[ Page 4571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 4571

Mr. Passarell –– 4573

Mr. Ritchie –– 4574

Mr. Nicolson –– 4576

Mr. Lorimer –– 4580

Motion 16.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4584

Mr. Howard –– 4584

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4584

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, yesterday as we concluded the debate for the day I spent some time speaking about the benefits to flow to British Columbia as a result of this government's investment on behalf of the people in the development of a tremendous resource-rich area covering about 10,000 square miles. We believe that the benefits flowing from northeast coal development will not only benefit people in that area but reach through all sectors of British Columbia, and Canada for that matter, and create tremendous industrial development throughout the country. The negative socialists opposite, of course, are always afraid to take any initiative. They don't have enough faith in the people or the resources of British Columbia to push ahead to develop things which people need.

The development of that northeast coal is going to provide some tremendous opportunities for the young people of this province to be gainfully employed in a number of vocations and professions, and help us to develop another frontier in our province. Some of the members opposite are complaining that we're having B.C. Rail build an extension of their railway into the coal-producing area, saying: "You shut down the Dease Lake extension a few years ago: why are you doing this?" Well, that party, when they were government, had no qualms whatsoever about continuing the extension of a railway when, in fact, they had eliminated the very reason for that railway to be extended. By the very onerous mining legislation of their period in government they killed the need for the railway, and then continued to build it in any event. We will be building a railway into an area where there is a very well assured freight commodity of coal. It will open up some other tremendous resources as well.

The budget that our Minister of Finance has brought in is a budget which pays for today's services today and which provides for tremendous investments to assure our future.

The socialists will complain that we are increasing our gasoline tax. They have complained that it is an onerous tax, even though we are making provision for refunding of taxes to those people who can least afford them. But at the same time as the socialists are saying that we shouldn't increase our gasoline tax in British Columbia to provide services for the people of British Columbia, they are in bed with the Liberal government which is increasing taxes in Canada so that funds can be exported to Saudi Arabia, Mexico and many oil-producing countries. It is of no concern to them that our Canadian tax dollars are being used to subsidize high-priced oil imports which come into this country as the dollars go out.

That party opposite is demanding that we increase services and the cost of government in various areas and, at the same time, not increase taxes. If you increase services, or even maintain them, without increasing taxes as the costs of services increase, there is only one possible answer. That answer, of course, is deficit financing — paying for today's services tomorrow — and leaving that tax bill to future generations of British Columbians. That's the way their partners in Ottawa operate — deficit financing, providing services today and putting off the bill until tomorrow. Well, if governments continued on that slippery path, at some point in time all of the tax revenue that could be collected in this country would be going to pay for past services, and there would be no revenue to pay for today's services.

As our friend John Crosbie mentioned in the House of Commons a few days ago, the red rump of the Liberal Party, the NDP, is bent on bankrupting our country through deficit financing — buying votes today and not making the people of Canada realize that every dollar that government spends has to be collected. They would just as soon collect them tomorrow and reap the political benefits of those expenditures today.

The amendment to our budget debate, which was concluded yesterday, said that this was an expedient budget. Yes, it is expedient. It's those things which should be done — the right things. The things that are not politically expedient for political expediency would mean that we would not pay for today's services today but would pay for them at some future time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I see we're having a bit of chatter from our brilliant member from the north part of our province. As usual, he has nothing to say when he stands in his place and continues to chatter across the floor in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I remember a couple of days ago when the Premier was speaking on the amendment, and he was remarking on the lack of colleges in the interior of British Columbia when he was younger. There was a lack of that type of community service for people in the interior. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) shouted across the floor: "It's a pity you didn't attend college." Now, that is typical of the attitudes of those members. They profess that they're all for the working man, and yet that member for Vancouver Centre, who is seldom in this Legislature, sneers down his nose at someone who didn't go to college and doesn't chase ambulances for a living. The Premier has produced in this province and is running the best government that we've ever had in this province. The type of people whom I have the greatest respect for are those who go out and create and cause things to happen either in the business community or in the trades and the professions that produce. I have no more respect for any one in this world than I have for good, honest, hard-working tradesmen. The mechanics, machinists, electricians, pipefitters and the people who put together the industrial machinery are the people who make this province go, and members opposite, such as the member for Vancouver Centre, sneer down their noses because somebody didn't go to college. It's shocking!

As a part of the building of our resources, many members have talked extensively about the northeast coal. Members on this side have done so in a very positive manner, knowing what benefits will flow to British Columbia as a result of this resource development. Of course, the members opposite have done so in their true negative socialist approach saying that it can't help the people of British Columbia, that it would be of no benefit and that it will cost us money. I'd like to talk for a few moments about another investment that is being made in the future of British Columbia, and that is the moneys which are allocated through the Minister of Finance

[ Page 4572 ]

to my ministry to invest in our forest resource in British Columbia. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) stood up yesterday and said: "Those members don't talk about their ministries' programs or their ministries' budgets." He berated us for addressing things which are of general importance to the people of British Columbia. But let me address just for a few moments some of the things that will be happening and have happened in my ministry as a part of our investment in the future of this province.

A few days ago I introduced our second five-year management program into the Legislature, which has been approved and endorsed by the government. This program is the second of annually required five-year management programs. Last year we indicated to the people of British Columbia in this program that we would be spending over the next five years, starting then, about $1.4 billion in investments in the forest resource. I'm very happy that this year we have raised our sights and for the next five-year period we have increased our objectives rather dramatically, and our investment in the forest resource — through my budget expenditures directly, through our section 88 investments via the industry, and through moneys provided through our Forest and Range Resource Fund — has been increased again very substantially up to $1.8 billion over the next five-year period.

This will mean that during that period of time we will increase our capability of producing plantable seedlings in this province from a level this year of about 97 million seedling nursery capacity to 150 million plantable seedlings by the year 1985-86. This last year, Mr. Speaker, we planted for the first time ever 75 million seedlings in this province and within five years we will have doubled that capacity through the cooperation of my ministry, the government and the private sector in British Columbia.

We will be increasing the area that we plant in backlog reforestation — areas which have not satisfactorily restocked through natural means — from over 8,000 to over 41,000 hectares a year. We will be fertilizing by that time about 40,000 hectares of forest land every year, as compared to our plan this year of about 16,000. We'll be increasing our thinning, our spacing, our fertilization, our planting — all of those things which make our forests produce more fibre for our tremendous forest industry in British Columbia. That is an investment in the future, one that is recognized as necessary by our government.

I know the forestry critic in the NDP, the socialist party opposite, will stand up and say: "Why aren't you doing more? Why aren't you spending more money? Why aren't you expanding at a more rapid rate?" We are expanding at the rate at which money can be effectively spent and invested in a forest resource. I always smile when he stands up and says that, because nothing was done for the management or future of that resource while his government was in office and had responsibility for it. Yet he stands up each day that he has an opportunity and says: "You're not doing enough; you should be doing more and more." Yes, we will be doing more, but we'll be doing more as we develop the capability and the knowledge of our forests so that we can do it effectively.

Every cubic metre of wood that is harvested in British Columbia provides exports valued at $70, labour income of about $30 and about $9 in direct government revenue, and, of course, it is responsible for the generation of about half our total government because of the activity in that industry. Our harvesting program over the next five years, which will be paid for by moneys allocated to my ministry, including this year's budget, will maintain a level of harvesting of about what we've had in past years. It will maintain our ranching industry, our forage production and the number of cattle we can graze at about the level we have now, with modest increases as we invest more money in that range resource. But the real thrust of what we're doing is in the programs for silviculture, for the ongoing and intensive management of that forest resource over the next five years. As I've said, this will amount to $1.8 billion of investment in our future. I know that we'll have an opportunity during my estimates to discuss, at great length, our program and the things that have been and will be happening, and I sincerely hope that we'll have some meaningful discussion about resource management in B.C.

As an incidental benefit to all this investment in the forest resource.... I don't think that many people in this Legislature realize that as we invest in this forest resource we're creating a tremendous number of jobs each year as we do that forest management work. By the year 1985-86 we will have increased our level of employment in the forestry industry — not the forest-harvesting industry — to about 4,000 people. There will be the equivalent of 4,000 people employed full-time in forest management. That in itself is a tremendous benefit to the people of British Columbia.

Our budget, which I am very happy and proud to support, is a realistic budget. It pays for today's expenses today; it doesn't leave a debt for our children in the future. Not only does it pay for today's expenses today, but it provides for tremendous investment in the future so that our economy will continue to grow and expand as people move to this province as they recognize the opportunities here. I am proud that our government is able to do that. I am proud to be a British Columbian.

I am sure we all agree that this is the most attractive part of Canada to live in. There are more opportunities here for people. There are more recreational opportunities in British Columbia. The scenic beauty of this province cannot be matched anywhere in the world. Our major industries of mining, forestry and tourism provide tremendous opportunities for employment and for businessmen, for our elderly and our young people. But it only does that because we have managed the affairs of British Columbia in such a way that we can afford to make those investments for the future and we can afford to pay for today's services today.

If you had it any other way you would be running up the type of debt that is taking place right now in the province of Quebec, where in an election year they have chosen not to pay as they go, not to be realistic with the people of their province. They are running a deficit which, if translated into an equivalent budget in British Columbia, would mean that we in this province would be running a $1 billion deficit. If we ran a $1 billion deficit in British Columbia for three, four or five years, our deficit would soon begin to amount to our total provincial budget. Socialists perhaps believe that is the way to go: spend today to gain votes and favour with the people, and don't let them know that those bills have to be paid. That's not the way our government operates, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased and happy to support our Minister of Finance and the very realistic budget that he has brought forward. As I have said, it is a budget that pays for today today and provides investment for the future, so that the young people growing up in British Columbia today can look forward with confidence to having employment and business

[ Page 4573 ]

opportunities as they enter the workforce and the adult world. Anyone who is at all realistic about what is happening in North America and British Columbia must support this budget. I think it would be a shame if people stand in this place and vote against it, suggesting, perhaps, that we increase services and reduce taxes and thus leave a legacy of debt repayment for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I will support this budget.

MR. PASSARELL: A happy St. Patrick's Day to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this government has shown a total disrespect for the residents of this province with this punitive budget that was brought down a few weeks ago. We've heard the criticism from the opposite side concerning what cuts this party would make. A good example to start off with would be the use of government aircraft by Crown ministers.

Millions of dollars are going to pay Crown ministers to fly around this province. The amount from the last tabling of the logs was 1,389 flights a year. It appears this government doesn't need a light rapid transit system; it's already got one in the commuter system of government aircraft shuttling back and forth from Vancouver to Victoria daily for some cabinet ministers. This is one of the most expensive light rapid transit systems — and it's for 200 people in the province, when you start taking into account cabinet ministers and their assistants flying back and forth from Victoria to Vancouver to be sure they hit dinner in the evening, as well as making the bingo meetings in the evening. If you want to cut spending, cut down on some of the cabinet ministers flying back and forth daily.

Second is the government's use of commercial aircraft to fly around the world. It would be a good example to start cutting back on flights over to Asia at $100,000 a trip. It costs $100,000 to fly over to Asia to visit four or five countries.

MR. BARNES: What does it cost to go home for dinner by jet?

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, it costs about $200 to $300 a night to go home for dinner over in Vancouver.

We also see hydro increases. Last year they were $704 million; this year, $950 million. Why is that? Is it because of the Stikine-Iskut dam system that this government wants to put in at $7.6 billion, which is a total waste of money? It will cost $7.6 billion for the entire complex of the Stikine-Iskut. Just a few weeks ago this government was denied the access roads into the dam by the Lands department. This was a victory for many northern residents who are opposed to the building of this dam, which would flood the Grand Canyon of Canada simply to sell cheap power. Hydro's debt borrowing right now is approximately $8.3 billion. There has to be a total cutdown on the use of hydro and the total waste of money that it's going through. We've seen another example of the waste of money in Hydro in the awarding of the contract for the gas pipeline to them over Westcoast Transmission.

Another topic that I would like to talk about is Amax. Never has a government been so callous and short-sighted in using backroom politics as it has been with the Amax issue by awarding two special permits to allow Amax to dump 100 million tonnes of toxic mine waste into an area of the ocean where the Nishga fish for food. It has shown a definite lack of concern for the Nishga livelihoods and for the other coastal communities in that area who use the fish from Alice Arm–Kitsault for food.

It was interesting to note that Amax has received an award from President Reagan for being one of the best environmental firms in the western hemisphere. This is a total joke. Giving Amax an award for environmental safety is almost like giving Jack the Ripper the Nobel peace prize. It's shown to be a poor corporate citizen in 16 countries right across the world. It has destroyed land and has had no feeling for the aboriginal people of the area it went into, specifically Australia, and here this government, along with their friends in the federal government who practised backroom politics by giving Amax a permit in 1979 during an election campaign, has allowed it two special permits. It is interesting to note too that the previous member for Atlin has finally come out in the press attacking his own government over the Amax issue.

Another issue is the sales tax increase. We see that gasoline tax is going up by 42 percent, sales tax by 50 percent and hotel tax by 20 percent. All in all this is causing deep concern for many residents across this province. Bruce Pepper, president of the Vancouver Board of Trade, stated in the Province newspaper: "B.C. is one of the few places where a hotel tax is charged and also increased. It can only be considered a further detriment to tourism." We'll find out what effect it will have on the tourist trade in the north when people have to start paying an additional 42 percent for gas and 20 percent for hotel taxes. Also, we found that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who is not in the House right now, has put out a very poor brochure on the north, and I've contacted the hon. minister to correct the brochure.

The other day the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) stood in his place and said that the north subsidizes the south. I wonder if it's a subsidization for B.C. Place. What he forgot to state is that very little comes back to the north. We looked at Dease Lake, a community of 400 people who still have no medical facility in this province. For two years I've been asking the government to put in some type of a trailer, at a cost of $15,000 so that the people in Dease Lake can have some type of facility to go to if they're hurt. The callous approach by this government has been to totally ignore the people of Dease Lake. They talk about financing Stikine-Iskut projects at $7.6 billion, coal deals at billions of dollars, but they can't find $15,000 so an isolated community like Dease Lake can have a medical trailer facility.

Another group this budget has ignored is the public health nurses. Last year the community of Cassiar had a full-time public health nurse who worked in a trailer. Then the government went and built a new government building in Cassiar which many people are pleased with, including myself, and I congratulate the government for building the new facility. But what's happened since then is that Cassiar now only has a public health nurse for four days a week in the new building. When she was in an old trailer she was there all month. Now she's got a new building and they've cut back her time to four days. This definitely has to be changed. There's a total need for public health nurses right across the north. The rural health corps also wasn't mentioned in the budget speech. There was a big hoopla about it in the throne speech, but since then we've heard nothing concerning the rural health corps. It almost seems that this is another public relations gimmick.

There is a definite need for full-time public health nurses in the Atlin constituency as well as in the Peace constituency, and right through the north.

Mr. Ken Bell, who is the editor of the business section in one of the Vancouver newspapers, stated that personal in-

[ Page 4574 ]

come tax is expected to go up a healthy 15.9 percent, rising to $1.578 billion. I haven't heard too many government members stand up and say this is going to encourage northern residents who, besides having to pay the additional sales tax, fuel taxes and hotel taxes, are now finding their personal income taxes are going up 15.9 percent. We've seen that in the last year ICBC rates in the north have increased over 60 percent, and at the same time ICBC rates go up we still have to content ourselves with very poor highways up in the Atlin constituency.

The British Columbia corporate tax is now the highest in Canada. I wonder what kind of incentive this is going to be for development in the north.

All in all, British Columbians will have to pay 35.5 percent more this year in the way of personal, corporate, sales and fuel taxes. It seems that it's simply to finance the northeast coal scam. In a sense it appears that the people of this province are going to have to bankrupt themselves to pay off the Japanese steel companies through this coal deal. If this isn't the case I certainly hope that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will stand in his place and table all the documents and agreements, so the public of this province can see exactly what this government has gotten us into with this coal deal.

I certainly would like some answers to some of these questions. Specifically, why can't the government cut back on their 1,389 flights a year on the government aircraft? The millions of dollars that are wasted on that seem a little excessive. Also, why can't the residents of Dease Lake get a medical facility for 400 people who are isolated, while this government is talking about surpluses?

MR. RITCHIE: The previous member talked about a waste of money by this government. I would suggest that after having listened to their performance and watched the interest, attention and attendance of the opposition members, that they have to be the greatest waste of money in this province. The member condemns promoting trade, and I wonder just where exactly we would be in this world if we stopped promoting trade. I think it's about time they broadened their views, started to think in terms other than socialistic approaches to looking after the affairs of the province and providing the necessary programs that we wish to provide. I would like to refer them to the article that appeared, just recently, in the Globe and Mail. The article says:

"British Columbia's Social Credit government certainly has the courage of its convictions. Unlike most Canadian governments it has balanced budgets and, to continue this record, Finance minister Hugh Curtis has, among other things, raised the provincial sales tax from 4 percent to 6 percent — still 1 percent lower than Ontario's — and will spend $26 million to retire more of the debt piled up by the New Democrats while they were briefly in power.

"At the same time there will be new income tax credits for 40 percent of B.C. families, a drop in tax for small businesses, tax benefits for people who buy fuel-efficient cars, and big investments in new coalfields that will provide many jobs. A government that is not spending huge parts of its revenues to pay interest on its public debt can afford to create jobs."

As back-bench members, we've been taunted for not getting up to speak. We have been accused of not being able to read. We've been accused of not understanding balance sheets. I can sum that up by merely saying that there is absolutely no substitute for truth, integrity or plain common sense.

I would like at this moment to just do a little reminiscing and possibly go over some of the records of the NDP. I'd like to compare the 1975 budget with that for 1981. It shows that people programs, especially in Health, were less of a priority in the NDP government than they are in the current government — by far. The NDP Health budget in 1975 was $712 million or 22 percent of the budget. The Health budget in 1981 is $1,975 million, almost three times the NDP budget and 30 percent of the provincial budget. The budget in 1975 for people programs in general was $2,309 million or 68 percent of the total. The budget for people programs in 1981 is $4,795 million or 72 percent of the total, and more than double the NDP budget.

Economic programs have taken 16 percent of the budgets of both governments. I'd like to emphasize that, because it seems to me that the greatest criticism our government is getting is that we are spending too much money in areas other than people programs. I consider that to be hypocritical and nothing else.

Aid to local government in 1975 totalled $147 million or 4.3 percent of the budget. Aid to local government in 1981 is $383 million or 5.8 percent of the budget.

Then, of course, we have the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who said that the NDP are proud of not building monuments. He said that they didn't leave us monuments. Well, I have a few monuments I'd like to talk about. The ombudsman — they didn't leave that. They promised it, but they didn't leave it. They promised an auditor-general but they didn't leave that. A natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island — they promised it, but they didn't do anything about it. Denticare was promised, and nothing was done. Aid to independent schools, a massive five-year reforestation program — nothing done by them. Apprenticeship training — nothing done. Crown land for agriculture — nothing done. A balanced budget — impossible under their administration. A triple-A credit rating, a moratorium on uranium exploration — nothing done. The Knowledge Network of the West, Discovery Parks. No, they didn't leave very many monuments of that type.

I'm going to talk about a few monuments they did leave. The first one I have here is the $180 million ICBC debt. That is a monument that they left, but no $25 car insurance. We were promised $25 car insurance; the folks of British Columbia were promised that. What did they get? They got a $180 million debt.

Then, of course, we have the $261 million budget debt of Dunhill Development Corporation, but no mortgage program.

How about Tilbury Island's 700 acres of class 1 agricultural land?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Our agricultural expert over there, who is so proud and so confident in the way he attacks this government on our administration of the whole question of the preservation of agricultural land.... You don't talk about that monument, Mr. Member. That was 700 acres of land that was not class 2, 3, 4, 5, but class 1 land. That was a monument left by the NDP.

[ Page 4575 ]

Then we have another monument. Unfortunately, I have to look at it almost every day when I am at home. It is known as the Stirling farm. Here is another farm with prime agricultural land. They wanted out of the reserve, but the NDP said: "No, we can't do that, but we'll tell you what we will do. We'll let you build houses on it anyway, if that will keep you happy." Today we have the oldest, finest farm in Matsqui Prairie that has been built on but is still within the ALR. Now who is kidding whom here? What is it you're trying to do — control people on the land, or preserve our ability to feed ourselves? I think you should get off your high horse, smarten up and realize what we're really intending to do. You don't preserve agricultural land just because you have it in the reserve, and especially if you build houses on it.

Emigration is another monument. People were leaving this province at a terrific rate. We didn't have any real problems with housing then. We had a totally demoralized mining industry because of the foolish royalty formula. In 1975, 1,000,865 man-days were lost through strikes and lockouts. That's four times the 1980 figure. Then, of course, we have that member for Vancouver Centre who told his people that he cannot agree with free collective bargaining. That's true. It has been recorded by one of our major newspapers.

How about this other monument? Railwest rolling stock — an $8 million blunder. Then we have the other monuments, known as Can-Cel, Plateau Mills, Panco Poultry, Kootenay Forest Products, Ocean Falls Corporation, Swan Valley Foods, Imperial Tours, and B.C. Parlour Car Tours. These are the entries that the NDP government made into the private sector in order to generate the funds that they're going to need to pay for these massive programs that we must provide for our people. And you're going to be able to do it with such things as Panco Poultry and B.C. Parlour Car Tours?

Then, of course, there were the natural gas contracts with no take-or-pay clause, costing British Columbia millions of dollars.

We could also talk about monuments that they would have left, had they been left in power: loss of provincial revenue from energy resources, in exchange for nationalization by Ottawa. That's a very frightening situation indeed, as we see what is happening throughout Canada today under the federal government. We would have ended up with second-class status in Confederation under Broadbent's deal with Trudeau on the amending formula. Who is supporting Trudeau? Well, Broadbent is supporting Trudeau.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Trubent and Broadeau, he says.

Broadbent is supporting Trudeau. The NDP federal caucus is supporting Trudeau. And the B.C. NDP caucus, as the records will show from our debate and our vote in December, is also supporting Trudeau. It's frightening indeed.

But then there is hope as I go down the list of those who are opposed to Mr. Trudeau. We have the Saskatchewan NDP government, Lorne Nystrom and three NDP Members of Parliament from Saskatchewan, Grant Notley of the Alberta NDP, the Quebec NDP, the Manitoba NDP, and the thing that gives me greatest hope of all: the rank and file of the B.C. NDP — according to Yvonne Cocke, who has been getting calls almost three to one against Broadbent. That gives me a great deal of hope that things will come out as they should.

We talk about monuments. This is an area where I find it very difficult to really comprehend or understand what on earth they have in mind, because I have heard nothing but criticism with respect to the proposed trade and convention centre and hotel — all the terrible damage it is going to do to the scenery and to the views, and all the rest of it. Then we hear of a massive development going to take place in Nanaimo, apparently, under the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. How hypocritical can you get? You are saying: "No, don't do it. Don't do as we do, do as we say." I think that is something we are going to learn a great deal more about as time goes on, because as I look at it I find it gets more interesting. To think that the socialist party of this province is now saying: "It’s all right for us to do in Nanaimo what we don't want you to do in Vancouver, because this is going to generate funds for us. We're going to build ourselves a monument here that will have rooms that are going to cost a great deal more than the average working man can afford." I'm wondering if the average working person, if they decide they'll have their conventions in Nanaimo, will be able to afford the rooms that are going to be provided by the socialist party there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I doubt it.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes. I doubt it too. I don't think they will. In any case, we're going to be taking a pretty close look at it, and as I look at it I find it more interesting, day by day. They talk about low-cost housing. The member for Vancouver Centre talked about the poor children, the sick, the handicapped and the unemployed, while in the meantime they're promoting the pack-rats to provide the funds that will enable them to build a monument to the socialist party of British Columbia that's going to be so rich, so costly and so dominating in that whole area that the average person, the average working man, will not be able to benefit from it.

Then, of course, the other monument that we could have had was the bank known in the past as Barrett's bank, B.C. Savings and Trust. I can just imagine what would have happened there, Mr. Speaker, had that been allowed to go ahead, because my experience with the opposition party tells me that they were prepared to go in and undercut, as they did in Panco Poultry when they went in and overbid local producers in order to acquire that facility. They would have done the same thing here as far as the credit unions are concerned and had that been allowed to go ahead, I think it would have spelled the end of credit unions in British Columbia. I can tell you that this government doesn't believe in going that route at all; we believe in strengthening the credit unions of British Columbia. That was demonstrated by the $200 million that this government provided for housing, and we asked the credit unions to look after that and administer it. That's a lot better, Mr. Speaker, than turning around and setting up a government-controlled institute that would have put them out of business without a question or doubt.

Then, of course, the other monument that we could have had would have been brown-outs, because that party over there had absolutely no serious interest in developing new sources of energy for British Columbia. We'd have been in dire trouble today. They're true reactionaries! Then, of course, we had the labour chaos here when they legislated 60,000 workers back to work while two of their members voted against it. We had a complete collapse of economic development — I like to call it lock-jaw development.

[ Page 4576 ]

Yes, remember when Bob Williams pushed Hat Creek, but the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is afraid to talk about it today. He doesn't want Kamloops voters to realize that what the NDP really stand for is: No Damned Progress at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that d-a-m or d-a-m-n?

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I'm not very good at spelling. Like the first member for Vancouver Centre said, I can't even read, so I'm not going to attempt to spell that word.

Mr. Speaker, we also have the first member for Vancouver Centre who stood up and told the students that it's insane to buy stocks. He was predicting depression. Then he tells business that he would tax profits, not production. How hypocritical can you get? He turned right around against the free-collective bargaining process and against his policy in respect to gaining the revenue necessary to pay for the programs of the province, and now he's talking about taxing profits.

Then, of course, there is the question of the independent schools vote. We received the letter distributed by that same member, saying that they would have provided funding for independent schools if they were re-elected.

Of course, they're against the opening of the northeast coal with subsidies, and yet they screamed when a BCR inquiry wanted to cut back its northern extension. Pure opportunism and hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I would like to touch on a comment that was made by another member over there who referred to this party as being involved in coverups. I'd just like to touch on a few coverups that we could consider that party was involved in. The first one is when the Burnaby-Willingdon NDP tried to put up a PC candidate, but when he found out that he was being used, he was through.

I have another matter here. I'm not sure if it would be against the tax laws of our land or not. I have a letter here that I'd like to read a portion of into the record. It was written on April 9, 1979, by Norm Nichols and concerns the campaign funds of a particular member at that time. The body of the letter goes on to say: "The tax credit is allowable for federal contributions only. So to be eligible, cheques must be made payable to the New Democratic Party. Any such contribution will be shared 25 percent to the federal NDP, 15 percent to the provincial NDP and 60 percent to Rosemary's campaign."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that against the law?

MR. RITCHIE: I'm not sure whether that's against the law or not, but it's on record there. It will be interesting to find out if it is.

Then, of course, we have heard this great criticism about the tax on gas today. On February 28, 1975, the NDP imposed a 2-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline. They said the proceeds from this tax would go toward subsidizing transit.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What transit?

MR. RITCHIE: Good question. The government earned an additional $24 million from the gas tax in the fiscal year 1975-1976, but what did they do with this money? It's a big question. Not one cent went to the metropolitan transit subsidy, which stayed at the same $2 million as the year before. I don't know what they did with it. Maybe somebody will stand up and tell us one of these days. The provincial rapid transit subsidy was increased by $114,000 — less than one-half of 1 percent of the revenue earned by the tax increase. I find it very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to have to sit here and listen to all of that nonsense about the bad things that this government is doing and how hard we are on the people.

We also have another item here that I'd like to keep on the record, because I think it is important to do so. I felt this way when I first came into this House. Frankly, I would much prefer it if the opposition would really give us something meaty to get our teeth into in a way of a debate. If they would come up and offer us some alternative or tell us what their platform is and what they really stand for so that we could debate that.... They don't do that. All they do is say: "No, no." Negative, negative, all the time.

It reminds me of a true story, if I may. Just recently I attended a hockey game in a city. During the event I found it necessary to attend the boys' room. There was another fellow standing by in there, and I said to him: "Hi. How are you doing?" He said: "Not bad." So a few seconds later I said: "Well, it's been a beautiful day, eh?" He said: "Not bad, if it weren't for the rain." I said: "But it's not raining; it hasn't rained all day." He said: "No, but they're forecasting rain." So he was feeling very pessimistic about that. It had been a beautiful day, but the forecast said rain.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have anything really meaty to get our teeth into here for a debate, any one of us. You keep taunting the back-bench members for not getting up to speak. We're proud of this budget. We find it hard to get up and debate with people who are offering us nothing to debate on at all. So I have to keep going back to the record to talk about some of the things they did like the board interference with the Egg Marketing Board and the board offering to make private deals with resource companies on their royalties.

Of course, they falsely spread the fear of right-to-work during the 1979 campaign, while at the same time they really lambasted their member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) because he showed respect for other people and welcomed that particular group to his constituency.

I'm going to close by saying that in my opinion this is a common sense budget. It's a budget that not only provides for the programs of today, but it's making sure that there are going to be investments for tomorrow so that we're not going to be asking our children and grandchildren to pay for the benefits that we've already enjoyed. It protects and expands people programs of today. It protects and expands the government's revenue source for the future. It does not place any unfair taxes on future generations. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud, indeed, to support our Minister of Finance on his budget.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to comment on the previous speaker's remarks other than to say that it's probably the most constructive speech he has made in this House to date.

Unlike the previous speaker I will not be supporting this budget, because it is unnecessary in its severity, punitive and discriminatory in terms of the areas where the burden of increased taxation has to fall. From this side we have made many positive contributions in terms of what one might have done. As the member for Nelson-Creston, I would urge the government to recover the funds which are set aside for B.C. Place, the downtown convention centres and such things which all the people of B.C. are being asked to pay for in

[ Page 4577 ]

specified locations of the province. I would suggest that we should take the kind of time and prudence in the planning of northeast coal that was suggested by Mr. Sandy Peel, the deputy minister, in his memorandum, and not rush ahead prematurely by six months into contracts, entanglements and things which are going to be a burden on the people of British Columbia. They are going to make the Columbia River Treaty, of which we are the victims in the Kootenays, look good. I'm going to have a little bit to say about northeast coal and southeast coal.

This budget, in the first place, could have been written by a computer, I suppose, not by a Minister of Finance. It didn't require a government to write this, because the information base for this budget was not the revenues or what would have the least impact on the economy — would a regressive tax slow down the tourist industry, or would a regressive tax do this or that? Do you know how this budget was designed and crafted? Not with an impact study or any kind of economic analysis. This is the least unpopular as designed by Mr. Martin Goldfarb of Toronto — project number 807104 of the Canadian Polling Institute, as it's more properly known. This poll was sent out around December and was rushed to be submitted to the government in January. This is how the budget was designed. Not how can we get the province moving — how, if there really is a downturn in revenues as the government claims, can we best adjust for that, but by just going out and sampling opinion, saying:

"Which do you think is the most unpopular tax in British Columbia today — income tax, sales tax, local property tax, tax on liquor, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, gasoline or other? Think for a moment of all the various types of taxes you pay. If you could reduce taxes in one area and increase them in another, which of the following taxes would be the ones you would reduce and which ones would you increase?" Same list. "Please tell me whether you think each of the following groups does or does not carry their fair share of the tax burden in British Columbia and who do you think is carrying more than their fair share?"

Then they talk about the property owner, non-property owner, upper income earner, middle income earner, lower, middle, small business, professional people — the engineers, doctors and lawyers; let's get them — mining industry, forest industry, farmers, tourism industry. We can start to see then what happened in this particular budget and how it came out as such a hodgepodge.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They test the water in terms of so-called balance billing or overbilling by doctors in the medical profession: "Do you think that the provincial government should permit or prohibit this practice?" This was last December and January. They say:

"Suppose the provincial government has to raise taxes substantially next year. Using the numbers 1 through 16 I'd like you to rank these different taxation alternatives from most to least desirable. Put 1 next to the alternative you favour most and 2 next to the alternative you favour second most, and so on."

Of course, it included all of the various kinds of things such as a tax on soft drinks, entertainment, luxury goods, restaurant meals over $10, on books and magazines, increased health care and hospitalization premiums, elimination of the subsidy for residents on natural gas, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, we see that the government has designed this budget not through careful economic planning, not through supply-side economics, not through Friedman or Keynes or any other kind of economics, but simply by pure Goldfarb-polling and collecting a very random sample of opinion and looking at what is the most politically expedient way of solving the problem, not that which will be the best way.

It also indicates, of course, that the government might be having some second thoughts. It says there has been talk about building a light rapid transit system, or LRT system, in the greater Vancouver area. It would be an above-ground rapid rail transit for commuters. "Do you think Vancouver needs such a system or service?" "Which of the following best describes how you feel about building LRT?" And so on.

What I find rather interesting is question 6(a): "There has been some talk about building a trade and convention centre in Vancouver." That's a little bit of an understatement. "Do you think this would be a good idea or not?" Note that we are talking about a Vancouver trade centre, not a Victoria convention centre.

"If a trade and convention centre is to be built in Vancouver, what proportion or percentage of the financing do you think each of the following should contribute: the city of Vancouver, the provincial government, the federal government?"

It is not really fair, Mr. Speaker. We don't give the people a crash course in how the government has shifted the onus of taxation onto local government, and in how their ability to pay has been diminished, particularly by the combined effect of increasing the statutory mill-rate levy for school purposes, which has to be raised at the local level, and increasing assessments at skyrocketing rates.

"Have you ever heard anything about a proposed development for Vancouver, called B.C. Place? Based on what you have read, do you want to see it go ahead? Which of the following describes how you feel about B.C. Place: It's an exciting and important project for Vancouver and B.C. that will be worth the investment; it is neither particularly good nor bad; it is an unnecessary project that is diverting government funds from more needed areas or programs."

Well, Mr. Speaker, my choice is number three. The convention centre, B.C. Place, the 60,000-seat colosseum — and the questions go on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have seen the Minister of Finance table with his budget the response that he got from the public through the Goldfarb poll. If we had anything more than lip service toward open government, anything more than creating something like a Crown corporations committee and then doing our best to throttle it in its efforts to get to the bottom of things, if the government was responsible in the way that they spend government — and therefore people's — funds and tax moneys, then we should all be able to share this information, because this is the information that went into making up this budget. If we are to be able to look at this properly, we would be better prepared to vote.

I think it would be rather interesting to know how the people in Fort St. John.... There is a question in here which asks for the locality from which a person is making his report. So there are different areas around the province — Prince George, Prince Rupert and others. Mr. Speaker, I think that would be a very interesting thing. It might be

[ Page 4578 ]

helpful to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to know how his particular region tended to feel about some of these big-ticket projects.

So there are areas in which we could recover funds for this year if, as the Minister of Finance says, this is just a temporary lapse in revenues, and if this year is an anomaly. He says the economy is booming, but we have no revenues.

Another area we could go into would be what has happened in advertising revenues. I recall making a speech in this House.... I haven't looked up the figure, but as I recall, I think I added up all the advertising expenditures. One thing we can do is we can increase revenues, but another thing we could do would be to cut down expenditures, cut down the size of big government. I think, if my memory serves, that back in 1975 if you added up all the advertising and publications votes of all the different ministries you got up to about $1.5 million or $1.2 million, something of that nature. Just in this past year the total increase over last year in advertising and publications for a failing government has been 31.26 percent, and these advertising budgets have been outstripping the general growth of budget and revenue every year, to the point where now they're totalling $19.7 million. That's up from a figure that, just going by memory, might very well have been less than $1 million in 1975 and might have been about $1.2 million or $1.5 million. But I know the year I made that speech there was about a 60 percent or 80 percent growth in advertising budget. This year there's over a 30 percent growth in advertising budget. There's a constructive suggestion. You can't sell a turkey government, and it doesn't matter if you spend $1 million or $31 million, it's money wasted. Stop trying to sell yourselves; it's wasted money, millions and millions of dollars.

Look at some of the ones they're trying to sell. They're trying to sell the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). His budget is going up from $398 million to $565 million when you add up all those separate little areas. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) — there's a challenge. He's having to increase his budget over a quarter of a million dollars for advertising, up from $975,000 to $1,275,000. And, of course, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), that's going out of sight — up from $492,000 to $736,000. The Ministry of Environment has gone from $614,000 to $840,000. The list goes on. And, of course, that Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is up from $721,000 to $1.2 million.

If this is fiscal management I would go for the kind of a Treasury Board that would say that those advertising budgets.... I would go for the rather unimaginative approach which would say to give a 5 percent increase this year and not a dime more. Frankly I say you should take it back to the level, as a percentage of government, that it was in 1973-74-75. You should look at how much the budget has grown since then and increase it by a proportionate amount. We would probably save ourselves darned close to $20 million in that one area alone. That's where we could save some money by not spending, not pouring money down a rat-hole to bolster a failing government.

But the one area that I find the most intriguing, maddening and infuriating is what this government has lost for the people in British Columbia in the area of coal revenues from the extracting of our metallurgical coal — a non-renewable resource — and simply shipping that coal to a foreign country to fire a highly technological and advanced modern economy. All we're left with is the hole in the ground, and now we aren't even charging a reasonable cost for the extraction of that non-renewable resource. I think that at one time the Premier said he was very interested in bringing back the constitution because it's one of the last vestiges of colonialism. He says it, the Prime Minister says it, everybody who's preoccupied with that particular issue says that it's the last vestige of colonialism. How wrong they are; how sadly wrong they are. We are digging ourselves more and more into being a colony every day. And every day that this government is preoccupied with simply getting raw materials out of the ground and shipping them out of this country, we become much more than a vestige of colonialism; we become one of the last bastions of colonialism.

Since coming to office the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has been preoccupied with northeast coal development. He has ignored some of the beginnings that we have in high-tech industry in this province — little companies that may employ 20 or 30 people, companies that build highly sophisticated electronic equipment, companies that have been using INTEL 6800 and 8080 microprocessors since they were first invented in 1975 and 1976, little companies around British Columbia that have kept up and struggled but had really no help from government, only their own ingenuity. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has not looked to the future; he has looked to the past and he wants to create a demand prematurely for export coal.

One of the prices we have had to pay for that is a loss of $102.7 million to this date before the ink was even dry on any contracts. The northeast coal has already cost $102.7 million, before this budget came down. Before the $48 million was put into this budget we had already lost $102.7 million, simply because the minister could not afford to index the tax, the royalty or the revenue that we extracted from Kaiser and Fording coal in the southeast — could not keep up with the increase in prices, and the prices have increased quite handsomely.

The price per tonne and the profit per tonne have gone up enormously. The price per tonne has grown very predictably — along with inflation and along with a more energy-conscious world — and yet government revenues have hardly been adjusted. There was an adjustment all right; they changed from a strict royalty base to another land tax and a complicated formula. In 1975 the royalty on coal was about $1.50 a tonne, when the Alberta government had already made provision for a sliding system of coal royalties which would go up to a maximum of $9 per tonne, depending on site-specific costs. We had announced a $2.50 price, which I think was to come into effect in February or March of 1976. Surprisingly, throughout that election campaign in 1975, when a lot of people were taking potshots at the government which was going through an election campaign, this was one company that did not say that the coal royalty was going to shut down the coal industry in British Columbia. They accepted it; they realized that it was realistic. When one looks at their profits per tonne, which have been increasing along with the market price, which has gone from $35 per tonne in 1975 to almost $60 per tonne by 1979 and is slated to go to $68 a tonne this year.... We haven't looked at that little $1.50 royalty and its successor, which is a slightly more complicated way of raising about the same amount of money.

If we had indexed and increased the coal royalty in keeping with the increase in the market price of coal, we could have realized $102.7 million in increased revenues. I

[ Page 4579 ]

think that for this year it could have added maybe another $40 million to the budget in terms of revenues. This government has ignored obvious sources of revenue which, if they were to analyze them and arrive at them not by a public opinion poll, not by the mass — you know, not to deprecate the intelligence.... This is sort of a cumulative ignorance.

You're asking people who haven't had the information spread in front of them, haven't had a chance to analyze trends over a number of years. You're just asking people to make very snap judgments. Somebody arrives in their living room and starts taking a poll, asking questions. He seems like a very nice, personable young person, so they give answers. If you had looked at coal and thought about it for a minute, you would realize that what we do in terms of an eventual selling price, or profit to something like Kaiser or Fording — if it does increase the price of coal — is going to be a price which is going to be borne not here but offshore. But what we are doing with our tax increases is directly inflationary here in this province, and will also have depressing effects on tourism and many other things. There is no analysis of that type.

What I find even more galling about northeast coal and the way that we have ignored this is that now that BCRIC has bought Kaiser Resources, and now that BCRIC shares trade for 50 cents less on the average than they did when they were put on the market two years ago, and now that the government is desperate to see BCRIC turn some kind of a profit and some day, before the next election, pay a dividend to its shareholders, they cannot look at this obvious place for increasing revenues which we all share in — not just those who went out and mortgaged to buy $30,000 worth of shares. We are all going to have to dig deeper into our pockets in order to make both BCRIC and northeast coal look good.

I'd like to talk a little bit more about BCRIC. The life-blood of the community which I represent can be found in its two largest corporations. That's Kootenay Forest Products and Can-Cel. Can-Cel, as the only consumer of decadent hemlock and cedar fibre in its pulp mill, is the life-blood even for the small independent sawmills such as Slocan Forest Products. I spent some time just recently looking at the woodland operations. In one decking in one area which is going to be logged — and it was a pretty typical decking we looked at these hollow-shell logs. Some of them did not even have a four-inch shell. These were hemlock and cedar. That's getting to be about all that's left in the area. The government scaler was there. He said they were 4 percent sawlogs, 8 percent culls, and the rest was pulp. What we do have in our area is a surplus of fibre.

We have such a surplus, in fact, that in just a little informal conversation with Mr. Knudsen of MacMillan Bloedel.... He found out I was from the Kootenay area and he said: "That's the one area in B.C. where there is some room for expansion in the industry." Of course, tending to think more about things like sawmilling and plywood and things like that rather than pulp, at first I wasn't quite with him. Then he said: "Yes, you sure need more pulp in that area." Of course, I had to agree with him, because we had started very definite plans to double the pulp mill capacity at Castlegar even back in 1975.

But Can-Cel, Kootenay Forest Products, Plateau Mills and Westcoast Transmission were placed in this instrument called BCRIC. I think BCRIC oversubscribed $600-odd million of capital — to invest. So while I was maybe worried about the political ramifications of the possible success of BCRIC — although it didn't worry me too much one way or the other — I was optimistic that at least we would now have some investment to utilize this fibre which I see rotting on the ground. It has been left in the bush in many instances. In other instances it is being shipped down on the Burlington Northern line, which comes up into Salmo and Nelson, to be used in the United States — that which isn't left to rot on the ground. I was, in fact, very optimistic when I was invited to a dinner with Mr. Donald Watson and some of the directors of Can-Cel — I think Mr. Helliwell was there — after they had been brought in under the fold of BCRIC, and they were talking about a possible expansion, but more likely a greenfield mill. As long as the greenfield mill wasn't in Harrop I wasn't too concerned about that. I would be very happy about it as long as it was well located.

But then what happened? Somebody got to the board. Of course some people on the board had shares in Kaiser Resources Ltd. — a few million dollars of shares. One person in particular made a great deal of money — Mr. Edgar Kaiser Jr. In his defence, I will say that the one time I phoned him he didn't put me off to some underling. He answered the phone and talked straight to me, so he is a person I have some admiration for on that point. Anyway, he got a good portion. If not all — well, not personally all — of $600-odd million. Suddenly the greenfield expansion was diminishing and more and more of this fibre and these jobs are rotting on the ground in the Nelson forest region.

I was even a little bit more chagrined when I heard of its new venture — trying to take over control of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. — so that a person who was once the second in command can become the first in command, and the person who was first in command can be put into a number two position. I don't think that this is why people in British Columbia dug into their pockets and invested, subscribed and oversubscribed some $600 million. I think that they were hoping that the government would create employment opportunities, and so far all it has done is create an octopus — a grabber. Where is our greenfield pulp mill? I guess the final chapter was when Mr. Kaiser bought a football team. Our pulp mill is in Denver, Colorado! Instead of hiring people in this province to utilize the raw material which is rotting — the renewal resource which is rotting on the ground — the government has seen our money end up in Denver, Colorado, where, I guess, Craig Morton will maybe try one more season to bring the Denver Broncos into the play-offs. Mr. Speaker shakes his head. no.

That's what has happened with the investment money that the people of British Columbia put into this province because they had faith in this province. It has been squandered and now we have the Denver Broncos; we have our pulp mill and it's in Denver, Colorado.

I guess I don't learn and I don't discourage easily. I would like to urge this government to look at the utilization of this fibre which is being wasted in a wholesale manner, this fibre which is leading to management decisions which are saying that.... We have already shut clown shifts at Can-Cel and now they're talking about shutting down the plywood plant.

Well, we do have a way and a new technology. Mr. Ray Williston has made some announcements about it concerning his plans for Ocean Falls. There is a new technology called oriented-strand board. The effect of oriented-strand technology would be to take these rotten-core shells and convert them into an economic resource as valuable as peeler logs, because the shells can be broken up and oriented in a struc-

[ Page 4580 ]

turally strong way using an electrostatic process. We can make building material out of this which I think is going to replace plywood. We have to look at that.

I think it's very threatening whenever technology threatens old technology, one which has served us very well in terms of producing jobs — technology which, I remember, put a good number of my high-school chums through university, those that worked at Pacific Veneer in New Westminster, which has been shut down. Now we have competition from New Brunswick where they are manufacturing a product using hardwoods called Norboard. It is selling for $2.25 a sheet less than plywood. It has most of the structural.... It might even be structurally superior to plywood. It doesn't have a large core, it has no surface voids and it's free of knotholes. This technology has already been tested, I think through Mr. Williston, and the testing has been supervised by Forintek of Vancouver. There has been a study done at a pilot plant in Lewiston, Idaho, using west coast cedar logs. All indications are that this has been quite successful. We have an industry and existing plants which could be adapted and expanded. Indeed, one of the best things about this is that we might be able to utilize fibre without the pollution of a pulp mill. Perhaps the procrastination and delay in building a new pulp mill has led us to a point where we might be able to make another intelligent decision in terms of the best utilization of fibre.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The record of BCRIC to date has been dismal. I would like the government — and I will talk to the Minister of Forests — to realize that the material they are allowing to rot on the ground or to be shipped out in the form of raw logs to be chipped and converted to pulp in other areas has the potential of being viewed as a new resource. These shells, which are no good for sawlogs or plywood, could, in effect, be converted in their value so that they could be looked upon as being every bit as valuable as peeler logs, which are a very scarce and valuable commodity that has been a prime feeder of our industrial economic system in British Columbia. To give credit to Mr. Williston, I would just say that this government has not even begun to glimpse the potential of this kind of technology. If I could only get across to you that that which was once a shell, a useless product, is now as fully valuable as a solid peeler log, which has been one of the most valuable things in the industry to date. Those are some of the positive suggestions and ways in which we can cut useless expenditures, raise non-inflationary revenues from resources and plan for an industrial future and jobs in British Columbia.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, if I brought down a budget like this, I wouldn't have much to say about it either, so I don't expect to hear too much from the other side. The Minister of Finance spoke for some 2 1/2 to 3 hours about a budget that will undoubtedly create a semi-disaster in this province, certainly among those people who are of low income and are unable to finance the moneys required. Those of us in this chamber can probably afford to pay the increased taxes, but there are a number of people on all levels in this society on whom this increased tax will have a very telling effect.

I think the Minister of Finance did a good job. He was able to speak for two and a half hours on this day of reckoning. It seemed to me that he rather enjoyed the power that he could display by adding taxes to the overtaxed public of British Columbia.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) gave a speech. He indicated that he wasn't that much in favour of a number of budgetary items; but there's no doubt that he will vote for them. If you're a government member, that's about as much as you can get out of this budget. You don't agree with it, but you'll vote for it. I can assure you that there's not a member on that side who, when he gets to his riding and is talking to his voters, will speak to any great extent on the budgetary measures brought down this past week.

I was checking over the different ministries, and I noticed that the big increase goes to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), an increase of 149 percent. But with all that increase, I also notice that small business services has been reduced from $2 million to $1.2 million, for the benefit of the small businessman — almost cut in half. But the increase in his budget is 149 percent.

Last year, when the increases were made, it was generally the same figure throughout every ministry. It's rather interesting to note that this year some have been favoured and others have not been so well looked after.

The people in my constituency tell me that the taxes are to pay for northeast coal development. They believe it is the price we have to pay to export our jobs. They believe it is the cost of getting rich off our non-renewable resources. I have been trying to disabuse them of this thought, but I haven't had too much luck in my argument stating that that is not the purpose of these increases.

The first statement by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour on the budget was that it's a pay-as-you-go budget. In actual fact, it's a pay-as-you-went budget, because last year was the time of the big spenders. There was a 20 percent increase last year over the year before in budgetary spending. This year there's another increase of 17 percent. The increase over the two-year period, compounded, is approximately 37 percent. That's over one-third.

The Minister of Finance spent a great amount of time Canada-bashing, telling us all that the federal government was spending too much money. In actual fact they did give some grants, but the grants came from moneys that were raised in the provinces. Of course, that is very true, because all federal funds are the result of federal taxation, and the funds are derived from the residents of each province. In that case he was telling the truth.

He is saying that Canada has shown no restraint in their spending — they're getting out of hand with their deficits and their losses — and his colleagues are going around demanding funds for their pet projects and for their monuments. They want federal money for B.C. Place, a convention centre, Transpo '86, the rail transit services, the northeast coal projects; and it goes on and on. I would think that the Minister of Finance should encourage the federal government to blow their money, because with a shopping list like this, they're going to have to show very little restraint to satisfy the hunger of this provincial government.

In addition to the moneys being raised for so-called budgetary purposes, the Crown corporations have gone deeper into debt. The guaranteed debt in 1979 was $6.6 billion. In 1980 it was $7.3 billion. That's an increase in one year of over 10 percent. It might be of interest to note that in 1976 the provincial debt was $4.56 billion. So in the past five

[ Page 4581 ]

years under the Social Credit regime, the province has gone into debt by 60 percent more than in 1976. It's a sorry record for a group of people who have always insisted that the province was debt-free. Here we have a debt of $7.3 billion. It amounts to a debt to each man, woman and child in the province of approximately $2,700. And we hear them talking about being debt-free. The interest and carrying charges on the debt amount to $238 per man, woman and child every year — going down the drain in payment of debt.

We should look at the loss of revenues in the creation of BCRIC. In 1977 the revenues in BCRIC were about $26 million. At least, that's what's shown in Public Accounts. With the value of the dollar depleted and the activities in the forest industries, it's probable that the value of the assets previously held by all the people in the province would be closer to the $40 million range. I would suggest that the budget would look a little better today if those revenues were still coming into the coffers of the province of British Columbia. But no, you had to get rid of these purchases that were made by the New Democratic government. You gave them away to those who could afford to pay the price. The poor in this province got no benefit from the BCRIC transaction. Not only did they lose the assets they owned, but they found that they were given away and ended up in the pockets of those wealthy enough to go out and buy BCRIC shares. It's Robin Hood in reverse. They took it away from those who owned the assets, the poor, and fed it to the rich.

Then we look at what BCRIC has accomplished. About the only things we know about BCRIC are the scandals of inside trading and its backward progress on the stock exchange. It has made a few millionaires, but it has not created one new job. This has really been a sordid story. It was a terrible happening in the province. It will be long remembered as a disaster. It was a very poor performance. We've lost all these assets — for what purpose? It's straight fiscal irresponsibility by this government — inept fiscal policies and the inability to carry out any policy they feel they might want to bring about. Ineptness, that's what it is. This government gets lost when it's dealing in business. In the financial world it's like a babe in arms. This whole matter of BCRIC is really a shame.

But I've been pleased to learn, by reading in the press, that the Princess Marguerite is now a safe vessel again. I've read in the paper that it's coming back to life. It was unsafe for a couple of years, but now it's safe. And I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance will be able to send his mother down to Seattle again. There's no doubt that the Premier used to look out of his apartment and office windows and all he could see was the funnels of the Princess Marguerite. It reminded him of Bob Williams and he said: "I've got to get rid of this." So he sent it out west to see if it would fall off the edge of the earth, but it came back and now it's safe. So we've had a very nice turnaround in regard to the Marguerite — the millions of dollars spent on refitting the Queen of the North to bring all the tourists in from Seattle; the disaster that the merchants experienced with the tourist trade on Vancouver Island last year. The only port of entry that lost numbers was the port of Victoria. In every other area in British Columbia the tourist trade was booming. Only in Victoria did the tourists stop coming.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: What was that — tourists stopped coming to Victoria last year?

MR. LORIMER: The tourists didn't stop, no, but the number of tourists was reduced. What I'm saying is that the tourist business improved in all other areas of the province, but in Victoria it declined. The reason for that was....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I thought the hon. member might like to know, before he continues to embarrass himself, that Victoria had a 17 percent lift in tourism last year. They stayed long, spent more and....

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

MR. LORIMER: I think we have to accept the fact that some members on the other side have very little knowledge about the rules of this House and also about the facts. I want to tell the lady minister....

MR. HOWARD: She didn't even know that she wasn't getting paid last year.

MR. LORIMER: She was so surprised at her appointment that she didn't care if she was paid or not.

People may have come to Victoria through other areas, but they certainly didn't come through the customs area of the port of Victoria, and that area has declined. However, with the Princess Marguerite coming onstream this summer again, the fortunes of the merchants in Victoria may well improve.

This was a very costly ruse for the people of this province — so ridiculous, so petty, so small. But this government hasn't had too much luck with ships and vessels. I can recall that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was bringing in a ship for some Captain Cook celebrations. On a bright, moonlit night it ended up on a reef and, lo and behold, it was then taken over by pirates. This government isn't really a marine government: they like to travel in airplanes, especially the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He likes the airplane; he doesn't go much for this shipping stuff.

These people are handling the money of the province. They've got an increase of 17 percent on the budget to be handled. I don't think it will be handled any more wisely than the money in the past.

The northeast coal deal is an example of the type of government we have sitting across the way. Although little information has been given out about the coal deal, and whether or not in fact there is any agreement or deal whatever — "Maybe you can have coal if we have it, and maybe I'll buy it if it's there;" that might be the deal that's in operation at the present time — what we do know is that the figures that have been given out would indicate that the cost to the taxpayer of this province will be in the neighbourhood of somewhat over $1 billion. That's a very rough estimate — a billion dollars to get rid of our non-renewable natural resources, selling the coal with the loss of opportunity for creating secondary industry in this province at a later date. We're paying a billion dollars to have this coal removed to Japan so they can build Toyotas, which we can buy with one hand, and then subsidize Chrysler with the other hand to build cars so that we can buy Chryslers too. It's not very easy to understand this kind of logic. I'm sure that that type of logic seems to fit in very nicely with the programs of the government over there.

[ Page 4582 ]

We're also worrying a lot about the price. In actual fact the major worry is not the price but the philosophy of getting rid of our non-renewable natural resources to offshore markets. If someone sells their house, they normally buy another house or they put the money in the bank to collect interest, buy investments or something of that sort. They don't attach it to their budget and blow it the next year. What we've been doing in this province with a number of our non-renewable natural resources is terming the revenues from those resources as a budgetary item. It should not be used as a budgetary item, in my opinion. It should be used to purchase other investments in the province, the creation of opportunities in the province and for capital expenditures, and should not be thrown away on an annual budgetary method. The receipts from the disposal of natural resources, as I say, should not be used as a budgetary item.

But other areas of opportunity should be looked at, areas to develop industries and so on that will create secondary industries in the province and opportunities for our young people and our working force, not just opportunities that will last for a short period but lasting opportunities for employment. There's no question that northeast coal, if it ever gets moving, will create a number of jobs. There will be work building the townsite, the railroad, roads, and the expanded port in Prince Rupert. That will last for a few years, but once this building boom is completed, the number of people left with employment will still be quite a number but a relatively small number. It doesn't take too many people to operate an open-pit mine. There will be extra shifts on the railway crews and there will be more longshoremen. But the building boom and the large influx of workers to that area will level off or slow down, certainly, in three or four years.

In my opinion, what we should be doing with the funds that we get from our non-renewable resources is looking at opportunities which will last not just three, four or five years, but down the road. Another method that could be used is the building of a housing program. With the kind of money that you're looking at in northeast coal, you can imagine the number of houses that could be built, which would not only satisfy the social problems of lack of housing, but would also satisfy the shortage in housing and create employment through all the building trades in this province. There is need in practically every town and city in this province for more housing, and that would really stimulate the employment picture.

There are also the other areas which were stopped by this government. Of course, Railwest was a program which was stopped by this government — the building of railway cars. The odd thing is that in 1976 B.C. Hydro purchased some 400 railway cars and did not buy them from Railwest, but purchased them in eastern Canada and in the eastern United States. Since that time there have been a number of rail orders, and that Railwest operation could have continued right through, creating employment for all those people who were working at Squamish at that particular time.

Selling our resources without using the funds from those resources to build a network of secondary industries throughout the province is, in my opinion, a very great mistake. This is the road that I believe we should be going. Whether or not the resources should be sold at all is another question. If it's felt that there are more resources in that particular commodity, well then, it may be an argument for selling it. But on normal grounds I would suggest that most of these resources should be preserved for the benefit of the people of this province.

It's interesting to note that in addition to the taxpayers' money that went into the budget, there was also about a quarter of a billion dollars spent on special warrants — just under a quarter of a billion dollars for the first ten months. I also remember the hue and cry that used to go up: "Not a dime without debate!" Now there is no debate, as you all know, in the issuing of warrants. That's about the same amount as the total provincial budget was 20 years ago. "Not a dime without debate"! The total amount of a 20-year-ago budget, spent by order-in-council through the cabinet, was spent without debate. This government doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that they are merely the trustees for the people of this province, the trustees for the expenditure of their hard-earned tax money. Every item of expenditure should come before this House to be questioned and debated. In just this past year alone a quarter of a billion dollars was spent around the oval table.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: There were no special warrants anywhere close to a quarter of a billion dollars — nothing close.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: Oh, yes, we bought a few vehicles, which were sold by this government, disposed of, mainly to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) please come to order.

MR. LORIMER: He's a very difficult person to bring to order, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, he should be handled more roughly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the member who has the floor.

MR. LORIMER: We had money to spend on special warrants...

MR. SPEAKER: Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), please come to order.

MR. LORIMER: ...but in actual fact our expenditures came through the House, and we allowed you to debate on the expenditures that were made. Fourteen hours by one member in one sitting. But he's the favoured one this year; he had an increase of some 140 percent. He's the minister that has a poor memory, if you remember. He's the forgetful minister, and I hope he doesn't forget how he's going to spend this money. He's got enough money there to last anyone for a long, long time. He's got an increase of 140 percent over last year. Mind you, the small business area has been cut back, but the big business area is moving right along.

There's no doubt that the budgeting has been done on a basis of overestimating expenditures and underestimating revenues. The question is whether more piggybanks are going to be created to look after the surpluses that will arrive at the end of the year or whether it will be spent by warrant again. Maybe you'll try to beat the record of a quarter of a billion dollars in warrants this next year. We'll watch this with some interest to see what you are going to do. Someone

[ Page 4583 ]

suggested that it might be a saving to pass out some goodies, pending the next election. But I wouldn't suggest that that was in the works at all. I wouldn't think that that would be what they're doing it for. I think it's probably just a mathematical mistake by the Minister of Finance, I think that's why he is going to end up with a large surplus.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is being disruptive.

MR. LORIMER: As I mentioned, there will certainly be substantial jobs created if the northeast coal project goes ahead, but my concern is the question of how long those jobs are going to be there. I would think that the expenditure of money might better be put to areas where there will be a lasting payroll coming in.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: He's a fine fellow.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, he's a little dull in that area. We overlook these deficiencies and look at their strong points. It's true enough that in politics he's about as bright as some of the people across the way.

I might say that I am quite pleased with the recognition in the budget that there is a need for transit services. Some money has been allocated for transit, and I'm pleased to see it. We did have statements from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that 250 new trolleys were going to be purchased. He mentioned that in January last year; he made another announcement about it in June, another one in July and another one in September. The 200 buses — not 250 but 200 trolley vehicles — were ordered, I believe, in November. So we've had three or four announcements of this great increase in our fleet. Now, those trolley buses, of course, will not be a new service. They are replacing the ones that were purchased well back in 1945 or about that time.

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER: I'll tell you about those. The Minister of Transportation wants to hear about transit. He's in transportation, but as I understand it there are a number of my colleagues who are questioning the services that some of the back roads are receiving in some of their areas. Yes, we bought a number of junkers. The purpose of the junkers was to take the motors off the junkers for reintroduction into the new trolleys that were purchased. Those vehicles were cannibalized; the motors were taken out. They were purchased for $1,000 apiece, and the motors were reinstalled in the new vehicles that were purchased. There was a saving to the people in the province of British Columbia of about $20,000 per vehicle.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tell us again about the German....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Can we bring the House to order before the member continues?

MR. LORIMER: I'd like to educate these people, and if they have other questions, I'd like to be able to answer them.

Yes, the DuWag was purchased, I think, in 1975. It was a demonstrator model which was in North America demonstrating for the DuWag company of Germany. We were able to purchase it for a price substantially less than normal, about three-fifths of the normal cost of a new vehicle which we purchased for, I think, around $250,000. If we had remained in government, that DuWag would have been on daily duty between New Westminster, Surrey and Vancouver. But because of the errors made by the public of British Columbia in 1975 in voting the Social Credit Party in, the DuWags were parked on the sidings. Since that time they have removed the DuWag and it's now on the B.C. Hydro property at the old Dominion Bridge site, locked up in a building there. If you want to see the DuWag, you have to go down to B.C. Hydro and get a special permit.

The problem is that the people over there have no time for transit systems. They are the highway people, the car people and the motor people. I can assure you that although the budget does show funds for transit in two or three different spots, it takes more than funds on a page of the budget to create a system of transit in this province. I would guess that there will be some activity on a system, but I'll talk a lot more about this later on. There will be the possibility of a loop around the core of Vancouver, maybe from the convention centre to B.C. Place. But I can assure you and the people of this province that in the next number of years, as long as this government is in power, there will not be a system out to the New Westminster–Surrey lines. I think that without question, this is factual.

Are there any more questions over there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where are we going for Christmas dinner?

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'll just talk about transit for another minute then.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the SeaBus?

MR. LORIMER: Oh, the SeaBus, yes. The SeaBus is probably the best transit service anywhere in the world. The interesting feature about the SeaBus was that, although the ships were being built and the clocks planned, there was a holdup by this government because they didn't want to go ahead with it. They didn't want to do it. They couldn't sell it to Edmonton; they couldn't sell it to Calgary; so eventually, after wasting about seven or eight months, they decided that the development had gone too far and they would have to proceed with it.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to support my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and the budget that he presented last Monday. There's just a word or two more I'd like to say on this subject and, in the meantime, I move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4584 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move Motion 16 — a most happy occasion — the motion standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

On Motion 16.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The substance of this motion is best summed up by the very sentiments that it expresses. I'd like very much to read it into the records of this Legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia.

"Whereas the people of British Columbia have the greatest respect and the highest regard for the Royal Family; and whereas the marriage of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer is to take place on July 29, 1981; be it resolved that this Legislature, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, convey to the Prince of Wales our warmest congratulations and to both of them our wish that they enjoy a long and a happy life together."

Mr. Speaker, His Royal Highness Prince Charles has visited our part of the world on various occasions, and all British Columbians have been most impressed with his charm, his capacity, and his general interest in the people of our province and in our way of life. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that he has enjoyed his sojourns here, and we indeed extend to him and to his bride-to-be, Lady Diana Spencer, the warmest of welcomes to visit us as husband and wife and spend some time in our province and partake of some good old-fashioned British Columbia hospitality — with the caveat that we would assure them some rest and lots of time together by themselves and out of the limelight, because that is certainly something to which they are much entitled.

I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, and it's a great honour to be able to move this motion.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I think an appropriate indication of seconding the motion would show the unanimity of the House in supporting it and in echoing the sentiments expressed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

Motions usually don't have "whereases" in them, because that's debate and argument. In this case there are two which reflect, I think, the type of sentiments which would be expressed, if one wanted to take the time to express them, and all I want to do is simply second the motion and say that it is a decision of unanimity in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The motion does not require seconding, but the House shows no objection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to advise the House, in supporting the motion about which I'm sure we're all unanimous, that upon the announcement of the engagement and the wedding, on behalf of the government and the people of the province of British Columbia, as Premier I dispatched a message then. But I'm very supportive that a message from the whole of the House and the Legislature be sent to His Royal Highness Prince Charles, who has visited British Columbia not only in his capacity with the Royal Family but also in his relationship to the Pearson College of the Pacific, one of the world's very few international colleges. He lends his support and patronage to that, so he has a very special continuing role in British Columbia.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:26 p.m.