1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

545 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Meadow Creek Farms racetrack proposal. Mr. Skelly — 545

Handicapped persons' allowance. Mr. Gibson — 547

Statement

Blacklist naming public servants. Mr. King — 547

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 548

Mr. Stupich — 553

Mr. Veitch — 557

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 561

Mrs. Dailly — 563

Mr. Davidson — 569

Hon. Mr. Mair — 573

Mr. Lockstead — 578

Statement

Blacklist naming public servants. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 580

Mr. King — 582

Mr. Wallace — 582

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today is a constituent from North Vancouver–Capilano, Mr.

Bill Stevenson. I ask the House to make him welcome.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr. Malcolm Young, the new editor and publisher of Country Life

magazine, which is the newspaper, really, that provides information and

material to the agriculture industry in B.C., and is very well

recognized. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Young.

In the gallery today are the members of the B.C. Broiler Marketing

Board: Mr. Dennis Cote, Mr. Bruce McIninch and Mr. Ned Spencer. I would

ask the House to welcome them.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery we have a very distinguished gentleman who is the

vice-president of the Vancouver East New Democratic Party Constituency

Association, Mr. Ron Wickstrom.

Oral questions

MEADOW CREEK FARMS RACETRACK PROPOSAL

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, a question directed

to the Minister of Environment. Did the minister meet with Captain

Harry Terry of Meadow Creek Farms Ltd. last January to discuss his

racetrack proposal in the Hazelmere Valley?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker,

replying to the member, I am not sure of dates when it comes to that.

I, along with the chairman of the Land Commission, visited Meadow Creek

Farms on one occasion. I can't tell you what the precise date was.

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, did the minister

make representations to the Land Commission, the chairman, or any other

member of the Land Commission, to have the Meadow Creek Farms Ltd.

racetrack proposal approved in the appeal procedure?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask a supplemental to the

acting Attorney-General, whoever that might be. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could

be informed by the government who is the acting Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Labour?

AN HON. MEMBER: Alex Macdonald.

MR. WALLACE: With regard to the question raised regarding the

application for the racetrack, I would like to ask the acting

Attorney-General if since the second application by Captain Terry was

supported by Surrey council when in fact the first application was not,

but the second application followed a meeting between Captain Terry and

Surrey council in which Captain Terry agreed to plead guilty to

violations of municipal bylaws and, subsequent to that meeting with

Surrey council, the council then agreed to support Captain Terry's

second application — which, I understand, was essentially no different

from the first in its contents. Since this leaves many questions to be

answered, I wondered if the Attorney-General would conduct an

investigation to ensure that all the dealings in regard to this

application for a racetrack are legal and devoid of any corruption.

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

seriousness of the matters raised by the member and the length of the

question obliges me to take it as notice, but I will give the member a

response as quickly as I can.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, again to the Minister of

Environment: I understand that water requirements for the racetrack at

Meadow Creek Farms would result in depletion of groundwater and

artesian wells in the Hazelmere Valley area which would cost something

like $6 million to replace. Has the minister done groundwater studies

or has he taken into consideration groundwater studies. In the area

that would indicate this to be so, and who is going to compensate

farmers in that area for the loss of artesian wells?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to the member: The question

with regard to water resources, of course, is one that will be handled

by the water resources department. The leave granted under

section

11(4) of the Land Commission Act by the Land Commission does not

relieve the applicant from any of the other rules and regulations,

either by local governments or provincial laws. All of these

requirements must be met. If the member would like — obviously in

answer to that question — I'd be pleased to take the initial question

as notice and check with the water resources department to see if any

studies have been made. But, as you may

[ Page 546 ]

appreciate, the application was made to the Land Commission, not to the provincial government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, with regard to studies, can the

minister tell us if the Land Commission, at the time it made its

decision last week, had, as part of the material, the three separate

studies regarding the soil that were carried out by the Department of

Agriculture and the property management branch study, all of which

recommended rejection of the application? Did the Land Commission have

access to these reports?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of what

information the Land Commission had before them during that hearing. I

was advised by the Land Commission after the decision had been

rendered. If it's the desire of the member for me to ask the chairman,

I'll be very pleased to.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask very quickly: Is the Minister

of Agriculture aware of the fact then that these studies that were so

essential to deciding the soil content, et cetera, were made available

to the Land Commission? Is the Minister of Agriculture aware of this,

since his department provided the recommendations against the

application being approved?

HON. J.J. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think, as the Minister

of the Environment has said, this has been dealt with at the Land

Commission level. I'm sure all the input that was taken into

consideration was made available to him at that time. I would check it

out if the member would so wish.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Environment didn't answer the

first question, which was: Did he meet with Captain Harry Terry or

discuss with Captain Harry Terry the Meadow Brook Farm proposal? And

when he took the tour of the Hazelmere Valley, did he go with Captain

Harry Terry?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Some time last year — I am not sure of the

precise date — accompanied by the chairman, Mr. Garry Runka, we toured

the Meadow Creek installation, and Captain Terry was our host at that

time to show us the operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is that improper, Mr. Member?

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, this time directed to the acting

Attorney-General, if I may, concerning the same subject. I understand

that parimutuel betting receipts are projected to be $23.8 million in

1980. Had Captain Harry Terry of Meadow Creek Farms made application to

the Attorney-General to establish a race track in that area?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, likewise, I will take that question as notice and respond at the earliest moment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister:

if he took a tour with Captain Terry and the chairman of the Land

Commission to the site of the Meadow Creek racing track that has been

proposed and rejected, was this not interference by the minister in the

work of the Land Commission?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The workings of the Land Commission, and

perhaps the Land Commission Act itself, may be somewhat confusing to

some members of the House. The requirements under the Act in certain

circumstances will allow an appeal to go to a committee of cabinet or

the cabinet itself. The members of cabinet who make up the Environment

and Land Use Committee have toured specific areas of land which has

been applied for exclusions, including such areas as Chilliwack and

others. It is considered reasonable to respond to the requests of

either the chairman of the Land Commission or members of that

commission, or appellants Who may have a hearing pending, to view the

property under question if you are going to be responsible in making a

decision. I don't think that's considered improper in any way.

At the time of the tour, if you wish to call it that, in the

Hazelmere Valley, Mr. Runka and I also viewed surrounding lands for

which application had at some time been made for exclusion, and some

other sections of that valley which were under various forms of

application for exclusion or permission of other things. It's a simple

matter of doing some homework.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the

minister who requested this trip? Was it Captain Terry? Was the

question of the land being in the land freeze discussed by the three of

you — Captain Terry, yourself and the chairman of the Land Commission?

Was it discussed on that trip? At whose request was the trip made?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I can't tell you definitively at this time who requested the trip.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You. Did they buy you lunch?

[ Page 547 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The purpose of the tour, of course, was to

look at that specific area, to look at the racetrack installation which

is there, as you may know, and the other improvements on that property.

This had been a long outstanding problem, one which had been left over

from previous days. We had an obligation to try and clean up some of

these problems by assisting citizens of the province of British

Columbia by showing up once in a while.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it appears that there have been at

least two significant problems left over from the former Land

Commission that were cleaned up by the present government: one was 320

acres in Richmond.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It's just a

preamble, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. SKELLY: That appeal was represented by Robert Bonner; this one, I understand, was represented by Leslie Peterson.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your supplementary question?

MR. SKELLY: Has the minister been in touch with either Robert

Bonner or Leslie Peterson, or was he contacted by them on either of

those proposals?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I've had the opportunity of corresponding

with solicitors for many, many individuals and organizations in the

province. Out of courtesy we respond to them. I have also had the very

pleasant opportunities of conversing with Robert Bonner in his role as

chairman of B.C. Hydro. It's a pleasure to see someone running Hydro

who apparently understands the problems.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Could the Minister of

Environment tell us — when he's not sure of the date — if there was an

application pending before the Land Commission when he visited the

farm? If he doesn't know the answer now would he let us know at the

earliest possibility?

HANDICAPPED PERSONS' ALLOWANCE

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Human Resources: Up

until October, 1976, the federal government was contributing $110 per

month toward the handicapped persons' allowance in the province, making

a total of $265 per month. In

October, the federal government increased its contribution by $22.50

per month. The minister's department, in effect, put that in their

pockets to increase their surplus and did not pass it on. Will the

minister please justify that?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, I take exception to the comment that we in this ministry put

money in our pockets. Whatever moneys we receive, from wherever we

receive them, are for the people. We apply them where there is the

greatest need. But certainly I will get the answer for the hon. member

with respect to the funding or the sharing of the funding.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): In light of the Minister of

Education's reply on the order paper yesterday to my question with

respect to how much ICBC has invested as recently as possible, the

minister replied: $272,481,286.08. Mr. Speaker, my question is this:

will he now demand that ICBC reduce their exorbitant rates?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): ICBC has the lowest non-subsidized automobile insurance rates in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: They are a wonderful bargain for the people, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I would request leave of the House to make a brief statement and file documents.

Leave granted.

ALLEGED PUBLIC SERVICE BLACKLIST

MR. KING: Yesterday, during question period, the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) took as notice a question relating to

whether he had received a political blacklist from the Premier's

office. The Premier, on the same occasion, unequivocally denied that

such a blacklist had ever been transmitted from his office.

On the basis of certain documents which have come into my hands very

recently, I have every reason to believe that such a blacklist was,

indeed, transmitted from the Premier's office to the Minister of

Environment. Reasonable time and opportunity have been provided for

both the Premier and his minister to reflect on a question having grave

implications and to honestly provide this House with a full disclosure.

Serious conflict is evident between the Premier's denial of a blacklist

and the documents which I propose to table today.

[ Page 548 ]

One of these documents is a memorandum from the office of the

Premier addressed to the Hon. James Nielsen, over the signature of Dan

Campbell. It is dated January 9, 1976, and is underlined "personal and

strictly confidential." Attached to the memo are organizational charts

of the land management branch. Senior staff noted on the charts are

identified as either NDP or Social Credit. A list of names accompanying

the memo further identifies a variety of public servants for reasons

which are obscure.

A further document, which I shall table with the House, is a letter

which accompanied the memo from the Premier's office to the Environment

minister. This is a letter over the signature of one Klaus Ohlemann and

is addressed simply to "Dan." This letter makes a number of allegations

against public servants, many of which are false, and identifies the

names of senior land branch staff as being NDP. It is significant that

the names contained in the Ohlemann letter coincide precisely with the

notations contained on the organizational chart emanating from the

Premier's office. One can only conclude that the Minister of

Environment was aware of the memo since it was directed to him, marked

"personal and strictly confidential." It is also evident that the

Premier's answer to this House respecting this question was not in

accordance with the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I'll table the statement and the documents.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard

a lot of talk from the opposition — the NDP — concerning this

amendment, but I waited, my party waited, my colleagues waited in vain

for not only those members to address themselves to the amendment,

which is very specific, but to make a case as to why they couldn't

support this budget. I must say that I was surprised at the wide

latitude you allowed them in speaking to this amendment, which is

reasonably specific, but I know that as the government members speak

today to this amendment you will allow us the same wide latitude in

discussing many items of concern to this province.

I, myself, Mr. Speaker, wish to address myself strictly to the amendment, as

I will hopefully be able to take my place in the budget debate later this week.

However, I would like to — for those in the House who have forgotten what the

amendment was about, because the opposition arguments certainly didn't relate

to it — refer to the amendment and the question it places on the budget, because

the amendment covers a number of subjects.

The amendment says that the budget fails to make provision for

fiscal and human betterment of the majority of the people of the

province. I reject that.

It says that the budget, particularly in respect to taxation, didn't make for investor confidence. Mr. Speaker, I reject that.

It said it didn't make provision for employment opportunities. I reject that.

Mr. Speaker, it says the budget does not protect senior citizens and

handicapped people from the effects of inflation. With the record of

the last government, that of the party now in opposition, and the type

of inflation that took place while they were in office, how can anybody

say that this government, last year or this year, hasn't taken the

fight against inflation in this province?

Now that was the basis of the amendment and non-confidence in the

budget — a good budget, a budget for this time, Mr. Speaker. The NDP

opposite, those members, roamed everywhere in the world. They roamed

everywhere but they didn't deal with their own amendment they recycled.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) recycled some of his old

debates. They equated services to people with the amount of dollars the

Department of Human Resources spends, and that's the former Minister of

Human Resources who tried to justify a $100 million overrun with the

argument that it went to the people.

His idea is that as long as you shovel enough money out of the back

of the truck, that's good management of the taxpayers' dollars, and you

can justify it. He should be the minister of shovels, Mr. Speaker,

because that's what he did: he shovelled the money out, money of the

taxpayers of this province. He shovelled it out with no regard to it

going to those in genuine need. He didn't consider that he had a

greater responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to guard their

tax dollars. All he wanted to do was shovel the money out and try and

buy votes. And your motives were very clear.

He doesn't care about people. He just wants to say: "Shovel it out.

Vote for me." We even had him sending out little notices to the

pensioners at Christmas time, with the former Premier's picture and his

picture, trying to take credit for the benefits — supposedly they were

coming from the taxpayers of this province. No accountability. Then he

tries to write off a $ 100 million overrun as being concern for people.

You're just concerned for getting re-elected, and it might have helped

you, but it brought your party down to defeat and you'll never come

back in this province.

You roamed and recycled your old speeches, as did many of your

colleagues. I must say last night I enjoyed the Leader of the

Opposition's performance. It's something like Milton Berle — the

material was old, but the performance is always worthwhile. I've

[ Page 549 ]

heard the same speech, the same jokes and it's

always entertaining, but I wonder if the taxpayers consider that they

have already paid him in years gone by for those same speeches, and

certainly he could come up with something relevant to the problems of

today in British Columbia. That Leader of the Opposition is an

enjoyable person, but he certainly didn't contribute to the debate; he

certainly didn't make an argument for the opposition against this

budget.

Mr. Speaker, a little later in my remarks I'm going to give the

opposition some advice on how this budget could be criticized. Any

budget can be criticized, because governments must make hard choices.

I'm going to help you, but certainly you didn't help yourselves. For

years it was suggested — and certainly when you were government — that

you might have been an incompetent government, but, oh, you were a good

opposition. Well, this session you've proven that not only were you an

incompetent government, but you carry that forward into your role as

opposition. Let's destroy that myth once and for all.

While the old-timers of the Legislature — the Leader of the

Opposition and the member for Vancouver-Burrard — were recycling their

old speeches, too lazy to prepare for the problems of today, we had the

first member for Vancouver- Centre (Mr. Lauk) roaming up to the Grizzly

Valley, Mr. Speaker. He was roaming up there — not dealing with the

points mentioned in the amendment, but roaming up — in what has been a

standard for his performance in this Legislature this session. Public

credibility in what goes on in this Legislature has never been too

good, but his performance this session, with the type of statements

he's made, his asides — and certainly some asides he's made recently,

which were well reported but don't show up in Hansard , and

others that weren't reported — certainly have brought no credibility to

this Legislature. And during this debate, unrelated to the amendment,

he makes the foolish statement that the pipeline will never be built in

the Grizzly Valley.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that he's going against the advice of

the chairman and the whole staff of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. I

want to say that Mr. Lechmer, the chairman, wasn't an appointee to that

B.C. Petroleum Corporation by this party. He was brought to that board

when the NDP first formed the Petroleum Corporation.

MR. LAUK: Who was the board?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not relevant. I only bring it up to

point out that he without question.... Mr. Speaker, in defence of him,

in defence of the staff of the Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources, I want to say that I appreciate the advice they've given the

government, and I appreciate their research for assessing the reserves.

I want to say that on their advice, when they invited Westcoast

Transmission, which also analysed the proposal to build a pipeline,

they have accepted it and that pipeline will be built.

That member has continued to be irresponsible in this Legislature.

He needs no further comment from me, Mr. Speaker, because the people

are judging him not only in here but in his own party. I want to say

that I had hoped for more from that member and that opposition. That

pipeline will be built. But I wonder when that statement and others, in

which he is totally wrong and totally irresponsible, are proven to be

wrong, whether he'll have the good grace to leave this chamber and

resign and let those who want to make constructive suggestions for this

province come in and take their place.

I'd comment on the remarks from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea). He's not here. They're not worth commenting on. I think they're

the best ammunition we have for the next election, and I will make sure

they are circulated widely as that member's contribution to public

debate in this province when next we face the people.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that this budget does do something for

people in a year when already the NDP government in Saskatchewan

couldn't even wait for the session to be called and bring down a

budget. They announced an interim budget to raise taxes in that

province, and cut back services arbitrarily to hospitals and health

care in communities without any question of what the results would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's twisting again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This government has brought down a budget,

in what will be a year of tax increases in many jurisdictions across

this country, with no tax increases and tax reductions. There are tax

reductions for people in need. The most affordable type of housing we

have in this province — in a province in which housing has been beyond

the reach of many of the elderly and many of our young just starting

out — has been mobile homes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then why are you cutting senior citizen housing from $10 million to $4 million?

HON. MR. BENNETT: This budget cuts the sales tax on mobile

homes for the first time. That opposition, when they were government,

used to tax those people, Mr. Speaker. The saving will be $500 a unit

on average for those mobile homes, the most affordable type of housing.

That cuts across age, but deals with those least able to afford the

standard type of housing to give some people in this province an

opportunity for ownership. I'm proud of that tax cut,

[ Page 550 ]

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, many people in remote communities in this province have

paid a penalty on their fuel for heating and energy because they've

been forced to use propane. And again, Mr. Speaker, we've reduced taxes

on propane for those people who suffer the penalty only because they

happen to be in remote areas, having to develop this province, many of

them living in difficult circumstances. They were never cut when that

party was government, Mr. Speaker. We've cut those taxes this year.

Mr. Speaker, in a year when other governments are putting up taxes,

we're cutting taxes for our people. We're bringing in a realistic

budget, a budget that recognizes the revenues available today and a

budget that the spending estimate will be able to work within. It is

not a budget such as was brought in by the former government — a budget

that was brought in by guess and by golly.

We know how they brought in the last budget of their regime, the

1975-1976 budget. They sat around and they couldn't balance the

expenditure with the income. So you know what I hear they did? They

went to the Finance department and they said: "Let's just add another

$300 million to revenue." But they said: "Where will we get it?" They

said: "You add a bit here and you add a bit there. We don't know if

we'll get it but we hope things will happen." That was a year in which

there was a major negotiation going on in the forest industry. No

adjustment was made in that budget for the possible effects of a

one-month shutdown or a two-month shutdown. We know what happened. That

document didn't deserve to be called a budget; it doesn't even deserve

to have been called a guesstimate. It was sham from the day it was

brought in. They knew it was a sham because within two months they were

already trying to, in little places, cut back on civil servants. They

knew already that the figures they presented to this Legislature were

incorrect. They were not right. They couldn't achieve those revenues.

Even then, they were afraid to tell the people.

A lot has been said by that opposition about two sessions a year.

Two sessions a year — they say that's a tradition. It's not a tradition

anywhere in this country. Saskatchewan doesn't have two sessions.

Manitoba doesn't have two sessions. In 1975, the year of the greatest

problems facing this province — when ICBC was losing money and they

were covering it up with one hand, when the ferries were losing money,

when the government was going into debt — did they have a fall session?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): No!

HON. MR. BENNETT: One day! They brought us in just to deal

with one labour dispute and never shared with this Legislature the

coverup that was going on in ICBC, never shared with this Legislature

the financial difficulties of this province. They kept the information

away from the representatives of the people. Not only that, they sent

us home when we wanted to debate other issues because unemployment

then, as now, was a problem. They called a sneak election, but even

then, Mr. Speaker, the people of this province knew that something was

wrong and they booted them out.

They have the nerve to say that two sessions a year is a tradition

in this province. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) knows that there

wasn't a fall session in 1975. You were in this Legislature; so was the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . That was a myth.

There was an opportunity for you to speak out because you knew things

were wrong in this province, you knew the coverup was going on. We were

denied the opportunity. But that party over there still continues to

try and spread the myth that they were somehow democratic and held two

sessions a year. Yet in their darkest hour, an hour we'll never let

this province forget, they covered up. Even when the session was here,

they ended it in a hurry, sent us home in a hurry, so we wouldn't have

the opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Speaker, we've given you an early opportunity this year to deal

with problems. This is the earliest that what is called the spring

session of the Legislature in this province has ever been called. It

met and assembled on January 13.

There is a lot to discuss because there are a lot of problems in

this province, as there are in this country — a lot of problems that

don't allow us the type of revenues or the type of budget to spend all

the money that we'd like. We'd like to, do a lot more. But, Mr.

Speaker, mortgaging the future to pay for just current account or

current expenses today is no answer.

One only has to look at the deficit that was left by that last

government to realize what deficit financing does. They talk about a

loss of $25 million in us reducing taxation that we hope will encourage

investment in this province and allow British Columbians an opportunity

to maintain the rewards of their work and their labour and allow them

to stay in British Columbia. We hope it will encourage future

generations to stay and not sell out to foreign corporations and others

who don't face that type of taxation.

The deficit from last year was $400 million. Luckily, earlier

governments had put some money aside for a rainy day and there was a

continuing budget surplus of $140 million that only made a deficit of

around $260 million, in rough figures. But at the 10 per cent interest

rates that were going last year, that interest debt, just on that one

year, would be $26 million of spending power taken away from

[ Page 551 ]

the people of this province by the way they managed the economy.

One has only to look at other provincial governments who, unable to

deal with meeting the needs of the day with the money available during

that day, have gone for deficit budget after deficit budget. Let's take

a look at Tory Ontario. Today a large part of their budget, because of

the way they ran their government in the past, goes to pay interest and

is taken away from the opportunity to provide services today,

much-needed services for the people of Ontario — millions and millions

of dollars. .

In British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, as I say, we'll be paying this

year, as we will next year, interest on that debt left to us by the

NDP. But we won't compound the problem for future generations. I'm

hopeful that we can build the economy and eventually sometime pay off

that debt. But we're not trying to pay it off now. That debt will

remain and be visible to the people of this province to remind them of

that government for many years to come, because we need every available

dollar now for services to the people.

If you want to know where some of the money has gone and why

$20-some-odd million isn't available for services this year, he

shovelled it out of the back of his truck when he was the Human

Resources minister, Mr. Speaker, trying to buy favouritism by

shovelling it out indiscriminately. He was not caring, just sharing,

but not sharing his own — sharing the taxpayers' money to make them

think he was someone special.

We have a responsibility in dealing with the taxpayers' dollars:

getting value for their money and also meeting the needs of the people.

It's a double responsibility. Mr. Speaker, we'll always try to meet

that responsibility in this government. I'm proud of that Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who recognizes his dual

responsibility in this province.

Some of the debate on this amendment has been amusing. They had one

of their members — I can't remember which one it was; I think it was

one of the newer ones — trying to mix up the Legislature, trying to say

that in this budget $300 million was taken out for coal development in

the northeast and $ 100 million for the Grizzly Valley pipeline. That

has nothing to do with this budget. I feel sorry for that member. Maybe

his colleagues confused him. But I feel sorry for that member because

those dollars don't deal in this budget.

The Grizzly Valley pipeline will be built in the private sector. Any

money going for actual coal development will be spent by the private

sector. This government, when it unfolds its economic plan for this

province to try and get things moving, will only deal in those areas

where public funds go to public facilities.

Let's not be fooled by the type of silly argument and silly speeches

that took place yesterday in this Legislature. Let's talk about what a

budget means and what a budget is all about. It's assessing the ability

of the present taxpayer to send dollars to government and it's

assessing the essential programmes that must be carried on and given

first priority in any given year. I take no comfort in the fact that we

only have a limited amount of dollars this year. I would have hoped it

would have been higher.

There are some over there who would try and tell this chamber that

we've underestimated our revenues. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that a lot

of thought and research went into preparing the budget this year. Do

you realize the difficulty of presenting this year's budget? There are

many factors out there that can affect the revenues of this province in

a very real way, the major one being that, for the first time, we have

major labour negotiations taking place in this province: roughly 65 per

cent of the organized work force in this province, covering the total

forest industry, the total construction industry, transportation,

hydro, government employees, the B.C. Railway, and others. Any one of

these negotiations ending with a major shutdown will affect the

revenues of the province — any one.

If we have a trouble-free year of restraint and of settlements with

no shutdowns, I could say the revenue would be higher. But any

government that predicated its spending on such wishful thinking would

not be worthy of the office, because governments have to be realistic

and have to assess the true economic climate and all the variables and

possibilities in a given year. At the same time, we're not predicting

complete irresponsibility in every negotiation, with resulting chaos

this year. We think the answer may lie somewhere in between. That is

how we arrived at these revenue figures. But I want to caution this

Legislature, and all members on this side of the House and opposite,

that major shutdowns, major strikes, will affect the best estimates of

this government and our financial advisers. And, yes, a perfect year of

responsibility within those negotiations would provide us with more

dollars than we have allocated for spending. I hope that happens.

But those dollars won't be lost to the people of B.C. They'll be

there for further benefit because, as I said, if there's anything to

criticize on this budget there's an area left out, an area of

commitment that we've made as a government, and an area to which I have

heard various members on all sides of this House refer from time to

time, and that is regarding the revenues from non-renewable resources,

because in this budget, as we did last year and as has happened in

other years, all the revenue from non-renewable resources has gone to

pay for services today. That's not fair to our future generations that

we take the full value of a non-renewable resource to pay for benefits

today. That's like deficit financing.

[ Page 552 ]

We say, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that if there is a surplus, if we

have a responsible year with no shutdowns and it creates a surplus,

under a formula that we will be advancing later during our mandate to

this House, we will be advocating a permanent future citizens' fund, or

heritage trust fund if you will, to allocate a proportionate share from

the non-renewable resources to be held in trust and used now and for

the continuing benefit of those who will come in the future — our

children and our children's children.

It's folly, Mr. Speaker, that we continue year after year after year

to take all this money and spend greedily, shovelling it out of the

back of the truck like that former government used to do, with no

regard to the future.

MR. MACDONALD: You're giving it to the oil companies and you know it!

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're jumpy today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say, and to make this commitment

to this House, Mr. Speaker, that this government, given the opportunity

of a growth rate that would be exceptional if we could count on full

labour-management peace this year, if we could count on responsibility

out there in the private sector, if there were no shutdowns, would

allocate that money to be the first dollars available for such a fund

for future generations and ensuing budgets. We'll quite properly set

aside a share of non-renewable resource revenue for future generations.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is something the opposition could

have brought up on this budget.

MR. LEA: We did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): You're on your way out the door.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They never mentioned the dollars. They're

the shovel-out-of-the-back-of-the-truck gang, and never forget it —

spend the people's money, not for their benefit but in trying to make

believe that they're Santa Claus.

Mr. Speaker, this budget meets all the criteria of responsible

government planning. It deals with expected revenue, taking into

account the economic climate plus the labour-management situation as it

may happen during the coming year. It provides a priority of government

services that we can afford this year, and which must be kept at all

costs, and they will be met.

In the following year, when I know we'll have labour peace in this

government, and we'll have more dollars, many of the things that our

members and the members opposite have advocated will become part of the

continuing programmes of benefits for people. In this province. You

can't deliver everything at once. This year we have dealt within the

framework of the existing economy and existing expectations.

There's more than just British Columbia: we are part of the Canadian

economy. There have been predictions — not by us, but by economic

analysts in the east — that British Columbia will be one of the bright

spots in what is a lagging economy in Canada. They predict a very low

growth rate — a real growth rate — in Canada this year, and British

Columbia and Alberta are predicted to be two of the bright spots.

Those predictions are still not good enough. They deal with growth

rates less than 5 per cent, or just over, of the gross provincial

product. Our own estimate is that our gross provincial product will

grow at something between 5 and 6 per cent. This again is averaging

against the most likely amount if disruption in the private sector due

to labour disputes this year — disputes that I hope won't happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No — disputes that I hope won't happen. I

sincerely hope they don't happen. As I say, if they don't happen there

will be money there for the non-renewable resource fund, for the

heritage, for our future generations. Mr. Speaker, it's important to us

that there be no disruption. I hope that no one in the House, and

certainly outside it, will use those disputes or inflame them

politically for their own advantage, because it's British Columbia's

future that's at stake and it's beyond the politics that any side would

play — the professions, the unions or management — for their own

short-term political benefit in what is a very key year for British

Columbia. We've never had a year — as the former Minister of Labour

would appreciate — with so many agreements up for negotiation. It's our

own best efforts, all of us, to make sure that we don't inflame what

will be a very delicate situation.

Someone brought up a point about whether we have an economic plan

for this province. Yes, we do. Right now there are major negotiations,

have been developed over the last year by this government as part of

government policy.

MR. GIBSON: You could have let the House have the information.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, the House would be let known.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, those negotiations cover the

northern transportation corridor, which is port, rail and highway

facilities. They cover the

[ Page

553 ]

Northwest Rail Agreement, they cover the northeast

coal and they cover a DREE agreement for British Columbia, because

everyone knows that under the last government there was very little

DREE money made available to build industry and build the economy in

British Columbia.

We have an ARDA agreement running out, and which must be

renegotiated. An area that was neglected by that previous government,

the coastal ferry system — we have a major proposal before the

government in Ottawa so they don't abrogate their responsibility, not

just on the part they abandoned recently, but on contributing to ferry

service on the total Pacific coast, relative to their participation and

involvement in the ferry service on the Atlantic coast of this country.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the former aide to the Prime

Minister, who was trained in Ottawa and who is now the Liberal leader

and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), says: "File

the documents." I want to advise him that I am hopeful, but I can't

guarantee it, but when I come back from Ottawa — because I'll be

visiting Ottawa next week for a series of meetings concerning some of

these agreements — perhaps I may have some good news for this House. If

I have conclusive good news, then I would be very pleased to file

documents, or table documents, in this House. But that member may know

better than I the attitude of his former colleagues in Ottawa.

But, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to Ottawa to be compromised as a

junior partner in some political party, or in conflict because we

support an opposition party. We are going as the government of British

have an opportunity to make a significant gesture to the people of

British Columbia. Many of the concerns we feel that they haven't shown

for this province, many of the areas in which they haven't, in our

view, dealt fairly with this province in the past, many of the areas

that need cooperation can be rectified at a time when they must signal

that Confederation works in this country, and that Confederation is for

all provinces and all regions, and that British Columbia will be

allowed to be a full participant as a contributor and as a recipient of

federal programmes.

So hopefully, from my discussions next week in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker —

hopefully — I may have some good news or, at least, some good news of

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In dealing with that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to say that as policy, through legislation and with this budget, this

government is meeting its obligation to the people of this province.

The amendment that was suggested and moved in this House by the

opposition hasn't been supported by fact, hasn't been supported by good

debate. Mr. Speaker, the arguments of the opposition are just that —

argument only, no substance in fact, just a recycling of their old

speeches from days gone by.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: This government is meeting, within the

framework of revenues available, the needs of people this year. Mr.

Speaker, this government is meeting its obligation to correctly and

fairly make sure that every taxpayer's dollar is spent wisely and well

to the best benefit of the recipient as well as those who pay the taxes

in this province. This government, by its action in joining the

anti-inflation programme last year, in our cooperation and in the

example of restraint we've shown, has certainly done its part to try to

control inflation and high prices that have affected all of our

citizens, especially our seniors who are on a fixed income.

Mr. Speaker, in this budget this government has outlined areas of

trying to meet the high unemployment this province continues to face in

the area of summer employment through regulation in the economic plan

betterment of the economy of the people of this province.

It's with this, Mr. Speaker, that I reject the amendment, that this

government rejects the amendment. While there are areas in which we'd

all like to spend more money, there is no more money this year. But

hopefully, with sound financial management next year many of the

concerns that we all express about meeting further needs in health care

and income support can be met by this Legislature for the benefit of

the people of British Columbia.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, if the Premier's

remarks are the best that the government can offer in opposition to

this amendment, it's not surprising that they have not entered into the

debate until this point. I think the Premier would like perhaps to hear

some response.

The best he could offer was some vague promises that there would be

something coming some day and this would prove that the opposition was

wrong in moving this amendment. Pie in the sky! Maybe you won't have to

wait until you die, but someday there will be something to offer in

opposition to the amendment offered by the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, some of the Premier's newspaper interviews, I think, would lead me to believe that he

[ Page 554 ]

would agree that one of the things responsible for

the bad year that we have had in the province of British Columbia, the

first year under Socred coalition rule, was the political stupidity of

that government in introducing the budget speech in the form in which

they introduced it a year ago. The rhetoric, the language in that

speech, when they tried to tell everyone not only in British Columbia

but all over the world that B.C. was in dire financial straits because,

as the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) said, this government

wanted to take revenge against the people who dared to vote for the New

Democratic Party in 1972.... The political stupidity of that speech

went around the world and told the people how bad things are in British

Columbia. It did a lot to scare people away from British Columbia, did

a lot to turn down the economy, in line with keeping the one promise

that I can recall the Premier making until he introduced the promise to

do away with succession duties: the promise that he would turn the

economy around. He then proceeded to turn it down just as quickly as he

possibly could.

The economic insanity of the programmes introduced by this

government in its first year in office are the things that made the

economic conditions in British Columbia so bad last year, and made it

necessary for us to move an amendment that points out that the

government has failed completely to deal with these questions of fiscal

and human betterment.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about our last year?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in their last year in office, t6

New Democratic Party faced the kind of problems that the Premier is

anticipating this year and saying that he hopes will not happen. Last

year everything was bad because we had had an NDP government. This past

year has been bad because of external problems, some internal. There

may be labour-management problems. If there are, that, of course, is

the fault of labour and management and nothing at all to do with the

government. When anything like that happened before, it was the New

Democratic Party. But in the past year they've had problems. If they

have problems in this year, 1977, obviously they are problems over

which the government has no authority to deal — no control. And

therefore if anything bad happens it's not their fault. They wash their

hands of it. If it was the NDP in office, it would be entirely our

responsibility.

Taxation was mentioned in the amendment. So were investor confidence and employment

opportunities. I have some figures provided by Stats Can. During our term in

office we made this kind of information available to Statistics Canada. It's

interesting to note, I think, that during the term that we were in office, unemployment

in British Columbia steadily decreased, until that last year when there were

labour-management problems. In addition to that, there were distressed economic

conditions in the whole of the western world. In 1972, the last year under Social

Credit administration, there was an average of 74,000 unemployed in the province

of British Columbia. In 1973, the first year under NDP administration, the average

was reduced to 67,000. In 1974, the average was reduced to 65,000. In 1975 — admittedly

a year of difficulties — the average increased to 94,000. But in 1976, the first

year under the new administration that was going to set everything so right,

the total didn't go down. It went up. It went from 94,000 up to 98,000,

on the average — 4,000 extra people unemployed under this government that was

going to show us how to run the economy in the province of British Columbia.

The amendment points out that the government does nothing to protect

senior citizens and handicapped from the effects of inflation — and

that's true, Mr. Speaker. A reading of the budget will make it obvious

that this government is not doing anything to protect the interests of

the senior citizens and the handicapped in our province. In the case of

Mincome, for example: This has been dealt with previously. The Premier

said we had no facts, just talk and just rehashing old speeches. Well,

the Premier's making it obvious that he is not listening to the facts,

the facts that come not only from the opposition side of the House but

the facts that are printed in the government's own publications, in

budget speeches and in estimates. Mincome is down $20.4 million. And

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will boast about

saving this money, money that is being taken from the pockets of the

most needy in the province. This is a boast!

Mr. Speaker, in all conscience, how can anyone stand up and vote

against this amendment on that one issue alone, where we accuse the

government of doing nothing to protect the interests of the elderly?

The government, by its own admission, is spending $20.4 million less on

this one programme for the elderly. Then they deny our charge that

they're doing nothing to protect the elderly.

It's not necessary to remind you about the ambulance programme — the

degree to which training was cut down and the degree to which new

ambulances were not made available. The sick, the needy — the

government is taking money from the people who need it most. It's

necessary that we move this amendment, and it should be obvious to

members on the other side of the House that they should consider

supporting that portion of the amendment.

They talk about education in the budget. They talk about all the

money they're going to spend on education. Mr. Speaker, it's all very

well to say that they're spending more money. But if the additional

[ Page

555 ]

money that they are spending is less than the

increase in cost — and it obviously is, as the percentage of the total

educational budget paid by the provincial government is obviously going

down — then it's all very well for the government to say we're not

increasing taxes. But if they oblige the school districts to increase

taxes at the local level, they can stand up and say: "Our hands are

clean. We're not raising taxes." They're living within the AIB

guidelines, but they're having to pay for the increased charges levied

by this government in many instances.

They're having to pay more for insurance. They're having to pay more

for hydro. They're having to pay more for supplies that are supplied by

the government. All of these costs that could have been controlled by

this government — and were controlled by the previous government, when

we controlled even the cost of fuel oil in this province. The minister

responsible for energy now says: "It's up to Ottawa. We're not

interested. We don't really want to protect the citizens of this

province. We don't really want to protect the people who are paying

school taxes. Let them worry about the increase in costs, as long as

this government cannot be singled out as the organization that is

raising those taxes or is increasing these levies." Well, they wash

their hands and say: "We're pure. We can't be responsible for what

other people are doing to the economy. We can't be responsible for what

other people are doing to taxes."

Pharmacare. Remember the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, and promises in

the throne speech about what they were going to do to the citizens in

the province with respect to Pharmacare. Then when you read the budget,

you find that even if they had not changed the programme at all,

they're not providing enough money in this vote to have kept on the old

programme, let alone to have improved it. If they are, indeed — as the

throne speech indicated — going to make some help available to all

people who use prescription drugs, then it's obvious that they're

taking some of the help away from the people who need it most — the

elderly, those unable to pay for these drugs themselves in many

instances. They are the ones who are going to be obliged to pay.

Mr. Speaker, the wording of the amendment obviously commands that it be supported

by the members of this House. The Premier criticized some of our members for

talking about Grizzly Valley: "What does this have to do with the budget?"

Well, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that some $2 million has already gone out.

That's money that BCPC could have turned over and would have turned over

to the provincial government. That's another $2 million that would have

been available to offer the kind of services which the government is now feeling

it necessary to squeeze, $2 million that would have been available. But beyond

that, Mr. Speaker, it's a case of a $100 million pipeline with no evidence

at all that there's going to be sufficient gas to make that pipeline economically

viable; $100 million, when the proven gas reserves are only 20 per cent of what

the B.C. Energy Commission recommends as the minimum amount necessary before

that pipeline be built; $100 million that will be paid for by the taxpayers

of this province if that gas is not found — and it has not yet been found — and

yet we're going to go ahead and build that pipeline.

While we don't have enough money to maintain Mincome, while we don't

have enough,, money to maintain Pharmacare, while we don't have enough

money to build up our ambulance programme, we don't have enough money

to pay more of the educational costs, more of the hospital costs, we

have $ 100 million to offer to some petroleum company to build a

pipeline that may not be needed, may not have enough gas to make it

worthwhile building that pipeline. This is the government that was

going to show us how to fiscally manage the economic affairs of the

province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, how can they avoid voting for this amendment that is so

much in line with the evidence as provided by the opposition — not the

rhetoric that the Premier said? Someday I'll have something to show you

that will make you believe that what we're doing is proper. I haven't

got it yet, but I may have it when I go to Ottawa, or when I come back.

If not, well, I'll go again some other day, and I may have something

sometime. Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with hard information, facts,

about the mismanagement of the economy of this province by this

government.

No tax increases — the Premier boasted about no tax increases. I've

already dealt with the fact that the school taxes are bound to go up.

The government has already said that the basic mill rate will go from

32.5 up to 37.5 — the highest ever in the history of the province.

Municipalities: there was a promise in the throne speech that there

would be a revenue-sharing programme — of course, there is one already

— but it's voted; it's in the estimates. The amount of money provided

for that programme is not even enough to keep pace with what last

year's programme was if you take into account increasing population and

increasing costs. This is another promise that is not really going to

provide any more services at the municipal level but is going to throw

back to the municipalities increased costs — the kind of increased

costs that this government has been levying on all the people of the

province.

I've mentioned Hydro, Mr. Speaker. I hope that some of the members

of the government are getting the same kind of letters I'm getting,

from people who are already finding it difficult to pay their Hydro

bill — old-age pensioners; some of them in apartments some of them in

homes. All of them are finding it difficult to keep up with the

increasing rates for B.C. Hydro. Now they're to be asked to pay an

extra $3

[ Page 556 ]

for B.C. Hydro billing them: "Please send me a

bill. Here's $3." Mr. Speaker, I ask you, and they're asking me, and

what do I say to them? I can't say to them they voted Social Credit,

because I don't believe those people did. I think those people knew

when they had a good government. Those people knew when they had a

government that was acting in the interests of the elderly, the sick,

the handicapped. They know now that they have a government which is

acting against the interests of the needy people in this province, and

they are now concerned.

Sound fiscal management — the previous government. They weren't

going to mortgage the future. You'll recall the B.C. Ferries deal where

the previous NDP government had substantially paid for new ferries. As

an example of sound fiscal management, this new government sold those

ferries and brought that money into current revenue. It's a nice way of

making public accounts balance. But when you consider that we're going

to be paying for those ferries for the next 20 years and, at the end of

that time, buying them back — if we want them back — is that sound

fiscal management? Is it sound fiscal management to be paying something

like two and a half times what the ferries cost us when you recognize

that we had already paid for these ferries, and the deficit — to the

extent that there was a deficit — included the paying for those

ferries? Sound management, Mr. Speaker?

As well as selling ferries that we had already paid for to quite an

extent, this government started cashing in on special funds — funds

which had been created for emergencies — and I'm not saying they

shouldn't be cashed in. Nevertheless, this government, for the first

time, found it necessary to dip into these reserves.

Mr. Speaker, what about ICBC as an example of sound fiscal

management? The answer was very revealing — the answer that came out

yesterday. At the end of the year, December 31,1976, there were in

excess of $272 million in long-term investments. Of that, $181 million

came from taxpayers of British Columbia as a direct grant. You'll

recall that ICBC was so hard up, according to the minister responsible

for ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) at that time, it needed that money to pay

salaries, it needed that money to pay claims. From the day that it

received that money — whatever day that was; we don't know when that

cheque was chased — from the day ICBC received that $181 million that

could have been available to this government to provide the kind of

services that they have withdrawn from the people of this province....

That $181 million from that day on has been invested by ICBC and has been earning

interest. From the very beginning, that $181 million was never needed, and by

December 31, 1976, it was still not needed. ICBC still had almost $ 100 million

in excess of the gift from the people of British Columbia, still had almost

$100 million invested and was at the point of starting to receive premiums on

the new year's insurance.

Is it sound fiscal management, Mr. Speaker, to have taken $181

million out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia and said:

"You can't have Mincome, you can't have ambulance care, you can't have

Pharmacare — at least not as good as they were. You have to scale down

your demands. You have to accept less. You have to practice restraint

because we want, as a political weapon, to give $181 million of your

money to ICBC. They don't need it, but we have political revenge in

mind and we have to show you who's boss. We're going to give $181

million to ICBC just to show you that we're running the show right

now." It is political revenge, no other reason for it, but the cost of

that is going to be paid by the people of British Columbia for some

time to come.

Mr. Speaker, we've talked about alternative revenues that the

government could have raised, and the Premier made no comment about

that. He apparently hasn't listened although a number of us have talked

about the possibilities. The fiscal year 1976-1977, on the basis of

royalty increases that had already been announced on coal alone, could

have brought in another $15 million and production is increasing year

by year. The figure for the year ahead, 1977-78, is possibly up to $20

million. Another $15 million to $20 million last year and another $20

million this year was left on the table. The coal companies are ready

to pay it, but this government is saying: "We don't want it. We've got

money enough to do the things we want to do. We don't want to do

anything for the old people. We don't want to do anything for the sick

or the handicapped. We've got all the money we need for the things we

really want to do. So we don't want the money from coal royalties. Let

it sit there."

The gas revenue — the B.C. Energy Commission recommended a 60 cents

per thousand cubic feet on old gas. This government, in its generosity

to the oil companies — for whatever reason.... They alone know best why

they wanted to be so generous to the oil companies. But obviously they

had some reason for wanting to feel generous. Although drilling was

increasing rapidly, on the basis of the increase recommended by the

B.C. Energy Commission and put in place by the NDP administration, and

the drilling rigs were already moving into that area, this government

interfered with the B.C. Energy Commission recommendation and said:

"No, 60 cents isn't good enough for you people. You've been good to us.

We'll be good to you. Make it 65 cents." And what's that, Mr. Speaker?

Approximately another $15 million thrown away, that they didn't want

from the resources. They were quite prepared to take another 2 per cent

on sales tax, another $225 million

[ Page

557 ]

from the poor people of the province and from the

rich — everybody pays sales tax but a higher proportion is paid by the

poor. They were quite prepared to take another $250 million from people

paying ICBC premiums. They were quite prepared to take more money in

income tax, in hospital co-insurance charges, all of these direct

charges, and quite prepared to shut down the tourist industry, if

that's what was going to happen on the Island, by more than doubling

ferry rates. They were quite prepared to do all those things and also

prepared to give to the coal companies an extra $15 million last year

and maybe $20 million this year; quite prepared to give to the

petroleum companies an extra $15 million last year for old gas, gas for

which all of the costs had already been paid; and quite prepared to

give to some 200 or 300 rich estates a year — or to forgive —

approximately $30 million in succession duties.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the one figure that I can recall the Premier

giving — the one that I noted down — is that he expects the economy to

grow at the rate of 5 to 6 per cent. He hopes it will be better, but

that's his expectation. He gave lots of promises and lots of hints as

to what he hopes he will be able to do after his trip to Ottawa. But

the one hard thing was that he expects the economy to grow at the rate

of 5 to 6 per cent. But, Mr. Speaker, where is the evidence of that in

estimates? The one real barometer of economic activity in the province

— sales tax — and the increase there is less than 4 per cent. If he

really expects the economy to grow at the rate of 5 per cent or 6 per

cent, then why does sales tax not show that kind of an increase?

If he really expects the lumber industry to show the kind of

improvement that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) talked about

in the budget speech — and the Premier must be counting on an

improvement in the forest industry if he's expecting that total growth

in the province — then where is the increased revenue for forestry?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's own reports and the budget speech that we are

debating right now all give the lie to the Premier's faith and hope for

the future. He's asking the poor people of the province to practise restraint.

He's saying to the resource industries and he's saying to those who

might pay succession duties: "We don't want you to practise any restraint.

We want you to go on doing what you have been doing very well for yourselves

in the past and we hope you do better in the future. You look after yourselves.

In the meantime, we'll see that the needy people, the poor people, the handicapped

people and the elderly people are kept in control, and that they don't get

too much of the good things that would have been available to them in this province

had this government not have practised the kind of political stupidity that

it practised in the budget last year, and the kind of economic insanity that

it has practised in the last 13 months that it has been in office in the province

of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, anyone listening to the arguments on both sides could do nothing less than vote for this amendment.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad I

followed the member for Nanaimo instead of the Premier. The Premier

gave an excellent address, and it would be like a mule entered in the

Kentucky Derby, but not quite so with the former Speaker.

MR. LAUK: You shouldn't talk that way about the Premier.

MR. VEITCH: I'm talking that way about myself.

It's always a pleasure to rise in this House, Mr. Speaker, and take

my place in this debate. But before doing so, I'd like the House to

recognize two people who are in the gallery, and whom I didn't have a

chance to have honoured this afternoon. One is Mr. Art Doig, our

constituency president for Burnaby-Willingdon, and the other is Mrs.

Jerry Richardson, the editor of the Progress from Maple Ridge. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Your Honour, I've sat through hours of debate on this budget

amendment. I've listened to speaker after speaker from the opposition

describe this document we are debating as a "millionaires' budget." I

note with pride that $2.5 billion or 65.2 per cent of the total budget

is committed to Education, Health and Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, I

would suggest that this budget is designed for all of the people of

British Columbia.

I believe that the time when people should be paying taxes to

provide services for other people in any jurisdiction should be when

they are able and well. This budget recognizes this. It recognizes it

in allowing 65.2 per cent of the total revenue to be expended at times

when people are unable to help themselves.

Conversely, I was gratified the other evening to hear the hon.

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) explain the method

whereby they have tracked down and mitigated those number of people who

are, in fact, ripping off the system — not those people who are unable

to help themselves, but those people who have found a way to take

advantage of the system. You see, Mr. Speaker, what the socialists fail

to comprehend, as explained by the famous economist, Dr. Louis O.

Kelso, in his two-factor theory "The Economics of Reality," is that

there is a profound difference between needism and greedism.

The opposition has stated that we are paying off our friends. Indeed

we are paying off our friends. Health care expenditures will total $981

million, an

[ Page 558 ]

increase of $101 million over the 1976-77 budget.

The hospital care programme received $63.4 million more. Education

expenditures total $948 million, up $94 million from the 1976-77 year.

Your Honour, all sectors of our educational system will receive

increased funding this year. Income assistance and other social

assistance programmes have been allotted $570 million for the 1977-78

fiscal year. As job-creation measures, $70 million more, for a total of

$180 million, has been allotted for highway construction. The total

allocation for highways will be $336 million. To help our youth as they

go through the summer and look for ways in which they may help

themselves to pay, perhaps in some cases, for continuing education when

they return to their various schools and institutions the following

year, the budget has provided $15 million for youth seasonal employment

programmes.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are paying off our friends — and our friends

are all of the people of British Columbia. Our friends evidenced this

at the polls on December 11, 1975, and we intend to keep on doing just

that.

MR. LAUK: Are your friends helping themselves?

MR. VEITCH: Your Honour, the socialists have said that we

have had a depressing year. I do not believe that. I believe it has

been a year of building and consolidation. Of course, I don't blame

that previous socialist government for the weather, but we must also

make allowances for the difficulties which mark the current economic

problems which are evident throughout the free world. Those

difficulties can tax the whole morale and physical resources of a

united province and, indeed, of a united nation. But this province has

been marshaled and guided by a competent government during the past

year.

The idea when the socialists were in power, Mr. Speaker, was to

break up the unity of the province for the sake of their own political

interests. The people of the province decided at the polls that that

was not what they wanted.

We've been called a coalition party. Well, perhaps we are. What

we've done, rather than divide British Columbia, has been to draw the

circle even a little wider and include many people from many political

backgrounds. That, sir, is the Social Credit government working for the

people in British Columbia — our friends, Mr. Speaker.

Freedom of enterprise and freedom of service are not possible

without elaborate safeguards against failure, accidents or misfortune.

We have realized in this budget that people do fall upon misfortune and

we have taken action to help them. This government does not seek to

improvidently pull down the structures of society but to erect

balustrades upon the stairway of life which would prevent people from

falling into an abyss.

One thing, Mr. Speaker, that this budget does point out is that the

bureaucratic management cannot compare in efficiency with that of

well-organized private firms.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! Repeat that.

MR. VEITCH: We were told that management by officials of

government is sometimes disinterested management. That may be true. The

bureaucrats suffer no penalties for wrong judgment as long as they

attend their offices punctually, do their work honestly and behave in a

polite manner towards their political masters. They are sure that their

jobs and their pensions will be there. Sometimes, however, they become

disinterested in the directness of their judgment,

The ordinary private trader, as you know in your own lives, faces

impoverishment or perhaps bankruptcy if he cannot measure things right

from day to day. Those who show themselves unable to do this are

replaced by more capable persons and organizers. Those key industries

which the socialists opposite seek to nationalize cannot be ruled by

people who have no interest in being right and suffer no consequences

for being wrong.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we require a competent, well-motivated public

service. I commend those public servants, most of whom take great

interest in their vocation and do their very best within the system.

However, the settling of the complicated problems of this province

completely by boards or committees, some disinterested, cannot possibly

enable British Columbia to live and maintain her present level of

expectancy. I firmly believe that nothing less than the complete

discrediting and abandoning of socialist conceptions about industry can

make our province run efficiently.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that old radical campaign against exploitation,

monopolies, unfair ripoffs and the like is probably a healthy and

necessary corrective measure to be taken towards the system of free

enterprise. But the grotesque idea of managing vast enterprises by

centralized direction from Victoria, Ottawa or anywhere else can only

lead to bankruptcy and ruin. Mind you, the loss of these industries is

confined not only to those nationalized; that is not the only question.

There is also a question that has been evidenced by many of the

industries that the NDP bought in their three and a half years in power

— the transfer of debt is placed directly upon the shoulders of the

taxpayer.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the reason why this government had to

increase ICBC rates over the past year was precisely for that reason.

MR. LAUK: Three hundred million dollars in the

[ Page

559 ]

bank, Elwood!

MR. VEITCH: Are you the member for Durntown? You'll have your turn later on. (Laughter.)

Socialist experiments will not work. They can only ferment

bitterness, enmity, strife and disillusionment in the societies that

undertake these experiments. This is contrary to the nature of the

people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. VEITCH: A very wise man once told me that you can't

separate what you are from what you do. As politicians, we cannot

practise budgeting and fiscal responsibility in our own homes and our

own businesses and then spend the moon, which we do not own, once we

are elected to public office. Mr. Speaker, to be successful as

home-builders, workers, businessmen and politicians, we cannot afford

double standards of value.

Your Honour, we have the capacity for great economic growth, but the

rate of growth rests with all segments within our society. A growth

society requires a government that, while providing emphasis for

growth, leaves the job largely up to the individuals. Conversely, it

also provides the duty to stop those individuals who would extract more

from the system than they are willing to put into it from executing

their deed.

Your Honour, it's up to us as citizens of this province — indeed, of

this country — and as legislators to tell that greedy minority that the

will and philosophy which gave us the standard of living we have today

is here to stay and that we will not allow that philosophy to thwart us

on our goal of recovery.

Mr. Speaker, our government has never said that recovery will be

swift or easy. The minister, in his budget address, made no extravagant

promises. I think it would be a terrible thing to buy power in this

point in time by making promises that would be impossible to fulfil

without mortgaging our future.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Hear, hear!

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I believe the average citizens of

British Columbia understand this, and they understand one more' 'thing.

The hon. members opposite will be told this loud and clear when they go

to the polls at some future date. To quote the late Sir Winston

Churchill: "How easy to fall; how hard to rise." I know, Your Honour,

that the opposition will continue to natter and pound away at us as the

government presents its programme for the betterment of the people of

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They fall, never to rise again.

MR. VEITCH: It reminds me somewhat, hon. members, of a friend

of mine who was about my size and has a wife about five feet tall and

weighs approximately 100 pounds. The wife continues to literally beat

up my friend physically. I asked the big lug one day: "What do you put

up with it for?"

"Well," he replied, "it doesn't really matter. It doesn't hurt me much and it seems to give her so much fun."

AN HON. MEMBER: Kiss and battery case.

MR. KEMPF (Omineca): Make a note of that, Gary.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, my wants are not unlike most other

British Columbians. What I want, sir,, is the right to be able to move

ahead of my own volition, and the right of security for my family and

myself in times of need. I want the opportunity, if I so desire, to be

part of the action and to make things happen in British Columbia. I

want this government to succeed, and, somehow, I know that all of these

things are inseparable one from the other.

I believe it was Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, who was a French journalist-politician, who many years ago said:

"Many men of goodwill will expect from a political

manifesto the key to all their problems. They anticipate it will bring

heaven slightly closer to earth. But it is not only the limits of human

reason that forbids such an undertaking. There is also respect for life

and freedom. Infallible thoughts are closed systems."

Over the last few days I've heard many of the doom-and-gloom boys

and girls saying that there is no opportunity, no hope, in British

Columbia. My friends, when things are slack, what we would be better

off doing, rather than holding back our province, would be to push it

ahead. Your Honour, the standards we have today, the huge wonderful

cities we have built and the industrial activity throughout our

province didn't happen all by itself. It didn't just simply burst forth

one sunny day and it didn't come about by

an Act of Parliament or the

actions of government. No, Your Honour. It came about by people doing

things for themselves. People who could see a little farther ahead than

the ends of their noses.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, this government realizes that in a

competitive-enterprise society, the innovative wheels of industry must

be allowed to run free if we are to progress. That is not only true of

our people and industry. It is also true of the fuel that makes things

happen — and that is capital.

[ Page 560 ]

For a moment, I'd like to quote from Dr. Kelso and his address to Hubert Humphrey's Senate committee.

"Although income-plan tax policy as it affects estates

and gifts is a book-length subject, the basic policy changes needed,

primarily and initially at the federal and national level, can be

briefly summarized.

"Federal estate and gift taxation in the United States

and Canada provides a very minor source of revenue. It has the effect,

however, of driving the capital of large estates into tax-exempt

foundations. Capital thus impounded can no longer serve the purpose

that the factor must serve in a private-property economy. When capital

is transferred from individual ownership to foundation ownership, the

invisible structure of enterprise in which the foundation owned

securities ceases to connect productive capital and the benefits of its

ownership with individuals. As a factor of production, capital so

diverted becomes non-people-connected. In effect, the capital becomes

owned by government. The wealth it produces can no longer be used for

the benefit of individuals, but only for the public purpose as they are

determined by the ruling bureaucracy.

"On the other hand, individuals who might otherwise

acquire ownership of such capital are deprived of the economic

opportunity it could provide them in making a productive contribution

to the economy.

"On the other hand, the ever-present inadequacy of the

purchasing power of individuals to consume wealth that is produced, or

potentially for the purchasing power and efficiency to be produced, is'

aggravated. Capital is a factor in production. It is just as critical

that it be coupled in reasonable-sized holdings with individuals, who

are thereby enabled to become both producers or more productive, and

consumers or more affluent consumers, as it is that labour power be

privately owned by the individuals."

"The transfer of capital ownership to large, general-purpose

foundations destroys the possibility of such individual relationships. Not only

is the concentration of the philanthropy in the hands of a few a social evil,

but because of the ownership concentration process on which it rests, it is

a direct cause of non-ownership of capital by millions of families. It is one

cause of the evil of poverty to which the philanthropy sometimes addresses itself.

It is, in short, an arrangement which prevents millions of families from becoming

more productive through capital ownership. It contributes to needless redistribution

of the concentrated holdings of capital, both before the capital is trapped

in foundations and afterwards.

"We estimate that more than one million new, viable

capital estates per year could be created through a single measure if

estate taxes were reduced, thus enabling each year over one million

more families to increase their affluence-producing power through

capital ownership."

That is something a socialist would never understand. Our government

is completely cognizant of the fact that taxation is necessary in order

to derive the funds that provide necessary services for people. But

unlike that former government attempted to do with the mining industry,

we are unwilling to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Mr.

Speaker, when we took over as government, that goose was very sick

indeed. But I am happy to report that the illness was not terminal, and

thanks to sane, proper taxation regulations, the mining industry is now

well on its way to recovery.

Capital will become available. Risk capital will become available

through the actions we have taken in this budget' There are enough

natural risks in the marketplace without having to deal with an

administration that will harshly tax you and add to the dilemma.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are opportunities in British Columbia today, many opportunities.

MR. LAUK: There's $100 million in personal income tax — the biggest increase in the history of the province.

MR. VEITCH: You'll have your time later, hon. member. There's

a story I like to tell, and perhaps this is my text, hon. member, and

you should listen to this one. There is a little girl walking along the

street, and she held her brother by the hand. The little boy had his

eyes closed. A man walked up to her and said: "Little girl, what's the

matter with your brother? Is he blind? Is there something wrong with

him?" She said: "No. We're going to the picture show. When we start out

from home he always closes his eyes, then when we get inside where the

theatre is dark, he opens them and finds us a couple of seats."

We have to have a little vision in these times in British Columbia,

as men and women have done in the past. I know that we are not in any

utopia or any millennium, or whatever that is. We want prosperity, and

we want it right now, and we want it quick. But we won't get it that

way. What we need is sustained, steady growth. Someone once told me if

you want to enjoy the fruits of an orchard, you must have planted it a

long time ago.

Mr. Speaker, this government, through the budget, helps provide the

thrust for that growth. It is for this reason that I totally reject the

amendment.

[ Page

561 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): What about all that money ICBC has? Why don't you give it to the people?

HON. MR. McGEER: I see that the opposition is beginning to

chirp away about the Crown corporation that is offering to the public

of British Columbia the lowest non-subsidized automobile insurance

rates in Canada. I might add that as a result of the replacement of the

board of directors from cabinet ministers to businessmen, it's also

offering the best service in Canada to its customers. But that's the

difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I might say that I didn't write the legislation under

which ICBC was set up; it's merely my responsibility to help make it

work.

This amendment we are discussing today is, I think, one of the shallowest amendments we've had in years in this House.

MR. LAUK: It's one of your old ones.

HON. MR. McGEER: For example, it talks about investor

confidence. I can tell you that when that member was the Minister of

Economic Development you might as well have hung a sign on the door

saying: "Out to lunch for three years."

MR. KEMPF: He still is.

HON. MR. McGEER: Our biggest problem in building up investor

confidence in British Columbia is convincing people from all over the

world that this man will never be the Minister of Economic Development

again. I can tell you that the best way that we can find, Mr. Speaker,

to build up investor confidence in British Columbia would be to have

the businessmen who could build this economy come and listen to that

opposition for one day in the House, and then they'd know they're never

coming back.

MR. LAUK: Tell us about the economic development you're providing for us now. Tell us about the glowing pipeline.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm going to talk, Mr. Speaker, about some of the

long-range plans, as well as the short-range plans, that this government has

for putting British Columbia on the road to recovery again. It is impossible

to clean up the kind of rubble left behind by the NDP in a single year. They

weren't able to do it in Saskatchewan, we aren't able to do it here

in British Columbia, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they're a worried

and divided NDP in Ontario when the people of that province have the example

of British Columbia to look at as something that could happen to them.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to cope

with employment opportunities in British Columbia for our coming

generation, it is essential that we provide them with the kind of

education that will give them the skills they need for jobs and that we

have the kind of investment that will build the industry to supply

those jobs. These are the twin thrusts of this government; these are

the two priorities; and this is how we build for our children and our

children's children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: It is my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to

help to manage the large spending portfolio in government, when you

consider the contributions made by local taxpayers, namely Education. I

would like to describe just a few of the things that this department is

doing with the funds made available by the Legislature, within the

competency of the taxpayers of this province, to provide these

opportunities.

As you know, in the past year we've had a number of commissions

examining the state of education in British Columbia from top to

bottom. At the same time, we've been examining the relationships that

this government has had with the federal government with respect to

post-secondary education, because the federal Act passed in 1967, in

principle at least, indicated that the federal government would

contribute one-half of all the post-secondary education costs in lieu

of giving tax credits to the provinces.

How has that worked in British Columbia? Mr. Speaker, that programme

has turned out to be a nightmare for this province. We face this

difficulty in British Columbia. We are the province having the fastest

growth in the nation. We are the province — thanks to the wages paid

here in British Columbia — that has the highest unit-cost. We were the

province further behind, a decade ago when this programme was started,

than any other province in terms of maturation of these post-secondary

facilities. Yet, despite this, we are the province that now receives

the least dollars per capita from the federal government of any

province in Canada.

MR, LAUK: What are you doing about it?

HON. MR. McGEER: What we are trying to do,

[ Page 562 ]

Mr. Speaker, is correct difficulties that were

partly as a result of the former Social Credit government but, in major

part, the result of neglect of the NDP when they held office, because,

Mr. Speaker, the greatest shortfall that we've experienced in obtaining

money from Ottawa has been in the past three years. That's where we've

fallen behind.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

HON. MR. McGEER: We have made requests of the federal

government which, if granted — and we're still negotiating — will bring

to this province over $ 100 million more for post-secondary education.

I want to read what our latest estimates will be for what the

individual provinces will receive, per capita of population, from the

federal government in this coming year. British Columbia, we estimate,

will receive $46; Alberta will receive $71; Saskatchewan, $51;

Manitoba, $56; Ontario, $67...

AN HON. MEMBER: Per capita?

HON. MR. McGEER: Per capita of population.

...Quebec, the highest, $73.50; New Brunswick, $48; Nova Scotia, $62; Prince Edward Island, $50; Newfoundland, $47.

These estimates for the coming year, unless there are some changes,

show that British Columbia is receiving the least dollars. But it's the

cumulative effect of this, Mr. Speaker, which is so painful, because

over the past decade we've received $300 million less than we would

have obtained from the federal government had this money been

distributed on a per capita basis.

But, Mr. Speaker, if one takes into account the higher taxation that

the province of British Columbia pays to the federal government, if one

takes into account the higher cost of providing any service in this

province than most other provinces of Canada, one realizes that had we

been given the taxing power to run our own educational system in this

province to serve the needs of the growing population here, we would

have been able to accomplish a substantial amount more than has been

possible to date.

When we talk, as we did, about the need to have the spirit of

Confederation, we're talking about the powers to the provinces

respected by the federal government, and how each province should have

the fiscal powers that are necessary to carry out its constitutional

responsibilities. That's not subversion.

MS. SANFORD: Separatism!

HON. MR. McGEER: That's not separatism. Separatism, Madam

Member, is when you advocate that one province, such as the province of

Quebec, should secede from Canada. Every single member of this

government — and I would hope every member of the House — is strongly

in favour of Canadian Confederation, including all the provinces,

including Quebec.

MR. LAUK: Then don't undermine it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, how do we undermine it?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, that's how Confederation was

negotiated. Those who understand the history of this country, as that

member obviously doesn't, will realize that this is how Canadian

Confederation will stay together.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) — I'm sorry

he's not in his seat today — confuses the policies of his government in

Ottawa with what's sound for British Columbia and sound for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we're hopeful that we'll obtain a substantial amount of

money in the coming year or two to give us equity in this

post-secondary programme with the other provinces of Canada.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Nothing but talk.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Member, that characterized your term in

office — your talk. You drove industries out of this province, and

we're trying to bring them back.

MR. COCKE: Who's driving them out now, Pat? They're going. Last one out turn out the light.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in addition to carrying on

negotiations with the federal government to attempt to bring our share

of funds in this programme back to this province, we've had a number of

commissions which have been studying the performance of the educational

system in British Columbia. Some of their reports will be released in

the very near future.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, all of them will be released, Mr. Member.

We expect within a few days to make available the Goard commission

report, which went into technical and vocational programmes in this

province. We also anticipate releasing the Gaudry report, which looked

into the post-secondary and university facilities, and made some

suggestions with regard to how we could bring greater returns to the

province of British Columbia from the technological capabilities of our

[ Page

563 ]

institutions.

We've also been inspecting the primary and secondary programme which

we offer here in British Columbia. Members will be aware of the fact

that we have announced, that as of September of this coming year there

will be a core curriculum in place in British Columbia which will be

taught in every public school. It will specify those materials which

must be taught in every classroom. It will not limit the amount of

material which may be taught — that will be the choice of each school

district. The ministry will recommend materials that should be taught

in addition to the core curriculum that must be taught; the ministry

will monitor the success, district by district, of core curriculum

teaching.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry is confident that this programme has the

support of the overwhelming majority of teachers in this province, as

well as the general public. It may not appeal to some educational

theorists, but the experience of country after country in the western

world, where firm standards have been abandoned, is to create a

situation where there are no standards at all.

MR. LEA: Were there standards when you went to school?

HON. MR. McGEER: We've got some advertisements that have been

placed in our local press by the B.C. Teachers Federation. That's their

privilege to spend the money that they've collected from their

individual members. As they say in this advertisement: "Learning is an

individual process." And that's perfectly true, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Stick to the amendment like I did.

MR. KEMPF: That's what he's doing.

HON. MR. McGEER: But standards must be set for all to see. I

suppose if a fault can be found with our educational system of the past

dozen years or so, it's the systematic effort to obscure reasonable

standards. Effort and discipline are bound to erode under such

circumstances, with performance falling below what it otherwise would

be.

The Ministry of Education, Mr. Speaker, is anxious to receive

submissions on what should be included in the core curriculum material.

That's the material that must be taught in every school. We're anxious

to receive suggestions in this respect.

MR. LEA: Why? You said it doesn't matter; they'll do it anyway.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's going to be in place by September.

Meetings will be held around the province of British Columbia. I hope

they'll be well attended. I hope that the members, along with the

general public, will make their views known as to what should be

included in that core curriculum — to myself, to the curriculum

development branch of the Ministry of Education, to the local school

boards.

MR. LAUK: Will you make changes?

HON. MR. McGEER: Of course we'll make changes, Mr. Member.

That's the whole idea of public discussion of the core curriculum. But

we state that out of these submissions and out of these discussions

will emerge a consensus. On the basis of that consensus, the core

curriculum will be defined so that it is in place by September, 1977.

And while we're flexible on what the content of that core curriculum

should be, we have made a decision that there will be a core

curriculum. That's the point that I want to make, There will be no

compromise on that principle.

MR. LAUK: There always has been.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, these measures that are being

brought in to the field of education — the core curriculum for our

primary and secondary students to provide the survival skills and to be

certain that these survival skills are taught; the changes that we will

bring about in post-secondary education and in the technical and

vocational sphere as a result of the Goard commission report; the new

programmes that we will be introducing in the realm of continuing

education as a result of the Faris report; the development of science

and technology in British Columbia in cooperation with industry that

will come about as a result of the Gaudry commission report — are all

designed, Mr. Speaker, to provide the skills and abilities in our

future generations. Matched with the great policies of the Minister of

Economic Development, the Minister of Finance, and especially the

Premier, that will lay the economic base, those jobs will be created

and filled by British Columbians and not by people who have to be

brought in from outside with those skills, but the best opportunities

to our own youngsters. These things are in the future, Mr. Speaker. And

the only thing that's holding us back is that those people around the

world in whom we need to build- confidence can't be here to see the NDP

in action so that they know that this government will remain in power

to carry these policies out for the next generation.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, just before I

start my remarks I wonder if we could have some clarification from you:

are we in the educational estimates or the amendment to the budget?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're on the

[ Page 564 ]

amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) and seconded by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson).

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker,

because I understand that the last speaker was supposed to be up

defending his government's budget and speaking about the amendment. We

still don't know whether he was in support of our amendment or not

because he spent his whole time on the Education department, which we

all found very interesting but hardly relevant. I could spend a

considerable length of time refuting some of the statements which he

made in reference to education, but I think that in all fairness to the

House we would all prefer to leave that to the Education estimates.

But there is one thing I really feel it necessary to say at this

time. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) spent a great deal of

time on post-secondary education and pointed out that he's going to

struggle very hard to get money from the federal government. I wish him

well, but the point that should be made quite clearly is that one of

the reasons why British Columbia is in the position it is in with the

federal government today with reference to educational financing, and

the finance formula which exists between Canada, British Columbia and

the other provinces, is the policies of the former Social Credit

government which that member criticized year after year as a Liberal

Party member. Now he is over there with the Social Credit Party.

He criticized over and over again the fact that the former Social

Credit government had not done their job in building post-secondary

institutions in the years when every other province in Canada was doing

so. Because the former Social Credit government did not build those

institutions, Mr. Speaker, they were left behind in collecting the

federal moneys that were available. They were caught in a squeeze at a

time of a very rigid finance formula. So really, it's quite ironic to

have that former Liberal Party member stand up and talk about how he's

going to get hundreds of millions of dollars back for us, when actually

he is faced with a gigantic handicap — the handicap of the party which

he now belongs to.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your legacy.

MR. COCKE: It's your legacy! Don't give us that!

MRS. DAILLY: We are very proud of our legacy, Mr. Speaker.

I won't dwell too long on education, but I want to make one more

point. The reason the Minister of Education is in this bind with the

federal government is because under the New Democratic Party in the

three years we were in office, we expanded the community college system

and increased all post-secondary facilities. Now he realizes that

because of our massive expansion, which was needed and with which he

agrees, he has to get the money from the federal government. So we have

given him the opportunity, but he still has a great handicap as a

legacy from the government to which he now belongs.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very poor defence of the budget. I listened

carefully to find out what the hon. member had to say in defence of

this budget. You know, I made a few notes but there is really nothing

here to work on. He spoke about the failure of the economy and about

businessmen who, if they sat here and listened to our speeches in the

opposition, would be so concerned about the NDP ever coming back into

government. Mr. Speaker, the businessmen of this province don't even

have to come into this House to know what state the economy is in. They

are experiencing the failures of this government every day in their

businesses outside in the community. They don't need to come in here.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to the Premier, who stood

up and at least spoke to the amendment. But he gave an exceptionally

weak defence. Perhaps his mind was not entirely on that particular

defence at that time.

Mr. Speaker, we have presented this amendment to the House because

of our very great concern for the people of the province, whom we all

represent here in this chamber. The budget is a disastrous budget. It's

one of the most disastrous that I have ever seen in the I I years that

I have been a member of this House. The budget has to be amended. As a

matter of fact, it's so bad that even the amendment we've brought in

may not bring relief to the people of the province. It should be

scrapped entirely and another budget brought in. But we realize that in

the parliamentary tradition this is the best attempt we can make to

bring to the government's attention how disastrous their budget it.

The Premier, when he spoke, posed the question: "What is a budget?"

I made a note of his answer. He had a very simplistic answer. He simply

said: "A budget means assessing programmes." So that brings me, Mr.

Speaker, to a point I'd like to dwell on for a few minutes, and that is

the Social Credit philosophy which underlines this whole disastrous

budget. It is that philosophy which has created the disastrous events

we've seen in this province since they became the government.

You know, some people claim that they have no philosophy, but they

do have a philosophy, Mr. Speaker. Let's examine what the Social Credit

philosophy which underlines the preparation of this budget is. Their

philosophy is based on the belief that people must help themselves.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

[ Page

565 ]

We heard that repeated again by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Veitch). We hear it from almost every backbencher who gets up: the

people must help themselves, and the government should not be used to

help people. Only the wealthy of this province should expect help from

the Social Credit government. The rest of the people, Mr. Speaker, I

repeat, must help themselves.

You know, Mr. Speaker, they have perpetrated a fraud on the people

of this province. They have perpetrated a fraud, because when they were

running in the last campaign all their election material made promises

upon promises to the people about what they were going to do for the

people of this province; not one word about what they were going to do

to the people once they became government. So they have created and

they have perpetrated a fraud on the citizens of this province. It is

shameless, their actions in this budget, and what the budget has

produced.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if you watch this government since they have

come into office, it becomes quite clear that they apparently just see

their roles — particularly the cabinet members — as administrators and

efficiency experts whose sole purpose is to produce a balanced budget.

At the same time, though, they have another purpose: to look after the

wealthy and corporate interests of this province, all at the expense of

the average citizen and of those who are in need. The whole thread of

this budget, as you go through it, is based on that philosophy.

You know, Mr. Speaker, any government budget must relate to the

economy, and any government budget directly determines, to a very

marked degree, the performance of our economy. Last night the Leader of

the Official Opposition (Mr. Barrett) referred to the American economy

and the actions which have been taken to date by the new American

president, President Carter. Now President Carter's economic adviser

advised the president, even before he was inaugurated, that there were

a certain number of basic precepts which must be followed to revive the

sagging American economy. There were two major ones: first, don't worry

about a deficit during a recession. I thought it very interesting to

hear the Premier drag up that old thing about, "we're not going to

leave our grandchildren with huge deficits," when they themselves have

just announced a massive borrowing for B.C. Hydro. It's a flim-flam

defence of a budget which does have hidden deficits. Unfortunately,

this is a period of time where a deficit plan must be brought in in the

whole area of the operating costs of the budget, and this is accepted

by the top economists of North America.

A steady programme also, Carter's economic advisers stated to him, of government

stimulus to the economy is absolutely necessary, because a sustained policy

of government stimulus will bring about a sustained recovery. Mr. Speaker, this

budget that we have before us follows none of these precepts. It refuses to

look at the possibility of a deficit; it is obsessed with balancing the books;

it has no policy for a sustained recovery for this province. Somehow all these

simplistic economic facts seem to have escaped this government.

But perhaps I'm being too kind to them, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is

nodding his head, so I'll tell you why I'm being too kind to them. I

suppose something cannot escape you which you have never had in your

possession, and I think it's becoming clearer and clearer every day

that the Premier of this province does not have around him any advisers

who are going to put this province on the right track economically.

There is just one stubborn obsession with balancing the books.

MR. COCKE: And condemning the opposition.

MRS. DAILLY: And condemning the opposition. This is all we hear.

Mr. Speaker, the effects of this budget on the people of this

province have been documented over and over again in the House and, at

the risk of boring some members, there are some areas of these effects

which I want to run over somewhat briefly.

Before I do that, I want to go back again to the fact that the

disastrous economic approach this government has taken to the budget is

so wrong. It goes against almost every piece of economic advice that

has been given to states and provinces and countries today which are in

a serious state of recession, which, of course, this province is in

right now.

Mr. Speaker, about the only editorial we have seen in a major paper which calls this budget as it really is was in the Victoria Times . I must say that it was most refreshing to find a balanced editorial on this budget, instead of opening up The Vancouver Sun and Province

and just reading the usual approval for anything which is brought out

by the Social Credit government, and without any analysis whatsoever.

The Victoria Times made some

excellent points. They were talking about how little this budget has

for the average citizen, and they refer, of course, to the fact that

the mining interests were certainly being taken care of.

To quote from the Victoria Times :

"First royalties were abolished and now a new tax incentive is given to

the mining companies." Then they go on to say: "If this coddled

industry pays any tax next year, it should hang its head in shame."

Then it refers to the areas where they talk about what there is for

people, and as they go through it we find there is very little for the

people of this province. As a matter of fact, some of the things they

had even last year are being taken away from them this year

[ Page 566 ]

because we find so many areas where this budget has

been cut in almost every department — except, rather interestingly, we

find an increase in tourism which we will be discussing in detail later.

Before I go into those details, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a

general statement again about the economic situation in this province,

as created by this budget. Because of the taxes which Social Credit has

imposed on consumers in this province and on small businesses, B.C., in

attempting to get out of a recession, starts off with a built-in

handicap. If, as a government, you're going to attempt to get out of

this recession you already have a built-in handicap because of the

taxation policies of the Social Credit government. They have created an

annual drop of 4 per cent in the gross provincial product of this

province — entirely created by the fiscal policies of that government.

So there we are — you start off already with a handicap which has been

created by the Premier of this province and whoever his advisers may be.

Moreover, as long as this government tries to balance all the books

all at the same time, the costs of producing, the costs of doing

business and the costs to families and individuals rises — not only

rises, Mr. Speaker, but it rises substantially more than it otherwise

would have if this government had not so foolishly and, may I say,

stupidly brought in these stringent fiscal policies. As a direct result

of the Social Credit policies, B.C. Is the only province in Canada

today in which the cost of living, the cost of doing business and the

rate of unemployment are all above the national average. That is the

accomplishment of the Social Credit government after 15 months in

office.

They have placed us in that beautiful position — and let me repeat

it again — we are the only province in Canada in which the cost of

living, the cost of doing business and the rate of unemployment are

all, combined, above the national average, Yet that Premier, his

colleagues and his backbenchers have the gall to stand up in this House

and say that they know how to run a province, that they are the good

managers, they are the people who know how to run the financial and

budgetary policies of this province.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, this government is really the most

financially inept government this province has ever seen. The results

of their mismanagement are facing us and every citizen in this province

every day. The people have common sense — they are not fooled — they

see it.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier, like the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), as I said earlier has saddled himself with a

self-imposed handicap. His election pledge to the people that he would

get the books balanced immediately is leading to the very opposite

result, and it's going to take longer, much longer, than it should have

to ever get this province back into shape financially. Is this good

management?

By deliberately — and it was a deliberate move, either out of direct

stupidity or also stupidity combined with a vendetta against the former

government — adding to the cost levels in British Columbia, and by

implementing a policy of excessive budgetary restraint so unemployment

is at a counter-productive level, and in fact is increasing, our cost

levels in this province are simply not going to come down fast enough,

if they ever come down at all, under this stubborn government.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the needs of this provincial economy

in B.C. are very, very complex. And we know that a blanket policy by

government to the effect that absolutely everything will be restrained

is guaranteed not to work.

Now I'll spend the latter part of my speech in just talking about

some of the specific effects of this government's mismanagement as they

relate to the people of our province. I am going to take my own riding

of Burnaby North, which is a typical large urban riding. That doesn't

mean that I'm not concerned about the rest of the province, but after

all, I see the problems that people bring to me every day when I'm in

my constituency office. So I look at this budget and I say: "Well, what

is this budget going to do for the people of my riding? How is it going

to assist them in the many complex problems they face day to day?"

You know, the sad thing is that an awful lot of the government

backbenchers don't even seem to realize that this society we are living

in today is exceptionally complex. It isn't the society in which their

grandparents lived, and yet they want to continue with the same

policies that may have worked — and actually didn't — back at the turn

of the century.

So how does the budget help the people in my riding? First of all, I

look at the young people in the riding. I look at the young mothers

with their children. Day care: it is becoming evident every day that

it's going to be more and more difficult, through Human Resources

restrictions, to get day-care facilities in this province. As a matter

of fact, it's going to get to the point again where only the women with

money are going to find themselves able to get day care. Or you are

going to have to plead on a means test that you have absolutely nothing.

The dignity of the working mother will be taken away from her. So I

don't see anything there in the budget to assist in day care. The

former Minister of Human Resources had started to move and had built up

one of the finest day-care chains in all of Canada. I think that it is

a disgrace to see this destroyed.

As far as the young students and our institutions: Burnaby, as you

know, has many large educational institutions. It is probably the area

that has more

[ Page

567 ]

provincial institutions in it than any other area.

We have Simon Fraser University in my own riding of Burnaby North, and

then we have BCIT in Burnaby, and the Burnaby Vocational School. What's

happened there?

I am glad the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is back. When

I make this statement, this does not mean that I think the sky is the

limit with educational budgets. I know the minister is quite aware that

before I left office, we had already put in some educational-finance

restraints ourselves. But the degree to which this new minister and his

government have gone is absolutely ridiculous. We are reaching a point

where there are going to be programmes that cannot be offered. There is

going to be less space for students. Combined with this fact, we've

noted that the student aid fund, put in the estimates this year, is

even less than it was in the year the NDP left office. On top of that,

when we get a chance to hear from the minister, we will ask him why the

total estimates put in for student aid were not totally spent last

year, when we were having students come to us asking for assistance.

So combined with a smaller student-loan aid programme, combined with

lack of programmes and a lack of space because of the restrictive

budget given to the minister — or maybe he accepted it, maybe he's

happy with it; we'll hear — there is also going to be increased tuition

on top of our young people. They have no choice. This is what some of

the universities and colleges tell us. Therefore, it will make no

difference to any students in this province who are fortunate enough to

gain entry to these institutions. Even though they managed to get seats

in a university or college, they are going to face many major financial

problems to stay there, not only because of the non-availability of

aid, but because of the high unemployment rate for students.

So what are we going to get down to? If this trend continues, we

will be back to the old days where the universities and higher

education will only be for the rich and for the elitist. Does our

Minister of Education, who has often been called an elitist himself,

have this attitude? Is he not concerned that the average student, or

the student of low income, may be denied an opportunity because of his

policies, to get to post-secondary education?

MR. WALLACE: Nod your head, Pat.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I was asked across the floor, Mr. Speaker, to send documents to someone who has been denied.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I am talking about your philosophy, Mr.

Minister. The trend that you are setting in your government in cutting

back on facilities in education, in not providing employment and in

dropping student loans, means simply that only those with money are

going to be able to get back to university. Now you either endorse that

or you don't.

AN HON. MEMBER .- That's documentation in itself.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: It's not my responsibility to document this for

the minister. If he is concerned, as he seems to be across the floor,

you put your staff to work for the documentation, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Document the wild charges you were talking about.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't have that staff. I am not making wild

charges. I am predicting that unless your government changes their

whole philosophy on budgeting, this is what is going to happen in this

province.

HON. MR. McGEER: If we do give you the examples, will you put them through university yourself?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, the member who

has the floor has been doing exceptionally well in helping me maintain

order in the House. Perhaps we should not provoke her to depart from

that. Please proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Discrimination!

MRS. DAILLY: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that when the

Education estimates come up we can show the Minister of Education that

I have not made