1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4585 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

PCB hazard in Vancouver buildings. Ms. Sanford –– 4585

Tenants of Stratford Hotel. Hon. Mr. Hyndman replies –– 4585

PCB hazard in Vancouver buildings. Ms. Sanford –– 4586

Mr. Skelly –– 4586

Relocation of RCMP headquarters. Mr. Hanson –– 4586

Decontrol of rental accommodation. Mr. Levi –– 4586

Alleged oil company profiteering. Mr. Macdonald –– 4587

Tabling Documents

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia annual report for the year ended December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4587

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4587

Mr. Skelly –– 4589

Mr. Kempf –– 4592

Ms. Sanford –– 4594

Mr. Segarty –– 4597

Mr. King –– 4600

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4604

Amendments to Finance Statutes Amendment Act –– 1981 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Referred to the committee having in charge Bill 13 –– 4607

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

on behalf of all of us I want to extend good wishes to the Irish, and

the best of luck as well. But I should make all members aware that we

find on our desks a shamrock, courtesy of our favourite little

Irishman, the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). I think we should

extend our thanks to him.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I

would like to join the Minister of Municipal Affairs in thanking the

member for Kootenay for providing us with the shamrock. Since it is St.

Patrick's Day, I think it might be appropriate if I place on the record

of the House one of the ancient limericks of Ireland, which reads:

Ciad miel faultier

Both hearty and sage

Ciad miel faultier

In any language

Means thousands of welcomes

To men of all tongues

And spare ye from judgment

Your rights and your wrongs.

So happy St. Patrick's Day

To Dutch, German — and hence,

To those who eat cornflakes

Described all in French.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I note in the gallery behind

you the leader of the IWA, Mr. Jack Munro. I would like to bid him

welcome to our House.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I as

well would like to extend a welcome to Jack Munro, the regional

vice-president of the IWA. I would point out to the House that with

Jack Munro are two other presidents of the IWA: Roger Stanyer, the

president of local 180 in Duncan; and Gerry Stoney, the president of

local 1357 and, in addition to that, the president of the New

Democratic Party of the province. Seated with them is a very able

assistant to the IWA. Clay Perry, a researcher.

MR. REE:

Today I am pleased to have two educators from my constituency in the

gallery facing you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the House to welcome William

Sulymka and Duncan Ellis, principal and vice-principal of Hamilton

Junior Secondary School in North Vancouver.

MR. MACDONALD:

I ask the House to bid welcome to Ms. Ysanne Harvey, who with me makes

for what is perhaps one of the best organizing duets in the province of

British Columbia. I wish she'd stand up and take a bow.

MR. STRACHAN: In your gallery, and with us hopefully for the next couple of weeks, is Mr. Arnold Olson of the Prince George Citizen . I would like the House to give him a welcome.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, to expand on the remarks of my colleague from

Vancouver East, we in the NDP have a practice of signing up members and going

around the province and making them know what's going on in respect to the

party. We have a group of people who assist us in doing that. Many of us on

this side have had the pleasure of meeting this group. I'd like the House

to make welcome Mike Pelzer and Ysanne Harvey, with Todd, Tim and Lisa Pelzer.

MR. LEGGATT:

Visiting us today is a contingent of cadets who are participating in

the Open House Canada exchange program. A large number of them are from

the Cape Breton area of Nova Scotia: they also come from Port

Coquitlam, Haney and Maple Ridge. I ask the House to bid them all

welcome.

MR. STUPICH: In the gallery today is a group

of students from the secondary school in Nanaimo. They are on one of

the many trips to the Legislature sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. I ask

the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is really not a new observation,

but it is for 1981. I would like to pay special welcome to anyone in the gallery

who has not yet had welcome paid to them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In spite of the House Leader's welcome, I'd like to ask the House to

welcome a special visitor from the great city of Dawson Creek, Alderman

Ken Cameron, who is visiting in Victoria today.

Oral Questions

PCB HAZARD IN VANCOUVER BUILDINGS

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. During a recent

fire in Binghampton, New York, toxic PCBs leaked out of the building's

electrical transformer into the fire. The heat combined oxygen with the

PCBs to produce a more deadly poison, known as dioxin. Transformers

containing PCBs similar to those released in the Binghampton fire are

presently used in Vancouver in the Pacific Centre, the Vancouver Centre

and at Eaton's. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that

workers in those buildings are protected against PCB hazards in the

event of a fire?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is the first

time this matter has been brought to my attention, as the hon. member

probably suspects, and I will take her question as notice, if I may.

TENANTS OF STRATFORD HOTEL

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I wonder if I might provide for members an answer to a question which I

took as notice last Thursday from the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes), although I see he's not in his place presently,

nor is the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). It was

apparently an urgent matter having to do with the Stratford Hotel and

eviction notices which became effective yesterday or today. I was in

touch with the office of the rentalsman and was advised that, in any

event, the rentalsman had scheduled a hearing into the matter for

yesterday. My advice is that none of the tenants showed up for the

purpose of the hearing, and therefore the rentalsman has not officially

heard from them. If either of the members for Vancouver Centre have

further information or particulars, we on this side would certainly be

happy to follow the information through, but that's the best report I

can give at this point.

[ Page 4586 ]

PCB HAZARD IN VANCOUVER BUILDINGS

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wonder if

the Minister of Health could inform the House whether or not there are

any hospitals in the province that might have electrical transformers

with PCBs.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I wouldn't be able to advise you of that, but I'd certainly ask for a survey to be conducted.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Health. When the minister reports

back to the House, could he advise what action he will take if, in

fact, there are such transformers in the hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order. The member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY:

I have a supplementary question to the Attorney-General, who is

responsible for the fire commissioner's office. Has the minister taken

steps to order transformers using PCB coolants replaced?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, I have not, but the member should be aware that under the recently

adopted fire regulations in the province of British Columbia the

installation of transformers containing PCB is prohibited. In addition

to that, since 1978 there have been special requirements with respect

to the construction of the vaults in which transformer equipment is

located. The fire commissioner is providing me with a full report on

this matter, and I will share it with the House when I have it —

probably tomorrow.

RELOCATION OF RCMP HEADQUARTERS

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. It's surrounding the

decision taken by the Solicitor General and the RCMP to move the E

Division headquarters of the RCMP from Victoria to Vancouver. The

Attorney-General has recently made a number of comments expressing his

opposition to this move. I have in front of me a copy of an

administration manual from the RCMP which indicates that the

Attorney-General has a veto on such a move, that his concurrence is

required for such a divisional move. My question is: has the

Attorney-General indicated to the Solicitor-General of Canada that he

intends to exercise his veto and that no move shall take place?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This question is one which seems to be surrounded

with a great deal of mystery, and I haven't been able to reach the bottom

of it yet. I had a telephone call from the Solicitor-General last week just

prior to his attending the House of Commons. The telephone call was less than

five minutes long. At that time the Solicitor-General had responded in the House

of Commons to a question from Allan McKinnon, MP, saying that no decision had

been made. During our conversation I urged the Solicitor-General to get hold

of certain information I was aware of from the RCMP and then to consult with

me. It was my understanding that he would. He was here last weekend and did

not call me. I have placed a call to him to ascertain why he has made a decision

without the consultation he promised and, apparently, without any specific concern

as to the social and economic impact which this move may have upon the city

of Victoria and those residents of Victoria who are employed at the headquarters.

MR. HANSON:

My question is to the Attorney-General again. Is the minister aware

that his concurrence is required for such a move, and does he intend to

indicate to the Solicitor-General of Canada that he intends to exercise

that veto?

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes, I am aware of what my rights and responsibilities are. I think in

carrying out those rights and responsibilities, I would do so in

consultation with the Solicitor-General, who has the responsibility for

the internal management of the RCMP.

DECONTROL OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Rents for one-bedroom units under rent control are less than $300 a

month; a two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $350. Market rents

in the Vancouver area for uncontrolled apartments are $450 for one

bedroom and $600 for two bedrooms. Thirty-five thousand housing units

will be decontrolled this year. Has the minister decided to halt any

further decontrol of rental accommodation to prevent severe hardship to

some 35,000 families this year?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

There is no change in the government's policy on that topic from that

enunciated by my predecessor. May I say, in stating that, that in terms

of a permanent and satisfactory situation for renters and tenants in

this province, it is our firm belief that an expansion of supply of

accommodation on the rental side as rapidly as possible is the correct

route to go. Having said that, we are very mindful of the impact of

rising rents on tenants. The expanded rent review provisions which we

have brought in in recent years reflect our effort to see that hardship

or exceptionally difficult cases, if they arise, have an opportunity

for review by the office of the rentalsman or the rent review

commissioner.

Having said all that, because of the

continuing very tight vacancy situation in Vancouver, I want the member

to know that I am looking closely at the situation he points out, and

it may well be at the time of my estimates, or shortly before, that I

will have further comment to make. We are certainly most concerned

about the situation, but the key thing we want to do is to encourage

the maximum production of supply. In our view, the best and the safest

guarantee for tenants in this province is to build British Columbia out

of the tight vacancy rate, and a vacancy rate is the best factor to

keep a tenant well protected. We would like in this province to get

back to a situation where landlords are competing to keep tenants. That

will guarantee a very good state of affairs for tenants.

MR. LEVI:

Well, they've been in government for six years and they've had a

no-vacancy rate for three years. Can the minister advise the House of

the basis for the contention, which is attributed to him, that the

vacancy rate in rental accommodation will increase in 1981? Would he

tell us how much change he anticipates in the fall? I am informed that

this is the minister's contention, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

4587 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is entirely futuristic. If the minister wishes to answer, please proceed.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

If it will help the member, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to

confirm that I have expressed the very real hope to the public....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Some members opposite may find that funny; I think it is a very

important question for tenants. I hope that towards the end of this

year we will see an improvement in the vacancy rate. I say that for the

reason that under the policies of this government rental-accommodation

apartment construction in this province is proceeding at a record pace.

As recently as last week the general manager of the largest credit

union in British Columbia, VanCity Savings, confirmed to me his view

that there is a record pace of apartment construction underway in the

lower mainland. It is my belief that with that record-setting pace of

accommodation construction which is going to increase and augment

supply, this will be the path we see followed as we begin to see the

vacancy rate rise.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister aware

that one of the officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing has said that

he sees no likelihood at all of any change in the continuing problem

that exists? He is in a position to know, and I would like to know how

you know what he doesn't know.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, to answer the member, I am aware of that one point of view by

that one person. We'll see, come the end of the year. which view is

correct. My view, Mr. Member, is that one of the purposes of government

is to work hard towards optimistic solution, and not continually throw

dampers and cold water on the prospects for solution.

ALLEGED OIL COMPANY PROFITEERING

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

In view of the exorbitant profiteering by the major oil companies and

the evidence of conspiracy to fix prices produced by the combines

investigation branch, I'm asking this minister here in the province of

British Columbia what action he's taking to protect the consumers of

this province with respect to not only gasoline but home-heating oil

and, in particular, what he is doing to secure a rollback and a rebate

of the exorbitant prices that have been charged to these consumers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member asks an argumentative question.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Well, Mr. Speaker. the first action I'm taking, in answer to the

question from the former Attorney-General, is to adopt that very

fundamental precept of our system of justice, which I think all British

Columbians support, and that is that you don't pillory and convict

people before they have a chance to reply to very serious charges.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things very adamantly to the former Attorney-General,

a member of the bar of this province. I want him to know that on the basis of

charges to which there is no reply yet — but I see some of the parties charged

are running advertisements saying they want the earliest chance to reply — we will

let justice have its course in the normal tradition of the jurisprudence of this

land, and if then it should appear that consumers have been ill treated, I can

assure you that we're prepared to act swiftly, promptly and effectively.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, if the profits of the oil companies don't tell the

minister anything, there is nothing I can tell him. Look at them! Exxon

is taking one-third of its total world profits out of Canada and you

don't have it under review.

I have a question to the

Attorney-General. There is evidence here of gentlemen's agreements to

fix prices. You are the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown. Are

you doing anything in terms of upholding the law and investigating

whether or not prosecution should occur here in this province?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, we have obtained a copy of the material to which the hon.

member makes reference. We will consider whether or not there is

evidence of criminal acts in this province and, if so, they'll be dealt

with in the appropriate, proper and timely way.

Hon. Mr.

Hewitt tabled the eighth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to stand here and support the

budget of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, introduced a week ago

Monday. After all, as a former minister with responsibility for Finance

I have some idea how difficult it can be to have to make some of the

unpopular but very necessary decisions which are needed to provide more

and better services for British Columbians, while keeping our province

in good financial shape.

How to give British Columbians

today the services they want and need without creating a provincial

debt to burden generations yet unborn is the crux of what we are

talking about today. This government takes very seriously its

commitments to our citizens. We certainly know how difficult it is for

individuals and for families to make ends meet from one month to the

next. We know how families strive to keep strict budgets, recognizing

that once in debt it is very difficult to extricate yourself from that

vicious circle. If we expect individuals and families to follow the

commonsense rules of economics in sticking to a budget, then the same

expectation must apply to government. This government is dedicated to

that philosophy.

Some individuals, however, have very little

respect for budgets or a philosophy that encourages individuals to stay

out of debt. To them, a budget is nothing more than a detailed record

of how you managed to spend more than you earned. To some people,

living on a budget is the same as living beyond your means except that

you have a detailed record of it. The trouble with that type of

operation is that it thinks the individual owes the government a

living. This philosophy is

[ Page 4588 ]

simple:

blessed are the young for they shall inherit the provincial debt. Well,

this government recognizes that it all boils down to the age-old story:

owe as you go versus pay as you go. Frankly, I think the average

British Columbian recognizes the long-term benefits of the

pay-as-you-go principle.

Few areas of the world can compete

with British Columbia's standard of living and the types of services

provided by government. The programs supplied to people in this

province are good programs. They are important programs and, just as

important, they are fully paid for. There is no hidden debt piling up

in the closet, waiting to be dumped on British Columbians. What we've

got we paid for, and we can pass on a province to our grandchildren

that is able to provide them with the same opportunities we enjoy, a

province whose social services are not in debt. Those British

Columbians will thank us for the foresight to realize the importance of

service programs which understand economic realities.

For

many it would be easy to abuse this province's triple-A credit rating

when revenues are decreasing. Why not borrow? Go into debt to pay for

the services British Columbians have come to enjoy. Easy answers to

difficult questions. Further and further into debt. And why not? Those

who would put this province into debt year after year recognize they'll

be long gone when the piper finally has to be paid in full. No, Mr.

Speaker, going into debt never solved anyone's problems. Triple-A

ratings are not given to poor credit risks.

Much criticism

is being levied at the Minister of Finance for having to increase sales

tax. I remember when I introduced my very first budget and had to face

similar attacks because I had to raise sales tax. Let's face it, no one

in public life seeks opportunities to make himself unpopular, but

economic facts of life are facts that have to be faced, regardless of

how temporarily unpopular they may be. I can remember criticism was

aimed at me for increasing sales tax. It was referred to as political

revenge by the former Minister of Finance, in spite of the fact that

the hon. member — the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — admitted to

the Vancouver Sun that

there was a need to raise money, previous to the government which took

office in 1975. He stated that there was a need to raise money and that

several of the government's initiatives, including boosts in sales and

income tax, were under consideration by the NDP government before

leaving office.

I've also heard criticism about the need to

increase gasoline tax. I recall, as if it were only yesterday, a budget

speech delivered in this House by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in

which he announced a two-cent increase in gasoline tax and told MLAs to

"get on a bus" if they felt such opposition to the tax. Yes, how soon

we forget economic realities when we're sitting across the aisle.

There's been considerable comment on the budget speech and its

reference to relations with our federal government and the province,

and some of the difficulties we encounter. Many members opposite have

made reference to this and have been critical of what they call

Ottawa-bashing. I find this commentary hard to absorb because

yesterday, in a speech to this House on the budget speech amendment,

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said: "Even the Liberals in Ottawa,

as much as I dislike that crowd of phonies that run the federal

government...." That's how much he's concerned about Ottawa-bashing. He

referred to the "crowd of phonies" in Ottawa that run the federal

government. I think they should think twice before they attack what is

legitimate concern over our relationships with the national government.

I'd

like to say a word or two about the current tax collection agreement

which exists between the federal government and the government of B.C.

The Minister of Finance referred to this in the budget speech. He

indicated his concern with our inability to have cooperation out of

this agreement and indicated that he had now given notice that it would

be possible in three years that we might want to withdraw from the

agreement and consider our own tax collection system in this province.

To those few who may be listening to this — this is a very important

matter, Mr. Speaker — I'd like to say I've had some experience with

this as previous Minister of Finance.

British Columbia

entered the tax collection agreements because the province recognized

the importance of maintaining reasonably uniform tax bases among

provinces. One set of tax forms reduces the complexity for taxpayers,

and there are savings in administrative costs by having one government

collect these taxes. However, these advantages are being overshadowed

by serious difficulties. British Columbia has the constitutional right

to levy income taxes without reference to the federal income tax

system. They have the constitutional right to decide on their own

provincial income tax; yet because of certain clauses in the tax

collection agreement that prevent deviation from federal policy, the

province has been prevented from undertaking certain tax policy

measures that were considered necessary. Two such policies proposed by

this government in 1979 that the federal government refused to

administer were a special dividend tax credit and special deductions

from British Columbia income taxes for investors who place their funds

in small business venture capital corporations.

The dividend

tax credit would have been restricted to dividends from public

corporations with their head offices and central management in British

Columbia. This measure would have promoted local control of corporate

decisions that affect our economy. The small business venture capital

corporations proposal would have aided the small business sector in

British Columbia and contributed to the overall strength of the economy.

The

federal government refused to administer both of these proposals on the

ground that they reduced the efficiency of the Canadian economy.

However, the federal government itself, through its own tariff

policies, regional development incentives and tax policies, such as the

employment tax credit that provides differing tax incentives to

employers in different provinces, threatens the Canadian common market

to a far greater extent than the proposals made by B.C.

Another

difficulty with the tax collection agreements is that the federal

government has introduced tax expenditures reflecting federal

priorities, but British Columbia, along with other provinces, has been

forced to share the cost. I'm told that the background papers to the

1981 budget contain examples of such tax expenditures.

British

Columbia is not necessarily opposed to all of the federal tax

expenditures but, rather, is opposed to the unilateral way they were

imposed under the tax collection agreements. In negotiations with the

federal government, British Columbia will press for resolution of these

problems, as indicated by the Minister of Finance. The development of

guidelines that both levels of government must follow in tax collection

may help resolve these difficulties. However, if the federal government

fails to work with the provinces to reach arrangements that take

account of our concerns, then, as the minister has indicated, the

government of British Columbia

[ Page

4589 ]

is prepared to administer its own income taxes. I hope this will not be necessary.

would also like to say that, as you can see from the current income tax

form which is used by individuals to pay their 1980 income tax, the

provincial income tax is based on a percentage of the calculated

federal tax. Here is a current T1 general income tax form showing the

page entitled "Detailed Tax Collection," where you calculate the

federal tax and subsequently calculate the British Columbia income tax,

based on the federal tax at 44 percent. This method creates a great

many complicated problems, and I believe, and have advocated

previously, that the national income tax department should base the

provincial tax on taxable income, not on a percentage of federal tax.

This would mean that in the future any alteration in the federal income

tax in any respect would mean we wouldn't have to subsequently amend

our own income tax percentage or calculation in order to have it made

possible. I think it's about time they took heed and commenced to

calculate provincial income taxes as a percentage of taxable income.

There's

one other item I'd like to comment on; that's the reference to the

impact of big-ticket items or major projects in this budget and the

effect they have had on the necessity to raise taxes. What I'd like to

do is indicate to you what is really in the budget for 1981-82 in terms

of these projects. I'm referring to the northeast coal development,

British Columbia Place, the amphitheatre proposal in Vancouver, the

proposal for a world's fair in 1986 — or Transpo '86 — and the trade

and convention centre proposal. These are the major project items which

our critics say are the reason why it has been necessary to raise

taxes. I'd like to say that for most of these items there's not one

dime in the budget — our estimate of expenditures required for the next

year — to pay for these projects. Let me explain.

When you

refer to British Columbia Place, which is a very imaginative proposal

for redevelopment of a downtown area in our major city, there is not a

dime of expenditure in the budget appropriated from the taxpayer for

next year. The same applies to the amphitheatre or stadium proposal for

Vancouver which is now underway. There are no expenditures provided in

next year's budget; those have been provided in funds previously set

aside.

Let's take Transpo '86, which is a world's fair that

won't take place until five years from now. There's an appropriation in

the estimates for next year of an amount of $2.5 million, which is for

preliminary expenditures required for the planning and development of

this major undertaking to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of

Vancouver. This is the extent of the appropriation towards that world's

fair which is in next year's budget — $2.5 million. Almost all of this,

it is estimated, will be recovered in 1986 through the revenues,

receipts and concessions which take place at the fair, plus a

considerable extra amount which will accrue to senior governments

particularly, having to do with income taxes and sales tax revenues.

Let's

take the proposal for a trade and convention centre in Vancouver, much

in the news in the last couple of years. There's not one dime in the

budget for next year, for expenditures for the province.

The only other item which is in the budget is development costs for this wonderful

coal development in the northeast part of our province. There's an amount

of $48 million to take care of roads and hydro powerline requirements to develop

the northeast part of the province. I think most people in this province will

support the need to expend those funds for the future development of those areas

— not just for the development of coal but for the many other industries, employment

and the need to develop those transportation networks and the powerlines for

those projects.

You

find in next year's budget a total of approximately $50 million — 99

percent of which is from northeast coal development — having to do with

the major projects which we're told are having a big impact on tax

increases. I say to you that when you think in terms of an increase in

sales tax and an increase in gasoline tax, which are part of this

budget program, there's only one-quarter of 1 percent of that sales tax

increase which you could say is to pay for the northeast coal

development for next year.

On the basis of facts, let's set

aside the notion that the major project items in this budget are the

reason the minister has found it necessary to raise some taxes. I only

want to add my support to this budget and at the same time offer my

appreciation to the minister for the items in the office of the

Provincial Secretary, which he has addressed — in particular the

increased assistance to libraries and museums, which has been long

sought for. I want to compliment him for responding to those requests.

We'll be dealing with that further in my own estimates.

think he summed up the real crux of this budget in one sentence, which

I'd like to remind you of. He stated: "This, I believe, is a reasonable

price to pay to maintain our health-care system, to educate our

children, to secure social justice, to provide for our economic future,

to train our workforce and to provide local government with the

resources needed to maintain stable and effective communities." That

sums up the crux of this budget, which I support.

MR. SKELLY:

I'm hoping to have your indulgence in departing a little bit from the

traditional style of the budget speech, or at least the style that

we've seen in this debate going back and forth across the floor. I'd

like to relate only a little bit to the budget, and you'll see how the

speech relates as I get closer to the end. Realizing that the budget

speech is traditionally a wide-ranging debate in which members are

generally free to deal with topics of their choice, provided they

relate at some point to the budget, I would like to take an opportunity

to discuss an experience I've had within the last month that I think

members might be interested in.

I'd also like to talk about

an area of the Pacific Rim that Canadians generally ignore. The budget

mentions Pacific Rim countries. We tend to ignore those countries that

are located on the eastern shore of the Pacific Ocean. When we consider

our position as a Pacific Rim country, we tend to look out towards the

Orient, China, Japan and Australia. What we fail to realize is that we

share the eastern coastline of the Pacific with a number of

Spanish-speaking nations in Central and South America. I think it's a

direct result of Canada's lack of interest in this area of the world

that South America and Central America have been abandoned to some of

the most oppressive military dictatorships ever known to man —

governments that rely on terror and torture to maintain their power. I

can't believe that if Canadians were truly aware of the conditions in

many Latin American countries, they would continue for long to support

those regimes.

I would like to discuss with members the

conditions in one of those countries that I had an opportunity to visit

a few weeks ago. That country is Nicaragua, which recently won its

independence on July 19, 1979, and is now seen by many

[ Page 4590 ]

Latin American countries as a beacon of democracy in the region.

was invited to Nicaragua as a guest of the Sandinista Trade Union

Central. I was part of a tour of approximately 20 residents of British

Columbia, including trade unionists, representatives of women's

organizations and organizations involved in providing development

assistance to Third World countries. We were given virtual freedom of

the country. We had an opportunity to meet with a number of government

officials and trade union members. We did tours of the plants in which

these people worked. We met with representatives of women's

organizations, youth groups, teachers' organizations and people

involved in various government ministries, such as adult education. We

met with the Minister of Culture, Ernesto Cardinale, and we met with a

number of individuals and business people in Nicaragua who were willing

to talk to us about the conditions in that country and what they would

like to see as its future.

Our group, in order to get as

accurate a picture of what was happening in Nicaragua as possible, took

along its own translators rather than rely on the translators that were

provided. In some cases translators weren't necessary because a good

we had a more than adequate means of communication with the Nicaraguan

people.

My impression was that within the constraints

imposed on the country by poverty, the necessities of post-war

reconstruction and the threat of military intervention from the United

States, Nicaragua is virtually a free society. Its government is

popularly supported. It will present a democratic example to all the

countries in Latin America and provide hope to all of those people

presently suffering under military dictatorships that they will be able

to throw off the yoke of those dictatorships sometime in the future and

become democratic and free themselves. I think this is precisely what

Americans fear the most about Nicaragua. It is the fact that it's an

example to other countries in Latin America, which for years have

suffered under military dictatorships such as the dictatorship of

Somoza in Nicaragua, which was supported by the United States

government. It is also for this reason that Nicaraguans see Canada as

their hope for an independent, non-aligned future. If Canadians don't

respond in an appropriate way to the hopes of Nicaraguans and take a

policy position in Central America independent of that taken by the

United States, then we will see Nicaragua go back into the old form of

military dictatorship. If we do take an independent stand on foreign

policy in this area, then this country will have some justifiable pride

in knowing that we kept alive a movement which will ultimately liberate

millions of people suffering under oppressive military regimes in Latin

America.

Let me describe for you some of the conditions that Nicaraguans have suffered

through during the past few years. As a result of the ecumenical movement in

the sixties and the Conference of Medellin in 1968 in Colombia, the Roman Catholic

Church has become increasingly concerned about the way it represents the poor

and the oppressed, especially in Latin America. Also, when Jimmy Carter was

elected President of the United States, he announced that as part of his foreign-aid

policy, he would not give aid to countries that did not respect the basic human

rights. As a result of this, the Nicaraguan dictator, Somoza, found himself

isolated from American support and from the support of the Roman Catholic Church,

which is critical in Latin America.

the same time in 1972, the city of Managua was destroyed by an

earthquake. Millions of dollars in foreign aid flowed into the country,

especially from countries such as Canada, to rebuild the city of

Managua. Unfortunately the dictator Somoza took most of the money that

was allocated for rebuilding the city of Managua and pocketed it

himself. He created an insurance company and a bank for his own profit.

This, more than any other event, stirred up the revolt among the people

of Nicaragua, who saw that Somoza and his family and supporters were

stealing from the poorest of the poor. When Somoza was criticized in

the press by a man named Chamorro, the publisher of La Prensa ,

the major newspaper in Nicaragua, Somoza had him assassinated. This

action precipitated the insurrection which ultimately toppled the

government. After a bitter war in which 100,000 people were exiled from

Nicaragua and tens of thousands of Nicaraguans were killed, on July 19,

1979 — only about 20 months ago — the Sandinista government was

welcomed in by a cheering crowd of almost a million people. This was

half the population of Nicaragua in the central square of the capital

city.

Getting into government was one thing, but the

government faced a tremendous task of reconstruction that makes our

budget debate here look a bit petty in comparison. Over half of the

people were unemployed. Most of them hadn't worked throughout the whole

period of the war. Forty percent of the total productive facilities of

the country had been destroyed, either by the war itself or by

vengeance taken upon the country by the departing supporters of Somoza

and his National Guard. Over 50 percent of the people were totally

illiterate — another legacy left over from the Somoza regime. The banks

of the country had been drained of cash by Somoza, and when the

government took over the banks, they found only $3.5 million remained,

enough to meet the import requirements of the country for two and a

half days. In addition, the government was facing debts to foreign

creditors of $1.6 billion which were borrowed by Somoza when he was in

office, but only half of which was invested in Nicaragua, the rest

having found its way into his personal assets in Miami and outside the

country.

In spite of this the government acted quickly to

try to restore the economy of the country. They paid every worker of

the country three months' salary in order to get the economy moving

again. They froze the price of food and transportation and subsidized

both so that both would be available to the people of Nicaragua. They

reduced rents and housing costs by 50 percent, and that way they were

able to get the economy of that country back on the track again. From

an inflation rate of 84 percent, Mr. Speaker, they reduced it to 17

percent. The reduction in the unemployment rate was from almost 50

percent to 13 percent. It is an extremely effective government, but

also a popularly supported and democratic government in the way they

operate.

Let me outline for you some of the basic elements

of Nicaragua's domestic and foreign policy program. The first element

is to unite all elements of the country into a broadly representative

government of reconstruction. This has been done. The ruling junta

consists of a number of people from the FSLN — the major ruling party —

but it also incorporates people from the Conservative Party of

Nicaragua. It also has representatives from the Catholic Church, and

all people in the country are represented in the council of state,

including church, business, labour groups and other mass organizations

in Nicaragua.

[ Page

4591 ]

Elections have been promised by 1985, but in the meantime the

government has developed a process of consultation with the people that

would put many governments such as ours to shame. Almost everybody in

the country today has an opportunity to involve himself in

decision-making on policy issues.

A second element in the

Nicaraguan government policy is to follow a policy of non-alignment in

great-power politics. At this point Nicaragua is about 80 percent

dependent on the United States for imports and exports, and 6 to 7

percent of their trade is with the eastern bloc nations. Nicaraguans,

Mr. Speaker, see Canada as their hope to reduce their trade dependence

on the United States without becoming forced, as Cuba was, into the

same dependency relationship with the Soviet bloc.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Nicaragua

is also committed to recognizing its financial obligations both

domestic and foreign. In spite of the fact that Somoza and his friends

pocketed a good part of the proceeds of foreign loans, the Nicaraguans

have agreed to repay all of their foreign obligations, except those to

Argentina and Israel, which were for weapons provided to Somoza's

National Guard and which were used to kill Nicaraguans.

The

Nicaraguan government has also recognized the role of private ownership

in the economy of the nation. The properties of the Somoza families

have been nationalized and have become a part of the public sector of

the economy, but 80 percent of industry is still controlled privately,

representing 60 percent of the gross domestic product of the country

that is the amount still in private hands.

Mr. Speaker, it's

also a humanitarian government. Within 15 days of taking power in

Nicaragua, they launched a literacy crusade to educate to a basic

minimum standard something like 600,000 citizens of Nicaragua who were

totally illiterate, and they accomplished this in a period of four

months. That accomplishment was recognized by UNESCO, which made an

award to the state of Nicaragua for their efforts in the literacy

crusade. I've seen hundreds of people in Nicaragua who came up to me

proudly on the street, showing me their literacy certificates, showing

me their notebooks, showing me their lessons that they had learned over

that four month period. It was recognized by the United Nations as one

of the most massive efforts to educate a group of people ever

undertaken by a humanitarian government. Hundreds of thousands of

students went out into the backwoods of Nicaragua, had themselves

adopted into families who could neither read nor write and taught those

families to read and write.

At the same time they did a census of the state. They catalogued animals and

plants throughout the state. They did things that the Somoza government had

never bothered to do in 40 years in office. Fifty-six children died in that

literacy crusade, taking knowledge to the illiterate people of Nicaragua. I

would like to point out that Canadians provided a great deal of assistance to

that literacy crusade. The New Democratic Party in Vancouver helped to finance

that literacy crusade. The B.C. Teachers Federation sent a large amount of money,

which was of tremendous benefit in that literacy crusade. People in Nicaragua

are extremely grateful for the generous aid that non-governmental Canadian organizations

have given them to help in the reconstruction of their country.

This

year was to have been the Year of Health in Nicaragua. One thing the

literacy crusade identified was that many Nicaraguans couldn't learn

because they didn't have the basic elements of health. This year health

brigades were to go to the interior of Nicaragua to provide knowledge

of the basic elements of sanitation and nutrition, to provide fresh

water, and to assist in inoculation programs for communicable diseases.

In Nicaragua they say they don't have the luxury of such diseases of

the privileged as cancer. Most people down there die within their first

few years: most of them die of humiliating diseases such as diarrhoea,

which is easily cured.

Because of outside interference and

the threat of an American economic blockade, unfortunately the health

crusade has been put off for another year. In spite of the popular

support of the government, its political and economic moderation and

its humanitarian tendency, the United States has now attempted to

impose an economic blockade on the small nation of Nicaragua. Nicaragua

has a population of 2.5 million, and it's being blockaded by a nation

of almost 200 million people. The reason the Americans feel threatened

by Nicaragua is because the existence of a popularly supported

democratic government in Central America is a threat to their military

dictatorships in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Chile, which are

supported by the United States government.

Now I would like to relate my speech to the budget.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

Even though the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) resents it,

I feel I have an obligation, because of my travels in Central America,

to bring back to Canadians the information I gathered down there. The

Nicaraguans see Canada as their hope for a democratic future. I would

like to urge the members of this Legislature to support a resolution

which I plan to present to this Legislature, probably tomorrow morning

after making this speech. This government is seen by Nicaraguans as of

potential assistance in resolving some of their trade dependence on the

United States. There are many things produced in Nicaragua that British

Columbians would find desirable, and there are many things produced in

British Columbia that Nicaraguans need desperately. And there is an

opportunity for trade between those two nations.

I would

like to thank the people in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development, who provided me with information to take to Nicaragua to

give to their trade representatives, such as B.C. Manufacturers'

Directory — the type of thing that will make that country more familiar

with the trade goods we have to offer.

As I said, I will be

presenting a resolution to this Legislature, which will request

expanded trade between British Columbia and Nicaragua, opposition to

any intervention in Central America by any of the great powers, and

assistance to help the Nicaraguans with reconstruction of their

devastated country. I would urge this Legislature to support my

resolution, and also to take immediate direct action on a

government-to-government basis to improve trade between our province

and Nicaragua. If we do take effective action, then British Columbia

will be able to report, with some pride, that they kept a spark of

democracy alive in one Central American nation, which will ultimately

become an example to all those people in Latin America who live under

oppressive military

[ Page 4592 ]

dictatorships.

I am convinced that Nicaragua as an example will lead to the freedom of

all countries in Central America, if we provide assistance to that

state.

MR. KEMPF: Before getting into the budget debate, I'd like to ask leave of the House to introduce some guests in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are two old friends of mine

from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Dinelle. I'd like

the House to make them welcome.

It is with great pleasure

that I stand once again in my place, as it is always a great pleasure

for me to be able to speak on behalf of the people of my constituency

of Omineca in this, the highest court in our province. None of us on

either side of this House should forget for one minute who it is we

speak here for and how it was we came to be here. We should also

remember the democratic process which has brought us, the chosen few,

to this place and the respect that we should have for that process; for

God help us should we ever lose it to those who, for as little as

short-term political gain, would undermine its very foundations.

stand today to speak in support of this budget. Although it's not the

kind of budget which I would prefer to have in this province, it's a

budget which is a product of our time. It is basically the result of

two things: spiralling costs, which of course include the cost of

government, and declining revenues to government. A combination of

these two phenomena left the Minister of Finance's task a very tough

one. The decision had to be made either to cut services to the people

of our province or to extract an additional $650 million in revenue

from our economy.

There was, of course, a third option, one

which those on the opposite benches would probably have taken had they

been government. I say that because we have heard many times, and we

can only ascertain, that they are in bed with Trudeau and fully agree

with that Prime Minister's policies. That option, of course, is deficit

financing. We have seen what that option has created in other

jurisdictions and know full well the result of that kind of

irresponsible action.

I mention Trudeau and his policies, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting,

in this budget debate, to have a look at what the actions of his

administration have brought on this country.The total federal debt to

March 31, 1980, was $122 billion. Interest on that debt in the past

year has been $10.3 billion, almost 4 percent of the gross national

product in this country. It's estimated to be even higher in this

fiscal year just ending: a whopping $12.25 billion is to be paid out in

interest on the national debt, or one in every four tax dollars. It's

an absolute disgrace that the national debt in this great, rich land of

Canada should amount to some $14,000 per taxpayer or $5,000 for every

man, woman and child in Canada. The interest on that debt next year, in

one year, will increase $500 per capita and almost $1,400 per taxpayer.

If there was no debt in Canada the federal government could afford to abolish

income tax for all Canadians earning $30,000 or less. The cost of interest

alone will, in the next fiscal year, exceed the total spending in the first

68 years of Confederation in this country. Our net national debt grows each

year by more than the total borrowed to finance Canadian participation in both

the First and Second World Wars. Certainly

anyone with any consideration for the future of British Columbians

could not in good conscience take the route of deficit financing. So

two decisions were left to be made by the Minister of Finance: (1) not

to decrease the very high standard of services now provided to the

people of this province, and (2) not to take British Columbia down that

disastrous path of no return — deficit financing. They were good

decisions, and I support them. I can see the need, and I believe the

people of British Columbia want to retain the level of service, a

service second to none in the world, particularly in the fields of

health and education.

My concern — and yes, I have concern —

is not particularly for the budget before us here today. I think it's

much the same as was the concern of my learned friend to my right, the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). My concern is for

future budgets in this province. I am very concerned, particularly when

looking at the budget for the Ministry of Health, as to where it's all

going to end. We have in this next fiscal year a $2 billion health

budget to provide health services to only two and a half million

British Columbians. This, coupled with education, human resources and

other people programs such as environmental protection, protection of

persons and property and aid to local government, makes up 75 percent

to 80 percent of the total provincial budget. My fear is for the

ability of the people of this province, even with our abundance of

natural resources of all kinds, to pay these ever escalating costs in

the future.

What I'm saying is that it's all very well to

provide the very high level of services, but how many more times can

we, as government, return to the trough for additional tax money? It's

certainly a concern of mine on behalf of those whom I represent. How

long can we go on, even in this naturally rich province of British

Columbia, without attacking the real problem? The problem, as I see it,

is in the cost to our programs of the massive bureaucratic distribution

system which eats up far too much of the earmarked dollar before it

actually gets to its destination.

In short, and I say this

in my very best northern vocabulary — as you would understand, Mr.

Speaker, being a northern member — we have got to, as parliamentarians,

find a better way in which to get more bang for the taxpayer's buck.

It's an absolute necessity. All governments are going to have to turn

their emphasis inward, and not just continually go to the people for

additional revenues to make up the escalating costs.

At the

turn of the century all levels of government in this country spent

about 7 cents out of each dollar of gross national product, a share

which now, as I said previously, will barely pay the interest on

government debt. In 1950 that figure had risen to 23 cents out of each

dollar, in 1970 to 36 cents, and in 1980 it was about 42 cents. Should

we carry on at the same rate for the next ten years we will see

governments spending over half our wealth for us by the year 1990 — a

level, incidentally, which Great Britain reached in 1975. Remember, on

a per capita basis, our federal government spending next year will

amount to $2,730 per man, woman and child in Canada. This compares to

only $540 per capita in 1967-1968, so you can see the path down which

we tread.

This is my concern for the future, Mr. Speaker,

and I believe as conscientious parliamentarians we must all accept the

challenge for which we are elected, really bite the bullet and get to

the root of our escalating cost problems.

But back to the present and the budget before us. As I said before, I support it. I have some concerns, yes, and I have

[ Page

4593 ]

expressed them, but generally this budget is a

product of the times in which we live, and we must to some extent

accept that. As a northerner, and as a representative of northerners, I

must accept a balanced budget. That at least shows accountability and

fiscal integrity, certainly key roles for any government to play.

Mr.

Speaker, for several days now, both on the budget and in debate on the

frivolous and ill-drafted motion from the other side of the floor, we

have listened to the members opposite who go on at length about all

that is wrong with the budget. But we have heard not a sound, not a

peep, as far as an alternative is concerned — not one alternative from

the members opposite. What would they have done? What would you have

done, Madam Member, given the same circumstances? Would you have cut

services to the people of this province?

MR. LEA: Surpluses.

MR. KEMPF:

Would you have cut services, particularly in health, Mr. Member for

Prince Rupert? Would you have cut services in education? Would you have

cut services in human resources? Would they have reduced and

streamlined the bureaucracy, as I have suggested is an absolute

necessity in order to cut government spending? I don't think so, Mr.

Speaker, for if you will recall the years 1972 to 1975 in this province

it was they, in their term as government, who increased the civil

service by 13,000 in that three and a half years in the province of

British Columbia. Don't shake your head, Mr. Member, because those are

facts. Would they have gone the Trudeau route?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you reduced it?

MR. KEMPF: No, but we've held the line, Mr. Member, and if it was up to me I'd reduce it, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. If the member will continue to address the Chair it will

assist the Legislative Assembly, and me in maintaining order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'd be only too happy to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All other members must remember that the member for Omineca is speaking, and shall speak uninterrupted.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, would they have gone the Trudeau route of deficit

financing? I don't see why they wouldn't have. They agree with him on

every other issue, as we have heard in the debate that has raged for

the last week in this House. They're in bed with him at every other

turn; I don't see why they shouldn't be at this one, even though, Mr.

Member, other westerners, even in your own party, are not. Or would

they have done no differently than the Minister of Finance has done in

this budget, and levy the additional taxes in order to raise the

additional money in order to retain the high level of services in our

province? What would they have done? They haven't told this Legislature

what they would have done.

They try to make a mockery of northeast coal. Well, northerners don't think

that way. In fact, if I might say so, northerners think that northeast coal

is the best thing since sliced bread. Finally, after several years in the doldrums,

we now have a new vision for the north. We see money about to return to the

north for development — a return of some of the wealth of this province to where

it came from in the first place.

must commend my colleague the Attorney-General, the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), who in debate just last week

uttered these words about the north. I quote from Hansard , because I think that he has said it better than I could myself:

suggest that we should take away an investment in the development of

the great inland empire that will be opened up by the transportation

routes to northeast coal and devote it to houses for the short-term

benefit that it will provide for a very few people in the lower

mainland of the province of British Columbia, is to ignore the way in

which this province has developed.

I hope that

we will hear from the northern member of the opposition side. They've

only got one northern member on the opposition side. I thought we would

hear from that one member — and I hope we will before this debate is

over — indicating quite clearly that it is the north, the northern

interior and inland empire which surrounds northeast coal and provides

the capital which fuels the rest of this province. When you want to

have rapid transit, more hospitals, more schools, more universities,

better highways and better ferries, all on the lower mainland, remember

that the money comes from the north and northern interior.

think that says it, Mr. Speaker, even better than I could as a

northerner. I commend my colleague, who I see has a keen understanding

of just where the wealth of this province comes from. It's that kind of

understanding among southern members of this Legislature which will

propel British Columbia into yet another 30 years of great prosperity.

Yes, the development of northeast coal will commence another era of

prosperity in that area of the province on which we are all dependent:

the natural resource-rich central and northern two-thirds of this

province.

MR. LEA: What about Kemano II?

MR. KEMPF:

I'll get to Kemano II, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert. I wish you could

be as vocal when you get on your feet as you are from your seat.

MR. LEGGATT: I always thought he talked too much.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, he talks a lot, hon. member, but he doesn't say very much.

Mr. Speaker, as does the hon. member for Vancouver–Howe Sound, I too wait with

great anticipation for the northern members. I must correct the Attorney-General:

there are two northern members on that side of the floor — no, three now; I

have already forgotten one, and soon the north will forget all three of them.

I await their remarks, saying they don't agree with northern development

or the return to the north of our fair share. I await particularly the words

of the member for Prince Rupert to tell this House that he's against the

Ridley Island development. Tell this House that. Mr. Member.

Mr.

Speaker, before taking my place, and in conjunction with the budget,

there are two direct subjects on which I would like to dwell on behalf

of my constituents. You smile, Mr. Member for New Westminster; it's

about time you brought some of your constituents' problems to this

House. The first I brought to this house before: Kemano completion. I

will not dwell at length on this subject.

[ Page 4594 ]

MR. COCKE: He's had a change of heart.

MR. KEMPF:

No, I haven't had a change of heart, Mr. Member. It's for sure you

don't know what's going on in the north, if that's what you think.

But

I will not dwell at length on this, as I am sure that by now everyone

here in this Legislature is aware of the wishes of the people of

Omineca, where this proposed project by the aluminum Company of Canada

is concerned. I would just like to say again, although we in Omineca

are not anti-development by any means, we do stand united against any

project which would result in the devastation of our river systems —

any such project. The people of the Nechako Valley and of the lakes

district have paid enough for Kemano I. Let us as government look

elsewhere for hydroelectricity if in our wisdom we wish our province to

have additional smelters, such as the one now serving the community of

Kitimat. Kemano completion is of serious concern to a great number of

my constituents, and I will continue to raise the question in this

House at every opportunity.

Lastly, in the context of a

return of our wealth to the north and the transportation systems needed

for northeast coal development, I want to speak for a moment on behalf

of a group of my constituents — possibly not great in number, but

nevertheless citizens of my constituency and of this province and, in

my mind, deserving of at least a humane standard of transportation and

freight service; these are the people who live and work along the

stretch of the British Columbia Railway from Fort St. James northeast

to Driftwood. Presently these people are totally reliant on that

Crown-owned railway. Because there are no roads into the area, and

except for air transportation, which at best is unreliable and

expensive, these people have no alternative but to utilize what cannot

even remotely be compared to a service — particularly the passenger

service, which is considerably less than that afforded cattle in other

jurisdictions and regions of this province.

I don't wish to

dwell on the type of service that my constituents in this area now

enjoy; it's well documented and well known. I do however wish in this

budget debate, in view of the hundreds of thousands of dollars — many

of which, as pointed out previously, were derived from the north —

which are being spent on such things as light rapid transit and other

such amenities on the lower mainland, amenities, incidentally, which we

in the north as good British Columbians have no objection to, for we

know that they are needed and necessary and we want to see progress

made.... But in view of all that, I must ask in this debate that equal

consideration be given those people along the BCR to whom I have

referred. Money must be found to rectify that most undesirable

situation, and I call upon my colleagues in government to do so.

There

is much more I must say on behalf of my constituents, much of which

will be better said during individual estimates of individual

ministries, so I'll leave that for a later time. In the meantime, let

me say again that I support this budget.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks made by the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who spoke about how much his constituents had

already suffered as a result of Kemano I and expressed some opposition to Kemano

II, but failed to indicate to the House what steps he might take if, in fact,

his own government allows that Kemano II project to proceed.

MR. KEMPF: That's on the record.

MS. SANFORD:

Well, it's not on record in this House. Maybe I should point out that

he has failed to mention in this Legislature, as far as I can recall,

that in fact he would leave the party and cross the floor of the House

if his government allowed that project to go ahead. I'm assuming that

the member for Omineca will one day state that on the record in this

Legislature. I believe he has whispered it, at one point in his

constituency, but we've not heard much on that subject since that time.

It would be interesting to hear whether he actually intends to make

that statement here in the Legislature.

I would like to

start this afternoon by extending to you, and to all the members of

this Legislature, an invitation to come to Courtenay this summer, where

the Comox Valley is hosting the Summer Games on August 27, 28, 29 and

30. The games are going to be very successful. Based on the work done

by the excellent committee which has been working on this project for

several months I can say in all confidence that the games in Courtenay

are going to be very well hosted this summer. As a matter of fact, the

people here in Victoria who work with committees of this type in

setting up winter and summer games are amazed at the progress that that

committee has made in the Courtenay area. They are currently looking

for 2,000 volunteers to assist in ensuring the success of those games.

If any of the members are not sitting in the Legislature on those days,

I'm sure that they would welcome volunteers from the members of this

Legislature. I've got two people in the area checking out all of the

hotels to try to find which hotels might charge less than $10 per room,

so they don't have to pay the new tax. When I get that information

back, I will let the members of the House know which hotels are

available at $10 or less.

I would like to extend

congratulations this afternoon to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett), who took the initiative and advanced a solution which was

eventually adopted by the two parties involved in the very long,

difficult and bitter B.C. Telephone dispute. There is no doubt that it

was because of the initiative that was taken by the Leader of the

Opposition, who got on the phone, worked for several days on this,

contacting the federal Minister of Labour and the parties involved, in

order to get them to sit down again — and they did. They sat down and

for a number of days discussed the proposal which was advanced by him,

and eventually that became the formula on which the solution was

reached. I congratulate him for taking the initiative and wonder what

on earth some of those members of government have been doing during

this long, difficult dispute.

I think everyone is relieved

that the B.C. Telephone dispute seems to be resolved at this stage and

that the voting is now taking place on the proposals, but I have to say

that the industrial relations of B.C. Tel are appalling. There is no

doubt, in my view, that that company has indulged in industrial

relations which are completely unacceptable in British Columbia in this

day and age. They have thumbed their noses at the whole process of

collective bargaining. They rejected, out of hand, the mediation

reports. They have introduced unheard of preconditions, such as

guarantees from the federal CRTC that their next application for a rate

increase would be granted to them. This child of the massive General

Telephone Company behaves very badly at the collective bargaining

table. It certainly has a lot to learn about the whole process.

[ Page

4595 ]

This dispute could have been resolved months ago, and I wonder

whether or not this company might feel that the confrontation that it

has involved itself in over the last little while has been to their

advantage. After all, they have been able to carry on; they can rely on

their top-heavy management structure in order to carry them through

and, in fact, improve their profit picture as they did during the last

dispute. The AIB eventually had to order them to pay back some of the

massive profits they made at that time. Whatever their attitude, it's

been a long, bitter dispute.

I also wonder about the other

companies in this province, the other aspects of the corporate sector,

who have been very silent on the way in which B.C. Tel behaved during

that period of time. Surely the corporate sector is not happy with the

way in which B.C. Tel handled these negotiations. Surely they must be

very unhappy, because of the fact — and this is very important — that

the attitude of that company has soured the industrial relations of the

province. They affect everybody. It's not just B.C. Tel and the TWU; it

is an atmosphere that has now been created in this province which is

going to make collective bargaining very difficult. That's why I wonder

why the corporate sector has not been willing to speak out and express

its concern about B.C. Tel and the way in which they have conducted

their industrial relations.

I've never before heard a

federal Minister of Labour attack a company publicly. This federal

Minister of Labour did on at least two occasions, and I think it's an

indication of the intransigence of that company and the concern that he

had about the industrial relations scene in the entire province. That's

why I wonder why those people on the government benches sat for so long

without advancing a single proposal that would help resolve the

situation.

That soured atmosphere, the climate in which so

many of the up-and-coming negotiations will have to take place, has

been made more difficult, I think, for any of those who are going to

the bargaining table. It's going to be more difficult. The parties

involved look at the inflation rate, and unfortunately this budget that

the Minister of Finance brought in last week is going to add to that

inflation rate because of the harsh taxes they have imposed and because

of the fact they've increased their spending by well over 17 percent in

a year. It's going to add to inflation and it's going to make

negotiations even more difficult, firstly, because of the atmosphere

and, secondly, the kind of increases that have been imposed by this

government.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not here this

afternoon. One of the things the Minister of Finance indicated to us, and that

other members across on the other side have mentioned a number of times during

this debate, is that there has been no cut in services. That really is a cruel

joke, because there have been cuts in services. Those cuts in services have

been taking place for the last number of years and are continuing again under

this budget. They keep saying they have not cut services. That's not true.

It's not true. Just have a look at the youth employment program for this

coming year. Surely that is a service to the people of the province. As a matter

of fact, for young people I think it would be considered an essential service.

The youth employment program has a drop of $4 million in one budget, and they

say there has been no cut in services. I really think the Minister of Finance

should revise his budget speech and say: "Oh, I made a mistake. There are

a few cuts in services and the youth employment program is one of them."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It's

the young people who are already facing the highest rate of

unemployment. Their tuition fees go up at Universities, books go up,

rents go up and yet their opportunity to get work goes down because of

those cuts. I'm just wondering if the money that has been set aside

this year is really going to be spent on that youth employment program,

because they have virtually eliminated the youth employment program in

government, and they've also virtually eliminated the program for all

of the non-profit societies. Now that's going to create hardship, not

only on the young people who are looking for work but on those

non-profit societies and some government agencies that rely on those

students to give them a hand during the summer.

In addition

to that the government admits that this budget is going to cause more

unemployment. So it's the young people who are going to have to come up

with money for the increases in taxes — the sales and gasoline taxes.

They are the ones who find it most difficult to find work, because

that's the area in which un-employment is highest, and yet the

government is going to create more un-employment. This they have

predicted for next year and the year after. To cut that youth

employment program is a cut in service that is unacceptable in this day

and age.

One of the other aspects of this budget which

dismays me is the area of industrial health and safety, because

obviously the government has not made this particular area a priority.

If you look at vote 144, safety engineering, you will find that the

increase in that particular vote is 9.1 percent compared to the overall

increase in the budget of over 17 percent. Where are their priorities

in that area? Here we have under vote 144 an explanation. It says:

"This

vote provides for the programs of the safety engineering division whose

objective is the provision of a safe living, and working environment

for persons in British Columbia by means of standards, education and

inspection in commercial and industrial establishments and in the

disciplines relating to boiler and pressure vessels, electrical gas and

elevating devices."

This is the vote whose objective is the

provision of a safe living and working environment for persons in

British Columbia, but where is the priority for the spending? Do you

realize that under this vote $138,000, which was included last year for

advertising and publications, has been eliminated entirely? This

particular ministry will not even be able to publish what the rules and

regulations are, let alone do any advertising or make any attempt to

improve the safety and the working conditions.

We have the

example given by the IWA, through the Workers Compensation Board, of

safety inspections going down while deaths in the industry go up. You

would think that following information like that presented to

government and made public, the government would do something about

improving the safety and the industrial health of the people of this

province. They haven't, and it makes you wonder what sort of priorities

they do have. If they can increase the budget by 17 percent, surely —

particularly in view of that very tragic industrial accident that took

place in Vancouver where four lives were lost — this increase in this

budget should have been much higher. Surely the Minister of Labour

should be assuring the people of the province that through the Workers

Compensation Board we're going to see the kind of improvements that the

working people in this province deserve.

[ Page 4596 ]

One

of the things that I have said I don't know how many times in the last

seven years or so that I have been involved as an MLA relates to the

excellent job that the Minister of Agriculture during the NDP

administration did in terms of (

a) preserving farmland for future food

production in this province and (

b) ensuring that the farmers are able

to survive in British Columbia, producing food for all of us.

Mr.

Speaker, I know you have been somewhat involved in farmland within your

own constituency, and I'm appalled that any MLA these days would be

advocating the removal of farmland from the agricultural land reserve

for any other purpose. But I know, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude that

you have expressed is an attitude which is held quite widely within the

Social Credit Party. I assume that the member who just spoke, the MLA

for Omineca, would support the removal of the Spetifore farm from the

agricultural land reserve, although he didn't mention that. I wonder

what the member for North Peace (Mr. Brummet), thinks about the removal

of land that is capable of producing food from the agricultural land

reserve, in the process allowing the Spetifore family to increase their

wealth by at least $50 million. In fact I have heard figures that are

much higher than that. He's a friend of Social Credit.

would like to read to you a

section from the Social Credit news letter

for Comox constituency. I don't know if you have access to this, Mr.

Speaker, but they have demonstrated to me that they certainly agree

with the viewpoint expressed by the MLA for Delta (Mr. Davidson). The

newsletter reads as follows:

"The Spetifore

land release. Once again the inequities of the agricultural land

reserve have surfaced; once again the opposition has raised its

objections to the policies of the Social Credit government in relation

to land use; once again the issue has been clouded by irrelevant

matters that pass for public debate on this issue."

Oh, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about the preservation of farmland in British Columbia being "clouded by irrelevant matters...."

The newsletter goes on to say:

"Mr.

Spetifore is a Social Credit supporter. This fact has been known to the

Delta voters since the early 1950s. Should his political affiliation

deny him any consideration by a Social Credit government? Of course

not, for if it did, then the whole concept of citizen participation in

the democratic process would have to be discarded....

"The

Environment and Land Use Committee of the provincial cabinet overruled

the Agricultural Land Commission. This has raised two objections:

"

(1) The ELUC committee is composed of elected politicians who are susceptible to public political pressure."

Oh,

isn't that an interesting comment? Mr. Speaker, here we have a group of

elected politicians who are susceptible to public political pressure —

you'd better believe it, Mr. Speaker — and I think that the Spetifore

land release demonstrates that very clearly.

Back to reading the newsletter:

"Of course they are, and that is what democracy is all about.

Decisions that affect our daily lives should not be made by people who are not

accountable to us; they should be made by our elected representatives."

Mr.

Speaker, I disagree with that view totally. I think that the government

members are beginning to realize that for the Environment and Land Use

Committee of cabinet to be making decisions about farmland should not

be allowed in this province; those decisions should be made by an

independent body such as the Land Commission which has the expertise

and which is not susceptible to political pressure, as is cabinet.

"

(2) The job of the ALR committee to preserve farmland is being destroyed by

intervention by the ELUC. Not true. The mandate of the Agricultural

Land Commission is very narrow, to preserve farmland for present and

future use. The job of ELUC is much broader, to assure the proper use

of land for all types of human activity. One type of land use that is

essential and urgent in the lower Fraser Valley at the moment is

homesites for a growing population."

You see, Mr. Speaker,

they support your viewpoint — take out the agricultural land and put

homes on it. But we heard from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) the other day, who told us that the studies of the regional

district of greater Vancouver indicate there is enough space and enough

vacant area now, without using farmland and without building on

floodplains, to supply the housing needs until the year 2020. Was that

information not made available to the member for Delta, I wonder?

I'll continue reading. I would like to finish this particular comment made by the Social Credit Party in the Comox constituency.

"If

all of the land is potential agricultural land, where else do you get

building lots, except by overruling the narrow mandate of the ALR

commission?"

This next comment is really interesting. The newsletter says:

"Mr. Spetifore stands to make money from the land sales. Well, good for him!"

think that's enough of that newsletter. Here we have in the province

thousands and thousands of people who have absolutely no hope of

purchasing land and owning their own home because of the costs, and the

Social Credit newsletter says, okay, if the family make $50 million on

its property, good for them. That's the attitude they hold.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe that's why they took the land out of the reserve.

MS. SANFORD:

Who knows? Could be. I think you might have a point there, Mr. Member.

This government is not very interested in knowing what the public

thinks anyway. They have refused to hold public hearings on some of the

most important issues that face us today in the province. Here we have

cabinet making an announcement — off the top of their heads presumably,

because they're having a fight with Ottawa — to choose to have B.C.

Hydro build the gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Why would a

government which pretends that it is interested in hearing from the

public, and pretends that it wants to know what the public of this

province thinks, make a decision of that type without holding public

hearings? Why would they bypass the PUC? We established this commission

so that it could help us make decisions, investigate and hold public

hearings.

The interesting thing is that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is quoted in the Province

of Friday, March 13 saying: "Some have argued that both pipeline

proposals should have been referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission

[ Page

4597 ]

for review. However, that would have been contrary

to the spirit of the (Utilities Commission) Act." Well, my, it is

contrary to the spirit of the act for the PUC to hold public hearings!

Oh, no, decisions have to be made behind closed doors. The only thing

that he will reveal is that they're having a fight with Ottawa.

Therefore they thought Hydro should build the route.

Decisions

made on that basis are just not acceptable. We've got to have public

hearings. We've got to know what the two proposals involved will cost

and what the environmental impacts will be. None of these things will

now be heard because the minister has decided that the route is going

to be built by B.C. Hydro and that's it. The people on Vancouver Island

and theSun shine Coast are very concerned about this procedure. As a

matter of fact, there are a number of ads now appearing in various

newspapers calling for public hearings on the route selection. Why is

the government afraid to hear from the public as to which route should

be chosen?

Why is the government afraid to have all the

facts and figures concerning the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver

Island brought out in a public hearing? It doesn't make sense. I will

add my voice to that of Mackenzie to ask the minister to hold public

hearings at this stage on the route selection. He said he'd hold public

hearings to do with the environment — that's good. But why not the

route selection? Why should that decision be made entirely by him,

without having the public involved in any way, shape or form?

The

cabinet travelled recently. They were on Vancouver Island, presumably

to bear from Vancouver Islanders on various issues that affect the

people of the Island. If they are prepared to travel, presumably to

listen to people, then surely they can listen to people through a

proper public hearing on the issue of route selection.

While

they were on the Island it was really quite interesting to hear the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who was under some pressure

concerning the mining in Buttle Lake, come out and state publicly — and

it's quoted in the local papers: "Western Mines have been ordered to

find an alternative site for its Buttle Lake tailings." The

environmentalists in the area were quite satisfied that the minister

was indeed interested in Buttle Lake, and that in fact the minister

would order Western Mines to find an alternative site. But then a

couple of days later the reporters phoned down to talk to the people in

the Ministry of Environment here in Victoria in order to discuss with

them the order given to Western Mines to quit dumping tailings and

poisoning the lake. I would like to quote from the paper: "On Wednesday

the senior government official who supposedly issued the order had a

different version." Oh, oh, Mr. Speaker, what do we have here? "Waste

management branch director Bob Ferguson said the company has been told

only 'to investigate the possibility of taking the discharge from the

lake, and to provide the branch with information on how it might be

done.'" Well, what did the minister say to the people in the area? The

company had been ordered to find an alternative site.

These people have an abysmal record on environmental issues. Just look at Rupert

Inlet. Do you know that we were assured by the previous Social Credit government

that Utah Mines would not pollute Rupert Inlet? We were assured that Western

Mines would not pollute Buttle Lake. We're now being assured that log dumps

in the Buckley Bay area are not going to be harmful to shellfish in the area

and to the oyster industry. People in the area are beginning to question when

they hear the Minister of Environment or any member of that government talk

about environmental issues. What they've been told over the years by that

government has not been accurate. Rupert Inlet is badly polluted. Buttle Lake

is nearly destroyed. Without any kind of public hearing or anything else, we're

now asked to accept without question a log dump at Buckley Bay, because, after

all, the government assures us that it's not going to harm anything.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

surplus that the government is going to be building up over the next

year, it seems to me, could well be spent — not saved as a nest egg to

be given out at election time — on trying to improve some of these

environmental problems that exist in this province. Maybe we have a

chance to save the salmon industry in British Columbia, if we are

willing to turn our minds to it. If we take some of this surplus that

the government is going to be collecting over the next little while,

instead of putting it away and giving it out as goodies at election

time, maybe we could begin to improve the industrial health and safety

of working people in the province. Maybe we could begin to provide

services to people. Maybe we can go back and have a youth employment

program that means something. Maybe we could have a start on the much

needed Island Highway bypass that the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) and myself have been raising in this House time after time.

Maybe we could have some court facilities in places like Parksville. We

know what this government is up to. It wants to build a surplus for

election time and it wants to pay for its grandiose schemes. It wants

to subsidize the removal of coal in the northeast and that's why it has

imposed all of these harsh taxes. We don't support this budget.

MR. SEGARTY:

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish all hon. members and those in

the gallery a very happy 17th of March. I rise in support of the budget

brought in by the Minister of Finance, and since this is the first

opportunity I've had to speak during this session, I would like to

congratulate the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman)

on becoming a member of the executive council, in the capacity of

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would also like to wish

the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) well in assuming

responsibilities for the delivery of the health-care system in the

province of British Columbia. I'm sure you will agree it's second to

none.

If I may be permitted to reflect for a moment on the

amendment put forward by the opposition and defeated yesterday. I've

like to say that I've followed with interest the comments of members

opposite during the debate on the amendment. That amendment seemed to

be designed to give members of the opposition an opportunity to state

their position in more general, rather than fuzzy, terms on specific

items which were contained in the budget. I listened carefully to

answers to certain questions which had formed in my mind about the

position of the New Democratic Party. What exactly is their position on

the northeast coal development? What exactly is their position on the

resource development in British Columbia, and what is their position in

natural resource ownership? Where are they vis-à-vis the federal

government in energy and other matters?

I listened carefully to their position on the economic outlook of the province of British Columbia and the current

[ Page 4598 ]

fiscal position of the government of British Columbia.

In particular, I had hoped to hear exactly how they propose that the

government should increase the services to the people of British

Columbia and, at the same time, reduce taxes. They attack the

government for providing, but provided no constructive suggestions as

to where the government will get its money to provide and maintain

these services. I listened to the debate for answers to some of these

questions, and I have to say I listened in vain. I heard the opposition

hammering away at the government for raising taxes to maintain services

in the areas of human resources, health care, education and a number of

other areas closely related to the quality of life that we enjoy in the

province of British Columbia. They did so without offering a single

suggestion as to which services they would cut, or if they would have

gone into deficit financing to maintain these services.

don't think they know themselves what they would have done. I don't

think myself that they have any idea where the money comes from to

provide these services. They don't seem to recognize that government

has no money of its own. The government can really only pay out what

it takes in through taxes and other revenue. It's a simple matter of

mathematics. When revenue declines, taxes must go up or services must

be cut. Certainly no one likes tax increases, but as the Minister of

Finance said in his budget speech: "We have done the very best we can

to spread those taxes as widely and fairly as possible to minimize the

hardship." The way the Minister of Finance has done that will guarantee

that very few British Columbians will find those taxes onerous in any

way.

We have seen tremendous growth and employment opportunities in British Columbia

in the past few years. I know that all British Columbians recognize that didn't

come about by chance. It didn't come about because we inherited a full treasury

and a healthy economy like the NDP did back in 1972. On the contrary, when this

government took over in 1975, the British Columbia economy was in chaos. After

three and a half short years, the NDP had driven this province to the brink

of financial disaster. It has taken us six hard years to set this province back

on its feet, and you don't get a triple-A credit rating, the highest credit

rating available in North America, by turning off investments, running hugh deficits,

encouraging huge debts and generally discouraging the province's economy.

I'd like the hon. members of the opposition to consider the record of this

government's achievements since 1975. I'm sure they will agree that

our policies have worked and that British Columbia is in good shape due to wise

fiscal management and imaginative government policies. Then I want them to

think about the budget again, because this budget responds in the same forward-looking

manner, taking in the needs of the people of the province as well as the province

as a whole.

Interjections.

MR. SEGARTY: If members of the opposition don't agree with my analysis, why don't they say so and state their position clearly?

I have a number of questions as to what the NDP's position is on natural

resource development in British Columbia. Everyone knows what happened to the

mining industry and the oil and gas industry when those people opposite were

in government. Both those industries went into a serious decline and the economic

health of the province followed suit. We might ask what happened. They say they

made mistakes, but the other part of the answer, which is far more serious in

its implications, is that they knew exactly what they were doing — philosophically,

that is. It was their position to leave the natural resources in the ground,

in particular mineral resources. It was their position then to hand over the

resources of British Columbia to Pierre Trudeau and let Lalonde run things.

The

former Premier, now Leader of the Opposition, went on record in support

of energy resource ownership by the federal government. He said: "The

province of British Columbia is prepared to surrender ownership of

control of all of this country's natural resources and their related

ownership, production, processing and distribution." Fortunately for

British Columbians that Premier was booted out of office before he had

a chance to give away British Columbia's resource heritage.

Last week in this House a member of the opposition said that the NDP was in favour of northeast coal development. Believe it or not, that's what he said. But given the general thrust of

the opposition debate I am sure that everyone in this House and all the people

of British Columbia are at a loss to discover exactly what the NDP's position

is. For years they've been against active mineral resource development. Hansard shows this to be so in statements from the NDP in 1975, 1976, 1978

and through to 1979. I want to ask: is that still their position? All this

new business about sound fiscal responsibility and wise economic development

of northeast coal is just a smokescreen to hide their old position of non-development

to these questions. In particular I want to answer my constituents. I want to

know exactly how the NDP stand on natural resource development in British Columbia,

for my constituents' livelihoods depend heavily on the resource development.

recent weeks some members of the cabinet have had an opportunity to

tour southeastern British Columbia and to see first-hand resource

development projects. I'm sure you know, and I want everyone in this

House to know, how important these projects are to southeastern British

Columbia. Currently there are three mines producing coal in

southeastern British Columbia. Byron Creek Collieries Ltd. is owned and

operated by Esso Resources; Forcing Coal operates a mine in Elkford

employing approximately 900 people; and the British Columbia Coal Co.,

a subsidiary of British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, are

employing approximately 1,000 people and a major expansion is planned.

There are also two other mines under construction. British Columbia

Coal has a new mine under construction with a 15-year contract to

Pohang Iron and Steel Works of Korea. This will cost approximately $200

million to construct and will employ 350 people once the construction

project is completed two years from now. Crows Nest Industries are also

constructing a new mine costing, again, approximately $200 million and

located halfway between Sparwood and Elkford. This mine is currently

under construction and is employing 900 workers in the construction

phase. Once the construction project is completed it will employ 350

full-time people. Esso Resources is also planning a major expansion of

their mine, which will bring the employment roll from 100 to 350 people.

All

of this positive economic development, combined with the $47 million

Roberts Bank port expansion in Vancouver, which will bring the

operating capacity of the port up to

[ Page

4599 ]

28 million tonnes a year by the end of this decade, will provide

long-term employment opportunity for British Columbian and Canadian

workers and economic security for their families, as well as enhancing

market opportunities for sale of British Columbia coal.

That

is why I want my constituents and every British Columbian to know where

the NDP stands. We know that there are over 10,000 known mineral

occurrences in British Columbia, with many more waiting to be

discovered. You will find oil, gas and minerals by looking for them,

not by adopting a policy of non-development which discourages

exploration. The growth of this province depends on it. It is essential

for employment opportunities for our people.

And what about

resource ownership? What is the NDP's position on natural resource

ownership? The record shows that the New Democratic Party is in favour

of giving British Columbia's resources to Pierre Bent and Ed Deau as

long as Lalonde agrees to the public ownership of the energy sector.

The former Premier and now Leader of the Opposition said so in 1974,

and others have said it since then. It's hard for me to believe, in

light of the federal government's national energy program; these

policies and measures are clearly detrimental to the interest of

British Columbia and all British Columbians. Yet the NDP would still

maintain the same position. They would still want to give away British

Columbia's resource future to Pierre Bent and Ed Deau and, in the

process, jeopardize the energy future of British Columbia and the

country.

It is incredible to hear the former Minister of

Education with the New Democratic Party come out and support the

federal government's national energy program of Canadianization. She

said:

"I do want the nationalization of oil companies...there

isn't much difference between Canadian ownership and foreign

ownership.... In terms of developing energy resources for the public

interest, there is really very little difference between the method and

objectives of the Canadian capitalist and...foreign capitalists...."

The

NDP would do away with the commitment, initiative and activity involved

in the private sector in developing British Columbia's and Canada's

energy future. Instead, the NDP would turn the whole thing over to the

British Columbians and western Canadians. If recent events in the

energy sector of this country are any indication, that would be a

terrible mistake, yet the New Democratic Party and Lalonde seem willing

to sell this province down the river in order to achieve their

political objectives and conform to an antiquated and failed political

philosophy.

Our programs must be aimed at expanding British

Columbia's productive capacity at a rate that shows the whole country

the vigour and vitality of a free economy. This is not a time to

abandon the drive for optimism and creative energy that has

characterized this province for the past 30 years. It is not a time for

timidity or doubt. It is a time for boldness and energy, and a time for

stout-hearted men and women to turn dreams into reality and to continue

to make this province a great place in which to live.

Members of the opposition have suggested in the past that the government is

trying to build the province's economy on the backs of working British Columbians.

I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but that's not our way. We

give credit where credit is due, and we believe that British Columbians are

a vigorous and active community more than willing through their own initiatives,

to help build this province, to make it strong and to see it continue to be

strong. That is what they have done in the past, and I believe that is what

they will continue to do in the future.

I'd

like to reflect for a few minutes on some of the government projects

that have taken place in the Kootenay constituency over the past year.

No doubt the Kootenay has enjoyed tremendous growth in employment

opportunities and in government services over the past few years. Three

and a half million dollars is currently being spent on the Cranbrook

and District Hospital. This project, nearing completion, will include

an emergency day-care surgery facility, a new x-ray facility, expansion

of the administration office, and the shelling-in of a nuclear medicine

facility.

Also under construction is a $3 million

intermediate-care facility, a new human resources and health centre in

downtown Cranbrook, a regional office of the rentalsman, a regional

human rights office, sewer and water projects, $9.5 million for an east

Kootenay community college, $9 million for highway construction, senior

citizens' housing projects in Fernie, recreation centres in Fernie,

Jaffray and Cranbrook for senior citizens, sewer and water projects in

Fernie, an acute-care hospital for Sparwood, a new government agency,

and renovation of the Tom Uphill intermediate-care facility in Fernie

and the F.W. Green Memorial Home in Cranbrook. All of these things were

made possible because we have a strong British Columbia economy and

because we have thousands of hard-working British Columbians who, on

their own initiative, are out there willing to take up the pick and

shovel and do a hard day's work and pay their taxes in order that we as

a government may, on their behalf, provide services to British

Columbians and Canadians who are less fortunate than themselves.

There's

an ongoing need to provide services for the people of the Kootenay

constituency. In the 1981-82 fiscal year we will need approximately $14

million to replace old single-lane, wooden bridges in the Elk

Valley, to provide decent education facilities for the city of Elkford,

to complete the East Kootenay Community College, and to build a

diagnostic and treatment centre in the city of Elkford that one day

will be enlarged to community hospital capacity. We will need funds for

an expanded infant development program, funds for an expanded alcohol

and drug treatment plan, funds for the development of provincial parks

and funds for the development of Crown land, in cooperation with the

municipalities of Sparwood, Elkford and Fernie, to provide affordable

housing for the residents of their community. All of this, Mr. Speaker,

is part of the infrastructure in a resource-developing region.

The

government doesn't make any money. The people of this province earn the

money through their own endeavours in the free enterprise contest. The

money is turned over to the government in the form of taxes. It is

developed to meet the needs and best serve the interests of all British

Columbians. That money comes from mineral development, forest products,

industrial development, natural gas revenue, coal development — the

list goes on and on. They are the very things that the former Minister

of Health (Mr. Cocke) and the NDP seem to be against.

Does

the opposition not appreciate the great programs that have been

provided by the system of free enterprise in this province? The social

benefits we enjoy in the area of health care and human resources?

Programs for tile handicapped and revenue-sharing? This beautiful

building we sit in, with all its marble? The essential services that

have been

[ Page 4600 ]

provided

in this province, like the ferries up and down the coast, back and

forth from the island that they keep criticizing? All of these services

were provided not from the profits of government, but from the hard

work of free enterprisers who, on their initiative, are willing to get

out there, invest their money and pay their taxes.

Last week

I turned on the television to watch the news. I was shocked to hear a

close friend and associate of the New Democratic Party advocating at a

rally in Vancouver to members of the trade union movement that they

break the laws of British Columbia and Canada. He said: "The government

of British Columbia can go to hell" — please excuse the language, Mr.

Speaker, but that's what he said — "and every employer in this province

can go to hell."

I came in 1966 to this country and to this

beautiful province of British Columbia. I didn't come here to duplicate

that which I'd left behind in the country of my birth. I came here to

build anew a better place for my children — and that's why we must

preserve the good standard of living that we have in this country

today. We have to show our people that we can give social benefits

under an enterprising system, and that socialism doesn't have a corner

in the marketplace of caring for people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the

record indicates that British Columbia's short flirtation with

socialism is no indication at all that socialism provides services to

people. It is no guarantee at all when you wreck the economy. But free

people, working together, showing initiative, can provide more benefits

on a continuing basis than any heavy-handed socialist government. I

think it would do some of those members of the New Democratic Party

well to remember the country of their birth and compare that which they

have here with what they have left behind. Indeed, it would do all of

us well to remember other parts of the world from time to time; perhaps

we would come to appreciate this province and this country and what it

has to offer and the opportunities that are available to all of its

citizens.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Our job as

government is to shape, as far as we can, the province of British

Columbia into a province that we want for ourselves, our children and

all men. I read a story not too long ago about the dark days during the

American Civil War. A delegation of people came to express their fears

to President Lincoln. Lincoln told them of an experience he had in his

youth. He said: "One night in November a shower of meteors fell from

the clear night sky. A friend standing by was frightened, but I looked

up, and between the fallen stars I saw a thick star beyond, shining

serene in the firmament. And I said: 'Let us not mind the fallen

meteors, but keep our eyes on the stars.'"

I'd like us to

keep our mind on the stars that have guided this province through some

difficult times in the past five years, and like all hon. members, to

support this budget brought in by the Minister of Finance. It's a

positive budget. It's a budget that will stimulate this province for

generations to come.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the speech which has just

been concluded, but more particularly to the lack of action on the part

of the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), who

was in the chair at the time, and to whose attention it was drawn

privately on three or four occasions that the member for Kootenay was,

in fact, reading his speech word for word, quite contrary to the rules.

The member for Prince George South did nothing whatever about it. It

seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is some element of preferentiality

involved in that action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The remarks of the hon. member for Skeena are entirely

out of order on several grounds. Firstly, if the member had objection

to any procedure taking place on the floor of this House, the proper

way to draw it to the attention of the House, of course, is to rise in

his place and state that he has a point of order. The member who takes

the chair at any one point in time is at liberty to intervene but is

not bound to intervene. Therefore preferential treatment and any

accusation of preferential treatment to the Chair is entirely out of

order.

But the member raises a good point, and the point has

to do with what is proper procedure in this House regarding reading of

speeches. The normal practice in the House is that members speak

extemporaneously, sometimes from notes — and, in my experience in this

House, sometimes from rather copious notes. Let me just read from

Beauchesne's fifth edition:

"Tradition has established exceptions to the principle of

reading from written speeches and these have been recognized by the Speaker

from time to time: ministers of the Crown, leaders of opposition parties and

those speaking on their behalf, a member speaking in a language that is not

his own, and a member making his maiden speech or using technical data or statistics.

These are allowed a written text. In addition, those participating in the general

debates of a session, such as the debate in the Address in Reply to the Speech

from the Throne, are exempt."

This is taken from the Journals of January 31, 1956, at pages 93 and 102.

Although

the point is well received from the hon. member, now that he has raised

it in the traditional fashion, I think that those could perhaps be the

words that would guide us regarding reading of speeches in the House.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that the member for Kootenay read

his speech very well, and I think he read it precisely as Jack Kelly

wrote it. I think it was the same kind of material that we were used to

when a certain person was in charge of the Social Credit research

staff. It had a familiar ring.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we've dispensed with the matter regarding reading of speeches. Now to the debate.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that have struck me about the debate on

the budget thus far is that the government members all seem to follow a

very simplistic notion with respect to how the economy of the province

should be run. It goes something like this: "If the opposition doesn't

agree with increasing taxation on the backs of the people of the

province through sales tax increases, increases of enormous amounts in

ICBC rates, increases in ferry costs,

[ Page 4601 ]

increases

— again exorbitant — in tobacco and liquor taxes and in virtually every

area of people services, then their response is okay and the only

alternative is to cut programs. What programs would you suggest be

cut? Well, you know, that's a very simple-minded approach to economic

and fiscal management either in the province or any state. There are

other options.

You know, if the members are not familiar

with any of the contemporary economic choices that exist, perhaps they

should get out of their caucus room once in a while and have some

dialogue with the people in the business community. They could tell

them that there are varied choices in terms of how the government

raises revenue. Certainly the only avenue of raising revenue to support

programs is not through punitive taxes on the backs of average working

people and senior citizens — those who are least able to pay taxes

without a degree of suffering.

Our proposition is — and the

members over there are welcome to disagree, but if they'd listen they'd

at least understand the difference in philosophy between this side of

the House and that — that the resource wealth of the province of B.C.

should bear a heavier responsibility for supporting social programs and

raising revenue than should working people. It's as simple as that.

"How?" is the response from the people over there who see one

simplistic formula. Well, the "how" has been explained to them a number

of times by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues. We've

explained to the member who just took his seat, after reading a speech

that someone prepared for him, that there's a great amount of coal

flowing out of his particular area of the province, southeast B.C. —

something like 11 million tonnes a year. The royalty on that coal when

the NDP assumed office in 1972 was 25 cents per tonne.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Those were black days.

MR. KING:

Yes, indeed, it was a poor day for the province of British Columbia

when a foolish Social Credit government placed a 25-cent-a-tonne

evaluation on our natural resources — our irreplaceable resources. One

of the first moves we made was to increase that royalty to $1.50 a

tonne to bring back a return to the people of the province who, I think

all members would agree, have an equal share in the ownership of

resources in the province. Now what's wrong with that? Do you have to

gouge it out of the paycheques of workers? There are other options. We

had announced another increase in royalties on that coal, to take

effect in April 1976, of an additional $1 a tonne to bring it up to

$2.50 a tonne. It's much higher out of Conservative Alberta.

This

government cancelled that last increase, and in so doing they destroyed

an option of gathering revenue from the resource wealth of this

province which would have relieved taxpayers of the kind of onerous tax

increases you've brought in now. Can't you understand that? It doesn't

take much of a brain to see that there are choices in terms of raising

revenue.

The irony is that during that very period of time,

the then owner and operator of one of the mines in that member's

riding, Edgar Kaiser Jr., paid me a visit personally in my office here

in the buildings, He had a labour problem and he wished to discuss that

with me. He was caught in a dilemma at that time: the federal

government had brought in a so-called wage and price freeze. Here was

Edgar Kaiser Jr. with a strike on his hands. He was prepared to pay

what the United Mine Workers, his union, was demanding but it happened

to be $1 above the permissible amount allowed under the wage and price

control program. So would you believe that Edgar Kaiser Jr. flew, along

with his union representatives, in his private plane down to Ottawa to

try to persuade the federal government to release them from the

strictures of the wage and price control program. He said quite

frankly: "With the increased value of coal on the international market,

I am embarrassed that I have received such increases in my profits and

am unable to pass along some of the benefits to my workers."

Now

Edgar Kaiser Jr. said that to me very bluntly and openly in my office,

but here's a government that cannot see that resources should be relied

upon to raise revenue for the people who own those resources. They take

the position that it must be gouged out of the average pay cheque — for

working people and senior citizens who have no ability to go back to

the bargaining table and negotiate an increase.

You don't do

these things in a vacuum and in isolation. We see a housing and shelter

market in Vancouver, the lower mainland and here on Vancouver Island

that's out of sight in terms of people's ability to win the right to

own their own home. There's no chance under the existing housing market

for young people, unless they're born with a silver spoon in their

mouth, as some people are — but only a few — but the average young

person in B.C. today certainly can't afford it.

On top of

that, we set out to exacerbate their dilemma all the more by imposing

extra sales taxes. The ICBC rates are punitive, but there are options

available. We are pleading with this government to understand that

their narrow, simplistic approach of "gouge the people or cut programs"

just doesn't make any sense. Forgive me for the description, but it is

an ignorant kind of response to an economic equation — and I mean that

in the best sense, Mr. Speaker, not as a personal thing. It speaks to

me of an ignorance of simple economics that any member of the

Legislature should be able to understand. There are other options. Gee

whiz. I cannot for the life of me see why the forest industry — which

is our primary industry — our mining industry — coal and other minerals

— and petroleum products should not be able to bear, in the kind of

market situation which we are in today, a greater portion of the

revenue required to run the affairs and the programs of this province.

That's our proposition. So don't try to simply pervert the argument by

providing some simplistic equation that doesn't make any sense at all,

and which the people are not going to buy in terms of how the

government interprets our position.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

I know it was written for him. The other thing is, perhaps. that the

member wasn't even in the Kootenays. I don't know whether he was or

not. It was between 1969 and 1972 that the Social Credit government of

that day proposed and issued a charter to the Great Northern Railway,

as it was called then. to build a railway link between the mining

sectors in the northeast and to transport all the coal from that area

south of the border through the United States. Social Credit renewed

that charter to what was then called the Kootenay and Elk Railway on 11

different occasions. They kept alive the proposition that Mr. Kaiser,

who held an interest in Burlington Northern, was going to be able to

ship his own coal on is own railway. Who knows? Once it had been

transported south of the 49th parallel it may never have come back,

because Mr. Kaiser also had an interest in the port

[ Page 4602 ]

of Seattle. It was a Social Credit government that was prepared to do that.

Another

basic difference between our party and yours.... Lord knows, we

have many things to debate, but these silly clichés that you don't even

believe yourself should be put aside and we should have some serious

debate on what the real differences are.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

He's willing to admit that there are areas of agreement between himself

and members of the opposition on certain issues where he thinks it may

be popular for him to do so in his own riding. Be that as it may,

that's his choice. I like to see some consistency in one's approach.

my colleague, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), pointed out, the

other thing we believe is that the government's position of "okay, we

had to increase all this taxation or cut programs" is not factual

either. As my colleague pointed out, you are indeed cutting programs

and have been doing so over the last couple of years. There is no

question that the student summer employment program, which provides a

significant number of jobs, has been cut this year by at least $4,000.

Perhaps it's more than that. The $4,000 I've identified is in one of

the five-part programs. This simply means that many young people coming

out of high school and university are not going to have the opportunity

to avail themselves of a job this summer to help finance their return

in the fall to institutions of higher learning. That's a hardship.

That

particular program was created by the NDP in 1972, the first year we

took office. We funded it with $20 million on that occasion. In 1973

and 1974 it rose to $30 million. That a