[ Page 4501 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Closure Of Mount Paul private hospital, Mr. Cocke –– 4501

Tenants of Stratford Hotel. Mr. Barnes –– 4501

Mr. Lauk –– 4502

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 4502

Ministerial Statement

Committee to investigate school taxation assessment system.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4503

Mr. Lauk –– 4503

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Hanson –– 4503

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4504

Mr. Macdonald –– 4505

On the amendment.

Mr. Leggatt –– 4509

Mr. Levi –– 4512

Mr. Lockstead –– 4517

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4520

Mr. Barrett –– 4522

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to welcome to this House Mr. Warren Docker, who is from Australia. Over the past number of years he has operated with a tour company out of London, England, and that tour company is the largest of its kind in the world, catering to those under 35 years old who want to tour the Middle East, European countries, etc. They offer camping and hotel activities and ski tours. Before Mr. Docker leaves this afternoon I hope he has the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). Mr. Docker is a good friend of my executive assistant. I'd like to wish him well on his trip back to Sydney and ask the House to join me in my good wishes.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: One of the best features of Vancouver South is that it contains Magee Secondary School, which at every provincial election has, beyond question, the best all-candidates meetings in the area. We have Mrs. Garvin and a class of grade 10 socials students in the gallery today. If I may, with your indulgence, Sir, I should tell them that shortly after 2:30 p.m. they will still be in the gallery and see firsthand my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — one of their two MLAs — at work. Nice to have you with us.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to discharge the order for second reading of Bill 6, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

CLOSURE OF MOUNT PAUL
PRIVATE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the first minister, the Premier. I am informed that the Premier, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) met regarding a private hospital closure in the city of Kamloops. This province is shockingly short of long-term care beds, and Mount Paul Private Hospital in Kamloops has announced it will close. Mr. Speaker, I could give you a number of quotes from people. One is from a wife who indicates that it would be a death warrant for her husband if he's to be moved, and the moves are quite a distance. Those are the kinds of quotes that we're getting.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. COCKE: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier would announce the decision regarding the future of that hospital here and now in the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Although I think the question might be out of order, this government is so concerned with the plight of those who are patients in this hospital that I'm quite willing to state that, yes, not only has Minister Waterland met with people in the area, but we've had substantial meetings with the Minister of Health, who has instructed members of his staff responsible for that area to make a quick investigation on ways in which we could prevent any hardship for the people. We're positive that we have the solution; we're working on it and we'll be making an announcement, hopefully, very shortly. But I do want to assure the House, as we have assured the people of Kamloops, that their care is the concern of this government. It's not an issue in which we would want to see politics played. because the whole area surrounds people and their families. The government is doing everything they can to make sure that what was an announced closure of a private hospital will not cause any hardship to these people, and an announcement, hopefully, will be forthcoming.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. that gives us a tremendous amount of confidence. In spite of the fact that Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops has announced that they have no room — they've already got a number of chronic-care patients in that hospital, and appropriately housed — insomuch as the Minister of Health has announced that they will do their best to place these residents in other facilities. will the Premier take into account that this would be a travesty, because we're talking about great distances, and will the first minister announce something that will give some sort of satisfaction that real attention is being paid to the Mount Paul problem?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned. A number of options for a solution were discussed, entertained, and we will have a solution before any disruption will occur. I've had ministers in the Kamloops area discussing the matter with the people. I hope to have the Minister of Health go directly to the area and deal with the people to find a solution that will be acceptable not only to those who are patients but to the broad community of British Columbians who are proud of our health-care system.

While many of our facilities are in the public domain, there are a number of private hospitals that do operate, and it's consistent with our government's policy to try to encourage the broadest base of health care that there is to ensure the best possible care for the people of this province. As I said before, it is not a political issue; it's a human issue and one which we're dealing with and we believe we have the resolution for.

The member has my assurance that the situation has received major attention and discussion from the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Health — particularly his staff — and myself, because it's an area in which I have a lot of concern. The Minister of Health, as late as this morning in discussion with me indicated he is prepared to go to Kamloops, and I'm positive that I can assure you that we have a solution.

MR. COCKE: The logical conclusion would be that the government will be taking over Mount Paul Private Hospital. Is that the solution?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

TENANTS OF STRATFORD HOTEL

MR. BARNES: This question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Eviction notices have been served on the tenants of the 151-unit Stratford Hotel, effective March 16, in order that the suites can be made into 51

[ Page 4502 ]

self-contained luxury apartments. Many of these tenants are disabled and have lived there for up to 30 years. Has the minister decided to ask cabinet to proclaim amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act passed by this Legislature last spring in order to protect people who are living in hotels, motels and lodging houses?

MR. SPEAKER: Insofar as the question tries to explore future policy, it is out of order. Any question regarding a decision already made by the minister is in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd happily respond to the opening concern of the member, which concerns me too. If he'll give me a day or two I'll take as notice that portion of the question dealing with that particular hotel. I'll personally look into the situation and I'll be happy to get back to you.

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing with respect to the same question. We're not raising this question as an isolated example in our constituency; it's an example of what's been happening in other areas of the city and elsewhere in the province, because of the lack of policy on the part of this government with respect to housing and the protection of tenants. What steps have you decided to take to work with the city of Vancouver to ensure that the tenants of the Stratford Hotel are rehoused promptly in affordable, decent housing by March 16, when they will be homeless? As I understand it, the city has formally requested it — if they have not, I as the MLA request it. I wonder if the minister has arrived at a decision with respect to assisting these people. It is a critical problem involving disabled persons.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've not received a request for assistance from the city of Vancouver. Now that the member brings the matter to my attention, I'll be glad to look into it and bring an answer back to this House.

MR. BARNES: This is to the Minister of Human Resources with respect to the same matter. Would the minister indicate if she has any plans that would assist these people who will obviously have to find new accommodation at, perhaps, considerably more expense than the affordable housing they will no longer have as a result of this decision to vacate them from the Stratford Hotel?

MR. SPEAKER: That same ruling applies. Only that section of the question which deals with decisions already made is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have not, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has indicated, had any indication from the city of Vancouver, but I would be pleased to have my ministry look into it, and I'm pleased to have the question from the hon. member.

MR. LAUK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank all the ministers who have been questioned with respect to the Stratford Hotel and who say that they will consider it, and I know that they will honestly consider the plight of these people. But as an aftermath to this situation I direct a question to the Minister of Education in his role as coordinator of the International Year of Disabled Persons. Some of the Stratford Hotel tenants are physically handicapped and need alternate accommodation with an elevator, and that's been one of the major issues that has concerned my colleague and I. Has your committee had under consideration the plight of these people in the Stratford Hotel, or people like them, and if so what action has it decided to take to help them?

HON. MR. SMITH: Since the committee was just appointed a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. They don't have that particular matter under consideration, but they most certainly do have proposals under consideration in this province to make public facilities accessible to the handicapped and to consider ways of generally improving accessibility. That particular project wouldn't be ruled Out, but it would be a subject that I would be quite happy to bring to their attention. They will be scrutinizing proposals and grant applications from all over the province and then making a recommendation to government on them. I certainly agree with the sentiment of the member's remarks on accessibility.

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, again on northeast coal. In 1977 the northeast coal study revealed that the cheapest and most efficient route for getting coal to tidewater out of the northeast was the Monkman I route. Total cost estimates were $195 million for that entire route — that's not much more than half the cost of the Anzac route that was chosen. Can the minister advise the House why the most expensive route was chosen rather than the Monkman route, which was clearly less costly?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, in order to be perfectly accurate I would have to go back into the records. I think if I checked the records on the exact costs of both lines back in 1977, I might find that the original cost on the Anzac line was somewhat less. I'll be happy to check back into the record to determine what the costs were for both of those lines at that particular point in history.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, when B.C. Hydro proceeds with the McGregor diversion the Monkman route will flood that area. Wasn't the real reason for the minister choosing the more expensive route to protect the McGregor diversion project for B.C. Hydro which, as the minister knows, will pollute the Fraser River system at great cost to the fisheries resource of this province? Has the minister calculated the loss of the valuable salmon resource in the Fraser River, the most valuable river fit for salmon in the world? Has he calculated the cost to that river of the McGregor diversion, and is this cost reflected in the loss projections for the development for northeast coal? Don't tell me that there is no pollution. You know very well that there are spawning beds all through there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we are forgetting the purpose of question period. It is to ask questions and not to bring information to the House and certainly not to enter into a debate.

[ Page 4503 ]

COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
SCHOOL TAXATION ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to make a ministerial statement. I would like to announce today the establishment of a committee to investigate the operation of the assessment system on school taxation in this province. Due to the increases that have been experienced in assessed values in certain parts of the province this year, particularly — but not exclusively — in the lower mainland, and the impact that that has on school taxes in those areas and around the province, I have appointed a committee to investigate this problem and to make recommendations to cabinet with a view to finding solutions to alleviate this problem for the 1982 taxation year.

This committee will be chaired by Mr. J.R. Fleming, assistant deputy-minister of educational finance in the Ministry of Education, and will include a senior economist from the Minister of Finance's office. It is thought as well that the committee will rely on outside expertise — that is, expertise outside of government — and that it will meet with other agencies, including the assessment commission, the B.C. School Trustees Association, and possibly the B.C. municipalities and other bodies who are interested in this matter. It will not be a touring, roving commission of its kind. It will be a committee to examine the matter and to report expeditiously before the end of June, in the hope that we can find some method of alleviating or cushioning the impact of these assessments in certain areas of the province.

MR. LAUK: First of all, Her Majesty's opposition is opposed to the committee because it is a smokescreen for a money-grab on the part of this government — a pure smokescreen. The minister's predecessor shut down the McMath commission, which was providing the answers for a proper education financial formula in this province. It is interesting that the minister states that the committee has as its term of reference until the end of June, when the final tax bills for all of us in this province will have already gone out and been paid. It is a cynical attempt to smokescreen a money-grab and the loyal opposition rejects it out of hand.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to perhaps review the fifth edition of Beauchesne in regard to what kind of reply is expected to ministerial statements. It is not a time of debate.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. HANSON: Before our break, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to convey to the government through you the general perception that the public has of this government. There is a clear double standard in that they want to have the ordinary citizens of the province carry all the financial burden for transit, for school taxes and so on. But at the same time, if you notice the news stories that come out of this House, people close to the government, close to the Social Credit Party in various parts of the province, do exceptionally well on land transactions and other kinds of decisions that are clearly of a political nature and that override the advisory bodies established within our government structure to remove the political aspect from decision-making.

I reviewed some of the major decisions made that have been purely of a political nature — the Spetifore decision in Langley, which we have seen unravelling.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: My friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) says it is not true. The public record speaks for itself. Any citizen of British Columbia is entitled to go to Burnaby and ask for the file to review the Spetifore decision. You'll see quite clearly that the soils people, the technicians and the people in the fanning community who know what they're about, have stated quite clearly in those files that that land has high agricultural capability and is capable, through improvements, of sustaining the population of the lower mainland with food production for many years to come.

What we have as a backdrop to that decision is a person closely associated with the Social Credit Party, who has been working through the Social Credit connections for at least eight years to have that land removed from the land reserve. I pointed out before the break that the Spetifore case is rife with political patronage: and the Wenger case in the Windermere area, with the Minister of Lands. Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). Is rife with patronage. It is that kind of....

MR. BARBER: And Gloucester.

MR. HANSON: And clearly the Gloucester property one is another. It is that that has coloured the public perception of this government. In December 1975, when you were first elected, there was a great deal of coverage of the extent to which wealth was in the cabinet. In other words, it was a millionaire's government. That language has somewhat disappeared. We tend not to hear that quite so much. But if the public was to think in terms of the wealth of that cabinet and the lack of sensitivity that millionaires have for ordinary people....

They think it's funny, for example.... Not even funny; they're just disinterested in the fact that they foisted all the costs of transit onto local government with a diminishing formula. Over the next five years the provincial share will diminish. Therefore the senior citizens in my riding and the children who go to school and ride their buses for 15 cents — up until April 1 - can't do it any more. It will be 30 cents. Now we find out that the taxes are going to increase again, so we're going to go to the senior citizens of my riding and say it's going to be 55 cents or 75 cents. Many of those people are right on the edge of poverty. By adopting the formula of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on the Urban Transit Authority and relinquishing your own responsibility, you are pushing those people over the edge. I think it's a bit much when I see George Spetifore with the likely prospect of the GVRD rezoning his land as urban and his walking away with $100 million when senior citizens in my riding can't afford to ride the bus and feed themselves properly. That's a bit too much for me.

I pointed out in my earlier remarks before the break that we have another one coming up. I'm serving notice right now that we're going to be watching this Eldon Unger case. Here we had a clear-cut situation of an advisory board of academics and lay people around the province, concerned with the heritage resources of our province, telling the government, look, we have an advisory board in Chilliwack that has recommended acquisition of this seven acres of the very earliest dairy farming operation in the province. We're not coming to you for money. There's going to be a $200,000 rebate from the people selling the property to the province to

[ Page 4504 ]

provide for the development of that land. Because that Eldon Unger is a central Social Credit figure in the Chilliwack area, the cabinet overruled the advisory committee. They also overruled the Heritage Trust, which is dominated by your people — J. V. Clyne, etc. Why would you do that? Why are you so politically stupid? You want to be re-elected so you can control the treasury for the projects....

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I don't think any member of this Legislature should, when he's speaking, point at you, sir. I think it's very threatening. I'd like you to ask this member to stop it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't see a point of order in this particular remark; but I would encourage the member to address the Chair.

MR. HANSON: I have great respect for the Chair and for you personally, as you know.

This is a decision of the government, and my understanding is that cabinet overruled these committees. I'm pointing out the error of their ways and their not benefiting the people of the province in these decisions.

I know my time is running out. I intend to raise the specific objections I have to this budget in individual estimates as they arise in this House, but I'm serving notice that we will be watching that Chilliwack case very closely. I also want to say on behalf of my constituency that this budget is a disaster for ordinary working people, and it is certainly a disaster for the retired community of my riding.

HON. MR. ROGERS: First of all I'd like to welcome the students from Magee Secondary School, who have surpassed the records of most students by staying past question period to the first couple of speeches in this debate. I extend a warm welcome, as was extended by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman).

My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was commenting in his discussion earlier today about health care in this province. Both of you have undergone some very major health-care problems. I must say that thanks to our seatbelt legislation, I was buckled up when I was tail-gated not so very long ago and therefore only had to have a short stay in Vancouver General. I want to tell you that for as good as the service was that you found, I found the service to be excellent as well. I'm only glad that I followed the regulations and had the belts on, otherwise I'd have been in there a little longer.

I'd like to address the budget, if I may. One of the main decisions that was made by the Minister of Finance, as any Minister of Finance must make, is the decision of whether or not to go for the so-called stimulative deficit budget. He must decide whether to say: "This is a bad year; we know it. If we raise taxes there'll be less spending and less government revenue. On the other hand if we leave taxes where they are or reduce taxes, there'll be more spending, and with more spending the government will have more revenue. So a little stimulative deficit for one year won't really do us all too much harm."

I'm reminded when I think of that of the number of countries in this world that have massive national deficits and provinces in this country that have massive provincial deficits, and they always mean to repay some of the debt. But, you know, it never happens, because governments never have a year that's good enough to start repaying debt other than debt interest.

There are never enough hospital beds, day-care centres, homes for senior citizens or extended care beds. There are never enough park facilities, schools, fish hatcheries, forestry work, ferries, highways or any one of the government agencies. Every single one of us, every single ministry in government, not only this government but the governments across Canada, could easily find ways to spend more money, and justifiable ways as well. So the decision of a government to retire debt is one that is almost never made. The federal government hasn't made it. Many of the governments of Canada, Ontario as well, have never made the decision to start retiring their debt that they incurred those years when they took the stimulative deficit route.

Of all the countries in the world, I would think that perhaps the province of Alberta and maybe some of the states in the Persian Gulf may have actually retired all of their debt, but none of the others have. Governments just don't choose to do that. I think it's a brave step and a courageous one that we raise taxes to make sure that we don't go into debt. If we do, once we start down that sad road there are so many legacies in front of us and so many examples of other people that have done it and have had such great difficulty. The number of dollars that are spent every year from our federal tax dollars just to pay the interest on the national debt is testament enough to this argument.

I want to talk about coal for a minute, not just northeast coal, which seems to be the subject of great discussion — and so it should be — but coal from British Columbia altogether. I think the outlook for coal on the Pacific Rim is fantastic. The outlook for coal in Japan, and Korea, and maybe in the People's Republic of China, and certainly in other countries thermal coal as well as coking coal — is very exciting.

I was recently in Japan, and one of the things we found there was that the country of Japan currently consumes in two days the same amount of oil that was consumed by the imperial navy in 1938 and 1939. They are so critically energy-dependent that it's just beyond doubt, and yet they are still importing from such unstable parts of the world as Iran and Iraq. Japan and Korea are both on a hard-conversion program from oil-fired to coal-fired power stations. In one particular power station that's converted recently from coal to oil, they have a culturing farm built right into the power station where they raise abalone in the hot water from the exhaust gases, which is one of the things we went to see....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Once again. I thought you just had a chance to speak. Don't you remember the rules? They're in the little red book. You'll find it in your desk.

They're using the exhaust gas for mariculture purposes and using it very successfully. It's one of the things I hope we can look forward to incorporating in our power generation projects in this province in the future.

The outlook in terms of coal exports for this province, through Ridley Island, through Neptune terminals and through Point Roberts to the Pacific Rim.... Consider what the competition is: unstable oil from the Middle East, unstable oil from Nigeria. Consider the shortage of supplies from around the world, and increasing world-wide consumption. Coal is one of the safest fuels to move, to store, one of

[ Page 4505 ]

those most easily stockpiled and one of the easiest to handle in its conversion to energy. It's much more competitive than going to nuclear power and much more reliable with suppliers than oil is. I think the northeast coal is positive, just the first page in a long book. I think we will find that over the next five to ten years there will be a whole host of people coming to buy coal not only from northeast B.C. but from the southeast as well. To that end, the development of Ridley Island will be very important.

On behalf of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I recently signed the agreement with the federal representatives when they were here. He was out of town, which is not unusual.

That road is under construction. There is a joint federal-provincial project to construct the road from Prince Rupert to the port of Ridley Island. It won't be very long before that becomes one of the major ports in the Pacific. It's one day closer to the Orient than Vancouver is, and Vancouver is already the largest tonnage shipping port on the Pacific coast and strained to capacity. The grade on the CNR is much better between Prince George and Prince Rupert than it is between Kamloops and Vancouver, for example, on the CPR. The quality of the roadbed is excellent, and I think that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've upset the man on the CPR. You'll have a chance to argue.

I can see the time when that rail is running at capacity, which it hasn't done since its very early days: a time when Ridley Island will be a terminal for grain, potash, coal. wood products — a whole host of things.

I want to talk about another item in the budget. Last year the Ministry of Environment had a very successful task force on the Fraser River to address the problems of pollution between the area of Mission, just south of your constituency, and the Sand Heads. But it was only a temporary task force, because it wasn't permanently in the budget. In this year of constraint this is one of the few things I asked for — one of a few things that I asked for, quite frankly, that the Treasury Board acceded to. I'm personally very pleased, and the enthusiasm of my staff is unbending. With their success rate so far in prosecutions on the Fraser River, with a permanent force of people — not temporary people in for just a short time as we had last year — I expect that not only the prosecutions but also the persuasions of people to clean up the Fraser River will be infinitely greater than in the past.

There's also additional staff for the hazardous wastes branch. We have a hazardous wastes task force now. They are made up of a cross-section of the industry and are addressing this very real problem in this province. Additional permanent staff for the hazardous wastes force was one of the things that in this tight budget the Minister of Finance saw fit to grant to my ministry.

I'll be spending more time on it, of course, during my estimates. I anticipate my estimates will take some time, as they did last year, so there will certainly be cross-examination at that time. I wanted to say so at this time, though, because maybe we won't have as big a turnout during my estimates. There tend to be times when you have difficulty getting a quorum.

There's also $6 million in the budget this year for flood damage that has to be paid from my ministry: damage from the tragic floods that happened in early December and on Boxing Day and the days following, not only in Squamish but also in other areas of the province — in Cowichan, Bella Coola, McBride and other areas; there were a lot of places where it happened.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) isn't here now, Mr. Speaker, but I was wondering if he would accept the challenge from me, that each of us would take a sign and go to the end of the Deas Island tunnel early in the morning. He could have a sign saying the Annacis Island bridge isn't necessary, and I'll have a sign saying I think the Annacis Island bridge is necessary, and we'll see which one gets run over first. The winner can come back. I'll tell you, if he means what he said when he said that bridge isn't necessary, then he need only once try to come in, either in the morning or in the evening, through the Deas Island tunnel. Only stand up there once. The traffic is going slow enough so that someone could get out of his car and give him a piece of his mind without any difficulty at all. So I'll support him if he wants to go. If he wants to go with me, we can stand there at the edge of the tunnel and see who gets the nods. I want to tell you, if you think that bridge isn't necessary, you could go and have a look. You may not think it's necessary....

MR. HALL: That's your idea of leadership, is it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I don't think that was the subject under discussion.

The cabinet took a tour of Vancouver Island. When the cabinet was on tour of Vancouver Island we stopped in Nanaimo. Because the ferry service is so excellent between Nanaimo and the mainland, fortunately I was able to come home on the ferry, The Minister of Highways managed to show me the new no-tell motel of yours. What is it called — the Pink Inn? I'm not sure what it is. But anyway, he showed it to me. He's very proud of it. He showed it to everyone in cabinet. We've all had a look at it. I want to tell you, Alex, that I was really thrilled, because without that I wouldn't have any idea where to stay in Nanaimo the next time I'm there.

There are a long list of people who want to speak in this debate. I think it's a good budget, a tough budget. It's a budget that says things that need to be said, and it avoids that terrible pitfall of going down the road of a debt this year which will be paid next year. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I support the budget and I trust that all other members will.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to raise my voice; I'm not going to argue. I think, though, that what we're witnessing in this House is something of great significance in the political life of the province of British Columbia. It's a kind of watershed here in these sunny spring days of March. A government has finally lost its credibility. Oh, the corpse is alive and it's going to stagger around for another year or two, at great cost to the province of British Columbia, trying this survival tactic, that survival tactic. But the people know that this budget is political expediency and not fiscal management, that politics has invaded the office of the Minister of Finance, that there's no fiscal integrity left in this government, that they're going to tax the people this year as if it were Chinese water torture. Then when they let up and make a surplus and bring in a sunshine budget at some later time prior to an election and bring down the sales tax again, they hope that the people will forgive them for the needless, callous treatment that the people of this province are suffer-

[ Page 4506 ]

ing this year. Oh, the corpse will stagger around for a while. But it is a dispirited, discredited government opposite. They still flare up. The member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) makes his old firehouse speech, seizing on any little thing he has. But all the signs are there of disintegration and decay.

You'll notice that in their speeches they go back to telling their political bedtime fairy-tales about how bad things were in the old days of the NDP government. This is a sort of comfort to them. They never quote any figures in this. They try to bolster up their courage by painting that kind of a picture. They're not appreciating that while there were many difficulties in those years and many problems overcome, the level of expansion of capital expenditure, public and private — which they will never quote — rose higher in those years than at any other time in the history of the province of British Columbia. But they comfort themselves, this dying government that is still staggering around. They know what I'm saying is the truth. They go back to the old stories about the mining industry in the NDP days — fairy stories too.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Read the reports. "Oh, I don't want to." Go ahead, tell your fairy stories. But if you want to look at the mining reports you'll find that the gross output of all minerals, from oil to natural gas to the various metals, increased in production in those years at a higher rate than any other time previous in the history of British Columbia. But never mind the record. You're falling back on your placebos. You're comforting yourself with your fairy stories. You still think that the people of British Columbia are going to accept that kind of thing. Yet you know in your heart of hearts that you've reached a watershed under this Premier who is waving at the press gallery.

I know there is not too great attention being paid to this debate, I think because most people know what has happened. We're seeing a watershed in the political history. We're seeing the death of the Social Credit coalition and nothing that can be done will revive it. I don't know what the future political configuration will be in this province. I don't know that with certainty, but I do know that we've seen the end of the Social Credit era. That end should come quickly and cleanly if the people of this province are not going to be made to suffer as they are being made to suffer with this kind of a budget.

The government has spun out of control. When the Premier is not in Mexico he's in Arizona. When he's not in Arizona he's selling B.C. resources to the countries of southeast Asia who are so poor they can scarcely feed themselves. It's junketeering. It's running away from the problems. While all of these things are happening in the province of British Columbia, the Premier has really given up.

His Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was out of the province junketeering most of last year. You know, I think the money may be considered to be well spent when that minister is out of the province, because I've listened to his answers in this House now for three or four years and I've never heard such gobbledegook. Mr. Minister, you make Waldo Skillings look like a financial genius, and you're our minister of economic affairs!

Look how you're bleeding the people of this province. I've got this little picture here, printed by the government, of the famous signing on February 10 of the coal deal. There are the minister and the Premier sitting down at the table. But what was really happening around that table? The Japanese representatives had every reason to be pleased. They couldn't lose. If the coal deal goes ahead at all they will get our coal at what will be below world prices.

The federal government at least has a policy that they do not believe in the subsidized export of the non-renewable resources of the province of British Columbia to our competitors. They at least have a policy. So they were businesslike in terms of setting the CNR freight rates. They were businesslike about the port, which was going ahead at Ridley Island anyway because of the grain terminal. They were businesslike through the whole thing.

The companies can only be happy. They haven't committed themselves to anything. The funny thing that happened when this little gathering was taking place was that the.... The minister knows this. He wouldn't reply the other day. I don't know whether he was just shamming ignorance or he really is ignorant of these things. The senator of the federal government had sent a Telex to the companies, of which the minister has a copy, setting out in detail the federal terms of assistance to the northeast coal project. Just before the group met for the signing — you remember this, Mr. Minister.... Just as they were sitting down to the signing, the companies, Teck and Denison, replied saying, in effect, that the deal wasn't good enough for them and they wanted another $50 million. Yet in spite of that, the Premier and his Minister of Industry and Small Business Development went ahead and announced a firm deal — it was a great thing for the province of B.C. and it was a firm deal.

The bleeding off of the public money of British Columbia to this project of heavily subsidized coal exports is unbelievable. The planning involved is unbelievable. That minister hasn't the slightest idea of what he has let himself in for. He met the train when it came back through Vancouver Island and he thought it was a great deal. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia were skinned when their members sat around that table on February 10. You didn't know what you were doing. You didn't know what costs you were going to incur. You have no idea today what the financial liabilities of this project are, and now you're taking it out on the people of British Columbia with increases in sales tax and all the other things: hurting the little people of this province, making them pay for your blunders, making them pay for incompetent management of the resource economy of the province of British Columbia on a scale that can scarcely be believed.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) accused us the other day of political bed-hopping or something of that kind, because the NDP was responsible in terms of the constitutional crisis, in terms of trying to get a better package, in terms of not tearing this country apart. To be accused of political bed-hopping by that political nymphomaniac who deserted his own party, the party of which he was a leader....

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would remind the second member for Vancouver East what he said at the beginning of his remarks. He didn't propose to lose his temper. I think he has been most intemperate in his choice of language, and I would ask him to withdraw the suggestion that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is a nymphomaniac.

[ Page 4507 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the second member for Vancouver East to kindly withdraw that remark, which is clearly unparliamentary.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but may I suggest, just between the two of us, that he has been a little politically promiscuous himself? He and the Attorney General, having deserted their own party and slipped the knife between the ribs of the leader they swore to support, are the last ones who should be making these aspersions against the New Democratic Party.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Cassius, who brings back David Anderson and swears to support him. And who was the first one who slipped the knife between his ribs? That Attorney-General. Sure you did. That story will be told. It's a story of treachery.

[Mr. Speaker rose, ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if there is to be order in this House, there must be a will to be orderly demonstrated on both sides. I will seek to assist you, and in failing to assist you to my satisfaction perhaps the Sergeant-at-Arms would be able to assist us all.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Good resource management of this province by the Social Credit Party? Let me give you a couple of instances of what's happened in this province. One was the Peace River dam, where owing to the bungling of the Social Credit Party B.C. Hydro was sued over a period of three years in the courts of the province of British Columbia and ended up paying $50 million in damages and untold legal costs. The Dease Lake extension is a blunder; if it had been committed by any other party or coalition they would have been shouting abuse about it from the rooftops. Premier W.A.C. Bennett went ahead with the Dease Lake extension for a cost, he said, of $80 million. He was told $80 million, and then he abruptly ordered that it be revised down to $68 million. There were no negotiations with the Indians of the Stuart-Trembleur band. There were no negotiations with the federal fisheries in terms of the diversion of the Bear River. There was no idea whatsoever what the real costs were, no more than these people have any idea what the real costs of the coal deal are. They were guilty of fraud. That's what the judge found, Justice Kenneth Fawcus.

This is the Social Credit record of what we're told is good business management. Kenneth Fawcus held that the railway's cavalier style of assessing grading work on the proposed line amounted to civil fraud. Although he said civil and criminal fraud are different, the judge nonetheless added: "Even civil fraud contains an imputation of dishonesty." It was political interference with the estimates of the amount of rock, sand and gravel to be moved and the grading and all of the costs to that railway that led the people of this province to spend $191 million. It's down the drain for a railway that couldn't be finished, because they killed it off. That is a blunder on a colossal scale by the Social Credit Party, and now we're asked to trust this gang. They do not have any of the answers that we've been asking for in this House about the coal deal. We're asked to trust them, and the people of British Columbia finally made up their minds that this group cannot be trusted.

Look what they've done. Mr. Speaker, in terms of substituting political expediency for sound fiscal management of the finances of the province of British Columbia. When you look at the story of the sales tax going up and down and so forth. what do you see? Do you see any suggestion that it was sound management of the economy and the finances of British Columbia? You see politics creeping into the office of the Minister of Finance Under the leadership and direct orders of the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

On March 26, 1976. It was raised to 7 percent. The political reason was to blame the NDP and its administration. It was a purely political decision that cost hundreds of thousands of people in this province lots of money that year. It was just done for politics, to make a political point. This is financial management? On April 10. 1978, the sales, tax was brought down to 5 percent because the federal government had a program of support which, I think, amounted to $48 million. There was no credit whatsoever given to them, and the announcement from the benches over there was that the cut was permanent. Then, just before the election.... I repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because my charge is that this government is dominated by politics, and people know it now.

Just before the election on April 2, 1979, that sales tax went from 5 percent to 4 percent. The Premier of the province gave a press conference and he said: "The reduction to 4 percent is permanent." Was he deliberately misleading the people of this province for election purposes? Was he? Can you be that incompetent that your own words? Do you deny, Mr. Premier, that you said this was a permanent reduction? Ah, it was to fight all election, and to heck with financial integrity and fiscal management.

Politics is creeping into the office of the Minister of Finance on a scale we have never seen before in this province. You know, there are two jobs that are supposed to be a little bit above politics. One is the Minister of Finance, who's supposed to manage our public moneys. Mr. Speaker, in a way that is justified by the economics of the situation. He has a peculiar role of trust, but that Minister of Finance and his predecessor have been taking the orders. His predecessor came out with the statement in 1978 that they were going to control expenditures, that they would only rise as the real growth of the economy rose, and they'd be restricted to 5 percent. What happened to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That wasn't permanent, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD: No, he didn't say that was permanent, but he.... Well, there's a 17 percent increase this year. They accused the federal government of fiscal mismanagement: they're great at finger-pointing, that bunch over there. The increase in their budget is 12 percent. They've been using that sales tax and they're using it now for political purposes and with a callous disregard of what it's doing to people in this province. Have they no appreciation of what that means to a family? This government of millionaires and political turncoats have no feeling or care or concern about what's happening to ordinary people who are trying to keep their families out there. But people know now, I say

[ Page 4508 ]

you've reached the watershed, that this government is gone, and they know it, however long it may stay in office with every survival tactic they may attempt to employ. It's gone, because the people finally understand that you have no credibility.

In the days of W.A.C. Bennett, who had a bit of feeling for people — I give him credit for that, and I sat through those years — he would increase the homeowner grant year by year. When this government came into office, what did they do? Let the people suffer through higher taxes until just before an election and burnp it up to the $380 and the $580 figure — just before an election. And there is no relief this year; they're doing the same old trick. It's politics, but people are suffering.

I could go through, Mr. Speaker, the various scams and things; they've been so well developed. I hope people were listening to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who went over some of these things that are happening in this province in terms of rewarding friends, injecting politics into the Agricultural Land Commission and letting Social Credit moneybags walk off with $50 million or $500 million. I don't know what it is. I know it's a scandal. I know they deliberately took the.... The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says: "All we were doing with Spetifore and Langley and so forth was fine-tuning the agricultural land reserves." What was the tune? The tune was money, money, who's got the money. They did it with liquor licences. They took it into the political area of the cabinet room where the Socreds sit around and reward their friends. They took the issuing of liquor licences out of there.

The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) holds the government up to ransom. He says: "Give me the Annacis Island bridge or I won't run again." And they give in, because anybody can hold this government up to ransom now. You've got warring ministers. You've got any one of them with any strength over there saying give me what I want or I will not support you and you'll go down the drain. So the member for Delta says: "Give Spetifore what he wants. He's a big supporter of mine. He's given me money in my campaigns." And he gets it. His friends the Olms brothers want a neighbourhood pub. It's turned down by the liquor administration, but he gets it. Oh, the favouritism and payoffs referred to by the second member for Victoria should be enough to make any of the people of this province wonder what's going on.

It's too late for finger-pointing. Blaming the NDP for all of these troubles, as you've done all through these years — it's too late for that. Now you've made Ottawa the source of all these troubles. Your budget and all your mistakes and blunders you try to blame.... The finger-pointing is not believed any more. What you have to do if you're looking for the source of the blame for the troubles of this province of British Columbia is to look in the mirror. Mirror, mirror on the wall will tell you where the source of the trouble is. You're totally out of control.

Let me just mention one little thing. I'm just mentioning this in passing, because it's an example of how totally incompetent the government is. The Premier brings us back to a special session last December and he presents a constitutional resolution and the resolution required unanimity. It said: "...with the consent of all the provinces and the Parliament of Canada" — for the amending formula and any other changes in the constitution. That was the motion. In Montreal, on February 8, 1981, Premier Bennett has this to say, that among his principles are: "Unanimity among the provinces must not be a requirement for future constitutional change. So strict a requirement could prohibit change."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the debate, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: If there's an explanation, it's either massive incompetence or playing politics with the constitution, the Minister of Finance, liquor, resources and land. I don't know which it is. I don't care. I think the time has come — and everybody recognizes it — that this government has had its day.

I don't know whether any other members read this into the record, but I think I should do so. Ken Bell's not a raving radical; he is the respected business editor of the Vancouver Province, and he said this about the budget:

"It smells of the government doing its best to reestablish a healthy surplus at the taxpayers' expense.

"In effect, what is happening is that the scene is being set for the provincial government to create a substantial surplus by the end of the budget year.

"Politically it's a return to Socred budgets of yesteryear where chronic underestimation of government revenues led to massive surpluses which were subsequently available for redistribution as political gifts, particularly in election years."

I'm telling you, you can build up surpluses and try to buy the people of the province of British Columbia with their own money, but it's one time too late. You'll never do it again. You've been seen through.

Spending's out of control. Integrity in government is out of control. The projects.... Before I sit down let me say something about Pier B-C, because the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has insisted that she have her money for that project, and she's a strong voice in cabinet. We hear reverberations of the kind of debate that's taken place in cabinet, but the incredible business mismanagement would be enough to make somebody ask for the net. Suppose the NDP had done this? You tear down the existing sheds on the Pier B-C; there's nothing there now. You have no idea what the cost is going to be or what kind of a project will be acceptable to the people, or to the government for that matter. You say it's $25 million. You blunder again and cut off all additional federal funding for the thing by sending a Telex back to Ottawa saying: "If you contribute this much to the plan" — which I think was $13 million — "that's all we'll ever ask you for."

MR. BARRETT: Did they do that?

MR. MACDONALD: They did that. You know that's just cutting off the thing, and then the Minister of Human Resources....

MR. BARRETT: Who signed the telegram — Kelly?

MR. MACDONALD: No, the minister did. Then on December 15 the minister puts out a paper paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia.... I would think it is part of the cabinet infighting to show there's popular support and that she can get more money out of that cabinet over there for this particular project, and it isn't even endorsed with who

[ Page 4509 ]

printed it. You know there's a strict requirement, Mr. Speaker. that if a piece of material goes out it's to be certified as to who issued it. You know that minister, Mr. Speaker, in sending out this kind of propaganda when she had no idea of the costs involved, no idea of the final plans, and being ashamed to sign it as issued by the government of the province of British Columbia, should be made to pay for this out of her own pocket. What right has that minister to reach into the taxpayers' pockets and put out this kind of propaganda that isn't even certified as issued by the taxpayer? It's a fraud. If governments are allowed to got away with that, they'll get away with anything.

I will not repeat the very excellent remarks and points that have been made by our members on this side of the House about the budget, The member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich's) analysis was good, sound and to the point. He pointed out just how badly people are being hurt by this kind of spendthrift government with no idea of what they're really getting into in the northeast, no idea of what they're getting into in the convention centre, no idea of what these monuments are costing that are supposed to save their political hides. It's just total fiscal mismanagement. But I won't repeat all that.

I'm going to move an amendment to the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), that the motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: that this House regrets that the Minister of Finance has introduced onerous, unnecessary and expedient tax increases, I use the word "expedient" because that's the theme of what I'm saying today. It's politics that has dominated the decisions of this government to such an extent that the government itself is out of control and the people are suffering.

We're talking about real people. We're talking about a government that has performed in its term of office matters that are so tinged with scandal that on that ground alone, they should not be sitting- over there. I say that after the dirty tricks affair, there's one good turn only that this government can now do for the people of the province of British Columbia, and that's to go. Go!

You know, it's a walking corpse we're looking at, but it's costing too much for this province, which we all respect and like — all members on all sides of the House. You've got members clown there who speak up, within limits — like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). or even the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — but then when the moment of principle comes, they think in terms of political survival rather than of principle. But that will change. If it doesn't change, there will be a realignment of political forces in this province, you can be sure of that.

So I say that this budget is hurting people. It's a government spinning out of control. It's a record of incompetence and fiscal mismanagement. It's a record of political expediency taking the place of the decisions that should be made on their merits and in favour of the people of this province. I move the amendment accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is here. and the required two signatures are on it. There's a slight change from what the member read in the last word: the last word here appears as "increases." Should it be accepted as spoken or as written?

AN HON. MEMBER: As written.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT: I think the word that threw some of us was "expedient, " as it has a positive connotation. How can we say anything good about this budget? Then when we add the word "political" to the word "expedient" ....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I know that member will search his soul. He knows how hypocritical and how expedient this particular budget is. The people of British Columbia now know that they are about to finance the next election for the Social Credit Party because of the gouging taxation that's taking place.

My colleague from Vancouver East suggested that this is a government at the end of its life. There comes a point when every government gets into trouble and the trouble stays for a long time. This one has been in trouble for a couple of years. If you go out and ask your own constituents what the most pressing issue is in & province — Is it inflation? Is it unemployment? Is it taxation? — the answer that comes back to us every time is that the most important issue in the province of British Columbia is this government of the province of British Columbia. The question is the same. The question is always: "When, oh when. oh when are they going to call an election so that we can get some relief?"

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're waiting for your platform, my friend. You haven't said one word in five years.

MR. LEGGATT: I've got three more years to go.

This is not just a bad budget in terms of the phony and hypocritical overtaxation one year and then the phony surplus that will be developed next spring. It's a bad budget for business. Business itself. which likes to think of itself as a friend to this government.... Ask Chunky Woodward of Woodward's stores what lie thinks about this budget. He's taken the consumers at Woodward's stores and lie has to wonder whether they are still going to buy the same amount of products they bought last year. because they haven't Lot the money in their pocket. The money is now in the pockets of the Minister of Finance. That purchasing power has gone. What kind of free enterprise government is this? The big-spending. overtaxing government — that's what we used to be accused of for years: "Those big, centralist. overtaxing socialists." They've got the worst of both worlds on their side. They're big spenders, they're overtaxers, and they don't provide any social policies. They haven't got any of the assets left.

At least once they claimed efficiency. Once they claimed the Milton Friedman doctrine of efficiency and low taxation. No, they are big spenders. They are removing the purchasing power of ordinary people of the province of B.C. and hurting the economy of B.C. In a way that no other government has ever done. I see the minister of industry, trade and commerce smiles and lie says earlier: "Well. what's your program? You fellows are sitting in the weeds. You're not making any kind of construction suggestions."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 4510 ]

I'll make one — just one — today. I don't want to give you guys too many ideas. You're completely bereft of original ideas. You budgeted $48.2 million to sink into the northeast coal deal. That clearly means that the sales tax that has been gouged from the average- and low-income people of British Columbia is going into northeast coal. The people right now who can't find a place to live know that they're paying for northeast coal every time they go into the store. Every time! And we're going to keep reminding them. Well, $48.2 million doesn't sound like a large amount in terms of the total budget, although we know the expenditures on northeast coal are going to run into the billions and billions.

Let's just deal with that one item — $48.2 million. Say that they had the wit and imagination to conic in with a lowcost mortgage housing program using $48.2 million to fund that program. Do you know what kind of an impact you could have on the worst housing crisis in North America? You could produce $1.2 billion of low-cost interest mortgage funding for the province of British Columbia and make a significant dent in that. But this government hasn't got the wit, skill or imagination: in fact you're just boring. You haven't sat and thought any of these things through.

There is a point when it isn't just a case of get an election, let's get rid of it. There's a sense of pity out there. The old supporters of Social Credit have been signing up in droves for the NDP. The change in the atmosphere in this province in the last two years is just unbelievable and they know it. Those people are asking themselves some questions — simple questions about management, simple questions about whether these guys know what they're doing. Have they got any plans for the future? But no, all they can use is the same, old, tired funny-money trick. "This year we overtax them and next year we have a few goodies on the plate. and they'll return us." Well. I can tell you. my friends — they aren't going to return you.

There has been a tendency throughout the budget to look for scapegoats for this problem. It used to be: "It was these terrible socialists over here that had ruined the economy of the province, and therefore we had to jack up all the taxes in the province to solve that problem." That worked for a couple of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: They threw you out.

MR. LEGGATT: Right. That phony argument threw the NDP out.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well. It was the truth.

MR. LEGGATT: He knows it's not the truth, because the facts are in. But they've got a problem, you see: the memory of the public has worn thin on that subject. Not only that, the public have investigated the facts and it won't wash twice. They now know the phony exchange of funds that went on with ICBC — the $177 million loan that they didn't need that was built into a phony deficit. But it's amazing how little the NDP, socialism and so on has come in for attack in this budget. No, now it is Ottawa. Ottawa is a very convenient target.

HON. MR. FRASER: We all know what you did for B.C. while you were in Ottawa.

MR. LEGGATT: I did more for B.C. than this government did.

Let me go back to the question of the federal government's role and this new villain that these guys have decided is their convenient route back to power. First of all, such a large section of this budget is devoted to blaming the federal government for everything that has occurred. The federal government has not moved out of one single major cost-share program. Tell me which one that's major that they've moved out of. Have a look at your revenues. The amount of revenue that comes from the federal sources is the same now as it was in 1976. In fact. you haven't even paid a dime of the gas tax. That's all blocked because your legal experts tell you that you don't owe the money. If you don't owe the money, why don't you give credit in your budget for it? You look like you're about to pay it. You're already claiming you’ve lost it.

But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canada-bashing doesn't work either, And the reason it doesn't work is that the public of British Columbia knows: in the northeast coal deal. who's looking after the taxpayers of British Columbia better, the federal government or the provincial government? I have yet to hear any assurance from any minister on that side of the House that the public investment, the squandering of public money, will ever come back on a commercial basis in terms of northeast development, because they know it won't. But to their credit, the federal minister has said: "We're going to get our investment back out of this deal." The reality is that the coal deal is premature, and this government knows it. It's so premature that the people of the province of British Columbia will pay millions and millions and your grandchildren will pay millions for a dumb, stupid decision on the part of this government.

When we look at the budget as a whole and at the trumpeting of the triple-A rating and the very good credit that this province has always had....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Neither did anyone else. In terms, however, of the major financial problem in this province — and the government knows it as well as anyone — the major financial problem lies in the viability of B.C. Rail. We pay $70 million in interest alone on B.C. Rail out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this province. The McKenzie royal commission, as this government knows. recommended that B.C. Rail should not touch northeast coal with a ten-foot pole. So when you come to look at that development in the northeast....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I know something about the Dease Lake extension too. Tell me about the Dease Lake extension, How was it that your government, Mr. Speaker, stated that Dease Lake would not cost more than $69 million, and after you had squandered $200 million

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I did, a very imaginative program. After they squandered $200 million, what do they do? They go to B.C. Rail to get their estimates on the Anzac line. How close are they going to be on the Anzac line?

Mr. Speaker. we know a few facts about the northeast coal. We had to get them ourselves. The minister has refused to be open with this House: he has refused to answer ques-

[ Page 4511 ]

tions in this House. So we'll provide the minister with some....

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister will have the floor as much as he wants at a later time, but he can't have it now. If he won't take the floor in question period, he's not going to get it during debate, I can promise him that. But when he gets up in question period, we'll consider giving him.... He loves us to ask questions: let's have some answers on some questions, and let's ask a few more.

His deputy minister, Mr. Peel, provided some very interesting memoranda on the coal deal — and I know the minister is now going to be most anxious to provide us with some specific answers about the coal deal. This was on January 6. 1981: I'm quoting from this document, which I know the minister has studied and is very familiar with. Let's have a look at what really occurred just before this exchange of valentines took place; let's see what the background of the coal deal is. This was after Dalcor engineering suggested that you couldn't be on stream in time — and you know it — and it was after two of your coal experts told you that Ridley Island wasn't going to come on stream in 1983. But they're ready to pay whatever penalties are available, I suppose.

Well, let's get to the specifics. I quote: "Certain changes were made in the financing formulas for the Anzac branch line surcharge escalation to meet the Japanese concerns about future cost competitiveness of northeast coal." Now my question to the minister is quite straightforward: what were the Japanese concerns, and how much did the minister cut down the amount that the taxpayers of British Columbia were going to get — the miniscule amount they were going to get anyway? I'm sure he'll be able to tell us that.

The original proposal on this was to have the Northeast Development Act. That was the act that was to go before the B.C. Legislature, and we were going to have a look at that and decide whether to pass it or not. In fact, they even went to the trouble of hiring a lawyer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that?

MR. LEGGATT: I think his name is Basford. He does everything for everybody in this province for some reason, Mr. Basford looked at this, and his office went to work. I understand they provided all the legislative backup and provided the act and so on. What happened to it? What happened to the northeast coal development act?

Let's have another look. They were also going to establish something called the Tumbler Ridge railway company. What was the matter with the Tumbler Ridge railway company' Did the Toonerville trolley lose steam? I don't know. Maybe the Tumbler Ridge railway company was a free enterprise company. They couldn't have that in northeast coal. could they? They couldn't possibly have tried to sell shares and gone a free enterprise route on that thing. No one would have believed it from this free enterprise government.

It's clear why this Legislature didn't see that legislation. It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that it was coverup all the way on northeast coal. It's going to continue to be coverup on northeast coal until the documents are here, are tabled. and we can have a look at the final figures. We're satisfied that we're cautious and conservative. In fact, the numbers that have been released so far are very likely to be far less than the ultimate losses to the province of British Columbia. We've taken on the conservative side all the way through. The surcharges will not pay for the interest on a debt that has to be incurred to build the Anzac line and the minister knows that. I see him shaking his head. He can't pay the interest on the debt of BCR, which is probably in the worst financial shape of any Crown corporation in the Dominion of Canada. He has decided to use that as a vehicle to bury the massive amounts of losses that are being incurred in northeast coal.

Teck Corp. and Denison Mines Ltd. who are making a major investment in the coal project. are now saying that they won't go ahead with this thing, They don't like it. They think maybe it could be sweetened up a little bit. They've gone to the federal government and said: "We think your port charges are too high. We want you fellows to go a little easy on us, because we don't think our profit margin is high enough."

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. that this government is ready to buckle on those charges. If this deal starts to collapse, watch our brave minister jump up in the House and announce changes which will accommodate Teck and Denison. It's going to happen. If they don't get their own way with the federal government. the softies on this side are going to buckle tomorrow, because they're desperate for this uneconomic deal.

MR. LAUK: The politics of desperation.

MR. LEGGATT: It's the politics of desperation. It's the last shot from a government that's clinging to the big, ticket solution to return to government, It doesn't work anymore because it's 1981.

I want to say a little bit about housing. Here we have a government that fails to understand. Even the lowest elected official in this province knows that housing is the major problem in the province at the moment. It gets to everyone. This government doesn't have the wit, the intelligence or the imagination to touch the housing question.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Why not? Take that $48.2 billion and turn it into a low-cost housing program, and you'll put $1.2 billion into the market.

MR. BRUMMET: Did you say $48 million?

MR. LEGGATT: I said $48 million, It's an "m" not a "b". Read my lips very carefully now. You've got your ruler on the page: move it up and down a little bit.

If you look at housing in terms of where we go, in the northeast corner of the lower mainland, in the Coquitlam Moody area which I represent, the GVRD study shows that beyond the year 2000 we have enough land for housing on the north side of the Fraser River. This government has decided to do nothing about it. They decided first of all to abandon the only solution: a housing corporation which would develop a private-public mix of housing in a land-scarce lower mainland. This ideologic fanaticism that only the private sector can solve the housing crisis has been rejected in every market outside of Dallas. Texas. In North America. They have clung to these myths of the past.

Most people in this chamber who first built a house, built it with CMHC guarantee interest. It's never been a complete

[ Page 4512 ]

free enterprise market. We've always had zoning and interference by government in the market. The only vehicle to solve the problem was the B.C. Housing Corporation, and by destroying that Housing Corporation they have put us in the position we are today.

In the northeast corridor there is enough land. What it has lacked is a government with the direction and drive to start solving the problem. In the northeast corridor we can bring on stream co-op housing, rental housing, the whole myriad of things in the imagination of the people of British Columbia. That's why I say this government lacks imagination and wit. It can't see beyond a 60-by-100 lot with a massive subdivider and a large corporate developer. Everybody else doesn't count in their equation. But it's all there. The land is there and the people want to get ahead. What they lack is a government with a spirit of leadership that will provide them with the leadership, the spirit and the funds.

Expediency. It's hard to believe that this government could come so low after the kind of confidence that was invested in it when it originally came to power. It's a tired group. I guess this budget, in a way, probably says more about the government than anything else they've done. The difference between the two parties in this House has always been that we believe in people and we have confidence in their ability to solve their own problems. We have confidence in their ability, their imagination, their ideas and their capacity to solve their own problems. This government has decided: we are going to solve your problems for you, and we're not even going to leave you the money to do it yourself; we're going to take it away, we're going to put it all in our pocket, and we're going to give you northeast coal whether you like it or not. Let me tell you, people ask: are you for northeast coal, are you against northeast coal? I say right now, you call an election on northeast coal. Let's find out what the people of.... [Applause.] Ah, Mr. Justice Gardom was clapping as well. I'm so pleased to see that.

MR. LAUK: Of Dawson Creek provincial court.

MR. LEGGATT: After the amount of money this government has taken from the people, it looks like we're going to meet more people in small debts court in the very near future.

Here we have a government that lacks confidence in the public of British Columbia. I can tell you they've got an answer. They have no confidence whatsoever in the government. So if you really don't want to hedge about northeast coal you call an election on it.

MR. LEVI: My gosh, we're overwhelmed by the government getting up to support the budget.

I think if anything characterizes the budget that the minister brought down the other day, it was something he said just towards the end of his speech. I just want to quote it because I was a little perplexed after he said it. He made reference to the Hotel Room Tax Act. This was one of his more effective budgetary measures. He said:

Effective budget night the tax rate on accommodation is increased to 6 percent from the previous rate of 5 percent. This will provide consistency with the new social service tax rate. In addition, a special tax rate of 8 percent will now apply to the full charge on accommodation renting for $50 or more, night or day.

I'm sure he did that after consultation with the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). Then he goes on and says:

Effective budget night the exemption level is increased to $10 per night or $70 per week from the previous level of $4 per night and $28 per week, in just one short ledger he attacked the basis of the tourist industry with no consultation. If that's something the Minister of Tourism agrees with, then I want her to stand up and say that she is in favour of these increased taxes on the tourist industry.

This is the third time that the tourist industry — particularly on this island, apart from what's going on in the rest of the province — has suffered from the kind of taxation measure this government has brought in. It was simply an attempt by the government to find more revenue, because last year we were greeted with the minister getting up, bringing in the largest budget the province ever had, and everything was fine in the garden. Six weeks after the budget came down, there was a great panic throughout the government. Somehow things were not working out right. Apparently one of the things was that natural gas was not selling at the rate they thought it would in order to bring in the revenue. There was nothing surprising about that. If they have the people that do the proper kind of estimates in the departments — and I'm sure they have, but they probably chose to disregard them — they knew that Washington and Oregon were not buying our gas, because it was high-priced. The last request for the price came from the minister. He went down to Ottawa and asked them for the high price; then he changed his mind and asked for it not to go through. But he should have gone down to Washington and Oregon and found out what the score was. People were not prepared to pay that kind of price, yet he built it into his budget in terms of the revenues.

There was nothing realistic about the way that budget was drawn up last year, and there was a great panic for something like six months of last year, having to cut back on expenditures, holding hiring and somehow finishing up with a little money in the sock. This year we have a different kind of a budget. The great speculation up there was: are they going to come down with a big, giveaway budget that would represent an election budget? Obviously it doesn't represent an election budget at all. What it is is the classic bail-out budget for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

One of the things that I'm happy about in this budget is that there was no increase in sales tax on toys, because since the minister of economics has gone over to Japan on several occasions, they've now brought out a new game which they'll be marketing in North America called "Who's Got the Dummy?" We're going to be seeing it on the market, and there's a depiction of a character that looks not too unlike the minister of economic development in the way he dealt with the Japanese over the past four or five years. Now they've put a game out for him — "Who's Got the Dummy?" Well, we've got the dummy right here in British Columbia, because of what my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said about the coal deal.

I want to address my remarks particularly to the crisis which probably touches everybody in this House who is of my generation in terms of their children, because this is now a standard topic of conversation amongst all of the children of all of the members who are of marriageable age in this House, and all of the people out there. Where are they going to get a house from? What has the government done in terms of having some meaningful discussions with the banking industry? Because without having meaningful discussions with the

[ Page 4513 ]

banking industry, we're never going to get the housing problem solved in this province or in this country.

Today in my riding there are 37 lots going up on a bid basis, and they're starting at $65,000. It's expected that not one of those serviced lots, 50-by-120, is going to go for less than $100,000. And on top of that you have to put on at least an $80,000 to $100,000 home, because that's what it costs to put one on, and when you turn around you've got yourself a $200,000 headache. Who can afford to be involved in that kind of venture? Do any of you have children that have what is a basic requirement now to go into the housing market — something like $15,000 in savings; a young couple that has $15,000 that can go and start negotiating for one of those kinds of houses, that can say to the bank that, apart from the money they have, they are debt free and they can sustain a mortgage that is going to require an income of $42,000 with two people working, paying anywhere up to $1,100 a month? That's a very serious crisis in this province.

This government took its first tentative step a year ago to address one aspect of that problem, then quickly backed away and has done nothing since. I shall have some remarks to make about the third Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), who has fallen into the same trap as his two predecessors in suggesting that on the horizon there's going to be a larger housing vacancy. He's going to have to get up and tell us what crystal ball he has that nobody else has, particularly the housing industry, as to what's coming down the line.

The basic question to address. If this government is political.... They had better be aware that there are people over 20, 25 to 30 out there who are going to vote against them because they simply have not done anything about the housing question.

We know that three years ago you disposed of the Housing Corporation. The great Minister of Finance, with all of the genius he could muster, said we don't need the Housing Corporation, because the housing problem was solved. Then we had his colleague, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has now gone into the private sector, who said: "There's no problem with housing. We're going to take off the controls." We now hear. In the report that was issued by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in December, that 35,000 houses are going to go off control by this year. Next year we're going to have well over 130,000. By the end of next year we're going to have something like 60 percent of all housing in this province going outside of the controls. People living in apartments, who are renting, are literally scared to death that once they get outside of the controlled areas they are not going to be able to afford to live there. That is on top of the problem of people who cannot afford to buy a house. My colleague suggested that $48 million is going to be expended up there on one aspect of the coal development. Last year you took $9 million in a mortgage subsidy program; and then you leave it $200 million into the housing market. You created something like 5,300 houses. Yes, that happened, with an expenditure of $9 million to $10 million in cooperation with the credit union. It was a good, sound scheme. It was very hard for you to accept it, but it was a good, sound piece of socialism — the government involved in the housing market.

Now this morning we were told by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who was in one of his more buoyant moods.... In all the years I've known him I've never seen him in such good form. I was very nearly going to sidle over and ask him what he was on, because he was in a jolly mood. One of the things he said was that we have a buoyant economy. Then he started to talk about his riding, and he got very upset because he couldn't sell the lumber. Well, there's a great difference between the Social Credit government that can't sell lumber and the NDP that can't sell lumber. We couldn't sell lumber in 1975; it was because we upset the world market. Because they can't sell lumber this year, it's somebody else's problem.

But there is a solution to the lumber market. Mr. Minister. The one thing you can sell in this province — if you're prepared to take it, get it round the neck and wrestle this problem down to the ground — is housing. You can sell housing if you're prepared to make land available to people who can afford to pay the mortgages and make the payments on a regular basis. Then you can sell your lumber. You know, it's great that we have an export market. After all, it's the key part of our economy. But you've got to remember that for every cent our exports are below the American dollar, we pay through the nose for our food imports. It's nice to be able to sell lumber at 82 cents on the dollar: but we pay $1.18 and $1.20 for the 60 percent of our food that is imported. That's tough. There is a way of curing the problem of the lumber industry — for the minister who is concerned about his riding and all those mills there. Do something about creating more housing. You took the first tentative step last year, and you backed away, Why? You Know that the free market system is not going to do it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As my colleague said, ten years ago the bulk of the housing in this province was provided by either NHA or it was VLA land for those people who were veterans. Now there's a greater move towards co-op housing. Again, that is government involvement. We know that the bulk of housing is built by the private sector. But there is the group, and it's getting larger and larger, who simply can't go into the housing market and put themselves on the hook for $200,000 worth of mortgage: it's impossible. Turn around and ask your own children who are married. You've all got the same problem; if you haven't, then it's quite remarkable. I'm sure that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has that problem.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No. I'm looking at you. because you're better looking than he is.

Your children talk about the same problem. They're all talking about it today. They want to know whether they can ever expect to live in a house. That's what they were raised in. Can they ever expect to live in a house? I'm telling you, if we do not get some government involvement on a long-range basis, none of our children will ever live in a house. Yes, they may live in a house if they go to the north or to the central part of the province — and that's where they may have to go. But the idea that somehow you can live in a house in the Vancouver area or that you can afford to buy a house is completely out of the question.

If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is at all concerned about the housing market, then I would suggest to him that he take a good look at the real estate industry. There's a very serious problem in the real

[ Page 4514 ]

estate industry — flipping over of houses; the kind of competition that exists in real estate companies: "If you get the most listings, we'll send you to Hawaii." They're soliciting people on an almost daily basis: "Let us sell your house we can get you a big price for it." That is a contributor to this kind of high inflation. It's a very serious problem.

But the more serious problem is the housing stock. We can't just lie back and say that our record was good last year because we had the highest number of housing starts. Well, we'll wait till the end of the year and just see what the rest of the provinces finish up with. Yes, we got off to a good start. It was a good start. But bear in mind that we can get started a lot sooner than most people. It's not sufficient to say that we had more housing starts. For three or four years past, our housing starts haven't even reached 20,000. We have all these people coming into the province. So that's an obligation the government cannot avoid. If they avoid it, what is going to happen is that they are going to suffer the kind of pressure that will inevitably come from people who are not satisfied that they cannot live in an urban-based society.

They don't want to go elsewhere but they will have to leave. That's the kind of sadness that can take place when people go somewhere else, not because they're looking for employment, but because they're looking for somewhere to live. That's a great tragedy but the government is not prepared to address it.

In the light of all of this that is going on we're still having to put up with a debate that's going on in Vancouver over Pier B-C. Every day we've got to listen to the nonsense that comes out of the mouth of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who has no idea how to count — no idea whatsoever. She came two years ago and told us: "For $25 million we can build you the nicest place you've ever seen. We'll have a trade and convention centre with roof gardens and glass over it." And here we are $95 million later: nothing is built, nothing is likely to be built. Almost three years ago now, in June 1978, there was an item in the Province by Marcus Gee. He said: "It seems that the new Vancouver trade and convention centre proposed by Provincial Secretary" — she had a different job then — "Grace McCarthy, will be more expensive and less grandiose than the announcement made it sound." Do you remember the announcement? "For $25 million I can get you anything." That was in June 1978. Then Gordon Shrum — the guy who has continually bailed out these people — said the total cost of the project with parking, a trade centre, commercial development, site improvement and public walkways added would be more than $42 million. They said that in June 1978. And I can't call you Gracie because I don't know you that well. Nearly three years ago Gordon Shrum turned round and said to the public as well as to you: "It's not $25 million, it's $42 million." And you went into the debate in this House last year telling us how wonderful it was going to be for $25 million.

Your colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) pounded his desk, got splinters in his elbow and now he's having terrible trouble explaining it to his children. You start at $25 million, wind up with a bill of $98 million and nothing's happening. The best description of what we've got over in Vancouver now was given, I think, by one of the Vancouver aldermen who said: "The site looks like a denuded aircraft carrier." It really does. The only thing you can do with it now is to throw some blacktop on it and set it up as a parking lot. Then try and get Nelson Skalbania to build the stadium on a couple of scows.

It's that kind of thing which you've been able to get away with for two or three years, because five or six years ago you started to attack the previous government and talk about fiscal competence. Over the years we have now catalogued.... This has got to be — until we get all the facts on northeast coal — the most embarrassing mess you've got yourself into. You were so sure that everything was right that you went ahead and pulled down the buildings, talked about what it was going to look like, and then somebody said: "Wait a minute; we don't have the money yet." People go to jail for that kind of thing. You can't sell people on an idea. You can't say to the federal government, we'll do this, we'll do that, when you can't even put up your own end.

Gordon Shrum told the government in 1978 that that was going to cost a minimum of $45 million and you came into this House last year and kept insisting that you were going to do it for $25 million. If that's the way that small minister of small economics has totalled up his coal project, we're in a lot of trouble. We're not only in a lot of trouble because he's the minister. After all, you've got to know this minister really well to understand him. He's the kind of guy who sits back.... Usually his mind's in neutral, his mouth is in top gear and nobody knows what's going on with it. But wait till that game comes over from Japan — "Who's Got the Dummy?" We're all going to recognize the picture. "Who's Got the Dummy?" That's the new game that's coming. They have a phrase in Japanese....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, no, no, we had nothing to do with the coal deal. You were the ones who sweated and scrambled. You became a sophisticated, suave kind of gentleman who went over to Japan. When you bowed you hit your head on the door and you've never been right since — suave and sophisticated. I'm talking about David Rockefeller; I'm not talking about the minister.

But that's it. Who's got the dummy? At the moment we've got the dummy and it's hurting; it's hurting really bad. You're up there spending money, promoting a company like B.C. Rail that's bankrupt, and somebody was trying to tell us — the minister — " Oh, it's not bankrupt." Don't you read your own auditor general's report'? Of course it's bankrupt. It's in the hole for $700 million. Either you pick up the debt or it's bankrupt.

We had the minister before the Crown corporations committee. He couldn't put his finger on one cent. He has no fiscal independence at all, because he has no way to negotiate with anybody who loans money, because he's got no credit. He doesn't have triple-A credit.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: We can't have the Minister of Transportation and Highways interrupting all the time. He had his say this morning. He was eloquent and sophisticated. He was his usual Cariboo self; he was delightful. I have never enjoyed myself so much. I fell off my chair twice. The minister lost his notes' you know the way he writes notes. I've watched him when he writes notes; he usually writes them on his sleeves and then gets so excited his sleeves crawl up his arm. Alex, you've got to write your notes on the palm of your hand; that's where they'll always be.

[ Page 4515 ]

We had a good delivery from the minister this morning. He made ail important point about the lumber industry. There is a solution to the lumber industry. The member for Dawson Creek, or wherever he comes from up there, is always saying we're very negative. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said: "Take the $48 million and lever it into some assistance on mortgages." I just told you, if you can't sell your lumber, do something about promoting a housing program. You'll sell the houses here, providing you provide land that's reasonable — not costing the kind of money that cabinet ministers' salaries can pay for mortgages. We're not all that fortunate; it's a short-term kind of feast. Do it for the young people. We all have the same discussion. It's tough, but there's not one suggestion from the government; no vehicle, nothing.

We're going to have. I think, a lot of fun in some respects, but then we're going to get down to some hard facts about B.C. Place and the coal project. What I don't understand is that it's usually the case that when a government has something good to tell the people, they tell them all of it. For the last six months that minister has backed and filled and dodged and avoided. Is it not as good as he says it is? Why isn't he telling us? He's got tables and documents. Well, we'll wait and we'll see, but you'd better do it before that game hits here. When that gets on sale, it's going to sell more games than your coal is selling in tonnes. Who's got the dummy? You know where the dummy is, eh? He's sitting right over there. "Who's Got the Dummy?" That's a new game, That's not meant in an unkind way, Mr. Speaker. Dummy is not a derogative term really.

I want to talk about one other thing. I want to address my remarks, indirectly and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). If he hasn't already read it, then I think he should read the report that his colleague, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), put out in 1980. He has produced a report which is excellently written by a man called Peter Stobie, who is a research officer with the research branch, Ministry of Lands. Parks and Housing. It deals with rental housing and public policy in British Columbia. We've had a lot of debate about this.

The greatest proponent of moving away from rent control is the Fraser Institute. I've been on a couple of programs with Dr. Block, who is a very interesting man. We don't share the same views on rental housing or rent control but, nevertheless, most of the arguments that he makes about doing away with rent control, interestingly enough, always involve transfer payments to people who simply can't manage their rents. You know, you can't have it both ways, You can't say that you're going to take rent control off because it interferes with the free-market system and then say that those people who have a hard time paying the rents should receive a transfer payment. That's socialism. That's the kind of thing that the NDP was so terribly accused of — trying to support people in terms of their basic income.

It's not easy to advocate constantly the business of the retention of rent controls, but it's got to be. I want to point out to the minister that he'll find a large number of statistics in the report. On table 3 is what I think is the most horrifying statistic that the cabinet has to pay attention to: the number of decontrolled units in 1980 was 70,000 in 1981 there were 105,000; in 1982 there were 154,000: and by 1983 we'll have over 200,000 decontrolled housing units in this province. That's 63 percent of all the housing stock in the province.

What's going to happen? That is going to compound the problem we already have with people who live in those units because they can't afford to get into housing. What is the government going to do about that? I put that to Mr. Block: what are you going to do about transfer payments for people to get into housing? "Well, we can't do that. That's public housing and that's a no-no."

The government is faced with a very difficult situation. You can't continue to move, as the minister has suggested. And I don't know where he gets his information — that sometime by the fall the housing vacancy rate is going to be up. Where — in Tumbler Ridge. In Ponce Coupé? It won't be in Victoria or in Vancouver or in my riding. Where, and on what do you base this? After all, the government says: "We have the highest rate of immigration. We haven't put up any barbed-wire fences."

MR. LEA: Who is the Minister of Housing over there anyway?

MR. LEVI: There is no Minister of Housing. Nobody is concerned about housing over there at all. They're only concerned about looking into the crystal ball.

Now we've got a new minister. It's like a passing parade. I've been the critic since 1976: two have gone. one is now here. I will make a prediction that if this government survives another six months, he's going to be the Minister of Health. Because that's the training ground for Ministers of Health. You've got to go to Consumer and Corporate Affairs before you go to Health. When you finish Health you go to the hotline. The first guy has gone to the hotline, The present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was on a hotline. The third guy has got the most loquacious voice in this House. You've got to admit it. He's got a better voice than the Minister of Finance. We had to listen to that guy for three hours the other day. He knows he's going to be unemployed in six months. Three hours to audition — that's what he gave us. The longest audition I ever heard.

But this minister has something going for him: he's got a good voice; he's new, frosty and ready to go. But the important thing is that he is going to have to answer some questions. He has already gone out on a limb and made the same mistake that his two predecessors made. He's got information that nobody else has that somehow the vacancy rate in terms of accommodation is going to be greater. Well. nobody out there believes him. I don't believe him. I don't think many people in this House believe him. Certainly young people out there don't believe him. You simply have to go and look at the rents.

I faced this problem myself last year and had to go to my two MLAs. They were very helpful. We had to go and have a public hearing.

MR. BARBER: And we won; we got it lowered.

MR. LEVI: We sure did. Ninety percent of the people where I live are senior citizens. Their rents went up an average of $120 a month apiece. The pitch that we made to the public hearing was: for God's sake, keep these people within the controls; give them some time to breathe and to look around. Well, to the credit of the rentalsman who reviewed it — it took a lot of time to go over this: it was a public hearing — that's the decision he made. That was a good social policy decision, because he was looking at the people

[ Page 4516 ]

who lived there. I know it's tough to make those decisions on every individual unit and every individual apartment block, but at least he had an understanding of the real effects of the housing market. It's not that the minister of housing, lands, parks and gravel pits doesn't have. He has all that understanding. He's got it here. Or where is your heart? Is it over here?

Let me just say one other thing to the minister. The important thing about the housing question is not to suggest to people that the housing market is going to get easier because the vacancy rate is going to get better. The only thing that the vacancy rate does.... Unfortunately the market forces simply don't work. You get the impression that when a few more houses come on, somehow there is a greater competition and the prices go down. That simply doesn't happen. That's the same kind of thing that's happening with people flipping over houses. There is a time when that will level off. Many people are going to get trapped. People who are investing in housing with the expectation that six months later they can make a 20 or 30 percent profit may find themselves locked into prices that aren't moving. But it's not the same with rents on apartments when a few more become available. There is great competition for housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Name names.

MR. LEVI: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing stood up in this House last year and said: "There is no housing problem. I haven't received any letters." Don't you know what the word is out there? "You can't write to that guy; he can't read." So you don't get any mail. But to stand up and say that you don't think there is a housing problem! You said that last year.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No!

MR. LEVI: Yes, you did. Are you calling me a liar? You stood up there and said there was no housing problem, because you hadn't heard about it. Well, I'm telling you, and you know very well that there is a housing problem.

MR. BARBER: How can people write him letters if they don't know his name? Who has ever heard of him?

MR. LEVI: Well, he used to work for the CPR.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Look, you guys, it's my debate, let me do it. If I need any help I'll call on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman).

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Well, you've got to take a look at the back bench, because the front bench looks very disinterested. You've got four ministers sitting back there who control most of the power of the province. You've got one guy in charge of garbage; you've got one guy in charge of gravel pits; the guy on the right looks after matchboxes and things like that; the new fellow, well, that's going to be the big test for him — liquor licences, very important. If you have a visit from Mr. Olma, be sure to call me and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). We can help you. Don't pay attention to him, because he's a has-been.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Molly Hogan.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Molly Hogan, great place. Do you ever drink there? Don't you go there?

MR. BARBER: Will they let you in?

MR. LEVI: No way would he be let in. They have a rule.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No percentage at all. I wait on tables.

My colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), made reference to the corpse. He also came out with a rather exotic phrase, "political nymphomania." We have another problem over there. We have a bit of a rotting corpse with a little touch of necrophilia around the edges, and that's not very good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. LEVI: It's no good you going " oh! " like that; you don't even know what it means. Do you know what it means?

The minister could learn from the mistakes of his two predecessors. They were both part of what was a gross misrepresentation to the public. I'm talking about the first Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is now out of politics, and the second one, who constantly decided that they would ignore the most serious question after the provision of housing for young people. This was the whole question of people who are scared to death that some of the rent controls are going to come off. If you take rent controls off you're going to do as much damage to seniors as any health problem they can get. You know as well as I do that if you deal through your constituency office or you visit seniors, it's a perpetual cloud of fear that they are under. They pay $250 or $300, and once it gets to $300, it's game over. You've got to seriously consider the business of raising these levels. It's absolutely essential. If you've got to create a priority, then create it for them, and move quickly in trying to convince your colleagues that you've got to do something about the provision of housing for the younger people.

Those are two solutions. The second one is dealing with housing, which could do so much for the economy of this province. You had your first tentative step last January, and you boasted — and you were entitled to boast — about 5,300 houses. The question is: who got the houses? That was the tragedy there. All those people owned some kind of land, They had money in the bank — at least $10,000 to $15,000, because the credit union wouldn't deal with them if they weren't debt-free. So the people who could afford it got it, and the people who were just below that level — young couples who maybe make between them $30,000, or the one spouse is off work — can't sustain that kind of debt load, so you brought in your mortgage subsidy program. You took $9 million and you left it $200 million — it was good. There's no reason why you can't take $90 million and leave $1 billion and create 50,000 houses and meet the problem that your member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has because he says he can't sell his lumber.

I've never understood, in all the years I've lived in this province, why we have carpenters, lumber and a housing need and somehow nobody puts them together. When we were the government we attempted to. We had a ministry,

[ Page 4517 ]

created 12,000 units, and as soon as you guys came in you said: "We'll leave it to the private sector," What did the private sector do? They rolled over and played dead. You crawled down to Ottawa and said: "Please bring back the capital gains; please bring back MURB." Well, who gets into MURB now? Is it as successful? It's nowhere near as successful as what you did last year.

Don't be afraid to be touched by a little socialism. After all, you stood up this morning and bragged about the medical plan. Well, that's where it started — in Saskatchewan with Tommy Douglas. It's a piece of socialism. You're going to have to walk around with your eyes closed, not to run into programs which have a socialist content. It's there. It's going to meet you all over the place. You can't avoid it. You're a new minister.

MR. BARRETT: Jack Davis can't avoid it.

MR. LEVI: Well, Jack Davis is like Moses trying to cross the Red Sea and losing his staff. I think what we're going to do.... He's over there! My gosh, Jack, I didn't realize you were here.

MR. BARRETT: Don't worry — he's going to vote with the government, no matter what.

MR. LEVI: Do you know why he's going to vote with the government?

MR. BARRETT: Because he thinks he's getting back in the cabinet. Nobody told him!

MR. LEVI: No, it's because they put him on the Crown corporations committee. He gets more information there to write more letters than any other topic he could write on. It's a new technique, but it's a good way to keep your name before the public.

Mr. Minister of Consumer Affairs, through you, Mr. Speaker — you've got an interesting challenge. You may have to depart from these people, because in the five years they've been back you haven't gotten one worthwhile maverick. You have no Ernie LeCours. you've got no Cyril Shelford, you've got Chabot, who copped out twice....

My God, he took.... I don't want to talk about him it'll spoil my dinner.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I took the high road.

MR. LEVI: You sure did take the high road My God, he took the high road. Where are the mavericks? Where are the people who speak up? They've all gone. Old "Jobs" doesn't speak up anymore.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Waldo Skillings. Somebody said it. Waldo is one of the greatest economic geniuses of this province. I think that if he comes into the House....

MR. LEA: Hyndman was a maverick when he was in the back bench.

MR. LEVI: We've got a whole government full of political tourists. It's a very bad situation. We've got the Speaker and we can't talk about the Speaker because he's sitting in the chair, but if he leaves we'll talk about him.

The greatest challenge to anybody over there right now, now that we've heard the Minister of Finance drop his horrible bundle, is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. You can rake a lot of people out there. Breathe easy with a sense of feeling that you are concerned about them. You say something about rent controls. Say something to the old people. Say that we are not going to take the rent controls off and leave them at the mercy of the landlord. We're not talking about rent gouging. What we're talking about is what you talk about — market forces. Apparently there's nothing wrong with that from your point of view. We call it gouging because it goes beyond people's ability to pay.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm looking at all of you. If I had three big eyes, I'd put them on all of you. You're a foul bunch of people when it comes to this kind of thing. But that's parliamentary; I looked it up.

The corpse is beginning to stink. It is. You've been here for five years. You had your chance and you're messing up pretty badly. I was out the week before last picking up memberships. As one of my colleagues said: "There's only one issue out there right now." There's one issue out there, and you know it as well as I do. It's the Premier. He's the issue. They say: "You've got to have an election. You've got to get rid of that guy." Well. you guys better think about getting rid of him before we get rid of you. or you're all going to go down the tube. I'm not anxious to get over to that side of the House right now. I like it here. so you better clean up your act. Is that the way I should put it — clean up your act?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have three minutes. hon. member.

MR. LEVI: I did want to say a few words about the fire escapes, but I'm going to leave that for another debate. Thank you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few brief words on the amendment, which I think is very appropriate at this time. I'm somewhat surprised. though, that we have not had a government speaker speak on this amendment and defend the government's action on this particular matter. The reason for that, in my view, could only be that it's impossible to defend this horrendous, regressive budget that hits all of the working and poor people in British Columbia today. There's just no way that government members can defend this terrible budget.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for this amendment from my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), for a lot of good reasons. This particular budget, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo Mr. Stupich), is going to cost every taxpayer and every family in this province about $850 a year extra in taxes.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says: "Balderdash, " Don't leave the House, Mr. Minister. I've got something coming up for you — something about bridges and roads and Tumbler Ridges and things like that. So just hang in there.

[ Page 4518 ]

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He asked me to file documents. As soon as I get to that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I'll file all those documents. I guarantee it.

One of the points I wanted to make was that above and beyond the tax increases that we're faced with in this budget before us today, in areas like mine and for people living on the coast of British Columbia.... That minister over there, who just spoke out of turn as usual, has increased ferry fares. He was on this morning about all the people in the province subsidizing ferry fares. Well, let me tell you, who do you think subsidizes highways into his riding? He has a phenomenal budget. Last year alone $68 million was spent on the riding of Cariboo. Can you believe that? It went to day labour and capital projects, but that's another topic.

Furthermore he told us last spring that there's going to be a further increase in ferry fares this year. I don't suppose this matter has gone before the board of directors. It doesn't matter. The board of directors of the Ferry Corporation are just a front, in my view anyways. Decisions are made in cabinet.

MR. BARRETT: That's why Rafe quit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's why he quit — the cabinet makes these decisions. So what I'm telling you is that on top of the horrendous tax increases that we all face in British Columbia, we have a further tax increase in that form in my riding and the ridings of the people living on the coast of British Columbia, where they're lucky enough to have any service at all.

We can expect further payments, increases in taxes this year, aside from the horrendous increase in ICBC rates imposed by this government, which is mismanaging that corporation at an unbelievable level — further proof of mismanagement of that government.

We can expect increases in medicare payments this year; no doubt about it. Sooner or later this government has to settle with the doctors. You think they're going to take funds out of northeast coal to settle with the doctors? No way. What they'll do is increase medicare payments to all the people of British Columbia with the excuse that the doctors are greedy, they want all of this money and are holding them up for ransom, and all the usual twaddle that goes with it. As my colleagues from New Westminster had suggested in this House, if they had sat down and bargained in good faith with those professional people, the government would not be in the situation it is in today on that particular issue. However, they didn't, and they won't. It will be confrontation again.

The other possibility that exists on that issue is, of course, a strike by the medical profession. I rather suspect that it will not come to that. But these are further costs over and above the tax increases announced by the minister here the other day.

Mr. Speaker, remember that the CPU, IWA, parts of the construction industry and some of the biggest employers in British Columbia are going to the bargaining table this year. They're now forming their negotiating strategy and will be meeting in formal sessions very shortly. You think that Mr. Jack Munro of the IWA is not aware of what this budget means? They may have formerly considered settling at — I'm just guessing — a hypothetical figure of a 14 or 16 percent increase in wages and salaries plus some of the other items that they're bargaining for. But the fact is, because of this horrendous tax increase, this year there is no doubt in my mind that no labour leader in his right mind in this province will not take this budget into account and suggest to management that rather than settle for the 14 or 15 percent wage increase that they may have normally, they're going to naturally wish to keep even during the course of the next year or two, whatever the term of the agreement may be. They'll demand a further increase in wages, up to 18, 19, 20 percent, whatever the result of this budget may have been in that area. This will undoubtedly lead to long, hard bargaining and, hopefully not but possibly, further labour strife in this province, which that government over there is thoroughly incapable of dealing with.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) sent a telegram to Mr. Regan in Ottawa demanding that he get to work and settle the B.C. Tel dispute. But when he has a dispute in his own backyard, what does he do? Absolutely nothing. He is a totally incompetent Minister of Labour, unable to get the parties together at the bargaining table. Management has lost faith in that minister; certainly the labour unions have lost faith in that minister. I would strongly suggest today that the Premier take steps to rectify that situation. I think there are one or two people sitting on the benches opposite who would be far more capable — in fact, yourself, Mr. Speaker; a little promotion, a little extra salary to pay some bills.

The point is that the Minister of Labour in this province is totally incapable of dealing with the labour issues that face us today. No question about it.

I'm not going to be long on my next topic, Mr. Speaker, but once again I want to take this opportunity. Since my speech two or three days ago, I've had dozens of phone calls to my office over this arbitrary and regressive tax increase on tobacco, gasoline and liquor. The working people of this province agree with the position that I've taken on that particular topic, and not because everybody spends 24 hours a day smoking and drinking — most of us don't. The fact is it is a regressive tax. It hits the poor and the working people harder than anybody else. I find it deplorable that this government, to build up a slush fund for the provincial election coming up next year, is taking the money out of the hides of the poor and the working people of this province. It should be coming out of resource revenues. If this government had managed the resources of this province properly in the first place, these tax increases would not have been necessary.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would strongly suspect, Mr. Speaker, that before the government goes into a provincial election next year, they will likely reduce the sales tax again and try to buy some votes — increase the homeowner grant with a view to, hopefully, buying some votes. But I think the people of the province are now wise to these birds, and I would suspect they're not going to fall for it. Whether the election comes next month, next year or the year after I don't think people are going to fall for that kind of thing anymore.

I want to address my remarks to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who's left the chamber, but I know he's listening in his office. The fact is he charged again this morning that my figures on the cost of the construction of 93 kilometres of road into Tumbler Ridge, relating to the northeast coal deal, were incorrect. Okay, that's fine. If I'm incorrect all I ask is that the minister table the studies and the

[ Page 4519 ]

costs related to the project. If the minister will bring those figures to this House, to me personally, through a Page or through yourself, anywhere.... I don't care where he tables them, but give me the correct figures and if I'm wrong I'll admit my mistake. The fact is, right now, that as far as I'm concerned, until I hear otherwise I'll stand by the $325 million figure I used the other day in my speech. The fact is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Minister of Finance, the Premier and all the people involved in the northeast coal deal in this province have not and will not table any of the documents relating to that transaction primarily because they know they've made a terrible mistake.

The Premier just walked into the House, and I want to point out to him.... I want to talk to the Premier again about natural gas lines and how contracts are awarded and routes are selected arbitrarily without reference to the Utilities Commission and without the benefit of public hearings. I should inform the House that at this exact point in time, and since last Monday, petitions are circulating over northern Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast and the Powell River area, addressed to the Premier, attempting to act him to reconsider the relocation of that pipeline. We're not necessarily asking for relocation at this point, but we're asking for full public hearings into the economic benefits. It's quite obvious from the prospectus we received from a consortium, which includes BCRIC and Westcoast Transmission, that the economic loss to this province is going to be extremely severe. Three thousand new jobs have gone down to two thousand because of that arbitrary decision. How they arrived at this conclusion without the benefit of Studies.... The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said the other day: "We haven't had any studies but we made a decision without studies." That's what he said in his reply to me when I raised the question during question period last Monday.

Further, there will be a loss of some $2.3 billion in revenues to the provincial and federal governments as a result of that arbitrary decision made in cabinet months ago without any hearing or input. A decision was made on strictly political basis. Could it be possible that the decision was made because PetroCan owns 23 percent of Westcoast? Could that be part of the reason'? Could part of the reason be that the government is teed off at BCRIC? They formed BCRIC, now they're competing against BCRIC.

MR. BARRETT: Phillips made a public allegation he was blackballed, and that demands a public inquiry.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The leader of our party. Mr. Barrett, just informs me that Mr. Phillips of Westcoast Transmission said they were blackballed by this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it is the member for Mackenzie who's making the speech.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I just wanted this on the record, because basically that's what he said — they were blackballed.

In any event. I think part of the decision must have been that this government has taken on the federal government in direct confrontation over the federal governments energy policies. But the fact is I think this is part of the reason for the decision as well.

The decision is also going to cost the users on Vancouver Island particularly a great deal of money, because the price of delivering natural gas to Vancouver Island under the Westcoast proposal was somewhat cheaper than the Hydro proposal. As a result of that arbitrary decision by that government, we're going to find that cleaner, cheaper-burning fuel is going to cost residents on Vancouver Island more.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How much more?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It could be up to 78 cents per thousand cubic feet more. Mr. Minister of Energy, who keeps interjecting.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:  I just gave them to you. I'm sorry, I shouldn't be talking across the floor here. But how can I help it?

In any event, as a result of that decision, people on the Sunshine Coast — Squamish, Powell River — are going to be denied the use of that cleaner, cheaper fuel. Furthermore, had they decided when they should have, and done justification studies on the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line, it may well be that that $1. 8 billion project — because that's what it's going to cost ultimately: in spite of the fact that Hydro told us originally that the cost was going to be $359 million, they now admit to $700 million, and mark my words.... Remember how they called me irresponsible in here when I suggested that the Marguerite, that whole boondoggle, was going to cost between $8 million and $10 million. The ministers scoffed and said I was irresponsible. What's the cost of that refit, that boondoggle, and that serious mistake? It's $8 to $10 million. So I'm charging that Hydro's Cheekye Dunsmuir transmission line is going to cost the people of this province $1.8 billion when the job is finally completed in 1983.

I would suspect that we're going to have the same result with the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. Can anyone in this Legislature remember when Hydro has ever put forward an accurate cost estimate and lived up to it? I can't. Nobody can. I would suggest to you that the cost overruns on the Hydro project are going to be absolutely horrendous if Hydro gets.... Well, Hydro has the contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonner says the studies aren't ready.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But let me tell you what Hydro is doing. They've already put a freeze on lands on Vancouver Island for right-of-way. They're already calling for tenders for certain elements of that proposed natural gas line. So the environmental studies that will be carried out by the Utilities Commission.... Any recommendations they bring in will be sheer frosting on the cake, not dealt with, and thrown into the round filing cabinet — ignored completely.

What I'm suggesting is that if the Government knew what it was doing, the $1.8 billion that's going to be spent on the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line could have been saved if we'd.... Perhaps natural gas would have served the energy requirements of Vancouver Island for the next 20 years. It may well be that neither one of those projects was required. We have a colleague that consistently takes the

[ Page 4520 ]

position that the government didn't even look into the other alternatives.

Furthermore, we had a serious proposal for a cement plant on Texada Island if the natural gas line went through the northern route. I met with leading people in the cement industry only a week ago last Monday, and they tell me the project is almost surely scuttled because of the fuel. They're now discussing with certain people on Vancouver Island the possibility of coal gasification, then transporting it to Texada Island where the limestone is and perhaps proceeding with a clinker mill. But because of that terrible decision made over there, there's another project — which would have employed maybe 150 to 160 employees directly in that community and given a much-needed boost to an area of the coast that is slowly, because of transportation problems partly and government policy, sinking out of sight.... The only thing they like about my riding is that they bring out the timber and get the fish. And by the way, about 60 percent of the spawn has been lost this year throughout my riding because of flooding. We're going to pay for that two years down the road, in the next cycle year. But that's another topic. The fact is that because of government polices the central coast and northern Vancouver Island are being almost totally ignored by this government.

What can I say? I'm going to support this motion of no confidence in the government, and I would assume, because of very good arguments being put forward by our side of the House, that we'll convince at least three or four of those members over there to vote with us, bring down the government, get into an election and put an end to all of this nonsense.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to rise to take my place in the debate on the amendment. I had wished to take my place earlier, but I was waiting — and I'm still waiting — for any member of the opposition to present any support whatsoever for the amendment.

The member for Mackenzie, who has just taken his place and is now leaving the chamber, delivered himself of his second budget speech in as many days. He said at the end of his remarks that he was certainly going to support the amendment, but in the course of some half an hour's discussion he didn't present one factor which would support the words which are before us for consideration.

I think that maybe it would do the members good if I read again the amendment expressing regret that the Minister of Finance has introduced "onerous, unnecessary and expedient tax increases." That's what the amendment is all about. Not one member has dealt with the fact that the tax is onerous. None of them has suggested it is unnecessary. As a matter of fact, as I've heard earlier in the debates on the budget, the opposition is doing its typical job of saying: "We want more and more and more expenditure."

I would have thought that in their opposition to this budget and to the tax increases which it includes the opposition would have changed its tune, and instead of the same old game of more and more and more they would have exhibited some responsibility in the demands that they are prepared to make on the taxpayers of the province.

I must say that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) expressed a view that I've held when he talked about the motion. He said: "We had trouble with the wording of the motion." They certainly did. When I read it I couldn't believe that they would use such words. When I saw it I thought I was wrong but I went to the library and found I was right. Oxford dictionary says that "expedient" means advantageous, fit, proper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Politically.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't say anything about "politically." I noticed very carefully that they didn't put the word "politically" in this amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote for it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not going to vote for it. Quite frankly, you're an absolutely incompetent opposition. You don't even know how to frame an amendment to the budget motion. That's why you can't support it. Obviously your members can't speak in favour of the motion because to speak in favour of the motion is in fact to speak in favour of the budget. How can it be after all these years of being opposition? You've got so much experience in opposition that you'll continue to be in opposition for the rest of time. After all the years in opposition I would have thought that you would have at least known how to prepare an amendment to the motion that "the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply." That's one of the first things I learned in the first year that I was in this House. Yet after all these years they can't do it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They've only been here 20 years and they can't do it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact there are some things that they have learned very well. It's the kind of speeches that you're hearing given in this debate and in the budget debate. I've heard them all before — the same speeches over and over again.

I must say that the only change has come from the member for Coquitlam-Moody. He hasn't been with them as long, but he's falling into the same trap. I must say that he offered something new to the opposition side, which was support for the position of the federal government, which I never thought I would hear expressed in this House. But, after all, he comes from the federal system. He was a member of the NDP opposition in Ottawa when it was led by those eastern NDP politicians who think as easterners and have no recognition of what the plight may be in the west. Therefore his remarks suggesting that we were suddenly blaming Ottawa for all of these difficulties were conditioned by his background of experience in the national capital — an experience which we're seeing repeated day after day after day by the present leader of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa and his faithful followers.

Now, we're not hearing it from those who aren't quite so faithful. I'm speaking of the four highly-principled, understanding western members from the province of Saskatchewan.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He probably remembered that the NDP in Saskatchewan didn't sell out.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I must say that the provincial leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan recognized that he had a particular role to play as the Premier of that province, and for a time he thought that he could count upon the support

[ Page 4521 ]

of the NDP nationally to bring some sense to what is taking place in the discussions in Ottawa. But, finally recognizing that that wasn't going to occur, he has taken a position which is identical to that expressed by the other western Premiers and by the eastern Premiers who know that unless they are given the opportunity to deal with their own resources, with their own responsibilities in their own provinces, they will never be able to cure the have and have-not syndrome which affects all of this nation — those are the maritime Premiers and the western Premiers. The have and have-not syndrome will only be cured if the provinces are left free to deal with their resources and the responsibilities which have been their sovereign right since Confederation began.

But let me deal with some of the other approaches that have been taken to indicate.... What about the other words — that the taxes are onerous. Well, I guess all taxes are onerous, whatever the level may be. No one likes to pay taxes. We recognize it's our responsibility if we are to have governments deliver us the services that are their responsibility and that we demand of them. The greater the demand, the more taxes have to be raised. It's as simple as that.

But talk about onerous. You know, the Minister of Finance delivered his budget on Monday of this week. He was good enough to provide us, as has been the practice in the past, with comparative provincial tax rates with the other provinces. If you examine the whole range of taxes, British Columbia stands lowest except for the province of Alberta, and the province of Alberta is in the fortunate position at the moment of having available to it very significant revenues from its resources. Now I emphasize "at the moment, " because the province of Alberta and its government recognize that those resources upon which they depend for major revenue sources are not going to last forever and that the revenues that may flow to that province from those resources may be very quickly extinguished if the federal government pursues its policies of taxes levied against the provinces in provincial resources. Therefore the favourable position which the province of Alberta enjoys and which enables it to have these low or non-existent tax rates is something that even that province recognizes can be transitory, and they, therefore, in their wisdom, are putting it away for the day when it may not be quite so favourable for them and they may have to look to imposing additional taxes, if they are to continue the level of services that their citizens properly demand.

"Unnecessary" is another word that appears in this amendment. Well, I would have thought that I would have heard in support of this amendment from opposition members opposite some clear indication of what expenditures they believed were unnecessary. How much do they want to take away from the budget of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)? What programs in that ministry would they like to do away with? Health? I heard the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is the health critic for the opposition, speaking; I didn't hear him ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to wind down one program not one.

MR. COCKE: Acute care — come on!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you don't want any acute care. Let it be heard loud and clear throughout the province that the member for New Westminster wants us to cut back on acute care. At least that's a positive contribution to the debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster, according to the record, has already spoken in the debate.

We're on the amendment. Please proceed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I know it offends your rules, Mr. Speaker, to speak from across the chamber. I just hope that when the member for New Westminster takes his place in this amendment debate, and he comes to the "unnecessary" words, he will record for all to see that fie wants acute-care expenditures reduced in this province. That's one positive suggestion that they've made, saying that the tax increases are necessary because the expenditures are too high.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) should withdraw any programs. They haven't suggested that he should withdraw any programs for the financing of the basic educational program. He hasn't been asked to do away with any of the aid to community colleges, and the province now pays it all. He hasn't been asked to reduce any of the aid to universities. I just hope that before we have the chance to vote on this important amendment the opposition will make clear which of the education expenditures they wish us to do without. Quite frankly, I doubt that we will hear any.

We're going to hear more, as we have in the past, that we shouldn't spend the money on northeast coal. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) both referred to a different way in which you could use the $48 million. which they identify as being improperly expended in northeast coal: take it and put it into housing needs. Well. that's a good idea. They both gave some figures. however, that if you take $48.5 million and plow it into low-income housing loans, this will generate a total volume of a billion-plus for low-income housing loans.

Careful examination of that nice theory will disclose that it doesn't happen. As a matter of fact, when the NDP were the government in this province, they received a report which made it clear to them that it just wouldn't happen and they shouldn't pursue that particular course of action. Maybe they could do some research among their own files that they took away when they were government, and they could find that report and clear up some of the misapprehensions there are. The fact of the matter is that $200 million was made available a year ago by this government, and it had an impact. It produced 2,200 homes. That's the measure: how many units do you produce? To suggest that we should take away an investment in the development of the great inland empire that will be opened up by the transportation routes to northeast coal, and devote it to houses for the short-term benefit that it will provide for a very few people in the lower mainland of the province of British Columbia, is to ignore the way in which this province has developed.

I hope that we will hear from the northern member of the opposition side. They've only got one northern member on the opposition side. I thought we would hear from that one member — and I hope we will before this debate is over — indicating quite clearly that it is the north, the northern interior and inland empire which surrounds northeast coal and provides the capital which fuels the rest of the province. When you want to have rapid transit, more hospitals, more schools. more universities, better highways and better fer-

[ Page 4522 ]

ties, all in the lower mainland, remember that the money comes from the north and northern interior.

I don't ignore the southeastern part of the province either. They have already had available to them for decades the transportation links which made it possible for private enterprise to go into the coalfields of the southeast part of this province and make their contribution to fuelling the economy of the province to provide the people with those things they require. That was their great railway. The CN and CP came early in the development of this province and this nation; they were in place. That wasn't the problem. But what about the opportunity of developing the rest of this great province? Who was going to develop the northeast? The CPR? No, thank you. The Canadian National Railway — the national railway, Canada's railway, which you would expect would be used to open up new transportation corridors and opportunities in this country and in particular the west? No, thank you. But this government and the energies of that Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) saw the opportunity for the opening up of a new part of this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the national taxpayer is not going to pay it; that's for sure, They want all their money back. They make no contribution to opening up that great area of opportunity in the province of British Columbia. The member for Coquitlam-Moody in his speech said: "The viability of the province depends on B.C. Rail." You bet it does. As the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) said this morning, when they pushed from Lillooet north through Quesnel into Prince George to open up the centre of the province, it was the B.C. Rail that provided the great surge in the economy over the last three decades in this province.

AN. HON. MEMBER: What about Dease Lake?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What about Dease Lake? What did it produce? It produced a situation where when the Leader of the Opposition was in government he had to fake a document and call it the way out. He had to get a way out of his difficulty. It wasn't a way out for the province; it was only a way out for the Leader of the Opposition that's all it was — a way out of a trap. But the opportunity was there for him, in the same way as it has been for this government. This government has seen the opportunity to seize upon the immediate Opportunity of northeast coal, to provide the transportation system which will move us into opportunities for continuing development and will establish a new transportation corridor which will give us a real northern link to the coast of this province, which has never drifted before. I suppose it is this seed money that is being used in the northern development that leads this opposition to say that these tax increases are unnecessary.

When I get the time and I'm at home, I like to garden. I like to have a vegetable garden, and it's great to be there in the fall of the year when the carrots, the peas, the beans and the fruit can be picked. That's what the NDP did when they were government from 1973 to 1975. There was the harvest, and they harvested it. They didn't recognize that somebody had to plant it. If you plant well, then you reap well. It's not the government that reaps and enjoys the benefits; it's the people of this province in jobs, opportunities for the young and the contribution that they can make to the provision of the services that all the people of the province enjoy.

Those of us who sit down in the lower mainland will be sitting there rubbing our hands and saying: "We sure hope they get going with northeast coal so they can make a bigger contribution to the drain we make upon the revenues of this province." Again we'll be bringing the money down from the north to provide for the needs of those who live in the small lower mainland section of this province. That's where the expenditures take place, but that's not where the wealth is generated. You've got to seek out where that wealth is.

I've noticed one thing about the debate on the budget and this motion. There have been constant repetitions of references to an election, saying that the government has lost its credibility and that the government has no integrity. Something was said about a corpse. I don't know how people think when they speak this way — talking about corpses and rotting and stinking I don't know what the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam does outside this chamber to encourage him to even think about words such as these.

Let me just tell you one thing: that's been the theme that we've heard these last four days. We're also hearing it on the outside from the labour movement, and do you know what's happened? I think the labour movement has been confused by the opposition into thinking that if they take the kind of action they're taking at this time, somehow it's going to provoke an election. It's been a blunder on the part of the opposition NDP and the labour movement. That's what has happened that's causing us the trouble. But think about the man who sows well and reaps well. I'll tell you that you may think the credibility is gone and that the people out there are falling for the line you're giving them, but the fact of the matter is that when the benefits begin to flow from projects such as northeast coal, the people of the province will recognize, as they have in years gone by, that the government that takes the care to look at what is developable in the province, assists with development of the province, produces commodities that the whole province needs, so that everyone enjoys prosperity, is the government that people will support as they have in the past.

It's not a question of budgets as election gimmicks. When you go to the people, the budgets show how you planted in the past and how you're able to reap now for the benefit of all the people. It's sustained growth. It's consistency that matters, not the flash-in-the-pan kind of treatment that we had between 1973 and 1975. Not only is the wording of this amendment specious, it's unsupportable, and I will oppose it.

MR. BARRETT: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I will confine most of my remarks, as previous speakers have done, particularly to the amendment, but with the same limited leeway that is traditional. I'd like to just comment on the use of the word "consistency" by the previous speaker in such dramatic fashion, and how important consistency is — like being a Liberal oil that side of the House and attacking old Socred budgets for the sairie flim-flam and then crossing the floor and defending the same old Socred flim-flam budgets. If that is an example of consistency by that member, we've all witnessed it. How many of us were in this House when we used to hear those same pealing tones? Different words, but the performance was the same — attacking Social Credit for hitting people with these taxes, saying how bad

[ Page 4523 ]

Social Credit was with their budget policies, only to find that the converts speak with more conviction than the originators of Social Credit.

O, yea, he knelt down and was converted to the a + b theorem and became consistent. There he now sits as an adherent of Major Douglas, a born-again conversion of politics, to stand up and talk to us about consistency. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't impressed. Had it been an originator of the Aberhart punching-bag gang or an adherent of the T.C. Douglas group, I could have believed it. But we heard a speech today taking the word right out, exactly as the word is meant in that amendment, political expediency. And who is a master of political expediency? The former Liberals who jumped into bed with Social Credit. Ah, but these new-found converts have to prove that when they converted they took it all — not just a little bit, but all,

I've seen this performance from that member since he joined Social Credit, consistently, every single session. Throughout the catalogue of that same performance I said to that member during his estimates last year that he has kept one shred of believable morality, in terms of politics, throughout this whole process of his conversion that came dramatically as the government came close to power when they were in opposition — one close step to morality. A year ago he had yet to say publicly, in defence of the government, their policies and their budget, one good word of praise about the leader of his government, the Premier of this province.

At least he has maintained that record. He has yet to choke out those final words of absolute conversion. He had a chance today when he was giving paeans of pious compliments to the Minister of Finance. He has yet, up to this moment, to publicly say: "And all of this is because of the leadership of Bill Bennett." We're waiting — all the people of this province who have watched these conversions and the consistency that member piously spoke about. We're waiting for the final act in this whole process of conversion, to see that member stand up and say: "And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I love Bill." When is it going to come?

That member still believes the door is going to open on a draft of leadership and the mantle is going to fall on his shoulders. He's still hoping for it. There is no other reason why he wouldn't stand up and say: "I think Bill Bennett, is the best leader this province has ever had." Has someone else got an idea why he's not saying it? He used to say, as a Liberal, that the Socreds were no good, and he was able to overcome that. He used to say that their budgets were flim-flam, and he's able to overcome that today. Just think, if you said Bill is a fine guy, then when you knife him you'll be able to overcome that too. Or are you afraid to say it? Let's hear it for Bill! The last guy in the cabinet who has yet to say it, when he had a chance again today to stand up and say "we're planning for the future: it is consistency; this is what we want: we're a great government; I joined Social Credit and I think Bill Bennett is the best Premier ever...." We didn't hear it today. We heard everything, right up to the line — and then he drew the line again. That one shred of morality of definition that he has internally is still there. Thank goodness it's there. I will be among the first to exclaim shock and surprise when he publicly, finally gets up and performs that last act. All of this, he will say, is because of the magnificent, brilliant and outstanding leadership of Bill Bennett in this government.

Having discussed the consistency of that member's speech and having been a witness to that the consistency. Is it not an observable fact that consistency of his political position in this House is not exactly the kind of example we would want our school children to follow? "I'm going to run as a representative of this party, but if I can whiff power I'm going to jump." He wondered what the stench was that we were talking about. Well, isn't that a wonder that he wondered? Don't you know what the stench is? It's political turncoats who stink up politics in this province — opportunists, claimjumpers jumping around. But there's another side of it.

In his defence of this budget he said that this is the kind of effort in northeast coal that he thinks it is absolutely essential to go ahead with. Yet sitting down there is a former Liberal colleague who has taken a different position. But do you want to know something, Mr. Speaker? They'll both stand up together and vote for it. You wait and see. So help me, we'll see both of them stand up and slavishly and sheepishly be pounded into line on a position that they know themselves has no merit. But when it comes to power, they have sold out for a little piece of the action and are prepared to swallow anything, even better than somebody who believed in it originally. Like all converts they take all gobbledegook down.

Say something nice about Bill. I'll yield the floor right now. No? Still not forthcoming.

Do you want to know where we could cut. Mr. Speaker? Let's start dealing with where we can cut. First of all, we can cut out these baccalaurean feasts and trips taken all over the world by the cabinet, back and forth and up and down and all over the continent — these baccalaurean, first-class, grape-dropping, cheese-tasting trips in every first-class cabin of every airline across the World.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. and I paid for every bit of it on my own. Yes, Mr. Member, you laugh. Eighty-five thousand dollars was the last one, for a 17-day tour through Asia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thai Air.

MR. BARRETT: Thai Air — not even Canadian airlines, Mr. Speaker. Far be it from me to complain about that, I was at a public meeting complaining about the Premier of this province being out for 17 days at the cost of $85,000, and a guy stood up and said to me: "Barrett, if you keep that up I'm going to rip up my card in the NDP." And I said: "Why?" He said: "Eighty-five thousand bucks is cheap to get him out of B.C. for 17 days."

While some are flying to Japan, there are others coming back. It would be cheaper if Japan Air Lines would put up a stationary satellite steambath in the middle of the Pacific so that they wouldn't have to continue to cross back and forth just to come clean. No corner of this earth has not seen a Socred cabinet minister in the last year, and no corner of this earth has forgotten it so quickly.

All that money spent on those trips, and they don't know where to cut? The least they could do is pack a sandwich and go economy. But they're not even shamefaced about it. Number one, cut out all the travelling stay at home, at least some of you. Find out what you're doing with each other. The least you could do is get a group rate on a hotel room and keep it there all year round. Travel, travel, travel!

AN HON. MEMBER: Take a $10 hotel room: there's no tax.

[ Page 4524 ]

MR. BARRETT: Take a tent with you.

Now, they want to know where else they can cut. Well. I'll tell you where else they can cut. We were told that BCRIC was set up and that it's got nothing to do with the government of British Columbia. Is that correct? The British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation has been abandoned by its father. He washed his hands of it and said: "It's nothing to do with me anymore, it's a private company." I want to know if a bill has been sent to that private company for the $20 million of taxpayers' money that was spent to tout that company while it was in the birth pangs. If it's got nothing to do with the taxpayers then get back the $20 million you used from general revenue to go out and tout up all of the advertising.

Did BCRIC pay for its advertising of its impending birth, its advertising of its ecstatic pregnancy and its advertising in terms of the cleanup of the mess after Kaiser took it? Not on your life. The taxpayers paid all of that money for those ads, the promotion, the five free shares, everything. Who signed for that? The Premier of this province. Who should be collecting that money back to take a little bit of load off the taxpayers? The Premier of this province. We subsidized BCRIC like no other company, and if they believe they've got nothing to do with it then I demand every penny you spent to advertise that company be paid back to the general revenue of the people of British Columbia.

I remember Bill — if the Attorney-General doesn't. I remember Bill Bennett, the Premier of this province, going round telling people: "Buy shares." As a matter of fact....

MR. SPEAKER: It is a custom of this House to refer to hon. members here by their constituency or by their title.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the application was "Premier Bill Bennett." I'm quoting the application, and if you want me to I'll file one of the two forms of applications that were used. The first application had the Premier's picture. Then someone got sensitive and thought better of that. I mean, let's not really scare away the investors. So they took off the picture and just left his name. Who paid for that? Did BCRIC pay for that? Did you pay for it out of your pocket, through you, Mr. Speaker? The taxpayers paid for that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You'll get your chance, but I don't think you'll take it.

Would you promise to pay back the money through general revenue if the company had nothing to do with the government? Would he promise to do that?

MR. LEVI: He never keeps his promises.

MR. BARRETT: No, you won't do that. His name was on the application. Who paid for the applications? Twenty million dollars is a conservative estimate of taxpayers' money that went out for political purposes for the birth of BCRIC, and once BCRIC turns sour the government said: "Oh well, that's got nothing to do with us." No, sirree.

Money that you've wasted? I'll tell you another example of money that you've wasted, and you were warned about it, too. This is not hindsight observation of "we're going to try an experiment and it might not work." No. This was to be a triumph of hostility over medical fact. There are certain cabinet ministers who believe that by a motion they can solve the problem of heroin addiction.

We were treated with a display in this House of the demand of an expenditure of taxpayers' money of $14 million for a heroin treatment program. There isn't anybody in this chamber who is opposed to treating heroin addicts. Opposition members — some of whom have had some professional experience in this field, having worked in prisons and aftercare agencies with addicts and their families and medical professionals — asked the minister and the Premier concerned to tell us exactly what they knew that no one else in the world knew that would cure heroin addicts. When we asked those questions, Mr. Speaker, we were attacked as being negative, against the program and against progress. I stood in my place in this chamber, and I said: "I will support the program that you are proposing for Brannan Lake if you will share with me and this House the details of the treatment plan that you know of, that no one else in the world seems to know."

I wrote the minister a letter. I said: "Tell me how the treatment program is to work, what professionals you're going to hire and what approach you're going to take from what psychological orientation. How are you going to deal with these addicts?"

Did the minister know, I said, that in Lexington, Kentucky, they have tried the same thing for 25 years under Dr. Kolb, the U.S. Department of Health? Did the minister know that they had wasted $60 million on a similar program, and they've come up with two conclusions, Mr. Speaker, after spending $60 million on a similar program? The two conclusions were: (1) heroin addicts have an insatiable desire for heroin; and (2) they like chocolate cake. What was the minister's reaction? "Let them eat cake, " he said. And they blew $14 million on a program that everybody who had half a bit of experience, half of an awareness of where the library is, half a willingness to talk to the professionals in the field, knew would be a failure. Yet they went ahead anyway, because they knew best. What happened when the thing went sour? They fired Bert Hoskins, as if it was all his fault. The person who should have been fired is now the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland), formerly the Minister of Health. You want to save money? There's a specific example. I don't remember the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) standing up and saying, "we just blew $14 million in heroin addiction" on the treatment program that didn't work. Even the people in his own department would have told him that it would be a waste of money. If the minister had taken five minutes' trouble to walk into the library and ask for available research material on it, he'd have known the same thing.

Now are we going to waste money on Brannan Lake? The latest proposal is that we're going to make it into a medium security prison. The last thing we need in this province is another prison. All you get when you build prisons is pressure to put people in them. We have successfully and quietly, in this province, been dropping the prison population by moving more and more people on probation and parole. We have slowly been moving corrections services out of the institution mentality to community service. After blowing $14 million of taxpayers' money on Brannan Lake, which they knew was a mistake, they went ahead anyway, and now they're going to open a medium-security prison in Brannan Lake and attempt to justify the original mistake. Don't you know when to quit? If you want to waste money, at least waste it on something that's never been tried before. But wasting

[ Page 4525 ]

money on things that have already wasted money does lend itself to two words that have been used this afternoon — "stupid" and "stinks." You can't avoid those two words. That's why they've been used.

Then, of course, there's the Marguerite. We've never had a public explanation or seen a political head roll on the stupidity of that decision. Taxpayers' money! Who was it who stood up in this House and said that it's a rotting hull and that babies are not safe on it? Will he be the first minister to go down to Seattle on the maiden voyage of the new-found Marguerite and announce, from the bridgehead to the American tourists: "Don't come on! Babies aren't safe on this ship!" No, they may take Patsy — I mean the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) — with them to serve sandwiches, while the former Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will get up and say: "Come to B.C.! Smile everything is all right."

Can't you see the big hooplah we're going to have when the Marguerite comes back now? It'll be the third time that ship has been launched. And guess who'll be on there with all the high-priced flacks that are trying to improve the Premier's image? You couldn't do it with 43 grand; now you're paying a guy 56 grand. No matter how much money you pay, through you, Mr. Speaker, you can't change a spud from being a spud. Knobs are knobs, and mistakes are mistakes and the Marguerite was another blunder by this government.

Mr. Speaker, let's get into more money. This so-called businesslike government with the acumen that it is supposed to have to be able to tally and balance books and make money.... They referred to the Dease Lake extension. Oh, the Attorney-General has left, you say. Oh, I thought he'd stay here and say a few nice things bout the Premier, but I guess he's got pressing matters. I'm sorry he's gone, because I wanted to sort of brush up his memory a little bit on the Dease Lake extension. Why, who was it that signed for the Dease Lake extension? Who was it? Dave Barrett? No. You would have been left with that impression. All of those contracts were signed by W.A.C. Bennett's government, Mr. Speaker. Wasn't there just a court case concluded about those contracts? Oh, you would have thought that the Attorney-General would have known about that; he's the chief law officer. Yes, there was a court case concluded. What happened? Eight million dollars of taxpayers' money went to pay off the contracts. Why? Because there was fraud involved in those contracts. Who signed those contracts? A Social Credit government. Who was involved in the fraud? A Social Credit government. Who has to pay for that fraud? The taxpayers of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

You say that we haven't said a single thing about waste of money — baccalaurean feasts in mid-air, heroin treatment money poured down the drain, the Marguerite flip-flop, the Dease Lake extension fraud case, and now we come to coal royalties. Oh, what do coal royalties mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that when this great province is developed and things are booming, what you do is you make some money off the non-renewable resources. It's not like the budget we have now, Mr. Speaker, where we have a confusing economic phenomenon. We're told that the economy is booming and that's the reason we have to raise taxes, because the more it booms, the more we have to pay out of the public purse to the private developers to keep it booming. That's the kind of logic we've been given. If it's booming that means we should be having tax reductions, not tax increases. This is the kind of perverse logic that the Attorney-General talks about as being consistent in budgeting.

Everybody knows the coal royalty story. It was 25 cents a tonne when we came to power. We moved it up to 50 cents, then to a dollar, then to $1.50. Listen to this, every British Columbia taxpayer: in the fall of 1975 the coal companies were told that the royalty would be going up in April 1976 from $1.50 to $2.50. I want to talk about fair taxation. So when you go and pay that extra 8 cents a gallon of gas, that 6 percent sales tax and a little bit more on booze, understand how the Socreds pick out who is getting taxed. The coal royalties were to go up to $2.50 in April 1976. Social Credit was elected in December 1975. Those royalties were never raised. Five years have gone by now. Oh, we have that cockamamey little formula that the minister tries to disguise as equal to the same amount. That's nonsense. Alberta now charges $9 a tonne.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's a lie.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you ask him not to say that that's a lie? Alberta charges $9 a tonne for some of its coal.

Mr. Speaker, it was to go up to $2.50 in April 1976. Since that time a minimum of 50 million tonnes of coal have left British Columbia. The royalty has not gone up. If we had just collected that extra dollar we would have 50 million more right now for the taxpayers of British Columbia. You subsidized coal for Kaiser. Then Kaiser came along, creamed BCRIC and walked off with all that money. You make us the biggest laughingstocks in the North American economic market. The minister tries to go and borrow money. He talks about an triple-A rating. We've got to pay $70 million a year just to meet the interest on the debt on B.C. Rail. The Minister of Finance is the fiscal agent for B.C. Rail. They went out to try to float a loan for $1.5 million. No one would take it. Why?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not correct.

MR. BARRETT: One hundred million dollars? Not correct. No, okay, Wood Gundy are fibbers. There was no float of the loan; there was no attempt by the fiscal agent to get that money; it's all wrong. Is that right?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's correct.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, thank you very much. All the reporters who have talked to Wood Gundy, anybody who's seen those documents, you're all wrong. Everybody's wrong. The Minister of Finance is right.

MR. BARBER: He was right on the Marguerite. He said that was a floating coffin.

MR. BARRETT: He said that was a floating coffin too?

MR. BARBER: Oh, yes.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he'll never go on it.

The Minister of Finance tells us he's going to have all these taxes from the people. We go through the whole list.... We want more examples of waste of money. I've thought of another one. But I didn't want to throw it up to the Socreds because it was one of the former Liberals who came up with this dandy. One million dollars, was it not, for the

[ Page 4526 ]

study of a tunnel between Vancouver Island and — one hundred thousand for the tunnel....

MR. BARBER: He wanted a million.

MR. BARRETT: He wanted a million and got a hundred thousand, is that it? A hundred thousand for a bunker between here and Vancouver. The only minister who can get away with that is the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He gets away with it because the Premier's still scared of him. He's the one Liberal that's got a safe haven to go to in case he wants to dump. The other guy jumped and went to a radio station. Remember that? And do you remember the filial love we saw on television when old Rafe left? Do you remember that? We saw the Premier with his arm around him saying: "I'm sorry to see you go, Rafe." He said it with the biggest grin we've seen on the Premier's face for eight months. We all knew what the game was. One less threat down the tube. But there's still another guy who's got some clout and that's the guy from outer space, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. "I want money to investigate building a tunnel." "How much do you need, Dr. Pat?" Because doctor has got the clout, they gave him 100 grand to go underwater. I'd give him 100 grand if he'd stay there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd survive.

MR. BARRETT: These guys have never run out of ideas on how to waste money. Then, of course, there's my good friend, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who talks about opening access to the right to bid on government contracts or proposals. You're the free enterprisers over there. Here we've got a situation through you where, lo and behold, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) announces B.C. Hydro's going to build a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island without any public hearing.

A prominent businessman in British Columbia says that his company has been blackballed. Do you think that's said in a vacuum, Mr. Speaker? Do you think that Toronto, New York, London and Tokyo don't read that a prominent, respected businessman hasn't said about the government of British Columbia, led by so-called businessmen, that they were blackballed because they weren't even allowed a public hearing to present their case? Do you want investors from outside? Is that what you believe in? Do you want people to come to British Columbia and compete for jobs that would build up the economy? Then you'd better have a public inquiry on a very serious charge, Mr. Speaker. I don't think Mr. Phillips' words can be left up in the air. If a prominent businessman in this province says he's been blackballed by a minister, that is not a frivolous charge by some rural taxpayer out of Kelowna that's not a frivolous charge by some backbencher who's looking for a chance to get into the cabinet. We're talking about a serious statement by a prominent British Columbian, Mr. Phillips, saying that he's been blackballed. There hasn't been a peep of defence of the Minister of Energy from the Premier.

You tell me, Mr. Premier, when you get a chance to speak in this debate, what you will tell the people in New York, Toronto, Tokyo and London when you take your next trip, and they ask you: "What about Mr. Phillips' statement that he was blackballed by your government? Is that how you treat businessmen who want to make a proposal? Is that how you treat people in business who want to put proposals to the government?" What about your own legislation, which is much to the confusion of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)? We didn't vote for it; he voted for it. He's been attacking it ever since, but he voted for it. The whole procedure through your energy commission....

Phillips said that he got blackballed. Oh, I guess he was treated fairly, considering Social Credit practice. But what do you tell businessmen about that? I'd like to know. I'd like to know what businessmen are going to get as an answer, when they're asked if they have fair access to the possibility of markets for projects through public hearings.

More money they've wasted. Well, of course, the major amount of waste that's going to come up....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the make-up job?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there was one time we spent $900 for a pancake make-up job for the one and only provincial report of the state of the province by the Premier. Do you remember that? That was the make-up job on the way in. What was it they brought in? Not like Clark; he didn't bring in his own hairdresser. But they brought in a make-up job, and he tripped over a reporter's feet on the way to the microphone, and we've never had a report to the province since. Do you remember those shows?

But we've got other wastes of money. The Minister of Municipal Affairs takes a half-hour on television.

MR. BARBER: Sixteen thousand dollars.

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad it was spent after the children went to bed. It was past my bedtime too. I've got to get a lot of sleep to keep up with the twisting and turning of this government, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It wasn't intended for children.

MR. BARRETT: It wasn't intended for children? Then why did you speak in the way you did?

Mr. Speaker, we come to the latest money giveaway: the northeast coal deal. He came off the train in the middle of the night, when the rain was coming down, and he jumped on the railroad platform and he said: "It's wonderful. It's marvellous. Gee, golly, here it is, the biggest giveaway in B.C.'s history, and I'm going to be responsible for it." It's go, go, go. How do you say "go, go, go" in Japanese, Mr. Speaker? Considering their history, it's "gone, gone, gone" again. What a most asinine series of statements then began to emanate from the the minister and the Premier about this deal. First of all, we're not going to lose any money. Then, when Phillips was questioned — and I quote a newspaper article — they said: "The original contracts of 7.7 million tonnes won't pay back on the investment." He said: "That's right. All we need to do is sell another 11 million tonnes." Got it up your sleeve, going to announce it today? Well, the minister said that all we've got to do is sell another 11 million tonnes.

I noticed in the paper just two days ago a little clipping which says a team is leaving from Alberta, British Columbia and Ottawa to go down and talk to the Australians about potential markets and how they can expand. Because they're

[ Page 4527 ]

getting a little worried; the markets aren't there. Oh, is the minister of economic development going on the team? Not on your life. He's looking for 11 million more tonnes to sell before it becomes viable. Why doesn't he stand up and tell us the truth? How much is B.C. Rail going to lose on carrying that coal? Tell us where the railcars are going to be built, so that coal can be carried after they close down Railwest. Tell us how many years the coal companies will go before they pay any taxes. Say that the reports from the engineers in your own department are all wrong, that those timetables can be met and that deliveries will be made in 1983. Tell us, too, who will pay a penalty, which the Japanese have spoken about publicly, if the coal is not delivered on schedule in 1983. Will it be the coal companies, or will it be the taxpayers? I don't intend to spend any more time on the coal deal, other than to raise it again as an area that the Attorney-General was concerned about in asking where to cut taxes.

Before I review that and take my place, I want to tell you that this amendment deserves support — if for no other reason — because of the reasons advanced by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour when he spoke to the budget. Will he vote against this? Well, I don't know. There's a current little corridor story going around about the two members who sit down there — the two protesters to Social Credit government, the nothin' brothers. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) doesn't know nothin' and the member for Vancouver-Seymour doesn't do nothin'.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that good debate requires moderate and temperate language.

MR. BARRETT: I've used the most moderate of language today, To say that a member, in my opinion. doesn't know nothin' and that the other one doesn't do nothin'.... If that's forbidden in this chamber, then that eliminates 90 percent of the members.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we do not allow personal attack in the chamber. Therefore, if the member wishes to talk about know-nothing parties that's fine, but we cannot impute improper motives.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that party is made up of a couple of members, one of whom don't know nothin' and the other don't do nothin'. How's that? I've said it, and it's over.

The point is, when the vote comes and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour gets up it will be interesting to see how he's going to vote. There's so much more to say about a list of things — where money can be saved; where money's been wasted.

Let me quickly wrap it up by repeating.... The Attorney-General wanted a list, I scratched out a list for him and then he left the chamber. I repeat: the BCRIC-Kaiser subsidy give us the money back....

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. It will take more than three minutes to get the money, but I'll give you the list.

Give us back the money you spent on that private company with a welfare subsidy, with your name on it — the BCRIC money. Give us back the $14 million that you blew on a heroin treatment program that no one in the professional world supported. Give us the money that you squandered on the Marguerite with false stories about it being unsafe. Give us the money that has not been collected from the coal companies, that Kaiser himself has walked away with in terms of cash value — hundreds of millions of dollars that they didn't pay as part of the asset. Give us 100 grand back for the underwater tunnel study and save yourself some embarrassment before he spends any money on scuba divers. Give us the money back on the northeast coal studies that you're ignoring. You know, Mr. Speaker, last but not least, set an example in these tough times of increased taxes. Promise us that you will not go on any more of the baccalaurean travelling feasts that you've been having, all over the world so that we can begin to understand and believe that this government is concerned about the taxpayers. You don't give a fig.

Last but not least, please give the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) a pass on Air Canada and save us those hundreds of trips of his back and forth on government aircraft every single day that adds up to hundreds of trips. I know he's important as the part of the intelligentia, the wing that really influences the policy of that cabinet. If you need him here that badly, give him a pass on Air Canada. Hundreds of trips a year on government aircraft, and you're telling people to pay another 8 cents a gallon of gas, up with the booze and up with every other cost. It does stink, Mr. Speaker — "stink" is the mildest word that I can think of. Cut taxes by showing an example to the people of this province. Show them you're going to stop squandering their money with your around-the-world trips and your day-to-day commuting on government aircraft.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, with the limited time left I would like to keep my remarks in context. So that the NDP can end on a low note from their leader, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.