm welcome to hon. members

returning to Victoria for this session on behalf of all the citizens of

this fair city. My regards also to the various members of the

opposition who have moved to Victoria permanently. Your constituents

send their regards — to us. (Laughter.)

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank members on both sides

of the House for their kind remarks on my appointment as Minister of

Recreation and Conservation. I feel very privileged to be chosen for

this task from among so many capable people, and I want to assure all

hon. members that I shall do my utmost to fulfil this responsibility.

Later in my remarks I want to tell you something about the

reorganization of programmes and services which is underway in my

ministry, but first, to the budget.

This is a budget which signals that government spending is under

control, Mr. Speaker. It is a budget without increases in taxes and

free of deficit financing. It is a budget set within the means of the

taxpayers. Indeed, it is a budget which lowers taxes. This is a budget

which lives within the same standards and limits that government asks

its citizens to observe in these difficult times. It is a budget for

fiscal restraint, yet within these means, it is a budget which provides

for new and improved programmes and services which will mark this year

as a year of significant' advance for British Columbians. It is a

budget for increased confidence, investment and employment in our

economy, and it is a budget which leads the way for all British

Columbians to join in a unified effort, an effort to restore our

productivity to a level which will enable us once again to compete in

the world marketplace.

How important are these principles and objectives embodied in the

budget, Mr. Speaker? This debate concerns the relevance of the budget

to the realities which this government must confront. Many authorities

will be cited in this debate, but too often they will prove to be

biased by political partisanship, or will be theoretical and lacking in

factual support. Perhaps one of the best assessments we can get is that

of the detached viewer. Such a view of our economic reality was

provided some months ago in the Wall Street Journal , in an

article dealing with the value of the Canadian dollar. The writer, an

American, had consulted some of the leading U.S. analysts of our

economy for a dispassionate view of this country. This

article says it

all, Mr. Speaker: "Our analysis shows that Canada faces some pressing

problems that are not generally appreciated in the United States —

rapidly rising government spending, higher relative inflation, low

profit margins and insufficient manufacturing investment."

The gentleman quoted here believes that wage-and-price controls in

Canada, and heavy borrowings in the U.S. by Canadians, encouraged by

Canada's high interest rate policies have masked

[ Page 338 ]

major deterioration in Canada's productivity and competitiveness relative to the U.S.

The estimate of the Canadian dollar's value takes into account,

among other things, comparisons of U.S. and Canadian inflation index

rates since 1967, Canadian unit labour costs, monetary policies and

manufacturing productivity. Canada's absolute labour costs are some 37

per cent above U.S. levels; thus Canadian manufacturing is very much

uncompetitive.

The analyst believes Canadians will continue to be heavy borrowers

in the U.S. and that the large difference in interest rates between the

two countries may not narrow significantly. This spread of interest

rates has been the result of a conscious Bank of Canada policy to help

restrain inflation and, in part, to force borrowing into the U.S. to

help the Canadian dollar. "Canada has been experiencing worse inflation

than the U.S.," he says, "but price restraints have helped that

situation."

Mr. Speaker, as I say, that

article tells it all. Let's just review the points that were raised there.

Rapidly rising government spending: the Minister of Finance has

correctly stated that we cannot afford excesses such as the 112 per

cent increase in government spending by the NDP in just three short

years. We must temper our expectations. Government must live up to the

standards it expects of its citizens. The 5.9 per cent is all the

increase we can afford in the spending of this province this year.

Higher relative inflation: the budget address repeatedly and

consistently places the highest of priority on this grave threat to our

very way of life.

Low profit margins and inefficient manufacturing investment: Which,

I might say, curtailed employment opportunities where the majority of

our citizens are employed in the private sector.

The budget removes disincentives for investment, and what better

example than the measures taken in the field of mining. Coal, oil, gas,

copper — these are the raw materials, Mr. Speaker, which hold the

future of this province, and we are on the threshold of the greatest

era that this province has seen in those resources.

High-interest-rate policies forcing borrowing into the U.S. market:

this is wrong in my view, and I'm glad the Minister of Finance

addresses this problem as a high priority. Lower interest rates are a

critical requisite not only to enable business to renew and expand and

to provide employment for our people, but also to allow governments to

meet capital requirements through the Canadian marketplace. It is a

healthier economy and a healthier government which are integrated when

they compete in the same marketplace for funds.

To be sure we will continue to need foreign capital, but I believe

it would be healthier for Canadians and for Canadian government if the

requirements for capital for those governments were assessed in the

Canadian marketplace, and if the investment of foreign nations, in

assisting the development of our economy and the development of

employment in this country, were directed more, proportionately

speaking, towards the private sector.

Major deterioration in productivity and competitiveness in relation

to our vital markets: this budget repeatedly calls for restraint to

enable our markets to catch up with our inflated production costs. The

Minister of Finance has outlined the alarming deterioration of Canada's

balance of payments. The member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) spoke in

eloquently simple terms last evening about the economic suicide this

nation is committing by increasing this imbalance. I believe, with a

profound sense of urgency, that we must restore the ethics of

individual saving and investment in this country. We must build on this

base if we are to return to a sound, stable economy.

Yesterday the NDP financial critic (Mr. Stupich) was highly critical

of this budget, but the NDP has still not grasped that it was precisely

because they could not give this province's economy the kind of

discipline and leadership that was needed — the kind that this budget

stands for — that they were thrown out of office by the people of the

province.

That member's speech was pathetically lacking in any real substance,

Mr. Speaker. In any meaningful discussion of the course which this

government and province must chart, personal invective and tunnel

vision continue to be the order for the NDP. For them, figures are

obviously just throw-away lines — sensation before the facts.

I'm particularly sorry that the falsetto logic, for which the leader

of that party (Mr. Barrett) has become infamous, has rubbed off onto a

newcomer to that party, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

That member delivered a staggering amount of misinformation to this

House on the subject of tourism a few days ago, Mr. Speaker.

For the sake of a rational and informed debate on this vital

industry, I want to set the record straight at this time. Compare the

statements of that member with the facts provided by the very capable

research staff of the Ministry of Travel. That member said that the

government lost $70,000 a day on room taxes as a result of increased

ferry rates, presumably alluding to the hotel-motel business of

Vancouver Island.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I suspected you were all mouth, Mr. Member, but I didn't realize you would admit it.

Revenue from hotel and motel tax is up, not down — up 15 per cent. So $70,000 a day, Mr. Member, times 100........

[ Page 339 ]

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): On the Island?

HON. MR. BAWLF: That is for the entire province.

MR. BARBER: What about on the Island?

HON. MR. BAWLF: All right, let's deal with the Island:

$70,000 a day times 100 days is $7 million. That happens to be

impossible, Mr. Member, if you are dealing with Vancouver Island

because it is greater than the annual revenue from that tax for the

entire province.

Seventy thousand dollars a day is more tax than is collected daily in the entire province.

HON. MR. MAIR: Would you call that a terminal logic in example?

HON. MR. BAWLF: What sort of nonsense is this you are trying

to foist onto Vancouver Islanders? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what's a

$70,000-a-day error for an NDPer? Nothing's changed over there, has it?

Let's go on to another figure provided by that member. On Vancouver Island tourism was worth $269 in 1975, he tells us.

MR. BARBER: Million.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Oh, $269 million. The travel research

division estimates that figure as $200 million, Mr. Member, but what's

$70 million? It's the effect that counts, Mr. Speaker.

The second member for Victoria goes on: "An estimated loss of

tourist revenue between 25 and 35 per cent, between $67 million and $90

million for Vancouver Island."

AN HON. MEMBER: An unimpeachable source. An unimpeachable source, sir!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the facts. The

actual reduction in people travelling to the Island last year on B.C.

Ferries was 12.4 per cent. Taking all carriers to the Island into

account, it was less than 10 per cent.

How does this compare with the performance of the industry elsewhere

in B.C. and Canada then, Mr. Member for Vancouver East? Travel into

other regions of Canada was down overall 7.6 per cent last year. The

comparable figure for Ontario was a decline of 8.4 per cent, for Nova

Scotia 14.5 per cent, for New Brunswick 14.7 per cent. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, travel was down for eight of the ten provinces last year.

The figure for British Columbia? Down 7.2 per cent overall — below

the national average. This is not a sudden change, Mr. Speaker. It is a

continuation, unfortunately, of a downward trend that began in 1973.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was in power then?

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

HON. MR. BAWLF: After years of steady growth in travel

activity, the NDP's Yankee-go-home attitude started driving people out

of this province and the trend remained steadily downward. Remember the

quote: "We don't want those campers up here anyhow"? Remember that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Now the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) has the gall to ask why we didn't anticipate and correct this

situation. What did the NDP do about it? Nothing. Nothing, Mr. Member.

What special plans did they lay to counter the American Bicentennial

effects? When this government came to office last December, Mr.

Speaker, only days before those celebrations were to commence, what

plans were in place? What plans had the NDP laid to withstand this?

Absolutely nothing. Don't give me that 200-year stuff; the NDP couldn't

see 200 feet ahead. (Laughter.)

The former travel minister, Ernie Hall, was to busy writing paranoid letters to Panco Poultry, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The second member for Victoria thinks we

should have been instant wizards, meeting advertising and promotional

deadlines retroactively.

Quebec staged the event to end all events this year, Mr. Speaker —

the Olympic Games. Did that counter the U.S. Bicentennial? American

travel to Quebec was down 6.7 per cent from the previous year. Never

fear, Quebec. We'll send you the second member for Victoria. When he's

finished with your travel industry you'll count Bill Vander Zalm as a

friend by comparison.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Now then, we have the most sensational claim of all from that member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, could I just remind you that you don't refer to hon. members of the House by their name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him get away with it; he's a new member.

[ Page 340 ]

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, sir. We have the most sensational claim by that

member, the one that's supposed to send Vancouver Island scampering to the lifeboats,

Mr. Speaker. Vancouver Island lost between $67 million and $90 million due to

ferry rate increases, he tells us So I call across the floor to inquire just

where these figures come from. The travel ministry is indicated. But, Mr. Speaker,

the travel industry did not provide those figures.

The travel industry indicates that the 10 per cent decline in travel

to Vancouver Island was offset by increased spending per visitor, and

the increase in Vancouver Island residents vacationing on Vancouver

Island. No significant decline in tourist revenues was experienced from

the previous year, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: This is a far cry from those sensational figures you provided.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to your former importer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You must make up facts!

HON. MR. BAWLF: It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the second

member for Victoria just selected figures from hither and yon to suit

the scenario he wants to create. He added two and two and, in the great

NDP tradition, came up with seven.

I'm not questioning, Mr. Speaker, that last year was a tough year

for some operators. Facilities geared to outdoor recreation, such as

camping, suffered all over the province due to one of the worst summers

on record for weather. I can cite statistics for the Rogers Pass, for a

free ferry across Kootenay Lake, where travel was down 20 and more per

cent. Facilities that service day attractions, particularly those in

secondary locations, also suffered. The precise reasons for that are

not clear. But that, again, was a province-wide phenomenon.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They don't seem to understand. Play it again, Sam. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, how did that member help these businesses on the Island?

MR. LAUK: Bill wants to get rid of you, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: How did that member help these people who

were suffering on the Island? Well, Mr. Speaker, he shouted far and

wide that it was too expensive to come to Vancouver Island. Big help!

Now he has begun his 1977 campaign. There he was on TV the other night

crying about a 15 per cent increase in fares on the Marguerite .

What does he propose as an alternative — taking money from health care,

from education or from the other social services which make up

two-thirds of this budget to subsidize ferry fares? Does that member

realize, Mr. Speaker, that more than 80 per cent of the passengers on

the Princess Marguerite are American? Should we take from programmes

for our citizens to subsidize travellers from the U.S.? It's a simple

question, Mr. Member. He's quick to criticize but he doesn't care. He

doesn't dare pose an alternative.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: He doesn't do his research; he doesn't get

his facts straight. He's too busy running to the TV and the press with

a sensational quote. I'm disappointed in that member, Mr. Speaker. I

had hoped that he would be more responsible and that he would make a

positive contribution.

AN HON. MEMBER: You even lose sleep about it.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I had expected more than this gadfly

behaviour. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, this is a time for all members of

this House to join in constructive debate for the sake of this

province, not the sort of frivolous, uninformed diatribe that the

member delivered in this House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Would you attack me like that? It gives me more votes.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I want to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to

discuss just one of the many positive steps this government is taking.

There was a reference in the budget speech to the Cook bicentennial. In

1778 Captain Cook arrived on these shores and laid claim to these lands

for Britain. The year 1978 will be the 200th anniversary of that

occasion.

The contributions of this man in three voyages of discovery probably

rate him as the greatest ocean-borne explorer in history. He was

responsible for discovering and circumnavigating the Antarctic, for

charting and discovering much of the coast of Australia, for

discovering New Zealand and the Hawaiian Islands, and for taking the

first step in dispelling the notion of a northwest passage from Britain

to the orient. But in arriving on these shores and establishing contact

with the native Indian people of these lands, he established something

else. He subsequently inaugurated trade with the Orient, between the

Orient and these coasts.

He brought in his wake settlement of this land. He is, for all

intents and purposes, the individual who has contributed most directly

to these lands today belonging to the Commonwealth.

This man was not simply a great explorer, he was a great medical scientist; he was the man who defeated

[ Page 341 ]

scurvy; he was the man who contributed immensely to

the study of anthropology and the study of friendship between peoples;

he was a man who never raised a hand against an alien people; he was a

man who insisted on putting the best foot forward for the mother

country in all places and with all peoples; he was a man to whom

tribute must rightly be paid; he was a man who will be the centre of

the celebration in this province in 1978, which will be, I think, the

greatest celebration that we have had as a people.

This will be an international event, Mr. Speaker, drawing on

people's friendship from all around the Pacific Rim and from abroad in

Europe. The precise details of the celebrations which we are working

out will be forthcoming in this session. I am pleased to be able to

serve on a cabinet committee with the hon. Provincial Secretary and

Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

The work that is being laid now, I think, will have great

significance for tourism in this province. I believe that not only will

1977 be a great year for tourism, thanks to the programmes that the

Minister of Travel Industry has undertaken in this budget that is

before us, but 1978 will see the greatest tourism that this province

has ever seen. Vancouver Island will be the major beneficiary of that,

thanks to the Cook bicentenary.

MR. BARBER: We won't hold our breath.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, I'm sure I can count on that member for

positive support. Mr. Speaker, the way that member's been dooming and

glooming it up around here, you'd think there was nothing positive

happening in Victoria.

MR. LAUK: There is. The second member for Victoria is pretty positive.

HON. MR. BAWLF: You know, Mr. Speaker, the budget which is

before us is a truly remarkable document. It is remarkable because it

meets the needs of the day better than any budget that the NDP ever

presented. That is not so much remarkable in itself, but it is

remarkable that it does this and still........

HON. MR. BENNETT: Theirs weren't budgets; they were guesses.

HON. MR. BAWLF: They were guesses. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: And bad ones at that.

HON. MR. BAWLF: What's $200 million or $300 million here or

there? What's the difference, eh? It's remarkable because this budget

brings spending for services to people to an unprecedented level — the

highest level in the history of this province. There is restraint

within a limit of a 5.9 per cent increase in the budget with total

expenditures of $3.83 billion, of which two-thirds are for social

services — services to people. Health-care expenditures total $981

million — an increase of $101 million, Mr. Speaker, over last year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I read that member's campaign

literature when he talked about 600 new hospital beds — 450, was it? —

for Victoria that they delivered? They just bought up private beds and

renamed them, Mr. Speaker. There wasn't one new bed in Victoria, but I

can tell you that after 15 years of talk, this government is committed

to putting 300 new acute-care beds in this city.

MR. BARBER: And robbing Vic General of the same 300.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Education expenditures: $948 million, Mr. Speaker, up $94 million from last year.

Mr. Speaker, we had the pleasure of a meeting — the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and I the other day —

with the president of the University of Victoria. That institution is

becoming not only one of the finest in this province, but one of the

finest in the country in the fields of its specialty. It is doing so

with the support of this government, Mr. Speaker: $6 million in capital

construction underway at that university right now.

MR. BARBER: How much?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Six million dollars.

The Highways department, Mr. Speaker, is up $70 million, and that,

too, relates to this constituency because after 10 years of talk and

three years of waffling by the former government we're finally getting

the Trans-Canada Highway widened from Douglas Street west to Colwood.

For three years the previous government, Mr. Speaker, ignored one of

the most crowded and difficult arterials in B.C.

Blanshard Street, Mr. Speaker — the Blanshard expressway — is a

project that again that government fumbled about with. They had three

different plans, Mr. Speaker. Every year they trotted out a new one and

every year they got shot down because they couldn't make it work. They

finally got to where they were going to tunnel under a shopping centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't the police catch

[ Page 342 ]

them? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BAWLF: I knew they were in financial difficulty; I

didn't know it was that bad. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) has indicated that there will be an announcement

shortly on the extension and completion of that vital highway through

to the Pat Bay Highway — again a project the NDP did nothing about.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker. We have for the first time this year

opening in Victoria — for the first time on Vancouver Island — a

rentalsman office, after years of talk from those people.

MR. LAUK: That should give you a lot to worry about, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: We have in the city of Victoria an addition

to the YMCA with the assistance of this government. We have a major

recreation facility going up in Sidney with the assistance of this

government.

MR. BARBER: When are you going to pay your taxes?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Let's talk about that, Mr. Member. When the NDP government

took office, the contribution....

MR. BARBER: $1.4 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: After taxes, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: Ask Mike Young. That's Mike Young's figure.

HON. MR. BAWLF: You're wrong again, Mr. Member.

MR. BARBER: You're terrifying!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, when this NDP government took

office the Government of British Columbia was paying $305,000 in grants

in lieu of taxes to the city of Victoria. In that time, Mr. Speaker,

they doubled the amount of land held by the government, they embarked

on all sorts of building programmes, and do you know where they ended

up, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what they added to that contribution to

the city of Victoria — that grant in lieu of taxes? They added

$100,000. When the city council complained that they felt that it was

unjust, what did the former Minister of Finance, the former Premier and

leader of the NDP (Mr. Barrett) say? He said: "Well, if you don't like

it, you guys can give back your per capita grant." That was

magnanimous, wasn't it? Mr. Speaker, that was the present Leader of the

Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this year those grants in lieu of taxes will be roughly

double what they were a little more than a year ago, about three times

what the NDP government increased them in three years in office.

MR. LAUK: How much, Sam?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn now, for a few

minutes, to my ministry and to talk a bit about the reorganization

that's underway in the ministry.

MR. LAUK: Sam, turn up your hearing aid. How much?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I wish the member over there would turn down his mouth.

MR. LAUK: Come on, Sam — how much? Answer the question, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, there are three new branches

being established in my ministry, and I would like to just share some

information about that with the members of the House. I know they will

want to explore this further during my estimates. But as a result of

the many programmes which were consolidated in the ministry, we will

have a new ministry, we will have a new recreation and fitness branch.

This branch will be responsible for administering to the outdoor

recreation, community recreation, sports and fitness and regional

recreation needs of the province. They will include administration and

regional parks, facilities grants, the coaching development programme,

Action B.C. and a variety of other programmes, Mr. Speaker, which, for

the first time, have been placed together in one ministry.

We will have as well a new heritage conservation branch. The

heritage conservation branch will be responsible for the administration

of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, for the

administration and planning of historic parks and sites, and will be

developing a new programme which is aimed at lending technical support

to communities in the area of preserving heritage. That programme, Mr.

Speaker, will tie in with the British Columbia Heritage Trust, that was

mentioned in His Honour's Speech from the Throne. That trust, I

believe, will be a major breakthrough in the preservation of that which

is valuable for future generations of this province.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, in the area of culture we will have a

cultural services branch. This new branch, that will embody an arts

division, will have responsibility for the administration of the

cultural fund. As well, a libraries division will be responsible

[ Page 343 ]

for programmes development in connection with the Library Development Commission.

Alongside of that, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to have a parks

branch. In its present structure it is administering some 11 million

acres of parks, and to that acreage, in recent times, we have had the

opportunity of adding several additions to, parks totalling some 4,000

acres since my appointment to this capacity.

As well we have a fish and wildlife branch and a marine resources

branch that will remain as before in structure, pending, in the case of

the fish and wildlife branch, the report of Mr. Mair. He is examining

with all interested groups, public and otherwise, the future of that

branch and the reorganization of it to better serve the objectives of

the branch.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's perhaps beyond my time here. I would just

offer, in conclusion, the comment that I think this budget address is

an admirable contribution, I want to commend the Minister of Finance

and I wish that I would have the opportunity to speak to many of the

measures that he outlines in detail. Perhaps another day I will.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

want to congratulate the new minister on his speech, the minister who

just sat down. He has become a real comic, Mr. Speaker, and developed a

true sense of humour and I want to congratulate him for that.

Some of the statements that that minister uttered required some kind

of a new sense of humour, because I don't think he could really have

believed what he was suggesting to the House. I noticed that he had to

go to the Wall Street Journal to find any quotation which

supported in any way the strength of the B.C. economy. I wonder why the

minister doesn't read what's going on in the province of British

Columbia, read about the anguished cries of people all throughout this

province who are suffering as a result of that government's economic

policies. Is it because of their fixation and their identity with Wall

Street interests that they are so insensitive to the needs of the

people of B.C.? Perhaps that's the answer.

I was amused, quite frankly, by the preoccupation of that minister

with the activities of our new rookie member, our MLA, the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who's doing an excellent job in the

community of Victoria. He is communicating with the people of this

constituency. He is talking with them and finding out the effects of

the devastated tourist industry, not only with respect to the ripple

effects through the whole economy of Victoria.

The manager of Canada Manpower in this city — and certainly you

wouldn't call him partisan — has cited the stark statistics

demonstrating 11,000 unemployed people searching for the 100 jobs

posted. Is the minister proud of that, Mr. Speaker? Nevertheless, he

was obsessed, apparently, with the activities of the second member for

Victoria, and I can understand and sympathize because I predict that

after the next election we're going to have two members of the New

Democratic Party from Victoria.

The dissertation on Captain Cook's history was interesting, but I

would have hoped that the new minister, that neophyte minister in the

Social Credit coalition cabinet, would have had something positive to

say about the programme he intends to develop to stimulate the economy

of Vancouver Island and the province. He spent most of his time

attempting to blame the weather and everything else on the New

Democratic Party and attacking the second member for Victoria. A rather

sorry performance, Mr. Speaker. When he said that the budget was a

remarkable document, that was the one area in which I had to agree with

him. It truly is a remarkable document — remarkable in its

insensitivity and its hard-heartedness toward the poorer people of the

province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just a little bit about the budget, and

I want to draw attention to the closing remarks of the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he wound up the debate on the throne

speech. I want to again refer to his turgid nonsense in attempting to

blame all of the economic ills on the previous New Democratic Party

government. I wonder where the Minister of Labour was when a passage

was incorporated in the new budget speech, on page 7 and reading as

follows: "This government cannot emphasize too strongly the importance

of continuing restraint. Restraint must be practised by everyone so the

wage increases won by our citizens are below nationally established

guidelines."

Mr. Speaker, where was the Minister of Labour when his colleague,

the Minister of Finance, incorporated this kind of inflammatory

interference into the process of collective bargaining in this province

— stating a government policy and objective, upholding working people

throughout British Columbia not only to the government-imposed

guidelines but below? You know, there's a simple adage in industrial

relations that the arbiter — the referee, as it were — the government

must be an impartial referee; the government must not attempt to tip

the scale in favour of either party in the economic test of collective

bargaining. Yet here in the budget is a

section which accomplishes

precisely that. It's unwarranted, inflammatory rhetoric in a year where

we are facing major industrial relations, major collective bargaining

in virtually all of the primary industries of this province.

I want to say to you that the Minister of Labour would have been

much better advised to warn his government and to demand that they

restrain

[ Page 344 ]

themselves from interference and incursions into

the delicate balance of industrial relations. We don't need

inflammatory rhetoric, facing, as we do, a troubled economy, facing a

tough series of bargaining in this province. I think it's a shameful

display. It's a shameful revelation of this government's basic bias

toward the position of working people, the poor, the fixed-income

people and so on. They are a government of millionaires, and it shows

all throughout the budget speech and throughout the policies that have

been introduced by this government.

Mr. Speaker, while the budget calls for that kind of restraint —

apparently restraint that this government is prepared to enforce beyond

the guidelines they have entered into with the federal government —

let's just have a look at what happened to the office of one minister.

And who would be more appropriate to look at than the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the minister basically

responsible for the economic health of this province?

MR. LAUK: He doesn't answer questions.

MR. KING: The minister who doesn't answer questions about his

advice to those who deal in the stock market. Perhaps he has better

reason than this House realizes for refusing to answer, I suggest to my

colleagues.

Let's just have a look at that office, Mr. Speaker. I find some

curious and unusual inconsistencies. I'm sure all of those members over

there who are prepared to get up and pay lip service to the budget are

going to be as interested as I am in the anomalies and the

inconsistencies contained in the estimates.

We find, first of all, that the minister himself did fairly well; he

got a pretty fair increase. I imagine that the people out in the

community are going to draw their own conclusions about the equity of

that increase. But, Mr. Speaker, what about the special adviser to the

minister?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What was your salary when you were a minister?

MR. KING: We find that the salary of the special adviser grew

from $26,100 last year to $29,000 this year, an increase of $2,900. Now

I don't know which adviser that was for; I don't know whether that was

for Mr. Weeks, whom the minister fired, or for the constituency

secretary, Cameron, whom the minister fired. I don't know if perhaps it

was for Mr. Ellis...

MR. KAHL: How many advisers did you have when you were in government?

MR. KING: ...the man who was brought in, the two-day wonder

whom the minister hired and dismissed two days later. I don't know

which special adviser this was for, but apparently, regardless of the

man who was filling the position, the minister felt it was a position

that deserved to appreciate to the tune of $2,900. I think everyone in

this House recalls last year when that minister first employed one

Arthur Weeks he was asked to describe the responsibilities of this

special adviser, and he stumbled. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that was

the longest silence I have ever seen on a television show, with the

exception of "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman." When the minister was asked

to describe the functions and the role of his special adviser, he stood

there, glared glassy-eyed into the television camera and finally said:

"Well, you don't need a college degree." I guess not, Mr. Speaker. I

guess you don't need a college degree; all you've got to do is know a

little bit about the opportunities that obtain on the VSE. Maybe

they're the qualifications — I don't know.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a degree? (Laughter.)

MR. KING: No, it's not a degree, my friend. But it's a degree that's understood on that side better than the academic ones.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's rather interesting that the minister, as I

say, did well. And I'm not arguing about his value; the people will

judge that. I am curious about the value of his special advisers

because he's got rid of three of them in short order.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe they got rid of him.

MR. KING: Maybe they did. But to and behold, I turn the page

in the minister's estimates and I see the poor old deputy minister, the

workhorse of the department, good old Sandy Peel — he's been around

quite a while; a good little deputy minister — and we find that

restraint applies to that deputy minister. Restraint applies to him —

he had his salary cut by $1,080 per year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): There's a message.

MR. KING: The minister did all right. His special adviser — whichever one it was, if you can find one — did all right.

MR. NICOLSON: Special adviser of the day.

MR. KING: The special adviser of the day, yes. But poor old

Sandy Peel, he got a deduction, he got a demotion. Is that the kind of

equity, is that the kind of fair-minded, good business management this

government brings to British Columbia? I wonder.

I certainly wouldn't want to suggest anything

[ Page 345 ]

improper, but I wonder, with all the clouds that

are shrouding that minister's office, if the opposition is to infer

from that reduction in the deputy's salary that he was in some way

responsible. Was he in some way responsible for the problems the

minister is experiencing? — a judicial inquiry, trading on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. I think the minister has an obligation and a

duty to get up and defend his deputy, and certainly the kind of defence

I'm thinking about does not infer a cut in salary while he and his

special adviser do very, very well.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we heard the previous minister, the neophyte

Minister of Recreation and Conservation and travel industry and tourist

bureaus and Lord knows what all else — and Captain Cook celebrations

(Hon. Mr. Bawlf). We heard him quote the Wall Street Journal .

We heard him say that the economy of Vancouver Island is not really in

bad shape, that B.C. is really rolling along pretty well.

MR. BARRETT: For millionaires.

MR. KING: Well, I don't know whether he would call the Vancouver Province

an NDP rag or an NDP paper. I don't really think so. I know he's got an

imagination, but I don't think it goes that far. Seems to me that the

editor of that paper knows this government pretty well.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he does — no, no, the publisher.

MR. KING: The publisher, all right. But let me read what it says in the Vancouver Province of Wednesday, January 26, just yesterday, by one Philip Mills:

"The number of B.C. residents failing to meet monthly

mortgage payments has risen by 50 per cent in the last six months.

Financial institutions say delinquencies and threatened foreclosures

are likely to increase.

"Some banks say they will stiffen mortgage qualifications if the trend continues.

"A sluggish economy, high unemployment and increasing social disorders are blamed. "

Royal Bank district mortgage manager, Don Morris, said

Tuesday: 'There has been a 50 per cent increase in delinquencies where

court action has been considered in the past six to eight months.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: That's progress.

MR. KING: That's progress. That's the effect the policies this government is visiting on the province are having.

I want to tell the House in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that in

the last session, when this government was busily heaping increase upon

increase on every area of social service, the opposition warned what

the consequences would be. Certainly it's no great gratification to me

or my colleagues to see our dire warnings come true, but indeed they

are. You cannot ignore almost 100,000 unemployed people in this

province and say that everything's rosy. You cannot ignore the fact

that the budget is bereft of any positive programme to stimulate

employment or to stimulate investment in this province. There's nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the next paragraph.

MR. KING: All right. The next paragraph says: "Morris said:

'An increase in marriage separations and drug and alcohol use also are

adding to the problem.'" Mr. Speaker, while those social problems are

continuing, what do we find in the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr.

McClelland'

s) estimates and in the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm's)? We find giant cutbacks in the services to those

very areas.

MR. KAHL: Read it all! Shame!

MR. KING: This is the state of the economy.

At the same time, we find another headline in the Victoria Times :

"$47 Million Surplus Possible." Isn't that wonderful? While people are

being foreclosed upon because they can't meet their mortgage payments,

this government is sitting back rubbing their hot little hands and

saying: "Look at us. Aren't we financial wizards! We've got a $47

million surplus." I ask the millionaires, Mr. Speaker: at whose expense

have they amassed this surplus — the poor people, the sick and the

indigent who cannot fare and cannot cope in this society?

MR. BARRETT: It's happening in Delta more than any other place. Their MLA (Mr. Davidson) doesn't even know what to do about it.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, it's selective. Yes, I read selectively, because there is more. There's much more; I could continue.

It says: "Strikes are one reason. Not that we institute action while

a strike is in progress, but when it's over there are those who drop

their mortgage responsibilities." It goes on: "Almost all companies

contacted Tuesday said there has been a significant increase in

delinquencies in recent months." Is that what you wanted to hear? Are

you satisfied now? Does that cover your political...?

MR. KAHL: When you were Minister of Labour,

[ Page 346 ]

how many man-days were lost? Tell us that.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if that covers and placates the

conscience of the superficial member for Esquimalt, well, I have pity

for him. Because it's pretty short shrift to the people who are

suffering out there.

Let's look for a moment at the programmes that have been cut to

generate this $47 million surplus that the government is so happy

about. There have been cuts of about $26 million from the Department of

Human Resources. The specific programmes that have been cut are the

contract treatment programme, which provides special treatment for

children with behavioural and emotional problems — it drops from

$226,000 to $51,000; there's a cut in the allocation for the adoption

programme — it's decreased from $98,000 to $91,000; specialized

treatment resources, which give basic care and special services suited

to a child's emotional or behavioural needs, is down from $15.3 million

to $14.5 million; special services to children, which gives counselling

to children in institutions, is down from $5.3 million to $3.2 million;

the child day-care programme, which provides care services to children

during a prolonged illness or crisis, or enables single-parent families

to engage in gainful employment, is cut back.

Fourteen programmes, all sensitive programmes dealing with

children's needs, dealing with the needs of senior citizens and

handicapped people, are cut back $26 million. Is that something to be

proud of?

It's significant to me that the amount of the cutback in Human

Resources very closely approximates the loss in revenue which the

government undertook when they eliminated succession duties and gift

taxes. About $30 million was lost as a result of putting the axe to

that programme and, as a consequence, the people who can least afford

are being deprived of very, very necessary services.

I said at the outset that this is a very insensitive government.

It's one that is apparently incapable of understanding the needs of

people out there who were not born into estates and so on, people who

have to work for a living, many without a trade union to protect them,

many who are handicapped, many who are in a broken-home situation where

the cost of gainful employment is much higher. What we find is a

government that just, has no understanding of that kind of plight. I

suppose in a way it's understandable. Many people have talked about the

preponderance of rich people who are involved in this government, and I

think it comes across in their policy.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most heart-rending situation I have

encountered is a $5 bill that came to my attention. It was picked up

just today by a friend of mine who was at the bank to cash a cheque.

Written on the top of this $5 bill, in what looks to be a female's

hand, is the word "food" — f-o-o-d. It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that

here was a person trying to budget for a family. I don't know who it

was — whether it was some poor widow with children who she was trying

to obtain food for — but apparently she was in tough enough and dire

enough circumstances that she was doing her budgeting on the $5 bill.

Maybe it was the last one in the house, I don't know.

I want to ask the government, Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of

person this government was thinking of when they advocated and

introduced such restraint in their budgetary thrust. I wonder if that

person was a senior citizen who perhaps, as a result of the increased

poll tax incident to Hydro rates, is going to now be confronted with

doing their budgeting on a smaller bill than a five even — perhaps

writing heating costs on a $2 bill.

I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) with a big smirk

on his face. Mr. Speaker, that's precisely why that government is

prepared to ignore completely the plight of people: they just don't

understand what it is like. They don't understand what it is like for

almost 100,000 people in this province. They sit there and are quite

content to snicker away at genuine indications that people are, indeed,

in sorry circumstances. I pointed out in the throne speech that no less

than three people in my constituency last time I visited home were into

my office with absolutely no money in their pocket. For the first time

in my political life I encountered three people who were actually

facing hunger. Yes, that's what makes it possible to believe and to

imagine that people who are writing a pathetic little message on a $5

bill denote a circumstance of real need in the province.

I want to quote just briefly from an editorial that was printed in the Victoria Times analysing the budget. The last paragraph I think is particularly significant. It points out:

"Mincome or GAIN, as it is now known, is $20 million

down over last year, which is difficult to understand unless benefits

are to be cut or certain people removed from the rolls. The Environment

and Land Use Committee secretariat — one of the most important bodies

under the NDP — has dropped $148,000, or nearly 10 per cent. Even the

reforestation budget has been cut by $2 million.

"But spending in the Premier's office is up $50,000 to

$4,049,148, reflecting increased emphasis on intergovernmental

relations. By contrast, in the last year of the NDP administration the

Premier's office budget was $286,290. To top it all off, MLAs' and

cabinet ministers' salaries have had their 10 per cent cuts restored."

All of this kind of spending is going on around the

[ Page 347 ]

offices of all of the politicians. Yet no

attention, no sensitivity at all is displayed to the plight of people

who need a hand up from the government. I've outlined already the cuts

in virtually every sensitive area of Human Resources, that can do

nothing else but visit additional hardship on people who are in need.

I honestly feel, Mr. Speaker, that even the biased, even the

partisan backbenchers on the government side, must be shrinking, with

some degree of horror and some degree of embarrassment, out of the

knowledge that the cuts that have been introduced can do nothing less

than visit extreme hardship on people. The member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) was entering a plea on their behalf in this House just the

other night. He knows very well that the total cumulative effect of

this budget is to make life a little more difficult for those people

who can least help themselves. I don't think he can sleep very easily

with that knowledge.

MR. NICOLSON: That's why he's not in the cabinet. He's not a millionaire and he's got a heart.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to lay great emphasis

on what I honestly believe to be the plight of so many people, so many

groups. I feel even ill-equipped to do it because you have to be out

there and you have to experience the difficulty, the anguish of being

unable to meet bills, mortgage payments. You have to know and

experience the anguish and the frustration of people who want to work

but are denied the opportunity before you can really express it well. I

feel ill-equipped, quite frankly, to express what I really feel in this

whole mess.

But let's contrast the outline that I've attempted, in all good

conscience and all seriousness, to draw to the attention of this House.

Let's contrast that, for just one moment, with the real beneficiaries

of the new budget introduced in British Columbia.

That new budget contains one main thrust, one highlight. That is a

cut, an abolition of the succession duties and death tax in this

province. The government that is calling upon people to exercise

restraint, that is cutting the salaries of deputy ministers, that is

cutting back on virtually every human need programme under the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland), has introduced a $30 million bonanza for the

millionaires. No more taxation on their heirs to million-dollar

estates. We made over $30 million last year of revenue derived from

that source — $32 million in nine months.

I ask, Mr. Speaker; how that revenue is going to be replaced. Of

course, it's going to be made up in the only area it can be made up in

— cuts in service to the poor. I see people on the other side of the

House who I used to feel had a social conscience, who had a vestige of

compassion and humanitarian concern in their body. I wonder how they

can sit there with smug smirks on their faces, much less get up and in

good conscience support this kind of document.

I think it's an abhorrent document. It's a sellout to the rich

friends of that government across the way, Mr. Speaker. I feel

affronted by it. It's times like this, it's issues like this, it's

performances like this that give politicians a bad name. I'm not proud

to be a part of it on a day like this, Mr. Speaker.

This $5 bill with the word "food" printed pathetically across the

top of it speaks volumes in my mind about the hardships that people in

British Columbia are being confronted with.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Who gave it to you? Dave Barrett?

MR. KING: It was picked up in the bank, my friend. I don't

know who gave it; I don't know who cashed it. I can only speculate on

the plight of that poor family who had to do their budgeting on a $5

bill. I can only speculate and I can only worry as to whether the

budgeting that they do will be forced to smaller denomination bills by

the time the full effects of this budget are felt in the community.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wish someone would give the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) a sucker and perhaps he could get a

job on television. Then he wouldn't have so much to say in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to me that the hon. leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) found that he could endorse and subscribe to

the abolition of succession duties and sales tax. I have felt that that

member, the leader of the Liberal Party, was trying to develop a new,

perhaps unique approach for his one-man party in this province. In

recent months he's changed his role as critic of the government to

critic of the official opposition. That's fair enough, I suppose.

Certainly, I see our role as mainly a critic of the government. That's

the traditional role of opposition under the British parliamentary

system.

We had, of course, to speculate that perhaps he was paving the

pathway for the same trip that his colleagues took — the three Liberals

who were seconded into the Social Credit Party on the eve of the last

election. Again, my speculation runs rampant when I find that on issues

of basic social consequence, such as the succession duty and gift tax

issue, we find the leader of the Liberal Party four-square in support

of this coalition government, defending the preserve of the rich, the

super-rich, the elite of our society, voting four-square with the

government.

I'm not sure whether it is out of philosophical

[ Page 348 ]

dedication, Mr. Speaker,, or whether it's out of

self-interest, because I understand there is an estate that that member

might be interested in one day. I wonder if that member can truly say

in good conscience that his motivation in voting for and supporting the

removal of succession duties and the death tax emanated from a concern

for investment in the province of British Columbia or a concern for

protecting that handful of people, both in his neighbouring area of the

British Properties and with respect to his identification with certain

other members of this House, with self-interest.

Mr. Speaker, I find it reprehensible — I find it unforgivable — that

the main concession of this whole budget in a time of high

unemployment, in a time of economic hardship for so many groups in our

society, provides the only benefit, the only windfall, for the heirs of

millionaires, of which this House seems to have more than its fair

share. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why we find such inhumane

policies at a time when there is a need for stimulation, at a time when

there is a need for the introduction of new and vigorous employment

programmes to put people to work. I find that it's a sad day in British

Columbia's history.

Mr. Speaker, even the former Premier, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, stated in

this House that it was a fair proposition to tax estates that have been

built up largely through the sweat and the muscle of workers in British

Columbia. He declared in this House that if those people wanted to

generate their millions, their fortune, in this province, and then flee

the province to evade their fair share of taxation.... He said:

"Let them go, because they are not worthwhile citizens of the province

of British Columbia."

MR. KAHL: Selective reading again!

MR. KING: That man had a social conscience, but

unfortunately, apparently the Howe Street Liberals have taken over what

once was a populist party with a heart.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must draw to your attention that you are on your final three minutes.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I shan't be much longer, because I

don't know what else one can say other than to repeat, re-emphasize and

plead — yes, plead — with the government for a recognition, for a

sensitivity to what they are doing to the people in this province who

can least afford to fend for themselves.

My colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) outlined, I think, in the

most effective, most intelligent and most eloquent manner the

shortcomings of the budget in terms of a financial and economic policy.

I have tried to give a dissertation on the impact in social

consequences on people. I know that many of my colleagues will be

dealing precisely with these areas as well.

In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I want to say to

the government that it is not too late for you to reconsider some of

the priorities which are contained in the budget. There has been talk

about vigorous highway programmes. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that we learned last fall that the highway construction that is

underway is not putting new people to work. It's essentially the same

dollars and the same people. Certainly, blacktop is no alternative to

some security in the home; certainly, blacktop, although it may be

politically attractive in terms of a symbol, is no alternative for

meeting the real needs of people in this province who are desperately

in need of assistance at this time.

I ask some of the backbenchers, Mr. Speaker, to try to generate some

backbone, some independence, some sense of responsibility to their own

constituents and to the people of B.C., rather than shallow

subservience to the cabinet benches. I ask them to get up and speak

from the heart, and recognize the problems for what they are.

Never mind the long dissertations trying to blame the economic ills

on previous administrations. You are the government. You ran for

election on the basis that you could do a better job than we. Get with

it. Get with it and show your priorities to the province of British

Columbia. Take an aggressive and a vigorous stance to get some health

back into this economy of the province of B.C. again. Quit making

excuses. Excuses are certainly not going to provide for the needs of

the people of B.C. this winter.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, it's a very real

pleasure for me to rise in my place this afternoon on behalf of the

people of the Atlin constituency, and to contribute to this budget

debate. I have always welcomed the opportunity to participate in this

debate because, first, Mr. Speaker, it has provided me with the avenue

to express my appreciation and thanks to the government for services it

has rendered to the constituency. Secondly, I can convey to the

government the current needs and the constructive criticisms of our

northern frontier people. I shall continue this approach now, and

during the course of this current session.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance for the presentation

of a well-thought-out, considerate, sensible, cautious and optimistic

document. The budget speech, like the throne speech, is truly and

sincerely a moderate and temperate one. According to my book on

economy, both words mean "neither too much nor too little." Moderate

implies absence or avoidance of excess; temperance suggests the effect

of restraint or restriction. Mr. Speaker, how else can we

[ Page 349 ]

handle the situation? Are we not in a period of

restraint? If the prior administration had not foreseen or managed for

such a period, but instead had emptied the moneybags by its hog-wild,

unguided spending spree, should not our new administration become a

little cautious with the people's money in order to return the economy

to a more stable climate?

Our immediate programme following the last election was to restore

confidence in this province: to balance the budget; to replenish the

empty treasury; and to prepare a sound economic base from which to

return benefits to the people. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, the people of

British Columbia gave us a tremendous mandate to fulfill these

obligations. In addition, the mandate authorized us to rebuild the

shattered economy; to rehabilitate the social, health, educational,

housing and community programmes; to reactivate primary industries; to

promote and expand the tourist trade; to improve upon the public

services; to give top priority to human needs; and above all — and

these are the words in the throne speech — "to improve the quality of

life for all of the citizens of this province."

As evidenced in budget '77, I would proudly say that we have

performed mighty well in reaching most of our objectives. In this

respect, Mr. Speaker, we thank the people of British Columbia for their

full participation, their endurance, dedication and sacrifice in paying

off the debt of the former NDP government. Full credit is due to the

hard-working people of this province.

However, the opposition parties, the opponents of the government,

the critics of the people's Social Credit government, are not about to

recognize this period of restraint. They refuse to do it. They do not

care about deficits; they advocate borrowing money to run a government.

They demand more money, regardless of restraints and lack of funds.

They care less about the spiralling costs that are strangling the

economy of British Columbia. They don't give a hoot about pricing

ourselves out of the market. They represent the typical hordes at the

gates: they are so hurt from their defeat in the last election, and

their irresponsible and uncooperative cries are helping to disrupt the

economy right here at home.

We presented a most satisfactory throne speech but they termed it

threadbare, empty, trivial, misleading, indecent, bad medicine and

lacking in priorities and ideas.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Now we have presented another basic document that can only lead us

to further, if not complete, recovery. What do we hear from the hordes?

Terms like "foggy," "cynical," "tragic," "standstill," "flim-flam" and

"rich-a-care." Mr. Speaker, their contributions to the debates, in or

out of this Legislature, continue to be nil.

I'd like to say this: I believe that there is a real sigh of relief

out there. I really believe it. There were millions of British

Columbians who had certain doubts about whether or not the new Social

Credit government would balance the budget in its first year in office.

But we managed it; we did it. I believe now that the people would

invest in the economy of our province with confidence, very much

confidence, now that the government has paved the way by lightening and

easing up on some of the burdens that have hindered the progress of

many investors. In connection with this, let me examine the budget and

government intentions in four major areas. This was covered, I believe,

on this morning's news. I only hope many people would read it as one of

the main guidelines and the basis upon which we have guided our budget

that was presented so ably by the minister.

I'd like to read it into the record; it illustrates that we have

made good progress towards bringing spending under control; it

demonstrates a restrained-spending programme for the next fiscal year.

Our new budget shows an increase of only 5.9 per cent, which is under

the AIB guidelines. The restraint increase has been achieved —

notwithstanding increases to health and education of some $200 million,

plus an increase of $50 in the homeowner grant to senior citizens, to a

total of $430 in 1977.

It demonstrates initiatives to create jobs and stimulate investment

in British Columbia. This is indicated by removal of succession duties

and gift taxes, a $70 million increase for our highway construction

programme to a total of $180 million for next year, $50 million to

student summer employment — a substantial increase over this year — new

regulations allowing the write-off of mining exploration costs through

the corporation capital tax.

The budget of Economic Development has been increased 18.5 per cent

and, lastly, the budget demonstrates a continued accent of

accountability in that each ministry, for the first time, will be

charged back for computer charges, for rentals and maintenance of

building space. A good foundation. It's a good, basic budget, Mr.

Speaker, for future beneficial ones under this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement in the throne speech and in

the budget that the Social Credit government has established, at this

current session, an air ambulance service throughout the province of

British Columbia. It says in the document that this service will be

available between the remote areas and major hospital centres, without

heavy cost to the patient. The government has indicated that this

equalized plan will include the provision of escort service to

patients, where necessary.

[ Page 350 ]

Mr. Speaker, the people in the remote and scattered communities in

the far-flung Atlin constituency, and in other remote areas of this

province, welcome the announcement. To these people one of the real

highlights of the throne speech and budget speeches is the

establishment of the British Columbia air ambulance service. In every

election since 1949 and on numerous occasions on the floor of this

House, I have advocated, as top priority, the establishment of an air

ambulance service.

Just last September 30, I submitted to the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) a request for a comprehensive review of northern health

situations, this review to be treated as a priority. First on the lost

was the recommendation to establish an air ambulance service. Mr.

Speaker, it is a great day for the good people of the frontier and

remote communities and industrial camps. It is a great day for me to

stand in my place on their behalf and thank the Social Credit

government for the establishment of air ambulance service in British

Columbia.

I'd like to say something about the repeal of mineral royalties and

the improved prospectors' assistance programme and the writing off of

exploration expenses to reduce capital subject to tax under the

Corporation Capital Tax Act. This will result in an increase in mineral

exploration in the Atlin constituency and elsewhere.

The announcement to encourage stability and productivity of the

mining industry is a welcome one indeed. This mining industry, Mr.

Speaker, is part of the history of the Atlin constituency, and vice

versa. It is the heart and lifeline of the constituency. Imagine,

therefore, the indignation of the people up there when the previous

administration introduced mineral royalties. This legislation nearly

destroyed the mining industry in that mining belt and nearly knocked

mineral exploration out of existence. Indeed, the legislation created

unemployment, created doldrums and stagnation in the mining field.

Now I'd just like to read you some of the resulting figures when the

mineral royalties were operative. The number of active mineral

exploration companies in the Atlin constituency decreased from 45 to

nil — that is at the time just following the introduction. Of course,

in that category unemployment was 100 per cent. In 1965, six

exploration companies performed just minor activities. Following the

Social Credit government announcement last year that it would repeal

the mineral royalties, the number of mineral exploration companies

increased from 6 to 32. Naturally, employment increased. With the new

incentives, as emphasized in both the throne and budget speeches, we in

the B.C. northwest can expect a busy mining and prospecting season. I

wish to thank the people's positive government for its positive mining

programme to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my

constituents, to express my sincere appreciation to the hon. Minister

of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for the major highway

construction, maintenance, paving and contract programmes which he has

scheduled for every district in the Atlin constituency.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What about Columbia River?

MR. CALDER: I'm quite sure that in his travels elsewhere in

the province he has also issued programmes. On June 21 of last year, I

submitted to the minister my annual constituency highways and bridges

priorities. I must say that there was a quick response. He and his

staff arranged for an August trip into the most beautiful part of our

province with these top officials from Victoria and Prince George,

Terrace and Prince Rupert. We travelled not by helicopters, but by

vehicles on every road in that large riding.

Now the result of the minister's observation trip was press released

on November 22 last. Included in this release are the following

Stewart–Watson Lake highway programmes, and I would like to read this

into the record: a contract award to Emil Anderson Construction Ltd. to

construct a 24-mi.

section southeastward from Nash Bridge — that's in

the Meziadin Lake district — at a total cost of $10 million; a contract

award to Dawson Construction to build a 22-mi.

section between Sawmill

and Pine Tree Lake at a total cost of $8 million — this is in the Dease

Lake area; a contract award to Commonwealth Construction Co. Ltd. and

Geddes Contracting Co. Jointly, to build a 25-mi.

section between

Cassiar Junction and Pine Tree Lake at a total cost of $7.1 million. So

the total contract was almost $26 million.

In addition to the construction and paving contracts, the Highways

ministry purchased $750,000 worth of highways equipment, including a

$90,000 DC-6 for Atlin, and, of course, equipment for snow avalanche

clearance work. It was a great day. The previous administration had

removed the heart of the highways in the Atlin camp by taking that

tractor away. What else could they use to maintain the roads? One of

the results of the trip was to return a tractor, and the minister was

good enough to return a new one. I don't think you have seen this, Mr.

Minister, but the people in Atlin turned out when the new DC-6 — that

is a large machine — arrived, and there is a picture of it.

People in every community ought to pass this message on to the

minister. People in every community are thankful for the local road

improvement programmes, and they are thankful for the job-creating

aspects of these road projects.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say something about the

[ Page 351 ]

Northland Navigation. We've been reading articles

from the newspaper that there's a real controversy and a mess over this

situation because of the removal of the subsidy from the federal

government. I would just like to pose a question: How in the devil's

name did we ever get involved in the Northland Navigation subsidy mess?

It was none of our provincial business, and I just don't know how we

got involved in it.

The Northland Prince, which is the largest of the vessels, called

weekly in three ports in the southern part of the Atlin constituency,

namely Stewart, Alice Arm, and Kincolith. These ports are busy ones in

terms of steady passenger traffic and the freight traffic. One of the

big customers of that service was Granduc Mine Limited. It was a vital

customer. Now, it was common knowledge that the Northland Navigation

service and subsidies were federal situations, and indeed they were.

But in early November, when our own Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) announced a joint federal-provincial

arrangement whereby the B.C. Ferries would expand its ferry services to

some coastal ports left unserviced by the Northland Navigation Co., I

received very many long-distance phone calls from people resident in

the three ports that are located in the southern part of the Atlin

constituency. They demanded to know our provincial jurisdiction in this

whole affair. Mind you, there were many citizens who welcomed the

minister's intentions to assist the unserviced ports.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we really wanted to go to the aid of

our coastal people, we should have consulted them first. There was no

consultation whatsoever, right from the beginning of this whole mess,

and perhaps even now. But as a province, we have to remember that these

are citizens who are involved and we should have consulted them, then

approached the federal government on their behalf. At the same time, we

could have sat down with the federal Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr.

Lang) and his colleagues, and even with the B.C. federal MPs, to

consider the whole question of federal subsidies for our B.C. ferry

system. The announcement came around December, but had we foreseen what

may have happened, we could have made our move — say around October —

and right then and there consulted the people who were involved and

then proceed to negotiate with the federal government on the whole

field of subsidies to our ferry system. But it came rather late and we

got involved. People actually thought that we had full jurisdiction

over this business. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that

B.C. Ferry system is satisfactory to every port on the B.C. coast. It

may be okay for Bella Bella, Ocean Falls and Prince Rupert, but that is

all as far as the passengers are concerned. For freighting, you will

have to rely on a ship model like the Northland Prince to serve the

coast. Mr. Speaker, do you know that this ship is up for sale? I

understand the price is in the neighbourhood of $2 million. And do you

know that the Northland Prince and the company can return to operation

if the federal subsidy is returned? Did you know that the Northland

Navigation Co. still has its doors open for negotiations to operate,

and that is a fact. I believe, in the meetings ahead, with the

knowledge of this, that perhaps maybe the two levels of government

should approach RivTow, which is in charge of the barges, to purchase

the boat. After all, I understand that RivTow was quite deeply involved

in this whole mess. I really believe that because of that, they should

take some action — at least buy the boat.

I urge this government to continue meeting with the federal

departments to negotiate for equalization of shipping and ferry

subsidies on both coasts. There should be no discrimination; there

should be no differentials. I say, "Equal treatment!"

Failing all this, I'm going to have to bring to the attention of

this House the wishes of my constituents. The seaport of Stewart is a

very important port in this province. It is the terminus of the

Stewart–Watson Lake Highway, one of the busiest at the moment. We

propose, Mr. Speaker, that the government extend the Kelsey Bay–Prince

Rupert ferry system to Stewart. It is one of the major solutions, and

indeed an alternative to the Northland Navigation system.

The extension will link commerce and tourism from the United States

proper to the State of Alaska and return. It would be a link to a

highway in my constituency that is becoming one of the busiest in

Canada, a link to our B.C. northland that is just opening to a new

mineral and other business enterprises. Now the municipal council and

people of Stewart have requested this extension. The American

businesses that have been contacted support the idea. Therefore I would

advise, Mr. Speaker, that this government take a good, hard look at the

proposal that has been presented by the people in the north. I believe

correspondence has been submitted to the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by giving my views about the oil spills.

My subject here is the protection of the fishing industry against oil spills

in the province of B.C. I was happy to note in the throne speech these words:

"Together my Ministry of the Environment and my Ministry of Recreation

and Conservation will give special attention to the management of the new 200-mile

coastal economic zone in relation to the ongoing salmonid enhancement programme."

Of course, in the budget speech, the government indicated its

interest in the fishing industry by remarking upon the improved salmon

catches, on the prices and the strong market demand. I also would

[ Page 352 ]

like to point out that there is a federal salmonid enhancement programme, work on which will amount to $300 million.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the quote from the throne debate means

protection. That is the key word: protection — protection against any form

of pollution. What I am going to talk about now is protection against oil spills

on this coast.

I was born in the little community of Nass Harbour — that's near the

mouth of the Nass River. It was one of the first salmon canneries

established on the coast. I have spent most of my life in the fishing

industry, working as a commercial fisherman and as a shore-worker.

Therefore I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that when I see something that may

endanger the very survival of the industry, I must speak against it. I

understand that there may be an oil tanker route through Dixon

Entrance, Hecate Strait, Browning Entrance, Principe Channel, Otter

Channel, Lewis Pass, Wright Sound, and through Douglas Channel to

Kitimat.

In the past months, Mr. Speaker, I have read the remarks of critics

respecting this route. At this time I would like to bring to the

attention of the House certain facts that may not have been mentioned.

I have here a map of the north coast on which I have drawn a black line

that indicates the proposed route of oil tankers.

Some of you have seen it in the newspaper, but this is actually an enlarged

section: this is Dixon Entrance, this is Hecate Strait, there is Browning Entrance

and there is Principe Pass, there is Otter Channel, there is Lewis Pass, there

is Wright Sound and there is Douglas Channel up to Kitimat. Right here are the

flats. There are the halibut grounds and the salmon grounds, rock-bottom fish,

and all through here is the salmon-herring fishing areas and spawning areas.

I would like to just give you some points for thought. Now in the

halibut and salmon fishing season in the Hecate Strait, during the

months of May, June, July, August and early September, there would be

anywhere from 1,800 to 2,200 fishing vessels all through this area. The

vessels include halibut boats, or longliners, beam trawlers, salmon

trollers, seine boats, crab boats, gillnet boats, and of course during

the winter months, the beam trawlers and the herring fleet would be in

operation.

From Browning Entrance to the port of Kitimat, the oil tankers will

be travelling through channels that measure from less than one mile to

five miles in width. Now we've read about the people's concern about

this channel here, the oil tankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but I

understand that is at least 18 miles across; we are talking about a

width of less than one mile to five miles in these channels. The narrow

channels to Kitimat present a real problem because in those channels

there are very strong rip tides. In the fall and winter months there

are severe winds that can easily divert the huge tankers shoreward, and

heavy fog is quite common in these channels. Mr. Speaker, I do not

believe that in these cases tugboats can be of any real value in

assisting and guiding the tankers through these channels.

Out in Dixon Entrance and in Hecate Strait there are very severe

storms. In these two bodies of water the waves are not like the

beautiful rolling waves out in the Pacific, which the poets usually

write about. In these waters the waves have a chop action due to the

flats, the shallowness and the meeting of strong currents and the wind.

I am told that with this chop action waves can go as high as 35 to 40

feet. I doubt if the huge oil tankers can survive the heavy storms in

the Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait.

These large tankers involve these measurements, for your

information, and these are the bigger ones: 175 feet wide, 1,132 feet

in length and, believe this, the depth is about 105 feet. Just imagine,

Mr. Speaker, what would happen if these boats were blown into the

flats, and that is a real possibility. It would mean the destruction of

the halibut and halibut grounds, the rock-bottom fish and salmon

grounds. A spill within the channel would be difficult to remove and

surely the oil would destroy thousands of spawning grounds within those

channels.

I understand that Kitimat was selected over other possible ports,

which include Marrick Island — I believe that's near Prince Rupert —

Smith Island, which is definitely near Prince Rupert; Ridley Island,

the same; and Prince Rupert; they've even looked at Port Simpson. Mr.

Speaker, for the life of me, I cannot see the selection of the other

ports either.

It is said that an oil tanker travels at least three miles before it

comes to a complete stop. You may picture as well what would happen in

a case of emergency, if the boat has to stop in those channels and

passes. There is only one way they can stop and that is when they hit

the beach. Remember, they are only one to five miles in width.

I am shocked, Mr. Speaker, to hear that our own federal government

is going to create, for the American companies, an oil tanker corridor

through the bodies of water to which I have referred. It is indicated

that fishermen will not be allowed in this corridor, that there is

going to be a complete ban on fishing throughout. If this is true, Mr.

Speaker, then perhaps the government in Washington has already

approached our government in Ottawa. Now the fishing companies on the

coast, along with their fishermen, object most strongly to the proposed

closure of these rich salmon grounds.

Mr. Speaker, the word is that in the United States — now I want the

members to listen to this very carefully — the laws to protect the

environment are so strict, the American oil and pipeline companies may

take up to four years to process and finalize an

[ Page 353 ]

oil pipeline right of way in the United States.

Similarly, the word is that in Canada the laws to protect the

environment are so much less rigid that the American oil and pipeline

companies may take only one year to process and finalize an oil

pipeline right of way in Canada.

I'd like to point this one out: by the

interpretation of the famous

United States Jones Act on American shipping, if a ship transported its

load between ports in the United States, that ship must be

American-owned, must be registered in the United States and manned by

American workers. In other words; if an oil tanker delivers oil from

Valdez in the state of Alaska to a port in the state of Washington or

to any port in the United States, then that oil tanker must be

American-owned, must be registered in the United States, and must be

manned by the American seafarer. To the oil industry in the United

States, living up to the Jones Act regulation would involve high cost

of shipping, high cost of labour, high rates and taxes.

Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, how do they get around this high

cost? It is simple. Approach the Canadian government. Its laws for

protecting the environment are not so rigid. Get a pipeline right of

way and approval in Canada and install your pipeline.

The rest comes easy, because an oil tanker delivering oil from

Valdez in the state of Alaska to a port in another country does not

require American registration or ownership. You can then bring in your

Liberian ships. They fly the flag of convenience. They may be owned by

American companies, but they are registered in Liberia or Panama,

because then you can avoid taxes, avoid high shipping cost and you can

employ cheap labour.

Have I got a couple more minutes? Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask:

how knowledgeable are these captains who guide these vessels? If some

of them couldn't even find the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca,

how do you expect them to find, for instance, Browning Entrance that

would lead them to a narrow channel to Kitimat? Are they knowledgeable

enough to guide these huge vessels through what I would call a "keyhold

squeeze" through the channels? I don't know if I could say this, Mr.

Speaker, but if the federal governments of Canada and the United States

have considered such a route, by avoiding the Jones Act — and it sounds

like a conspiracy to me — then the whole plan is at the expense of the

fishing industry. The fishing industry will be the victim.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one page of concluding remarks, and I will ask that the Chair take this as read. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. Hon.

members, for the guidance of the House: for those members who have not

yet taken their place in this debate, you will note that Bill 11,

intituled the Gift Tax Repeal Act, and Bill 12, intituled Succession

Duty Repeal Act, as of January 26 now appear on the order papers, and

it is the opinion of the Chair that continued or protracted debate on

either of these bills would therefore be out of order.

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, you and I seem

to draw each other rather frequently here — another mass gathering of

MLAs today. Mr. Speaker, I would try and confine my remarks almost

entirely to the budget and what is not in it and what is in it, and

what bad effects what is not in it is going to have — in my opinion —

in continuing bad effects on the economy of British Columbia.

I believe that governments seldom, if ever, help or encourage the

economy. In fact, it seems that in Canada we increasingly measure only

degrees of harm or of meddling, and hope that governments will please

leave people alone. This government is certainly not ever, in my

opinion, going to stimulate prosperity in British Columbia. Our economy

will move upward eventually, but only because the people of B.C. get it

moving, on their own — not because of the government, but in spite of

it.

Last year we lost tens of thousands of business and job

opportunities because of the rather Draconian economic measures imposed

on us. Before we can move ahead....

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Are you chattering about something over there?

Before we can move ahead I would hope that the government would move

to restore what was deliberately destroyed last year. We want to see

you give the people of B.C. a chance — just the opportunity to show

what they can do. Why can't you relent on some of your tax increases of

last year? Why not start with corporation and gift taxes?

As the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has

suggested, I think there is no doubt that our existing industry is

sorely in need of some massive infusions of capital in order to take

advantage of production technology which their competitors, in some

cases, have taken advantage of internationally years ago. Our industry

needs this just to stand still, just to keep up in the international

markets.

It's also interesting that in Canada — not just in B.C., but in all

of Canada — most corporation tax is in fact paid for by independent

Canadian businesses operating in those provinces. They're the ones who

need the break most. The multinational conglomerates, who control much

of our raw materials, can and do avoid much income tax that they would

pay if they were independent B.C. or

[ Page 354 ]

Canadian firms. I'm not suggesting that they avoid

them, and it's quite legal in Canada to do that. They've been given all

kinds of loopholes by a succession of Liberal and Conservative

governments in Ottawa.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that corporation income

taxes seriously affect only Canadian companies and not international

ones. In fact, obviously they discriminate against B.C. Investment in

B.C. and in favour of foreign conglomerates operating in British

Columbia. Either we should be collecting our own taxes, as has been

suggested, or we should sharply adjust these taxes so that they are no

longer a disincentive to B.C. companies that wish to expand their

operations.

A great deal has been made of last year's tax increases. One aspect,

however, that has become increasingly evident as the year unfolded was

the fact that our own independent firms were forced into even more of a

competitive disadvantage with major multinational operations. I ask

that the government move immediately to even up the ante and give

British Columbians a chance. We might all be pleasantly surprised by

the results.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that the newly elected government in the

province of Quebec has declared its intent to move exactly in this

direction. The Finance minister there, M. Parizeau, has said repeatedly

that income taxes are not paid by foreign-owned subsidiaries, only by

Canadian firms. Why must this government compound and perpetuate the

taxation mistakes of the Ottawa government? I wonder if there are

perhaps too many Liberals and Tories over there — too many Liberals and

Tories on the Treasury Board. You know, they're so used to federal

taxation policies that discriminate against British Columbia it has

become a way of life for those parties. They don't know the difference

any more. They've forgotten what fairness is all about because they're

so used to seeing their governments act in this way when they're in

Ottawa.

You know, there used to be some real Socreds, some populist Socreds,

who knew what it was all about, but I think they've forgotten all about

it now, or they've retired, or they've been muzzled. I even remember

the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), before he entered

the cabinet, used to talk about the discriminatory taxation practices

of federal and provincial governments. We don't even see him in the

House now, much less hear about him trying to do something for British

Columbia businessmen who are desperate for opportunities to expand.

I'm only asking that you give people in B.C. a chance. Everything that this

government has done in the last 13 months has discouraged people. In particular,

this budget has suppressed initiative and imagination that are the natural attributes

of British Columbians. The economy of B.C., which has been so productive in

the past, could become so again if only the government would show people that

it has a human side. Give people the opportunity to get this province moving

in the right direction for a change and they will indeed stop the slide and

put some spirit back into our investors, businessmen, professionals and skilled

craftsmen.

They were supposed to be the party that defended the individual, but

every time an individual citizen in British Columbia thinks he sees a

way of improving his position, he gets slapped down by a chippy,

irrational tax and rate structure.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Hear, hear!

MR. D'ARCY: Not only do you give the public no hope, but you tell them

they're failures and they have irresponsible expectations out of life. What

is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with wanting a decent house and a comfortable car and

stylish clothes and, slowly but surely, a higher standard of living at home

and a better range of amenities within their community? What is wrong with an

individual wanting at least a chance to get ahead? Yet you give people no chance,

no hope, and, as I said in the throne debate, many of our most productive people

have pulled up stakes, taken their capital, and moved to other provinces, and

in some cases, tragically, have even left the country.

Thousands more British Columbians are doing a huge proportion of

their retail spending in Washington and Alberta. Retail businesses in

towns and cities near the border in my riding, and in all ridings near

the border, have suffered a universal loss of trade resulting in

employee layoffs and business failures, and, ultimately, the subsequent

social cost of dislocation, retraining and resettlement.

Although incomplete, this government's own revenue figures for sales

tax revenue show that income from this source is well below

expectations. Indeed, the revenue has increased about only the normal

annual growth rate that took place when the sales tax was, pegged at 5

per cent. Think of it — a 40 per cent increase in tax rates but no

increase in revenue above what would have been usual with average

retail sales growth. We know that cheques cashed in British Columbia

are up over $30 billion in 1976 over the year before. Of course, the

sales tax rate went up by 40 per cent, yet we see only an incremental

increase in revenue from sales tax. There is no doubt the government

has met with what is euphemistically known as consumer resistance. The

public in B.C. Is not buying anything in British Columbia that they

don't absolutely have to. It has shown up in slumping sales tax revenue

performance.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we need an immediate sales tax cut and immediate corporate and personal income

[ Page 355 ]

tax cuts. Only in this way can the government show

its good faith to the people of British Columbia. The public has no

faith in this government right now; perhaps they have no faith in any

government, but that faith must be restored.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Job opportunities will only be developed if first there are business

opportunities. Yet instead of business opportunities we have seen a

sharp increase in business failure — lost opportunities, lost capital

and lost productivity. Worst of all, there is no credibility for

government economic policies and statements.

MR. COCKE: Bankrupt in government and bankrupt in business.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, whether any given person on the

street likes the government or not is not so much the issue here. The

point is that no one, least of all employers and potential investors,

believe anything the Finance minister or the treasury benches have to

say, and that is dangerous.

Previous speakers have documented huge discrepancies in stated

intent and real actions by the government. Employers and investors have

to know what to expect from government. They can't be told one thing

and then watch the government do something else as the year unfolds.

Uncertainty and apprehension about the future is a fearsome thing.

In the budget speech, British Columbians were told over and over

that we must fight inflation on all fronts — restraint, restraint,

restraint. Then the minister called on Ottawa to start the printing

press to grind out more cheap money because, as he said, interest rates

are too high. No wonder eyebrows have been raised in many curious

places, not the least of which is the Royal Bank newsletter. What

absurdities we are asked to swallow! They tell us to fight inflation

and endure business reverses, but let's have someone else pump out

cheap money. That's going to lower the value of everyone's savings and

everyone's investments. You're not merely content with preventing

people from getting ahead, you want to reduce the value of the

productive assets they already have.

A policy like you are advocating will reduce the value of savings

and pensions that people have set aside for later years so they don't

have to rely on governmental largesse. I thought that was a watchword

of your party, but evidently you're going to throw people back on the

state or back on their right to sleep under bridges or in parks for

free, even if they have tried to look after themselves when they are no

longer productive. All the while you are preaching that everyone else

should tighten their belts. What a contradiction.

Please, I ask the government, consider doing just a few things to

give consumers a choice, just a few things to expand business

opportunities. Those opportunities and rising consumer optimism will

indeed make new jobs, and new jobs bring in new revenue. Even modest

tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, will be more than made up by increased revenue

from increased activity in the investment and job markets of British

Columbia. I ask the Minister of Finance to go to cabinet, to go to the

Treasury Board and think about it, think about giving people some hope

of light at the end of the tunnel. This government, as I said earlier,

will never by itself turn the economy around; only the people can do

that. But you've got to get off their backs, even just a little bit,

and they'll do the job far better than anyone could imagine.

I note from letters and from discussions I've had with people that

no one really expects the government to do anything for British

Columbia; they've given up hope for that. The editorial comment on the

budget has shown that, and man-in-the-street interviews and so on

graphically illustrated that. But people are asking one thing: they're

asking to be left alone, Mr. Speaker. They're asking the government to

quit tampering and meddling in a chippy, doctrinaire way with people's

livelihoods.

If you leave the public alone and give some reassurance that in the

future people will be able to keep some of the fruits of their work and

enterprise, indeed we will see some action.

I am sometimes surprised that people haven't petitioned this House

to protect the taxpayer from politicians who are convinced they have

all the answers. It has been said many times before that as soon as

someone believes he knows all there is to know about a particular

topic, he never learns anything new forever after. This government must

step back from its doctrinaire, dogmatic, know-it-all approach to

revenue and expenditure, and allow the people of B.C. to get on with

the job. Only then will revenue increase. Only then will we have a

balanced budget which can restore some of the decent and humanizing

things which once were becoming a part of life in British Columbia, and

have been so summarily cut by that government.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, it is with the

greatest of pleasure that I rise once more in my place in this House to

speak in this budget debate.

First, I would like to compliment my government for, during these

times of restraint, bringing in a budget which will do so much for the

people of British Columbia.

Before turning to the budget, Mr. Speaker, as this is the first

opportunity that I have had to stand and speak in this House during

this session, I would like

[ Page 356 ]

to reaffirm to this House my pride at being here on

behalf of the people of my constituency of Omineca. I consider it a

privilege and, indeed, an honour to stand in my place as their

representative, bringing to this House their wishes and their views on

what they would want done in this Legislature should they be here

themselves. I take that direction and that mandate seriously.

I would also at this time, Mr. Speaker, extend my congratulations to

the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) for his re-election as

Deputy Speaker, and to the Hon. Jim Chabot (Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources), the Hon. Jim Hewitt (Minister of Agriculture) and

the Hon. Sam Bawlf (Minister of Recreation and Conservation) for their

recent appointments to cabinet. I wish them every success in their

endeavours.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like at this time to pay tribute to a

former member of this House, the member for Omineca from 1949 to 1952,

whose loss we suffered in the past year, Mr. Robert Cecil Steele.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I would be remiss in speaking in this

budget debate not to relate to this House the amazing change that I

have seen in just over a year in the outlook of the people of my

constituency. For three and one-half years a dark cloud hung over the

north — the dark cloud of socialism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: There was fear, hon. members, through you, Mr.

Speaker: the constant fear of government takeover and government

intervention into the very everyday lives of our people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Terror tactics!

MR. KEMPF: I want to tell this House that that fear is now gone and the constituents in Omineca now breathe easier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: They now breathe easily with the realization that

under a Social Credit administration they will not lose the right to

own their own land and they will not lose the right to own their own

homes. There is no thought and no threat of the loss of the freedom

that they so dearly cherish.

The people of Omineca are very pleased to return from the road of

socialism. They can see that there is no hint in this government's

budget of government takeover. I've listened to the members opposite

speak of the lack of investor confidence in this province. How wrong

they are! They are wrong again. I challenge their statements,

statements that have been made without a shred of fact — not a shred of

fact to back them up.

I've listened with particular interest to the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) — I am sorry she isn't in the House today — expound on the

lack of investor confidence in British Columbia, expound on the high

unemployment in this province. Mr. Speaker, that member doesn't even

know what's going on in her own constituency, let alone the province —

not even in her own constituency.

A recent news release from Mr. Robert Rogers, chairman of the board

of Crown Zellerbach Canada, announced on December 9, 1976, the addition

to the Elk Falls operation of his company in Campbell River a $45.9

million expansion, including a new high-speed sawmill and a new paper

machine.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was announced five months ago.

MR. KEMPF: I have also, Mr. Speaker, a newspaper

article

announcing a new sawmill in my constituency of Omineca by Weldwood and

Eurocan — a consortium...

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Where? Where?

MR. KEMPF: ...an expenditure of some $17.5 million, and the

creation — for the interest of that member — with both logging and

milling operations, of some 400 jobs. Four hundred jobs in British

Columbia!

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of Omineca, there will come into

realism a mine — a mine, for the first time in several years in this

province. I have here a news release dated January 14, 1977, and I'll

read it, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker: "Vancouver, B.C.,

January 14, 1977."

MR. LAUK: We read it.

MR. KEMPF: It says:

"A letter of intent covering the development of the

Sam Goosly silver, copper, gold property, 22 miles south of Houston,

B.C., has been signed between the Equity Mining Corp. and Canex Placer

Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Placer Development Ltd. Equity holds

a 70 per cent interest in the Sam Goosly property, for which it has

estimated ore reserves of 43.5 million tons of ore rating 2.73 ounces

of silver per ton, 0.33 ounces of copper per ton, and 0.026 ounces of

gold per ton.

"Under the proposed agreement with Equity, Canex will

purchase treasury shares equal to 30 per cent interest in Equity for

$2.3 million."

[ Page 357 ]

MR. LAUK: Stock promoter. Have you got any shares?

MR. KEMPF: "Canex will assume responsibility for designing, building and commissioning a mine and mill on the property."

MR. LAUK: Don't hold your breath.

MR. KEMPF: "Canex will also provide assistance in financing,

including a guarantee of a total of $20 mil