[ Page 4585 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

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

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

Mr. Skelly –– 4586

Relocation of RCMP headquarters. Mr. Hanson –– 4586

Decontrol of rental accommodation. Mr. Levi –– 4586

Alleged oil company profiteering. Mr. Macdonald –– 4587

Tabling Documents

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4587

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4587

Mr. Skelly –– 4589

Mr. Kempf –– 4592

Ms. Sanford –– 4594

Mr. Segarty –– 4597

Mr. King –– 4600

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4604

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

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us I want to extend good wishes to the Irish, and the best of luck as well. But I should make all members aware that we find on our desks a shamrock, courtesy of our favourite little Irishman, the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). I think we should extend our thanks to him.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Minister of Municipal Affairs in thanking the member for Kootenay for providing us with the shamrock. Since it is St. Patrick's Day, I think it might be appropriate if I place on the record of the House one of the ancient limericks of Ireland, which reads:

Ciad miel faultier
Both hearty and sage
Ciad miel faultier
In any language
Means thousands of welcomes
To men of all tongues
And spare ye from judgment
Your rights and your wrongs.
So happy St. Patrick's Day
To Dutch, German — and hence,
To those who eat cornflakes
Described all in French.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I note in the gallery behind you the leader of the IWA, Mr. Jack Munro. I would like to bid him welcome to our House.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I as well would like to extend a welcome to Jack Munro, the regional vice-president of the IWA. I would point out to the House that with Jack Munro are two other presidents of the IWA: Roger Stanyer, the president of local 180 in Duncan; and Gerry Stoney, the president of local 1357 and, in addition to that, the president of the New Democratic Party of the province. Seated with them is a very able assistant to the IWA. Clay Perry, a researcher.

MR. REE: Today I am pleased to have two educators from my constituency in the gallery facing you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the House to welcome William Sulymka and Duncan Ellis, principal and vice-principal of Hamilton Junior Secondary School in North Vancouver.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the House to bid welcome to Ms. Ysanne Harvey, who with me makes for what is perhaps one of the best organizing duets in the province of British Columbia. I wish she'd stand up and take a bow.

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

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, to expand on the remarks of my colleague from Vancouver East, we in the NDP have a practice of signing up members and going around the province and making them know what's going on in respect to the party. We have a group of people who assist us in doing that. Many of us on this side have had the pleasure of meeting this group. I'd like the House to make welcome Mike Pelzer and Ysanne Harvey, with Todd, Tim and Lisa Pelzer.

MR. LEGGATT: Visiting us today is a contingent of cadets who are participating in the Open House Canada exchange program. A large number of them are from the Cape Breton area of Nova Scotia: they also come from Port Coquitlam, Haney and Maple Ridge. I ask the House to bid them all welcome.

MR. STUPICH: In the gallery today is a group of students from the secondary school in Nanaimo. They are on one of the many trips to the Legislature sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. I ask the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is really not a new observation, but it is for 1981. I would like to pay special welcome to anyone in the gallery who has not yet had welcome paid to them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In spite of the House Leader's welcome, I'd like to ask the House to welcome a special visitor from the great city of Dawson Creek, Alderman Ken Cameron, who is visiting in Victoria today.

Oral Questions

PCB HAZARD IN VANCOUVER BUILDINGS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. During a recent fire in Binghampton, New York, toxic PCBs leaked out of the building's electrical transformer into the fire. The heat combined oxygen with the PCBs to produce a more deadly poison, known as dioxin. Transformers containing PCBs similar to those released in the Binghampton fire are presently used in Vancouver in the Pacific Centre, the Vancouver Centre and at Eaton's. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that workers in those buildings are protected against PCB hazards in the event of a fire?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is the first time this matter has been brought to my attention, as the hon. member probably suspects, and I will take her question as notice, if I may.

TENANTS OF STRATFORD HOTEL

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I wonder if I might provide for members an answer to a question which I took as notice last Thursday from the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), although I see he's not in his place presently, nor is the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). It was apparently an urgent matter having to do with the Stratford Hotel and eviction notices which became effective yesterday or today. I was in touch with the office of the rentalsman and was advised that, in any event, the rentalsman had scheduled a hearing into the matter for yesterday. My advice is that none of the tenants showed up for the purpose of the hearing, and therefore the rentalsman has not officially heard from them. If either of the members for Vancouver Centre have further information or particulars, we on this side would certainly be happy to follow the information through, but that's the best report I can give at this point.

[ Page 4586 ]

PCB HAZARD IN VANCOUVER BUILDINGS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wonder if the Minister of Health could inform the House whether or not there are any hospitals in the province that might have electrical transformers with PCBs.

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

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Health. When the minister reports back to the House, could he advise what action he will take if, in fact, there are such transformers in the hospitals?

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

MR. SKELLY: I have a supplementary question to the Attorney-General, who is responsible for the fire commissioner's office. Has the minister taken steps to order transformers using PCB coolants replaced?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I have not, but the member should be aware that under the recently adopted fire regulations in the province of British Columbia the installation of transformers containing PCB is prohibited. In addition to that, since 1978 there have been special requirements with respect to the construction of the vaults in which transformer equipment is located. The fire commissioner is providing me with a full report on this matter, and I will share it with the House when I have it — probably tomorrow.

RELOCATION OF RCMP HEADQUARTERS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Attorney-General. It's surrounding the decision taken by the Solicitor General and the RCMP to move the E Division headquarters of the RCMP from Victoria to Vancouver. The Attorney-General has recently made a number of comments expressing his opposition to this move. I have in front of me a copy of an administration manual from the RCMP which indicates that the Attorney-General has a veto on such a move, that his concurrence is required for such a divisional move. My question is: has the Attorney-General indicated to the Solicitor-General of Canada that he intends to exercise his veto and that no move shall take place?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This question is one which seems to be surrounded with a great deal of mystery, and I haven't been able to reach the bottom of it yet. I had a telephone call from the Solicitor-General last week just prior to his attending the House of Commons. The telephone call was less than five minutes long. At that time the Solicitor-General had responded in the House of Commons to a question from Allan McKinnon, MP, saying that no decision had been made. During our conversation I urged the Solicitor-General to get hold of certain information I was aware of from the RCMP and then to consult with me. It was my understanding that he would. He was here last weekend and did not call me. I have placed a call to him to ascertain why he has made a decision without the consultation he promised and, apparently, without any specific concern as to the social and economic impact which this move may have upon the city of Victoria and those residents of Victoria who are employed at the headquarters.

MR. HANSON: My question is to the Attorney-General again. Is the minister aware that his concurrence is required for such a move, and does he intend to indicate to the Solicitor-General of Canada that he intends to exercise that veto?

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I am aware of what my rights and responsibilities are. I think in carrying out those rights and responsibilities, I would do so in consultation with the Solicitor-General, who has the responsibility for the internal management of the RCMP.

DECONTROL OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Rents for one-bedroom units under rent control are less than $300 a month; a two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $350. Market rents in the Vancouver area for uncontrolled apartments are $450 for one bedroom and $600 for two bedrooms. Thirty-five thousand housing units will be decontrolled this year. Has the minister decided to halt any further decontrol of rental accommodation to prevent severe hardship to some 35,000 families this year?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: There is no change in the government's policy on that topic from that enunciated by my predecessor. May I say, in stating that, that in terms of a permanent and satisfactory situation for renters and tenants in this province, it is our firm belief that an expansion of supply of accommodation on the rental side as rapidly as possible is the correct route to go. Having said that, we are very mindful of the impact of rising rents on tenants. The expanded rent review provisions which we have brought in in recent years reflect our effort to see that hardship or exceptionally difficult cases, if they arise, have an opportunity for review by the office of the rentalsman or the rent review commissioner.

Having said all that, because of the continuing very tight vacancy situation in Vancouver, I want the member to know that I am looking closely at the situation he points out, and it may well be at the time of my estimates, or shortly before, that I will have further comment to make. We are certainly most concerned about the situation, but the key thing we want to do is to encourage the maximum production of supply. In our view, the best and the safest guarantee for tenants in this province is to build British Columbia out of the tight vacancy rate, and a vacancy rate is the best factor to keep a tenant well protected. We would like in this province to get back to a situation where landlords are competing to keep tenants. That will guarantee a very good state of affairs for tenants.

MR. LEVI: Well, they've been in government for six years and they've had a no-vacancy rate for three years. Can the minister advise the House of the basis for the contention, which is attributed to him, that the vacancy rate in rental accommodation will increase in 1981? Would he tell us how much change he anticipates in the fall? I am informed that this is the minister's contention, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4587 ]

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

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: If it will help the member, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to confirm that I have expressed the very real hope to the public....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Some members opposite may find that funny; I think it is a very important question for tenants. I hope that towards the end of this year we will see an improvement in the vacancy rate. I say that for the reason that under the policies of this government rental-accommodation apartment construction in this province is proceeding at a record pace. As recently as last week the general manager of the largest credit union in British Columbia, VanCity Savings, confirmed to me his view that there is a record pace of apartment construction underway in the lower mainland. It is my belief that with that record-setting pace of accommodation construction which is going to increase and augment supply, this will be the path we see followed as we begin to see the vacancy rate rise.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister aware that one of the officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing has said that he sees no likelihood at all of any change in the continuing problem that exists? He is in a position to know, and I would like to know how you know what he doesn't know.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, to answer the member, I am aware of that one point of view by that one person. We'll see, come the end of the year. which view is correct. My view, Mr. Member, is that one of the purposes of government is to work hard towards optimistic solution, and not continually throw dampers and cold water on the prospects for solution.

ALLEGED OIL COMPANY PROFITEERING

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the exorbitant profiteering by the major oil companies and the evidence of conspiracy to fix prices produced by the combines investigation branch, I'm asking this minister here in the province of British Columbia what action he's taking to protect the consumers of this province with respect to not only gasoline but home-heating oil and, in particular, what he is doing to secure a rollback and a rebate of the exorbitant prices that have been charged to these consumers.

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

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker. the first action I'm taking, in answer to the question from the former Attorney-General, is to adopt that very fundamental precept of our system of justice, which I think all British Columbians support, and that is that you don't pillory and convict people before they have a chance to reply to very serious charges.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things very adamantly to the former Attorney-General, a member of the bar of this province. I want him to know that on the basis of charges to which there is no reply yet — but I see some of the parties charged are running advertisements saying they want the earliest chance to reply — we will let justice have its course in the normal tradition of the jurisprudence of this land, and if then it should appear that consumers have been ill treated, I can assure you that we're prepared to act swiftly, promptly and effectively.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if the profits of the oil companies don't tell the minister anything, there is nothing I can tell him. Look at them! Exxon is taking one-third of its total world profits out of Canada and you don't have it under review.

I have a question to the Attorney-General. There is evidence here of gentlemen's agreements to fix prices. You are the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown. Are you doing anything in terms of upholding the law and investigating whether or not prosecution should occur here in this province?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have obtained a copy of the material to which the hon. member makes reference. We will consider whether or not there is evidence of criminal acts in this province and, if so, they'll be dealt with in the appropriate, proper and timely way.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the eighth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to stand here and support the budget of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, introduced a week ago Monday. After all, as a former minister with responsibility for Finance I have some idea how difficult it can be to have to make some of the unpopular but very necessary decisions which are needed to provide more and better services for British Columbians, while keeping our province in good financial shape.

How to give British Columbians today the services they want and need without creating a provincial debt to burden generations yet unborn is the crux of what we are talking about today. This government takes very seriously its commitments to our citizens. We certainly know how difficult it is for individuals and for families to make ends meet from one month to the next. We know how families strive to keep strict budgets, recognizing that once in debt it is very difficult to extricate yourself from that vicious circle. If we expect individuals and families to follow the commonsense rules of economics in sticking to a budget, then the same expectation must apply to government. This government is dedicated to that philosophy.

Some individuals, however, have very little respect for budgets or a philosophy that encourages individuals to stay out of debt. To them, a budget is nothing more than a detailed record of how you managed to spend more than you earned. To some people, living on a budget is the same as living beyond your means except that you have a detailed record of it. The trouble with that type of operation is that it thinks the individual owes the government a living. This philosophy is

[ Page 4588 ]

simple: blessed are the young for they shall inherit the provincial debt. Well, this government recognizes that it all boils down to the age-old story: owe as you go versus pay as you go. Frankly, I think the average British Columbian recognizes the long-term benefits of the pay-as-you-go principle.

Few areas of the world can compete with British Columbia's standard of living and the types of services provided by government. The programs supplied to people in this province are good programs. They are important programs and, just as important, they are fully paid for. There is no hidden debt piling up in the closet, waiting to be dumped on British Columbians. What we've got we paid for, and we can pass on a province to our grandchildren that is able to provide them with the same opportunities we enjoy, a province whose social services are not in debt. Those British Columbians will thank us for the foresight to realize the importance of service programs which understand economic realities.

For many it would be easy to abuse this province's triple-A credit rating when revenues are decreasing. Why not borrow? Go into debt to pay for the services British Columbians have come to enjoy. Easy answers to difficult questions. Further and further into debt. And why not? Those who would put this province into debt year after year recognize they'll be long gone when the piper finally has to be paid in full. No, Mr. Speaker, going into debt never solved anyone's problems. Triple-A ratings are not given to poor credit risks.

Much criticism is being levied at the Minister of Finance for having to increase sales tax. I remember when I introduced my very first budget and had to face similar attacks because I had to raise sales tax. Let's face it, no one in public life seeks opportunities to make himself unpopular, but economic facts of life are facts that have to be faced, regardless of how temporarily unpopular they may be. I can remember criticism was aimed at me for increasing sales tax. It was referred to as political revenge by the former Minister of Finance, in spite of the fact that the hon. member — the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — admitted to the Vancouver Sun that there was a need to raise money, previous to the government which took office in 1975. He stated that there was a need to raise money and that several of the government's initiatives, including boosts in sales and income tax, were under consideration by the NDP government before leaving office.

I've also heard criticism about the need to increase gasoline tax. I recall, as if it were only yesterday, a budget speech delivered in this House by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in which he announced a two-cent increase in gasoline tax and told MLAs to "get on a bus" if they felt such opposition to the tax. Yes, how soon we forget economic realities when we're sitting across the aisle.

There's been considerable comment on the budget speech and its reference to relations with our federal government and the province, and some of the difficulties we encounter. Many members opposite have made reference to this and have been critical of what they call Ottawa-bashing. I find this commentary hard to absorb because yesterday, in a speech to this House on the budget speech amendment, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said: "Even the Liberals in Ottawa, as much as I dislike that crowd of phonies that run the federal government...." That's how much he's concerned about Ottawa-bashing. He referred to the "crowd of phonies" in Ottawa that run the federal government. I think they should think twice before they attack what is legitimate concern over our relationships with the national government.

I'd like to say a word or two about the current tax collection agreement which exists between the federal government and the government of B.C. The Minister of Finance referred to this in the budget speech. He indicated his concern with our inability to have cooperation out of this agreement and indicated that he had now given notice that it would be possible in three years that we might want to withdraw from the agreement and consider our own tax collection system in this province. To those few who may be listening to this — this is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker — I'd like to say I've had some experience with this as previous Minister of Finance.

British Columbia entered the tax collection agreements because the province recognized the importance of maintaining reasonably uniform tax bases among provinces. One set of tax forms reduces the complexity for taxpayers, and there are savings in administrative costs by having one government collect these taxes. However, these advantages are being overshadowed by serious difficulties. British Columbia has the constitutional right to levy income taxes without reference to the federal income tax system. They have the constitutional right to decide on their own provincial income tax; yet because of certain clauses in the tax collection agreement that prevent deviation from federal policy, the province has been prevented from undertaking certain tax policy measures that were considered necessary. Two such policies proposed by this government in 1979 that the federal government refused to administer were a special dividend tax credit and special deductions from British Columbia income taxes for investors who place their funds in small business venture capital corporations.

The dividend tax credit would have been restricted to dividends from public corporations with their head offices and central management in British Columbia. This measure would have promoted local control of corporate decisions that affect our economy. The small business venture capital corporations proposal would have aided the small business sector in British Columbia and contributed to the overall strength of the economy.

The federal government refused to administer both of these proposals on the ground that they reduced the efficiency of the Canadian economy. However, the federal government itself, through its own tariff policies, regional development incentives and tax policies, such as the employment tax credit that provides differing tax incentives to employers in different provinces, threatens the Canadian common market to a far greater extent than the proposals made by B.C.

Another difficulty with the tax collection agreements is that the federal government has introduced tax expenditures reflecting federal priorities, but British Columbia, along with other provinces, has been forced to share the cost. I'm told that the background papers to the 1981 budget contain examples of such tax expenditures.

British Columbia is not necessarily opposed to all of the federal tax expenditures but, rather, is opposed to the unilateral way they were imposed under the tax collection agreements. In negotiations with the federal government, British Columbia will press for resolution of these problems, as indicated by the Minister of Finance. The development of guidelines that both levels of government must follow in tax collection may help resolve these difficulties. However, if the federal government fails to work with the provinces to reach arrangements that take account of our concerns, then, as the minister has indicated, the government of British Columbia

[ Page 4589 ]

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

I would also like to say that, as you can see from the current income tax form which is used by individuals to pay their 1980 income tax, the provincial income tax is based on a percentage of the calculated federal tax. Here is a current T1 general income tax form showing the page entitled "Detailed Tax Collection," where you calculate the federal tax and subsequently calculate the British Columbia income tax, based on the federal tax at 44 percent. This method creates a great many complicated problems, and I believe, and have advocated previously, that the national income tax department should base the provincial tax on taxable income, not on a percentage of federal tax. This would mean that in the future any alteration in the federal income tax in any respect would mean we wouldn't have to subsequently amend our own income tax percentage or calculation in order to have it made possible. I think it's about time they took heed and commenced to calculate provincial income taxes as a percentage of taxable income.

There's one other item I'd like to comment on; that's the reference to the impact of big-ticket items or major projects in this budget and the effect they have had on the necessity to raise taxes. What I'd like to do is indicate to you what is really in the budget for 1981-82 in terms of these projects. I'm referring to the northeast coal development, British Columbia Place, the amphitheatre proposal in Vancouver, the proposal for a world's fair in 1986 — or Transpo '86 — and the trade and convention centre proposal. These are the major project items which our critics say are the reason why it has been necessary to raise taxes. I'd like to say that for most of these items there's not one dime in the budget — our estimate of expenditures required for the next year — to pay for these projects. Let me explain.

When you refer to British Columbia Place, which is a very imaginative proposal for redevelopment of a downtown area in our major city, there is not a dime of expenditure in the budget appropriated from the taxpayer for next year. The same applies to the amphitheatre or stadium proposal for Vancouver which is now underway. There are no expenditures provided in next year's budget; those have been provided in funds previously set aside.

Let's take Transpo '86, which is a world's fair that won't take place until five years from now. There's an appropriation in the estimates for next year of an amount of $2.5 million, which is for preliminary expenditures required for the planning and development of this major undertaking to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of Vancouver. This is the extent of the appropriation towards that world's fair which is in next year's budget — $2.5 million. Almost all of this, it is estimated, will be recovered in 1986 through the revenues, receipts and concessions which take place at the fair, plus a considerable extra amount which will accrue to senior governments particularly, having to do with income taxes and sales tax revenues.

Let's take the proposal for a trade and convention centre in Vancouver, much in the news in the last couple of years. There's not one dime in the budget for next year, for expenditures for the province.

The only other item which is in the budget is development costs for this wonderful coal development in the northeast part of our province. There's an amount of $48 million to take care of roads and hydro powerline requirements to develop the northeast part of the province. I think most people in this province will support the need to expend those funds for the future development of those areas — not just for the development of coal but for the many other industries, employment and the need to develop those transportation networks and the powerlines for those projects.

You find in next year's budget a total of approximately $50 million — 99 percent of which is from northeast coal development — having to do with the major projects which we're told are having a big impact on tax increases. I say to you that when you think in terms of an increase in sales tax and an increase in gasoline tax, which are part of this budget program, there's only one-quarter of 1 percent of that sales tax increase which you could say is to pay for the northeast coal development for next year.

On the basis of facts, let's set aside the notion that the major project items in this budget are the reason the minister has found it necessary to raise some taxes. I only want to add my support to this budget and at the same time offer my appreciation to the minister for the items in the office of the Provincial Secretary, which he has addressed — in particular the increased assistance to libraries and museums, which has been long sought for. I want to compliment him for responding to those requests. We'll be dealing with that further in my own estimates.

I think he summed up the real crux of this budget in one sentence, which I'd like to remind you of. He stated: "This, I believe, is a reasonable price to pay to maintain our health-care system, to educate our children, to secure social justice, to provide for our economic future, to train our workforce and to provide local government with the resources needed to maintain stable and effective communities." That sums up the crux of this budget, which I support.

MR. SKELLY: I'm hoping to have your indulgence in departing a little bit from the traditional style of the budget speech, or at least the style that we've seen in this debate going back and forth across the floor. I'd like to relate only a little bit to the budget, and you'll see how the speech relates as I get closer to the end. Realizing that the budget speech is traditionally a wide-ranging debate in which members are generally free to deal with topics of their choice, provided they relate at some point to the budget, I would like to take an opportunity to discuss an experience I've had within the last month that I think members might be interested in.

I'd also like to talk about an area of the Pacific Rim that Canadians generally ignore. The budget mentions Pacific Rim countries. We tend to ignore those countries that are located on the eastern shore of the Pacific Ocean. When we consider our position as a Pacific Rim country, we tend to look out towards the Orient, China, Japan and Australia. What we fail to realize is that we share the eastern coastline of the Pacific with a number of Spanish-speaking nations in Central and South America. I think it's a direct result of Canada's lack of interest in this area of the world that South America and Central America have been abandoned to some of the most oppressive military dictatorships ever known to man — governments that rely on terror and torture to maintain their power. I can't believe that if Canadians were truly aware of the conditions in many Latin American countries, they would continue for long to support those regimes.

I would like to discuss with members the conditions in one of those countries that I had an opportunity to visit a few weeks ago. That country is Nicaragua, which recently won its independence on July 19, 1979, and is now seen by many

[ Page 4590 ]

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

I was invited to Nicaragua as a guest of the Sandinista Trade Union Central. I was part of a tour of approximately 20 residents of British Columbia, including trade unionists, representatives of women's organizations and organizations involved in providing development assistance to Third World countries. We were given virtual freedom of the country. We had an opportunity to meet with a number of government officials and trade union members. We did tours of the plants in which these people worked. We met with representatives of women's organizations, youth groups, teachers' organizations and people involved in various government ministries, such as adult education. We met with the Minister of Culture, Ernesto Cardinale, and we met with a number of individuals and business people in Nicaragua who were willing to talk to us about the conditions in that country and what they would like to see as its future.

Our group, in order to get as accurate a picture of what was happening in Nicaragua as possible, took along its own translators rather than rely on the translators that were provided. In some cases translators weren't necessary because a good part of the people on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua speak English, so we had a more than adequate means of communication with the Nicaraguan people.

My impression was that within the constraints imposed on the country by poverty, the necessities of post-war reconstruction and the threat of military intervention from the United States, Nicaragua is virtually a free society. Its government is popularly supported. It will present a democratic example to all the countries in Latin America and provide hope to all of those people presently suffering under military dictatorships that they will be able to throw off the yoke of those dictatorships sometime in the future and become democratic and free themselves. I think this is precisely what Americans fear the most about Nicaragua. It is the fact that it's an example to other countries in Latin America, which for years have suffered under military dictatorships such as the dictatorship of Somoza in Nicaragua, which was supported by the United States government. It is also for this reason that Nicaraguans see Canada as their hope for an independent, non-aligned future. If Canadians don't respond in an appropriate way to the hopes of Nicaraguans and take a policy position in Central America independent of that taken by the United States, then we will see Nicaragua go back into the old form of military dictatorship. If we do take an independent stand on foreign policy in this area, then this country will have some justifiable pride in knowing that we kept alive a movement which will ultimately liberate millions of people suffering under oppressive military regimes in Latin America.

Let me describe for you some of the conditions that Nicaraguans have suffered through during the past few years. As a result of the ecumenical movement in the sixties and the Conference of Medellin in 1968 in Colombia, the Roman Catholic Church has become increasingly concerned about the way it represents the poor and the oppressed, especially in Latin America. Also, when Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States, he announced that as part of his foreign-aid policy, he would not give aid to countries that did not respect the basic human rights. As a result of this, the Nicaraguan dictator, Somoza, found himself isolated from American support and from the support of the Roman Catholic Church, which is critical in Latin America.

At the same time in 1972, the city of Managua was destroyed by an earthquake. Millions of dollars in foreign aid flowed into the country, especially from countries such as Canada, to rebuild the city of Managua. Unfortunately the dictator Somoza took most of the money that was allocated for rebuilding the city of Managua and pocketed it himself. He created an insurance company and a bank for his own profit. This, more than any other event, stirred up the revolt among the people of Nicaragua, who saw that Somoza and his family and supporters were stealing from the poorest of the poor. When Somoza was criticized in the press by a man named Chamorro, the publisher of La Prensa, the major newspaper in Nicaragua, Somoza had him assassinated. This action precipitated the insurrection which ultimately toppled the government. After a bitter war in which 100,000 people were exiled from Nicaragua and tens of thousands of Nicaraguans were killed, on July 19, 1979 — only about 20 months ago — the Sandinista government was welcomed in by a cheering crowd of almost a million people. This was half the population of Nicaragua in the central square of the capital city.

Getting into government was one thing, but the government faced a tremendous task of reconstruction that makes our budget debate here look a bit petty in comparison. Over half of the people were unemployed. Most of them hadn't worked throughout the whole period of the war. Forty percent of the total productive facilities of the country had been destroyed, either by the war itself or by vengeance taken upon the country by the departing supporters of Somoza and his National Guard. Over 50 percent of the people were totally illiterate — another legacy left over from the Somoza regime. The banks of the country had been drained of cash by Somoza, and when the government took over the banks, they found only $3.5 million remained, enough to meet the import requirements of the country for two and a half days. In addition, the government was facing debts to foreign creditors of $1.6 billion which were borrowed by Somoza when he was in office, but only half of which was invested in Nicaragua, the rest having found its way into his personal assets in Miami and outside the country.

In spite of this the government acted quickly to try to restore the economy of the country. They paid every worker of the country three months' salary in order to get the economy moving again. They froze the price of food and transportation and subsidized both so that both would be available to the people of Nicaragua. They reduced rents and housing costs by 50 percent, and that way they were able to get the economy of that country back on the track again. From an inflation rate of 84 percent, Mr. Speaker, they reduced it to 17 percent. The reduction in the unemployment rate was from almost 50 percent to 13 percent. It is an extremely effective government, but also a popularly supported and democratic government in the way they operate.

Let me outline for you some of the basic elements of Nicaragua's domestic and foreign policy program. The first element is to unite all elements of the country into a broadly representative government of reconstruction. This has been done. The ruling junta consists of a number of people from the FSLN — the major ruling party — but it also incorporates people from the Conservative Party of Nicaragua. It also has representatives from the Catholic Church, and all people in the country are represented in the council of state, including church, business, labour groups and other mass organizations in Nicaragua.

[ Page 4591 ]

Elections have been promised by 1985, but in the meantime the government has developed a process of consultation with the people that would put many governments such as ours to shame. Almost everybody in the country today has an opportunity to involve himself in decision-making on policy issues.

A second element in the Nicaraguan government policy is to follow a policy of non-alignment in great-power politics. At this point Nicaragua is about 80 percent dependent on the United States for imports and exports, and 6 to 7 percent of their trade is with the eastern bloc nations. Nicaraguans, Mr. Speaker, see Canada as their hope to reduce their trade dependence on the United States without becoming forced, as Cuba was, into the same dependency relationship with the Soviet bloc.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Nicaragua is also committed to recognizing its financial obligations both domestic and foreign. In spite of the fact that Somoza and his friends pocketed a good part of the proceeds of foreign loans, the Nicaraguans have agreed to repay all of their foreign obligations, except those to Argentina and Israel, which were for weapons provided to Somoza's National Guard and which were used to kill Nicaraguans.

The Nicaraguan government has also recognized the role of private ownership in the economy of the nation. The properties of the Somoza families have been nationalized and have become a part of the public sector of the economy, but 80 percent of industry is still controlled privately, representing 60 percent of the gross domestic product of the country that is the amount still in private hands.

Mr. Speaker, it's also a humanitarian government. Within 15 days of taking power in Nicaragua, they launched a literacy crusade to educate to a basic minimum standard something like 600,000 citizens of Nicaragua who were totally illiterate, and they accomplished this in a period of four months. That accomplishment was recognized by UNESCO, which made an award to the state of Nicaragua for their efforts in the literacy crusade. I've seen hundreds of people in Nicaragua who came up to me proudly on the street, showing me their literacy certificates, showing me their notebooks, showing me their lessons that they had learned over that four month period. It was recognized by the United Nations as one of the most massive efforts to educate a group of people ever undertaken by a humanitarian government. Hundreds of thousands of students went out into the backwoods of Nicaragua, had themselves adopted into families who could neither read nor write and taught those families to read and write.

At the same time they did a census of the state. They catalogued animals and plants throughout the state. They did things that the Somoza government had never bothered to do in 40 years in office. Fifty-six children died in that literacy crusade, taking knowledge to the illiterate people of Nicaragua. I would like to point out that Canadians provided a great deal of assistance to that literacy crusade. The New Democratic Party in Vancouver helped to finance that literacy crusade. The B.C. Teachers Federation sent a large amount of money, which was of tremendous benefit in that literacy crusade. People in Nicaragua are extremely grateful for the generous aid that non-governmental Canadian organizations have given them to help in the reconstruction of their country.

This year was to have been the Year of Health in Nicaragua. One thing the literacy crusade identified was that many Nicaraguans couldn't learn because they didn't have the basic elements of health. This year health brigades were to go to the interior of Nicaragua to provide knowledge of the basic elements of sanitation and nutrition, to provide fresh water, and to assist in inoculation programs for communicable diseases. In Nicaragua they say they don't have the luxury of such diseases of the privileged as cancer. Most people down there die within their first few years: most of them die of humiliating diseases such as diarrhoea, which is easily cured.

Because of outside interference and the threat of an American economic blockade, unfortunately the health crusade has been put off for another year. In spite of the popular support of the government, its political and economic moderation and its humanitarian tendency, the United States has now attempted to impose an economic blockade on the small nation of Nicaragua. Nicaragua has a population of 2.5 million, and it's being blockaded by a nation of almost 200 million people. The reason the Americans feel threatened by Nicaragua is because the existence of a popularly supported democratic government in Central America is a threat to their military dictatorships in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Chile, which are supported by the United States government.

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

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Even though the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) resents it, I feel I have an obligation, because of my travels in Central America, to bring back to Canadians the information I gathered down there. The Nicaraguans see Canada as their hope for a democratic future. I would like to urge the members of this Legislature to support a resolution which I plan to present to this Legislature, probably tomorrow morning after making this speech. This government is seen by Nicaraguans as of potential assistance in resolving some of their trade dependence on the United States. There are many things produced in Nicaragua that British Columbians would find desirable, and there are many things produced in British Columbia that Nicaraguans need desperately. And there is an opportunity for trade between those two nations.

I would like to thank the people in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, who provided me with information to take to Nicaragua to give to their trade representatives, such as B.C. Manufacturers' Directory — the type of thing that will make that country more familiar with the trade goods we have to offer.

As I said, I will be presenting a resolution to this Legislature, which will request expanded trade between British Columbia and Nicaragua, opposition to any intervention in Central America by any of the great powers, and assistance to help the Nicaraguans with reconstruction of their devastated country. I would urge this Legislature to support my resolution, and also to take immediate direct action on a government-to-government basis to improve trade between our province and Nicaragua. If we do take effective action, then British Columbia will be able to report, with some pride, that they kept a spark of democracy alive in one Central American nation, which will ultimately become an example to all those people in Latin America who live under oppressive military

[ Page 4592 ]

dictatorships. I am convinced that Nicaragua as an example will lead to the freedom of all countries in Central America, if we provide assistance to that state.

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

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are two old friends of mine from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Dinelle. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

It is with great pleasure that I stand once again in my place, as it is always a great pleasure for me to be able to speak on behalf of the people of my constituency of Omineca in this, the highest court in our province. None of us on either side of this House should forget for one minute who it is we speak here for and how it was we came to be here. We should also remember the democratic process which has brought us, the chosen few, to this place and the respect that we should have for that process; for God help us should we ever lose it to those who, for as little as short-term political gain, would undermine its very foundations.

I stand today to speak in support of this budget. Although it's not the kind of budget which I would prefer to have in this province, it's a budget which is a product of our time. It is basically the result of two things: spiralling costs, which of course include the cost of government, and declining revenues to government. A combination of these two phenomena left the Minister of Finance's task a very tough one. The decision had to be made either to cut services to the people of our province or to extract an additional $650 million in revenue from our economy.

There was, of course, a third option, one which those on the opposite benches would probably have taken had they been government. I say that because we have heard many times, and we can only ascertain, that they are in bed with Trudeau and fully agree with that Prime Minister's policies. That option, of course, is deficit financing. We have seen what that option has created in other jurisdictions and know full well the result of that kind of irresponsible action.

I mention Trudeau and his policies, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting, in this budget debate, to have a look at what the actions of his administration have brought on this country.The total federal debt to March 31, 1980, was $122 billion. Interest on that debt in the past year has been $10.3 billion, almost 4 percent of the gross national product in this country. It's estimated to be even higher in this fiscal year just ending: a whopping $12.25 billion is to be paid out in interest on the national debt, or one in every four tax dollars. It's an absolute disgrace that the national debt in this great, rich land of Canada should amount to some $14,000 per taxpayer or $5,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. The interest on that debt next year, in one year, will increase $500 per capita and almost $1,400 per taxpayer.

If there was no debt in Canada the federal government could afford to abolish income tax for all Canadians earning $30,000 or less. The cost of interest alone will, in the next fiscal year, exceed the total spending in the first 68 years of Confederation in this country. Our net national debt grows each year by more than the total borrowed to finance Canadian participation in both the First and Second World Wars. Certainly anyone with any consideration for the future of British Columbians could not in good conscience take the route of deficit financing. So two decisions were left to be made by the Minister of Finance: (1) not to decrease the very high standard of services now provided to the people of this province, and (2) not to take British Columbia down that disastrous path of no return — deficit financing. They were good decisions, and I support them. I can see the need, and I believe the people of British Columbia want to retain the level of service, a service second to none in the world, particularly in the fields of health and education.

My concern — and yes, I have concern — is not particularly for the budget before us here today. I think it's much the same as was the concern of my learned friend to my right, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). My concern is for future budgets in this province. I am very concerned, particularly when looking at the budget for the Ministry of Health, as to where it's all going to end. We have in this next fiscal year a $2 billion health budget to provide health services to only two and a half million British Columbians. This, coupled with education, human resources and other people programs such as environmental protection, protection of persons and property and aid to local government, makes up 75 percent to 80 percent of the total provincial budget. My fear is for the ability of the people of this province, even with our abundance of natural resources of all kinds, to pay these ever escalating costs in the future.

What I'm saying is that it's all very well to provide the very high level of services, but how many more times can we, as government, return to the trough for additional tax money? It's certainly a concern of mine on behalf of those whom I represent. How long can we go on, even in this naturally rich province of British Columbia, without attacking the real problem? The problem, as I see it, is in the cost to our programs of the massive bureaucratic distribution system which eats up far too much of the earmarked dollar before it actually gets to its destination.

In short, and I say this in my very best northern vocabulary — as you would understand, Mr. Speaker, being a northern member — we have got to, as parliamentarians, find a better way in which to get more bang for the taxpayer's buck. It's an absolute necessity. All governments are going to have to turn their emphasis inward, and not just continually go to the people for additional revenues to make up the escalating costs.

At the turn of the century all levels of government in this country spent about 7 cents out of each dollar of gross national product, a share which now, as I said previously, will barely pay the interest on government debt. In 1950 that figure had risen to 23 cents out of each dollar, in 1970 to 36 cents, and in 1980 it was about 42 cents. Should we carry on at the same rate for the next ten years we will see governments spending over half our wealth for us by the year 1990 — a level, incidentally, which Great Britain reached in 1975. Remember, on a per capita basis, our federal government spending next year will amount to $2,730 per man, woman and child in Canada. This compares to only $540 per capita in 1967-1968, so you can see the path down which we tread.

This is my concern for the future, Mr. Speaker, and I believe as conscientious parliamentarians we must all accept the challenge for which we are elected, really bite the bullet and get to the root of our escalating cost problems.

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

[ Page 4593 ]

expressed them, but generally this budget is a product of the times in which we live, and we must to some extent accept that. As a northerner, and as a representative of northerners, I must accept a balanced budget. That at least shows accountability and fiscal integrity, certainly key roles for any government to play.

Mr. Speaker, for several days now, both on the budget and in debate on the frivolous and ill-drafted motion from the other side of the floor, we have listened to the members opposite who go on at length about all that is wrong with the budget. But we have heard not a sound, not a peep, as far as an alternative is concerned — not one alternative from the members opposite. What would they have done? What would you have done, Madam Member, given the same circumstances? Would you have cut services to the people of this province?

MR. LEA: Surpluses.

MR. KEMPF: Would you have cut services, particularly in health, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert? Would you have cut services in education? Would you have cut services in human resources? Would they have reduced and streamlined the bureaucracy, as I have suggested is an absolute necessity in order to cut government spending? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, for if you will recall the years 1972 to 1975 in this province it was they, in their term as government, who increased the civil service by 13,000 in that three and a half years in the province of British Columbia. Don't shake your head, Mr. Member, because those are facts. Would they have gone the Trudeau route?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you reduced it?

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the member will continue to address the Chair it will assist the Legislative Assembly, and me in maintaining order.

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

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

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, would they have gone the Trudeau route of deficit financing? I don't see why they wouldn't have. They agree with him on every other issue, as we have heard in the debate that has raged for the last week in this House. They're in bed with him at every other turn; I don't see why they shouldn't be at this one, even though, Mr. Member, other westerners, even in your own party, are not. Or would they have done no differently than the Minister of Finance has done in this budget, and levy the additional taxes in order to raise the additional money in order to retain the high level of services in our province? What would they have done? They haven't told this Legislature what they would have done.

They try to make a mockery of northeast coal. Well, northerners don't think that way. In fact, if I might say so, northerners think that northeast coal is the best thing since sliced bread. Finally, after several years in the doldrums, we now have a new vision for the north. We see money about to return to the north for development — a return of some of the wealth of this province to where it came from in the first place.

I must commend my colleague the Attorney-General, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), who in debate just last week uttered these words about the north. I quote from Hansard, because I think that he has said it better than I could myself:

To suggest that we should take away an investment in the development of the great inland empire that will be opened up by the transportation routes to northeast coal and devote it to houses for the short-term benefit that it will provide for a very few people in the lower mainland of the province of British Columbia, is to ignore the way in which this province has developed.

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

I think that says it, Mr. Speaker, even better than I could as a northerner. I commend my colleague, who I see has a keen understanding of just where the wealth of this province comes from. It's that kind of understanding among southern members of this Legislature which will propel British Columbia into yet another 30 years of great prosperity. Yes, the development of northeast coal will commence another era of prosperity in that area of the province on which we are all dependent: the natural resource-rich central and northern two-thirds of this province.

MR. LEA: What about Kemano II?

MR. KEMPF: I'll get to Kemano II, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert. I wish you could be as vocal when you get on your feet as you are from your seat.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as does the hon. member for Vancouver–Howe Sound, I too wait with great anticipation for the northern members. I must correct the Attorney-General: there are two northern members on that side of the floor — no, three now; I have already forgotten one, and soon the north will forget all three of them. I await their remarks, saying they don't agree with northern development or the return to the north of our fair share. I await particularly the words of the member for Prince Rupert to tell this House that he's against the Ridley Island development. Tell this House that. Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, before taking my place, and in conjunction with the budget, there are two direct subjects on which I would like to dwell on behalf of my constituents. You smile, Mr. Member for New Westminster; it's about time you brought some of your constituents' problems to this House. The first I brought to this house before: Kemano completion. I will not dwell at length on this subject.

[ Page 4594 ]

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

MR. KEMPF: No, I haven't had a change of heart, Mr. Member. It's for sure you don't know what's going on in the north, if that's what you think.

But I will not dwell at length on this, as I am sure that by now everyone here in this Legislature is aware of the wishes of the people of Omineca, where this proposed project by the aluminum Company of Canada is concerned. I would just like to say again, although we in Omineca are not anti-development by any means, we do stand united against any project which would result in the devastation of our river systems — any such project. The people of the Nechako Valley and of the lakes district have paid enough for Kemano I. Let us as government look elsewhere for hydroelectricity if in our wisdom we wish our province to have additional smelters, such as the one now serving the community of Kitimat. Kemano completion is of serious concern to a great number of my constituents, and I will continue to raise the question in this House at every opportunity.

Lastly, in the context of a return of our wealth to the north and the transportation systems needed for northeast coal development, I want to speak for a moment on behalf of a group of my constituents — possibly not great in number, but nevertheless citizens of my constituency and of this province and, in my mind, deserving of at least a humane standard of transportation and freight service; these are the people who live and work along the stretch of the British Columbia Railway from Fort St. James northeast to Driftwood. Presently these people are totally reliant on that Crown-owned railway. Because there are no roads into the area, and except for air transportation, which at best is unreliable and expensive, these people have no alternative but to utilize what cannot even remotely be compared to a service — particularly the passenger service, which is considerably less than that afforded cattle in other jurisdictions and regions of this province.

I don't wish to dwell on the type of service that my constituents in this area now enjoy; it's well documented and well known. I do however wish in this budget debate, in view of the hundreds of thousands of dollars — many of which, as pointed out previously, were derived from the north — which are being spent on such things as light rapid transit and other such amenities on the lower mainland, amenities, incidentally, which we in the north as good British Columbians have no objection to, for we know that they are needed and necessary and we want to see progress made.... But in view of all that, I must ask in this debate that equal consideration be given those people along the BCR to whom I have referred. Money must be found to rectify that most undesirable situation, and I call upon my colleagues in government to do so.

There is much more I must say on behalf of my constituents, much of which will be better said during individual estimates of individual ministries, so I'll leave that for a later time. In the meantime, let me say again that I support this budget.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who spoke about how much his constituents had already suffered as a result of Kemano I and expressed some opposition to Kemano II, but failed to indicate to the House what steps he might take if, in fact, his own government allows that Kemano II project to proceed.

MR. KEMPF: That's on the record.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it's not on record in this House. Maybe I should point out that he has failed to mention in this Legislature, as far as I can recall, that in fact he would leave the party and cross the floor of the House if his government allowed that project to go ahead. I'm assuming that the member for Omineca will one day state that on the record in this Legislature. I believe he has whispered it, at one point in his constituency, but we've not heard much on that subject since that time. It would be interesting to hear whether he actually intends to make that statement here in the Legislature.

I would like to start this afternoon by extending to you, and to all the members of this Legislature, an invitation to come to Courtenay this summer, where the Comox Valley is hosting the Summer Games on August 27, 28, 29 and 30. The games are going to be very successful. Based on the work done by the excellent committee which has been working on this project for several months I can say in all confidence that the games in Courtenay are going to be very well hosted this summer. As a matter of fact, the people here in Victoria who work with committees of this type in setting up winter and summer games are amazed at the progress that that committee has made in the Courtenay area. They are currently looking for 2,000 volunteers to assist in ensuring the success of those games. If any of the members are not sitting in the Legislature on those days, I'm sure that they would welcome volunteers from the members of this Legislature. I've got two people in the area checking out all of the hotels to try to find which hotels might charge less than $10 per room, so they don't have to pay the new tax. When I get that information back, I will let the members of the House know which hotels are available at $10 or less.

I would like to extend congratulations this afternoon to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who took the initiative and advanced a solution which was eventually adopted by the two parties involved in the very long, difficult and bitter B.C. Telephone dispute. There is no doubt that it was because of the initiative that was taken by the Leader of the Opposition, who got on the phone, worked for several days on this, contacting the federal Minister of Labour and the parties involved, in order to get them to sit down again — and they did. They sat down and for a number of days discussed the proposal which was advanced by him, and eventually that became the formula on which the solution was reached. I congratulate him for taking the initiative and wonder what on earth some of those members of government have been doing during this long, difficult dispute.

I think everyone is relieved that the B.C. Telephone dispute seems to be resolved at this stage and that the voting is now taking place on the proposals, but I have to say that the industrial relations of B.C. Tel are appalling. There is no doubt, in my view, that that company has indulged in industrial relations which are completely unacceptable in British Columbia in this day and age. They have thumbed their noses at the whole process of collective bargaining. They rejected, out of hand, the mediation reports. They have introduced unheard of preconditions, such as guarantees from the federal CRTC that their next application for a rate increase would be granted to them. This child of the massive General Telephone Company behaves very badly at the collective bargaining table. It certainly has a lot to learn about the whole process.

[ Page 4595 ]

This dispute could have been resolved months ago, and I wonder whether or not this company might feel that the confrontation that it has involved itself in over the last little while has been to their advantage. After all, they have been able to carry on; they can rely on their top-heavy management structure in order to carry them through and, in fact, improve their profit picture as they did during the last dispute. The AIB eventually had to order them to pay back some of the massive profits they made at that time. Whatever their attitude, it's been a long, bitter dispute.

I also wonder about the other companies in this province, the other aspects of the corporate sector, who have been very silent on the way in which B.C. Tel behaved during that period of time. Surely the corporate sector is not happy with the way in which B.C. Tel handled these negotiations. Surely they must be very unhappy, because of the fact — and this is very important — that the attitude of that company has soured the industrial relations of the province. They affect everybody. It's not just B.C. Tel and the TWU; it is an atmosphere that has now been created in this province which is going to make collective bargaining very difficult. That's why I wonder why the corporate sector has not been willing to speak out and express its concern about B.C. Tel and the way in which they have conducted their industrial relations.

I've never before heard a federal Minister of Labour attack a company publicly. This federal Minister of Labour did on at least two occasions, and I think it's an indication of the intransigence of that company and the concern that he had about the industrial relations scene in the entire province. That's why I wonder why those people on the government benches sat for so long without advancing a single proposal that would help resolve the situation.

That soured atmosphere, the climate in which so many of the up-and-coming negotiations will have to take place, has been made more difficult, I think, for any of those who are going to the bargaining table. It's going to be more difficult. The parties involved look at the inflation rate, and unfortunately this budget that the Minister of Finance brought in last week is going to add to that inflation rate because of the harsh taxes they have imposed and because of the fact they've increased their spending by well over 17 percent in a year. It's going to add to inflation and it's going to make negotiations even more difficult, firstly, because of the atmosphere and, secondly, the kind of increases that have been imposed by this government.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not here this afternoon. One of the things the Minister of Finance indicated to us, and that other members across on the other side have mentioned a number of times during this debate, is that there has been no cut in services. That really is a cruel joke, because there have been cuts in services. Those cuts in services have been taking place for the last number of years and are continuing again under this budget. They keep saying they have not cut services. That's not true. It's not true. Just have a look at the youth employment program for this coming year. Surely that is a service to the people of the province. As a matter of fact, for young people I think it would be considered an essential service. The youth employment program has a drop of $4 million in one budget, and they say there has been no cut in services. I really think the Minister of Finance should revise his budget speech and say: "Oh, I made a mistake. There are a few cuts in services and the youth employment program is one of them."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It's the young people who are already facing the highest rate of unemployment. Their tuition fees go up at Universities, books go up, rents go up and yet their opportunity to get work goes down because of those cuts. I'm just wondering if the money that has been set aside this year is really going to be spent on that youth employment program, because they have virtually eliminated the youth employment program in government, and they've also virtually eliminated the program for all of the non-profit societies. Now that's going to create hardship, not only on the young people who are looking for work but on those non-profit societies and some government agencies that rely on those students to give them a hand during the summer.

In addition to that the government admits that this budget is going to cause more unemployment. So it's the young people who are going to have to come up with money for the increases in taxes — the sales and gasoline taxes. They are the ones who find it most difficult to find work, because that's the area in which un-employment is highest, and yet the government is going to create more un-employment. This they have predicted for next year and the year after. To cut that youth employment program is a cut in service that is unacceptable in this day and age.

One of the other aspects of this budget which dismays me is the area of industrial health and safety, because obviously the government has not made this particular area a priority. If you look at vote 144, safety engineering, you will find that the increase in that particular vote is 9.1 percent compared to the overall increase in the budget of over 17 percent. Where are their priorities in that area? Here we have under vote 144 an explanation. It says:

"This vote provides for the programs of the safety engineering division whose objective is the provision of a safe living, and working environment for persons in British Columbia by means of standards, education and inspection in commercial and industrial establishments and in the disciplines relating to boiler and pressure vessels, electrical gas and elevating devices."

This is the vote whose objective is the provision of a safe living and working environment for persons in British Columbia, but where is the priority for the spending? Do you realize that under this vote $138,000, which was included last year for advertising and publications, has been eliminated entirely? This particular ministry will not even be able to publish what the rules and regulations are, let alone do any advertising or make any attempt to improve the safety and the working conditions.

We have the example given by the IWA, through the Workers Compensation Board, of safety inspections going down while deaths in the industry go up. You would think that following information like that presented to government and made public, the government would do something about improving the safety and the industrial health of the people of this province. They haven't, and it makes you wonder what sort of priorities they do have. If they can increase the budget by 17 percent, surely — particularly in view of that very tragic industrial accident that took place in Vancouver where four lives were lost — this increase in this budget should have been much higher. Surely the Minister of Labour should be assuring the people of the province that through the Workers Compensation Board we're going to see the kind of improvements that the working people in this province deserve.

[ Page 4596 ]

One of the things that I have said I don't know how many times in the last seven years or so that I have been involved as an MLA relates to the excellent job that the Minister of Agriculture during the NDP administration did in terms of (a) preserving farmland for future food production in this province and (b) ensuring that the farmers are able to survive in British Columbia, producing food for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I know you have been somewhat involved in farmland within your own constituency, and I'm appalled that any MLA these days would be advocating the removal of farmland from the agricultural land reserve for any other purpose. But I know, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude that you have expressed is an attitude which is held quite widely within the Social Credit Party. I assume that the member who just spoke, the MLA for Omineca, would support the removal of the Spetifore farm from the agricultural land reserve, although he didn't mention that. I wonder what the member for North Peace (Mr. Brummet), thinks about the removal of land that is capable of producing food from the agricultural land reserve, in the process allowing the Spetifore family to increase their wealth by at least $50 million. In fact I have heard figures that are much higher than that. He's a friend of Social Credit.

I would like to read to you a section from the Social Credit news letter for Comox constituency. I don't know if you have access to this, Mr. Speaker, but they have demonstrated to me that they certainly agree with the viewpoint expressed by the MLA for Delta (Mr. Davidson). The newsletter reads as follows:

"The Spetifore land release. Once again the inequities of the agricultural land reserve have surfaced; once again the opposition has raised its objections to the policies of the Social Credit government in relation to land use; once again the issue has been clouded by irrelevant matters that pass for public debate on this issue."

Oh, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about the preservation of farmland in British Columbia being "clouded by irrelevant matters...."

The newsletter goes on to say:

"Mr. Spetifore is a Social Credit supporter. This fact has been known to the Delta voters since the early 1950s. Should his political affiliation deny him any consideration by a Social Credit government? Of course not, for if it did, then the whole concept of citizen participation in the democratic process would have to be discarded....

"The Environment and Land Use Committee of the provincial cabinet overruled the Agricultural Land Commission. This has raised two objections:

"(1) The ELUC committee is composed of elected politicians who are susceptible to public political pressure."

Oh, isn't that an interesting comment? Mr. Speaker, here we have a group of elected politicians who are susceptible to public political pressure — you'd better believe it, Mr. Speaker — and I think that the Spetifore land release demonstrates that very clearly.

Back to reading the newsletter:

"Of course they are, and that is what democracy is all about. Decisions that affect our daily lives should not be made by people who are not accountable to us; they should be made by our elected representatives."

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that view totally. I think that the government members are beginning to realize that for the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet to be making decisions about farmland should not be allowed in this province; those decisions should be made by an independent body such as the Land Commission which has the expertise and which is not susceptible to political pressure, as is cabinet.

"(2) The job of the ALR committee to preserve farmland is being destroyed by intervention by the ELUC. Not true. The mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is very narrow, to preserve farmland for present and future use. The job of ELUC is much broader, to assure the proper use of land for all types of human activity. One type of land use that is essential and urgent in the lower Fraser Valley at the moment is homesites for a growing population."

You see, Mr. Speaker, they support your viewpoint — take out the agricultural land and put homes on it. But we heard from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) the other day, who told us that the studies of the regional district of greater Vancouver indicate there is enough space and enough vacant area now, without using farmland and without building on floodplains, to supply the housing needs until the year 2020. Was that information not made available to the member for Delta, I wonder?

I'll continue reading. I would like to finish this particular comment made by the Social Credit Party in the Comox constituency.

"If all of the land is potential agricultural land, where else do you get building lots, except by overruling the narrow mandate of the ALR commission?"

This next comment is really interesting. The newsletter says:

"Mr. Spetifore stands to make money from the land sales. Well, good for him!"

I think that's enough of that newsletter. Here we have in the province thousands and thousands of people who have absolutely no hope of purchasing land and owning their own home because of the costs, and the Social Credit newsletter says, okay, if the family make $50 million on its property, good for them. That's the attitude they hold.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe that's why they took the land out of the reserve.

MS. SANFORD: Who knows? Could be. I think you might have a point there, Mr. Member. This government is not very interested in knowing what the public thinks anyway. They have refused to hold public hearings on some of the most important issues that face us today in the province. Here we have cabinet making an announcement — off the top of their heads presumably, because they're having a fight with Ottawa — to choose to have B.C. Hydro build the gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Why would a government which pretends that it is interested in hearing from the public, and pretends that it wants to know what the public of this province thinks, make a decision of that type without holding public hearings? Why would they bypass the PUC? We established this commission so that it could help us make decisions, investigate and hold public hearings.

The interesting thing is that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is quoted in the Province of Friday, March 13 saying: "Some have argued that both pipeline proposals should have been referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission

[ Page 4597 ]

for review. However, that would have been contrary to the spirit of the (Utilities Commission) Act." Well, my, it is contrary to the spirit of the act for the PUC to hold public hearings! Oh, no, decisions have to be made behind closed doors. The only thing that he will reveal is that they're having a fight with Ottawa. Therefore they thought Hydro should build the route.

Decisions made on that basis are just not acceptable. We've got to have public hearings. We've got to know what the two proposals involved will cost and what the environmental impacts will be. None of these things will now be heard because the minister has decided that the route is going to be built by B.C. Hydro and that's it. The people on Vancouver Island and theSun shine Coast are very concerned about this procedure. As a matter of fact, there are a number of ads now appearing in various newspapers calling for public hearings on the route selection. Why is the government afraid to hear from the public as to which route should be chosen?

Why is the government afraid to have all the facts and figures concerning the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island brought out in a public hearing? It doesn't make sense. I will add my voice to that of Mackenzie to ask the minister to hold public hearings at this stage on the route selection. He said he'd hold public hearings to do with the environment — that's good. But why not the route selection? Why should that decision be made entirely by him, without having the public involved in any way, shape or form?

The cabinet travelled recently. They were on Vancouver Island, presumably to bear from Vancouver Islanders on various issues that affect the people of the Island. If they are prepared to travel, presumably to listen to people, then surely they can listen to people through a proper public hearing on the issue of route selection.

While they were on the Island it was really quite interesting to hear the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who was under some pressure concerning the mining in Buttle Lake, come out and state publicly — and it's quoted in the local papers: "Western Mines have been ordered to find an alternative site for its Buttle Lake tailings." The environmentalists in the area were quite satisfied that the minister was indeed interested in Buttle Lake, and that in fact the minister would order Western Mines to find an alternative site. But then a couple of days later the reporters phoned down to talk to the people in the Ministry of Environment here in Victoria in order to discuss with them the order given to Western Mines to quit dumping tailings and poisoning the lake. I would like to quote from the paper: "On Wednesday the senior government official who supposedly issued the order had a different version." Oh, oh, Mr. Speaker, what do we have here? "Waste management branch director Bob Ferguson said the company has been told only 'to investigate the possibility of taking the discharge from the lake, and to provide the branch with information on how it might be done.'" Well, what did the minister say to the people in the area? The company had been ordered to find an alternative site.

These people have an abysmal record on environmental issues. Just look at Rupert Inlet. Do you know that we were assured by the previous Social Credit government that Utah Mines would not pollute Rupert Inlet? We were assured that Western Mines would not pollute Buttle Lake. We're now being assured that log dumps in the Buckley Bay area are not going to be harmful to shellfish in the area and to the oyster industry. People in the area are beginning to question when they hear the Minister of Environment or any member of that government talk about environmental issues. What they've been told over the years by that government has not been accurate. Rupert Inlet is badly polluted. Buttle Lake is nearly destroyed. Without any kind of public hearing or anything else, we're now asked to accept without question a log dump at Buckley Bay, because, after all, the government assures us that it's not going to harm anything.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This surplus that the government is going to be building up over the next year, it seems to me, could well be spent — not saved as a nest egg to be given out at election time — on trying to improve some of these environmental problems that exist in this province. Maybe we have a chance to save the salmon industry in British Columbia, if we are willing to turn our minds to it. If we take some of this surplus that the government is going to be collecting over the next little while, instead of putting it away and giving it out as goodies at election time, maybe we could begin to improve the industrial health and safety of working people in the province. Maybe we could begin to provide services to people. Maybe we can go back and have a youth employment program that means something. Maybe we could have a start on the much needed Island Highway bypass that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and myself have been raising in this House time after time. Maybe we could have some court facilities in places like Parksville. We know what this government is up to. It wants to build a surplus for election time and it wants to pay for its grandiose schemes. It wants to subsidize the removal of coal in the northeast and that's why it has imposed all of these harsh taxes. We don't support this budget.

MR. SEGARTY: I'd like to take this opportunity to wish all hon. members and those in the gallery a very happy 17th of March. I rise in support of the budget brought in by the Minister of Finance, and since this is the first opportunity I've had to speak during this session, I would like to congratulate the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) on becoming a member of the executive council, in the capacity of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would also like to wish the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) well in assuming responsibilities for the delivery of the health-care system in the province of British Columbia. I'm sure you will agree it's second to none.

If I may be permitted to reflect for a moment on the amendment put forward by the opposition and defeated yesterday. I've like to say that I've followed with interest the comments of members opposite during the debate on the amendment. That amendment seemed to be designed to give members of the opposition an opportunity to state their position in more general, rather than fuzzy, terms on specific items which were contained in the budget. I listened carefully to answers to certain questions which had formed in my mind about the position of the New Democratic Party. What exactly is their position on the northeast coal development? What exactly is their position on the resource development in British Columbia, and what is their position in natural resource ownership? Where are they vis-à-vis the federal government in energy and other matters?

I listened carefully to their position on the economic outlook of the province of British Columbia and the current

[ Page 4598 ]

fiscal position of the government of British Columbia. In particular, I had hoped to hear exactly how they propose that the government should increase the services to the people of British Columbia and, at the same time, reduce taxes. They attack the government for providing, but provided no constructive suggestions as to where the government will get its money to provide and maintain these services. I listened to the debate for answers to some of these questions, and I have to say I listened in vain. I heard the opposition hammering away at the government for raising taxes to maintain services in the areas of human resources, health care, education and a number of other areas closely related to the quality of life that we enjoy in the province of British Columbia. They did so without offering a single suggestion as to which services they would cut, or if they would have gone into deficit financing to maintain these services.

I don't think they know themselves what they would have done. I don't think myself that they have any idea where the money comes from to provide these services. They don't seem to recognize that government has no money of its own. The government can really only pay out what it takes in through taxes and other revenue. It's a simple matter of mathematics. When revenue declines, taxes must go up or services must be cut. Certainly no one likes tax increases, but as the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech: "We have done the very best we can to spread those taxes as widely and fairly as possible to minimize the hardship." The way the Minister of Finance has done that will guarantee that very few British Columbians will find those taxes onerous in any way.

We have seen tremendous growth and employment opportunities in British Columbia in the past few years. I know that all British Columbians recognize that didn't come about by chance. It didn't come about because we inherited a full treasury and a healthy economy like the NDP did back in 1972. On the contrary, when this government took over in 1975, the British Columbia economy was in chaos. After three and a half short years, the NDP had driven this province to the brink of financial disaster. It has taken us six hard years to set this province back on its feet, and you don't get a triple-A credit rating, the highest credit rating available in North America, by turning off investments, running hugh deficits, encouraging huge debts and generally discouraging the province's economy. I'd like the hon. members of the opposition to consider the record of this government's achievements since 1975. I'm sure they will agree that our policies have worked and that British Columbia is in good shape due to wise fiscal management and imaginative government policies. Then I want them to think about the budget again, because this budget responds in the same forward-looking manner, taking in the needs of the people of the province as well as the province as a whole.

Interjections.

MR. SEGARTY: If members of the opposition don't agree with my analysis, why don't they say so and state their position clearly?

I have a number of questions as to what the NDP's position is on natural resource development in British Columbia. Everyone knows what happened to the mining industry and the oil and gas industry when those people opposite were in government. Both those industries went into a serious decline and the economic health of the province followed suit. We might ask what happened. They say they made mistakes, but the other part of the answer, which is far more serious in its implications, is that they knew exactly what they were doing — philosophically, that is. It was their position to leave the natural resources in the ground, in particular mineral resources. It was their position then to hand over the resources of British Columbia to Pierre Trudeau and let Lalonde run things.

The former Premier, now Leader of the Opposition, went on record in support of energy resource ownership by the federal government. He said: "The province of British Columbia is prepared to surrender ownership of natural resources if the government of Canada resolves to assume control of all of this country's natural resources and their related ownership, production, processing and distribution." Fortunately for British Columbians that Premier was booted out of office before he had a chance to give away British Columbia's resource heritage.

Last week in this House a member of the opposition said that the NDP was in favour of northeast coal development. Believe it or not, that's what he said. But given the general thrust of the opposition debate I am sure that everyone in this House and all the people of British Columbia are at a loss to discover exactly what the NDP's position is. For years they've been against active mineral resource development. Hansard shows this to be so in statements from the NDP in 1975, 1976, 1978 and through to 1979. I want to ask: is that still their position? All this new business about sound fiscal responsibility and wise economic development of northeast coal is just a smokescreen to hide their old position of non-development or giving the whole thing away to the government of Canada. I need an answer to these questions. In particular I want to answer my constituents. I want to know exactly how the NDP stand on natural resource development in British Columbia, for my constituents' livelihoods depend heavily on the resource development.

In recent weeks some members of the cabinet have had an opportunity to tour southeastern British Columbia and to see first-hand resource development projects. I'm sure you know, and I want everyone in this House to know, how important these projects are to southeastern British Columbia. Currently there are three mines producing coal in southeastern British Columbia. Byron Creek Collieries Ltd. is owned and operated by Esso Resources; Forcing Coal operates a mine in Elkford employing approximately 900 people; and the British Columbia Coal Co., a subsidiary of British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, are employing approximately 1,000 people and a major expansion is planned. There are also two other mines under construction. British Columbia Coal has a new mine under construction with a 15-year contract to Pohang Iron and Steel Works of Korea. This will cost approximately $200 million to construct and will employ 350 people once the construction project is completed two years from now. Crows Nest Industries are also constructing a new mine costing, again, approximately $200 million and located halfway between Sparwood and Elkford. This mine is currently under construction and is employing 900 workers in the construction phase. Once the construction project is completed it will employ 350 full-time people. Esso Resources is also planning a major expansion of their mine, which will bring the employment roll from 100 to 350 people.

All of this positive economic development, combined with the $47 million Roberts Bank port expansion in Vancouver, which will bring the operating capacity of the port up to

[ Page 4599 ]

28 million tonnes a year by the end of this decade, will provide long-term employment opportunity for British Columbian and Canadian workers and economic security for their families, as well as enhancing market opportunities for sale of British Columbia coal.

That is why I want my constituents and every British Columbian to know where the NDP stands. We know that there are over 10,000 known mineral occurrences in British Columbia, with many more waiting to be discovered. You will find oil, gas and minerals by looking for them, not by adopting a policy of non-development which discourages exploration. The growth of this province depends on it. It is essential for employment opportunities for our people.

And what about resource ownership? What is the NDP's position on natural resource ownership? The record shows that the New Democratic Party is in favour of giving British Columbia's resources to Pierre Bent and Ed Deau as long as Lalonde agrees to the public ownership of the energy sector. The former Premier and now Leader of the Opposition said so in 1974, and others have said it since then. It's hard for me to believe, in light of the federal government's national energy program; these policies and measures are clearly detrimental to the interest of British Columbia and all British Columbians. Yet the NDP would still maintain the same position. They would still want to give away British Columbia's resource future to Pierre Bent and Ed Deau and, in the process, jeopardize the energy future of British Columbia and the country.

It is incredible to hear the former Minister of Education with the New Democratic Party come out and support the federal government's national energy program of Canadianization. She said:

"I do want the nationalization of oil companies...there isn't much difference between Canadian ownership and foreign ownership.... In terms of developing energy resources for the public interest, there is really very little difference between the method and objectives of the Canadian capitalist and...foreign capitalists...."

The NDP would do away with the commitment, initiative and activity involved in the private sector in developing British Columbia's and Canada's energy future. Instead, the NDP would turn the whole thing over to the government of Canada, trusting them to look after the interests of British Columbians and western Canadians. If recent events in the energy sector of this country are any indication, that would be a terrible mistake, yet the New Democratic Party and Lalonde seem willing to sell this province down the river in order to achieve their political objectives and conform to an antiquated and failed political philosophy.

Our programs must be aimed at expanding British Columbia's productive capacity at a rate that shows the whole country the vigour and vitality of a free economy. This is not a time to abandon the drive for optimism and creative energy that has characterized this province for the past 30 years. It is not a time for timidity or doubt. It is a time for boldness and energy, and a time for stout-hearted men and women to turn dreams into reality and to continue to make this province a great place in which to live.

Members of the opposition have suggested in the past that the government is trying to build the province's economy on the backs of working British Columbians. I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but that's not our way. We give credit where credit is due, and we believe that British Columbians are a vigorous and active community more than willing through their own initiatives, to help build this province, to make it strong and to see it continue to be strong. That is what they have done in the past, and I believe that is what they will continue to do in the future.

I'd like to reflect for a few minutes on some of the government projects that have taken place in the Kootenay constituency over the past year. No doubt the Kootenay has enjoyed tremendous growth in employment opportunities and in government services over the past few years. Three and a half million dollars is currently being spent on the Cranbrook and District Hospital. This project, nearing completion, will include an emergency day-care surgery facility, a new x-ray facility, expansion of the administration office, and the shelling-in of a nuclear medicine facility.

Also under construction is a $3 million intermediate-care facility, a new human resources and health centre in downtown Cranbrook, a regional office of the rentalsman, a regional human rights office, sewer and water projects, $9.5 million for an east Kootenay community college, $9 million for highway construction, senior citizens' housing projects in Fernie, recreation centres in Fernie, Jaffray and Cranbrook for senior citizens, sewer and water projects in Fernie, an acute-care hospital for Sparwood, a new government agency, and renovation of the Tom Uphill intermediate-care facility in Fernie and the F.W. Green Memorial Home in Cranbrook. All of these things were made possible because we have a strong British Columbia economy and because we have thousands of hard-working British Columbians who, on their own initiative, are out there willing to take up the pick and shovel and do a hard day's work and pay their taxes in order that we as a government may, on their behalf, provide services to British Columbians and Canadians who are less fortunate than themselves.

There's an ongoing need to provide services for the people of the Kootenay constituency. In the 1981-82 fiscal year we will need approximately $14 million to replace old single-lane, wooden bridges in the Elk Valley, to provide decent education facilities for the city of Elkford, to complete the East Kootenay Community College, and to build a diagnostic and treatment centre in the city of Elkford that one day will be enlarged to community hospital capacity. We will need funds for an expanded infant development program, funds for an expanded alcohol and drug treatment plan, funds for the development of provincial parks and funds for the development of Crown land, in cooperation with the municipalities of Sparwood, Elkford and Fernie, to provide affordable housing for the residents of their community. All of this, Mr. Speaker, is part of the infrastructure in a resource-developing region.

The government doesn't make any money. The people of this province earn the money through their own endeavours in the free enterprise contest. The money is turned over to the government in the form of taxes. It is developed to meet the needs and best serve the interests of all British Columbians. That money comes from mineral development, forest products, industrial development, natural gas revenue, coal development — the list goes on and on. They are the very things that the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) and the NDP seem to be against.

Does the opposition not appreciate the great programs that have been provided by the system of free enterprise in this province? The social benefits we enjoy in the area of health care and human resources? Programs for tile handicapped and revenue-sharing? This beautiful building we sit in, with all its marble? The essential services that have been

[ Page 4600 ]

provided in this province, like the ferries up and down the coast, back and forth from the island that they keep criticizing? All of these services were provided not from the profits of government, but from the hard work of free enterprisers who, on their initiative, are willing to get out there, invest their money and pay their taxes.

Last week I turned on the television to watch the news. I was shocked to hear a close friend and associate of the New Democratic Party advocating at a rally in Vancouver to members of the trade union movement that they break the laws of British Columbia and Canada. He said: "The government of British Columbia can go to hell" — please excuse the language, Mr. Speaker, but that's what he said — "and every employer in this province can go to hell."

I came in 1966 to this country and to this beautiful province of British Columbia. I didn't come here to duplicate that which I'd left behind in the country of my birth. I came here to build anew a better place for my children — and that's why we must preserve the good standard of living that we have in this country today. We have to show our people that we can give social benefits under an enterprising system, and that socialism doesn't have a corner in the marketplace of caring for people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the record indicates that British Columbia's short flirtation with socialism is no indication at all that socialism provides services to people. It is no guarantee at all when you wreck the economy. But free people, working together, showing initiative, can provide more benefits on a continuing basis than any heavy-handed socialist government. I think it would do some of those members of the New Democratic Party well to remember the country of their birth and compare that which they have here with what they have left behind. Indeed, it would do all of us well to remember other parts of the world from time to time; perhaps we would come to appreciate this province and this country and what it has to offer and the opportunities that are available to all of its citizens.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Our job as government is to shape, as far as we can, the province of British Columbia into a province that we want for ourselves, our children and all men. I read a story not too long ago about the dark days during the American Civil War. A delegation of people came to express their fears to President Lincoln. Lincoln told them of an experience he had in his youth. He said: "One night in November a shower of meteors fell from the clear night sky. A friend standing by was frightened, but I looked up, and between the fallen stars I saw a thick star beyond, shining serene in the firmament. And I said: 'Let us not mind the fallen meteors, but keep our eyes on the stars.'"

I'd like us to keep our mind on the stars that have guided this province through some difficult times in the past five years, and like all hon. members, to support this budget brought in by the Minister of Finance. It's a positive budget. It's a budget that will stimulate this province for generations to come.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the speech which has just been concluded, but more particularly to the lack of action on the part of the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), who was in the chair at the time, and to whose attention it was drawn privately on three or four occasions that the member for Kootenay was, in fact, reading his speech word for word, quite contrary to the rules. The member for Prince George South did nothing whatever about it. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is some element of preferentiality involved in that action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The remarks of the hon. member for Skeena are entirely out of order on several grounds. Firstly, if the member had objection to any procedure taking place on the floor of this House, the proper way to draw it to the attention of the House, of course, is to rise in his place and state that he has a point of order. The member who takes the chair at any one point in time is at liberty to intervene but is not bound to intervene. Therefore preferential treatment and any accusation of preferential treatment to the Chair is entirely out of order.

But the member raises a good point, and the point has to do with what is proper procedure in this House regarding reading of speeches. The normal practice in the House is that members speak extemporaneously, sometimes from notes — and, in my experience in this House, sometimes from rather copious notes. Let me just read from Beauchesne's fifth edition:

"Tradition has established exceptions to the principle of reading from written speeches and these have been recognized by the Speaker from time to time: ministers of the Crown, leaders of opposition parties and those speaking on their behalf, a member speaking in a language that is not his own, and a member making his maiden speech or using technical data or statistics. These are allowed a written text. In addition, those participating in the general debates of a session, such as the debate in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, are exempt."

This is taken from the Journals of January 31, 1956, at pages 93 and 102.

Although the point is well received from the hon. member, now that he has raised it in the traditional fashion, I think that those could perhaps be the words that would guide us regarding reading of speeches in the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that the member for Kootenay read his speech very well, and I think he read it precisely as Jack Kelly wrote it. I think it was the same kind of material that we were used to when a certain person was in charge of the Social Credit research staff. It had a familiar ring.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we've dispensed with the matter regarding reading of speeches. Now to the debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that have struck me about the debate on the budget thus far is that the government members all seem to follow a very simplistic notion with respect to how the economy of the province should be run. It goes something like this: "If the opposition doesn't agree with increasing taxation on the backs of the people of the province through sales tax increases, increases of enormous amounts in ICBC rates, increases in ferry costs,

[ Page 4601 ]

increases — again exorbitant — in tobacco and liquor taxes and in virtually every area of people services, then their response is okay and the only alternative is to cut programs. What programs would you suggest be cut? Well, you know, that's a very simple-minded approach to economic and fiscal management either in the province or any state. There are other options.

You know, if the members are not familiar with any of the contemporary economic choices that exist, perhaps they should get out of their caucus room once in a while and have some dialogue with the people in the business community. They could tell them that there are varied choices in terms of how the government raises revenue. Certainly the only avenue of raising revenue to support programs is not through punitive taxes on the backs of average working people and senior citizens — those who are least able to pay taxes without a degree of suffering.

Our proposition is — and the members over there are welcome to disagree, but if they'd listen they'd at least understand the difference in philosophy between this side of the House and that — that the resource wealth of the province of B.C. should bear a heavier responsibility for supporting social programs and raising revenue than should working people. It's as simple as that. "How?" is the response from the people over there who see one simplistic formula. Well, the "how" has been explained to them a number of times by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues. We've explained to the member who just took his seat, after reading a speech that someone prepared for him, that there's a great amount of coal flowing out of his particular area of the province, southeast B.C. — something like 11 million tonnes a year. The royalty on that coal when the NDP assumed office in 1972 was 25 cents per tonne.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Those were black days.

MR. KING: Yes, indeed, it was a poor day for the province of British Columbia when a foolish Social Credit government placed a 25-cent-a-tonne evaluation on our natural resources — our irreplaceable resources. One of the first moves we made was to increase that royalty to $1.50 a tonne to bring back a return to the people of the province who, I think all members would agree, have an equal share in the ownership of resources in the province. Now what's wrong with that? Do you have to gouge it out of the paycheques of workers? There are other options. We had announced another increase in royalties on that coal, to take effect in April 1976, of an additional $1 a tonne to bring it up to $2.50 a tonne. It's much higher out of Conservative Alberta.

This government cancelled that last increase, and in so doing they destroyed an option of gathering revenue from the resource wealth of this province which would have relieved taxpayers of the kind of onerous tax increases you've brought in now. Can't you understand that? It doesn't take much of a brain to see that there are choices in terms of raising revenue.

The irony is that during that very period of time, the then owner and operator of one of the mines in that member's riding, Edgar Kaiser Jr., paid me a visit personally in my office here in the buildings, He had a labour problem and he wished to discuss that with me. He was caught in a dilemma at that time: the federal government had brought in a so-called wage and price freeze. Here was Edgar Kaiser Jr. with a strike on his hands. He was prepared to pay what the United Mine Workers, his union, was demanding but it happened to be $1 above the permissible amount allowed under the wage and price control program. So would you believe that Edgar Kaiser Jr. flew, along with his union representatives, in his private plane down to Ottawa to try to persuade the federal government to release them from the strictures of the wage and price control program. He said quite frankly: "With the increased value of coal on the international market, I am embarrassed that I have received such increases in my profits and am unable to pass along some of the benefits to my workers."

Now Edgar Kaiser Jr. said that to me very bluntly and openly in my office, but here's a government that cannot see that resources should be relied upon to raise revenue for the people who own those resources. They take the position that it must be gouged out of the average pay cheque — for working people and senior citizens who have no ability to go back to the bargaining table and negotiate an increase.

You don't do these things in a vacuum and in isolation. We see a housing and shelter market in Vancouver, the lower mainland and here on Vancouver Island that's out of sight in terms of people's ability to win the right to own their own home. There's no chance under the existing housing market for young people, unless they're born with a silver spoon in their mouth, as some people are — but only a few — but the average young person in B.C. today certainly can't afford it.

On top of that, we set out to exacerbate their dilemma all the more by imposing extra sales taxes. The ICBC rates are punitive, but there are options available. We are pleading with this government to understand that their narrow, simplistic approach of "gouge the people or cut programs" just doesn't make any sense. Forgive me for the description, but it is an ignorant kind of response to an economic equation — and I mean that in the best sense, Mr. Speaker, not as a personal thing. It speaks to me of an ignorance of simple economics that any member of the Legislature should be able to understand. There are other options. Gee whiz. I cannot for the life of me see why the forest industry — which is our primary industry — our mining industry — coal and other minerals — and petroleum products should not be able to bear, in the kind of market situation which we are in today, a greater portion of the revenue required to run the affairs and the programs of this province. That's our proposition. So don't try to simply pervert the argument by providing some simplistic equation that doesn't make any sense at all, and which the people are not going to buy in terms of how the government interprets our position.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I know it was written for him. The other thing is, perhaps. that the member wasn't even in the Kootenays. I don't know whether he was or not. It was between 1969 and 1972 that the Social Credit government of that day proposed and issued a charter to the Great Northern Railway, as it was called then. to build a railway link between the mining sectors in the northeast and to transport all the coal from that area south of the border through the United States. Social Credit renewed that charter to what was then called the Kootenay and Elk Railway on 11 different occasions. They kept alive the proposition that Mr. Kaiser, who held an interest in Burlington Northern, was going to be able to ship his own coal on is own railway. Who knows? Once it had been transported south of the 49th parallel it may never have come back, because Mr. Kaiser also had an interest in the port

[ Page 4602 ]

of Seattle. It was a Social Credit government that was prepared to do that.

Another basic difference between our party and yours.... Lord knows, we have many things to debate, but these silly clichés that you don't even believe yourself should be put aside and we should have some serious debate on what the real differences are.

Interjection.

MR. KING: He's willing to admit that there are areas of agreement between himself and members of the opposition on certain issues where he thinks it may be popular for him to do so in his own riding. Be that as it may, that's his choice. I like to see some consistency in one's approach.

As my colleague, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), pointed out, the other thing we believe is that the government's position of "okay, we had to increase all this taxation or cut programs" is not factual either. As my colleague pointed out, you are indeed cutting programs and have been doing so over the last couple of years. There is no question that the student summer employment program, which provides a significant number of jobs, has been cut this year by at least $4,000. Perhaps it's more than that. The $4,000 I've identified is in one of the five-part programs. This simply means that many young people coming out of high school and university are not going to have the opportunity to avail themselves of a job this summer to help finance their return in the fall to institutions of higher learning. That's a hardship.

That particular program was created by the NDP in 1972, the first year we took office. We funded it with $20 million on that occasion. In 1973 and 1974 it rose to $30 million. That amount of funding has been steadily eroded ever since this government came in. What they did at first was to fund it fully but not expend the funds. They ended up with a $9 million surplus. That's a charade. It's a bit dishonest in terms of government policy, because you pretend that you allocate the money and maintain the program, but you fail to approve the programs under it that are applied for, so naturally it's underexpended. The government pads its surplus, and we see the program eroded. Yet these people sit back and say: "Well, what programs would you cut?"

I can tell you another program that's been cut, and it's a basic, fundamental one. That member and a number of his colleagues talked about the wonderful program of health-care in the province of British Columbia. Yes, we have a good health-care program in the province. We think it should steadily improve. That health program was certainly assisted by my colleague the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when he was Minister of Health. He was, and still is, recognized by people in the health field as the best Health minister this province ever had. If members across the way wish to cast slings and arrows at him, so be it. The people in the industry know what they're talking about, and the people in the industry today are seeing the whole health program threatened because of the tight-pursestring policy of people on that side of the House. We see the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare having to come in and intervene in a dispute between this government and the doctors.

Interjections.

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

MR. KING: The federal Health and Welfare minister has had to intervene in this dispute and assure the province that basic medicare will survive and be protected through the intervention of the federal government — not through the current Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) who has charge of the program in this province. Is that a threat to existing programs in the province? Of course it is. The member sits there with — I wouldn't describe it as an idiotic grin, Mr. Speaker, because that would be unparliamentary — a grin indicating that when it comes to any understanding and recognition of problems out there there's a vacuum, at least in his mind, and that's unfortunate. These are things that should be addressed by all members of the Legislature. They affect every member's riding.

As I've mentioned before, in my own particular town, the city of Revelstoke, we've had cutbacks in services that were good, established programs, such as the home-care program. The home-care program has been eliminated in the city of Revelstoke. I've had a call from a lady who had very serious surgery in the city of Kelowna in the regional hospital centre, and upon her return to Revelstoke, seeking what she thought to be normal services for changes of dressing and follow-up services — which has been the home-care program — she found that the program had been abolished without fanfare. I wasn't even aware of it. I'm conducting some further investigations into that matter to find out why it was dropped; but I'm convinced, at this point, that it was dropped because of a lack of funding. What we see and what we object to is very essential programs being eroded or curtailed at one and the same time that we're seeing massive increases in the cost of living imposed on people by the government. We don't think that makes any sense, we don't think it's fair.

The other response which this government and their members offer is: "Well, if you don't agree with these onerous tax increases then you must want a deficit budget." That's their other simplistic response. Maybe that's all right for a political cliché, I don't know. Perhaps, if you are a bit snobbish in your outlook and you think you can dupe people out in the public domain by saying, "look, these are the simple choices." If you have the rather disdainful view that the public is so ignorant that they fail to understand there are other options, so be it. But certainly that's not the only option. In any event, this government is the last one that should be running around crying about deficit budgets, the cost of capital and the high cost of interest.

It is this government that has subjected the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia to a debt, relative to B.C. Rail, of $700 million. It's guaranteed by the province of British Columbia; B.C. Rail can't pay it. Every year for years, in this Legislature, gifts and grants of money have been floated to B.C. Rail to keep it afloat. We're not opposed to B.C. Rail; we think it's a good instrument of economic development. But face reality, don't hide the facts, don't pretend that debt does not exist. That's dishonest. Of course the debt exists. And who do you think is paying for it? It's the people of the province of British Columbia who are carrying the interest charges on that $700 million debt which British Columbia Rail carries, authorized and validated by your government. You wouldn't fib to the people, would you? Tell them the truth. What about B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker'? B.C. Hydro has borrowing power nearing $8 billion, authorized again by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the executive branch of government. I think their real debt is between $7 billion and $8 billion.

[ Page 4603 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: They've got assets.

MR. KING: Yes, they've got assets. Of course they have, but so has the government. Mr. Speaker, listen to that. There's the Minister of Agriculture, who blasts away with both barrels at Ottawa for the high level of debt that the people have to service with interest costs and all their terrible deficit financing that will kill the nation. But when it comes to the debts of his own Crown agencies, he says: "Oh, yes, but we've got assets." Well, what on earth does he think the government of Canada has? The government of Canada has assets too.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Oh, go back to the cabooses. If that is not an intelligent and a bright repartee coming from the Minister of Agriculture, then I've never heard one — just brilliant. If I were to start identifying people with their former occupations and the ones they occupy now, I'd have a number of choices, considering that that member represents agriculture, wouldn't I? But far be it for me to do that.

There are distortions in the kind of arguments that the government wants to put across, and we think that it doesn't allow for intelligent debate. It doesn't allow for serious consideration of the options that are available. We think it's unfair that this government goes around the province and the nation bashing the federal government continually for the kind of debt load they carry, and at the same time hiding their own debt load through Crown corporations and pretending that we are debt-free. That's a distortion and a ruse, and it's not quite being up-front and open with the people of the province of British Columbia.

We believe that there are other options open in terms of raising the kind of revenue the province needs. We don't think that revenues should be raised, particularly out of the paycheques of the people, to finance and subsidize the export of non-renewable resources. We think that's really asinine. It makes no sense to ship out non-renewable resources unless those resources provide a fair return to the people of the province who own them. We disagree with the government that a fair return should simply be the jobs that are created out of the digging and the mining of that resource out of the ground. We believe that the people are entitled to a fair return in addition to those jobs. In other words, the enterprise should pay its own way. It should never be subsidized by the taxpayers' money — primarily for the benefit of whom, Mr. Speaker? Is it for the benefit of the mining companies? It's primarily for the benefit of our offshore customer who is the recipient of the main advantage, because he now has the ability to play off one supply centre in our province against another. That can only be an advantage to our customer and detrimental to British Columbia's interest as a supplier of resources. Certainly it would seem to me that any business person could understand that kind of situation. Yet we see this government and the members, whether they're from the north or the south, blindly committing themselves to a proposition which, on the face of it, makes no sense whatsoever.

We would be very happy to see the northern part of the province developed, but we think that the criteria for development there should be sound and businesslike, as it should be in any other part of the province. Those sound and reasonable criteria should simply be when there is adequate return of revenue from the development of non-renewable resources. Then and only then shall we develop them and export them to any other nation. That only makes sense, and I would say that if you put that proposition to the people of British Columbia by referendum, general election, questionnaire or any other way you want to put it, you would get overwhelming support for the proposition which I put forward. There is no question in my mind about that. People are tired of seeing their resources cut and dug out of the ground and shipped out of the country to provide employment opportunity and industrial growth and expansion in other nations for minimal or no return to this nation of ours. People are sick and tired of that. It's not enough that we've witnessed it in the past. This government has achieved the dubious distinction of proposing now that we not only ship it out for negligible benefits but subsidize sending it away to a foreign nation which, ironically, has an industry founded totally on imported products, many of them from Canada — both the ore and the coal that is used to fire the steel furnaces to fabricate steel in Japan.

It occurs to me that if this government were so innovative and so wonderful in the marketplace, perhaps as possessors of rich and varied mineral and timber wealth — the coal, fuel and power — we might be able to set up a fabrication industry of our own in the province of British Columbia and compete on a more sophisticated scale with materials that have at least had some kind of fabrication in our own province, rather than shipping out the raw materials alone, buying back the more sophisticated consequences of it, and injuring our balance of payments all the more in the process.

I don't see any initiative. I don't see any vision. I don't see any will to protect the interests of the people of the province of British Columbia. I don't see any will to wisely husband the resource wealth of this province so that our own generations will enjoy the job creation and the development of the industrial base here in British Columbia which will assist in the elimination of tax from the backs of individuals. I don't see any indication or any will by this government to dedicate themselves to the preservation of this resource wealth for generations to come.

All we hear from this government is after-the-fact acquiescence to any application that is made by any mining company to foul any streams or ocean inlets and to jeopardize the fishery and the environment for the minimal jobs that accrue and for inadequate return to the Crown and the people from royalties on those minerals. We find secret deals brewing with respect to plans for exploitation of timber wealth in certain parts. If there are proposals of that kind they should be brought out in the open for public debate so people know what is going on.

I have no confidence in this government being able to do a wise job of administering the affairs of this province. I believe that in their hearts many of the members over there know that they are a government adrift. They know that they are a government in a great deal of political trouble. That's obvious. And they must have some concerns on which they are not prepared to take counsel — not necessarily from the opposition, but certainly from the public and the business community. They dig themselves in, hide from issues and become very defensive rather than listen.

I want to say a couple of words about the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). I have some sympathy for that member. I know he has a dilemma. He's got a proposal for another power development, Kemano II, that will certainly affect his riding in terms of flooding. He has a revolt by the voters in his

[ Page 4604 ]

riding against this project proposed by his own government. I guess the reason I have some sympathy for him is that I've gone through this process many times with respect to power development in my particular part of the province. We in the interior of the province of British Columbia have had to sacrifice a great deal of our lifestyle and our geography, if you will, to the avaricious appetite of power users in the lower mainland — industry and domestic consumers alike.

As one of the other members over there said, we recognize that we can't balkanize the province. There has to be cooperative development of our resources for the benefit of all. But I have sympathy for the member for Omineca when he says there comes a point when one area of the province is asked to give too much to the general welfare of the whole. The member for Omineca says that he has arrived at that position.

Well, I understand that; I'm sympathetic. We have had much more power development in our area than the member from the north has had. As a result of that development by B.C. Hydro basically we have seen the construction of four major dams with consequent flooding of hundreds of thousands of acres of land, both agricultural, recreational and forest land. We've also seen the topography of the land changed in a major fashion. Certainly the aesthetic view of the land is changed in radical fashion in many parts of the interior of the province. Yet we had not found any sensitive reaction from the government, or B.C. Hydro really, in terms of mitigation for the damage done to that part of the province. It is true that with respect to the Revelstoke Dam the concept of mitigation and a committee to preside over mitigation payments to the area was established for the first time, but it's tardy, faltering and clumsy, and it has provided very minimal benefits for the real damage done.

Again, we try to be somewhat philosophical. We say yes, we miss our clean air; yes, we miss the pure, unspoiled forest land; yes, we suffer economically from this significant loss of forest base land that we suffered as a result of the reservoir flooding and also the construction of power lines. This is very significant in that area. Of course it is all choice bottom land, which is prime growing land. We've suffered greatly in that way.

Now, I don't know what the member for Omineca is going to do; he has served notice on the government that he's opposed to that because the people in his riding are opposed to any further development. But I can tell him from experience that the process of seeing B.C. Hydro apply for water licences to enter these projects, and having the water comptroller or any other government agency sit in judgment on an application of that enormity, is totally meaningless, and a charade of the worst kind. There is no chance, once B.C. Hydro has made up its mind and had its program validated by the cabinet of the province, that any subordinate civil servant is going to veto his cabinet — absolutely no way.

So the member for Omineca deludes himself if he feels that through lobbying he is going to make some major change in that project, if it is decided by Hydro — and by Kemano in this case — and the cabinet that that project is going to proceed. He's a voice in the wilderness. There is only one way he is going to make a difference, Mr. Speaker, and that is if he takes advantage of the narrow margin which that governing party has in this Legislature and stands up and says: "Look, I not only promised to speak against this project, but I tell you that if a water licence is provided I will vote against you." Then he might get the ear of government. So for him to dance around and pussyfoot in here and say, "Well, I'm opposed to it and I may speak about it," is an illusion. He's attempting to assuage the concern of his own voters, but he must know that short of standing and voting against the party that he is associated with, he will have no impact on that proposition whatsoever. We are watching closely to see where his principle overrides his allegiance to the group that he sits with on that side. That's going to be an interesting thing to watch as we go along.

I don't know what the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) was talking about when he referred to comments made by someone about telling the government where to go, and business.... In any labour dispute in the province of B.C. — in many of them — emotions run high. During the intense heat of a labour dispute people often say things that they wouldn't say in moments of reflection. You know, Irish people are rather famous for sometimes in the heat of a debate coming out with a comment or some other kind of expression that may not be altogether socially acceptable and which they wouldn't make on sober reflection. The member should know something about that. So as much as he loves his new-found country, it might well behoove him to not go around judging too harshly lest he himself be judged a little bit in this matter.

Be that as it may, it's a bit foolish and shallow to try to somehow attribute to the opposition statements that are made out there — that's not our role. I think that people out there who are involved in these disputes are pretty capable of taking care of themselves.

The final thing I wanted to say is that I listened to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) talk on the budget, and I'm bemused by that Minister of Forests. Every time I mention something I find him with a quizzical little grin on his face, and I don't know whether he himself is confused or he thinks I am, but I wish he'd advise me and tell me whether I'm on the right or wrong track with respect to his budget estimates. I just want to run through it briefly again.

He talked about vast increases for silviculture. I find the budget of the Minister of Forests this year provides a total increase of $5,708,974 — up $5 million. I've gone through the votes in his ministry and I've found building occupancy and computer consulting up $10,482,383. If we've seen that kind of increase in the two areas which have absolutely nothing to do with forest administration, absolutely nothing to do with silviculture, nursery capacity or general administration in the field, then, as I interpret it, there has to be a comparable cut in those services elsewhere. His budget doesn't quite add up. It's increased by roughly $5.5 million, but the increase alone in building and computer services is up $10 million — redundant areas altogether to the needs of the forest industry. If those costs went up $10 million, then it follows that it must have been the concomitant $5 million cut in some of the areas that do matter. I've identified one of them, but not all of them. For the minister to stand up and suggest that there have been massive increases in allocations for silviculture is not borne out by the estimates this year.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say that I am certainly very proud to stand in this Legislature and support this budget, which we are debating at the present time. I am glad to support it because it ensures that the great development that has taken place in this great province of ours since we became government on December 11, 1975, will continue for not only another five years, but for decades. The reason that I am

[ Page 4605 ]

able to say this with such confidence is the fact that, indeed, it has been the fiscal responsibility and the management of the resources of this province that have allowed this government not only to broaden its economic base and increase employment by tens of thousands, but at the same time to improve social services to people at a time when the rest of the world has not only been suffering a recession in some areas, but certainly no growth. I am certainly very proud to be part of a government that has run a province and a jurisdiction that is now the envy of every other jurisdiction in Canada.

It's no wonder that the socialists opposite have not been able to mount an attack on this budget. I've been sitting in this Legislature off and on since 1966. If you listen very carefully, what they've done, Mr. Speaker, is they've brought out the old whipping boy; they've brought out the big multinational corporations, and they flail them around. They blame everything on multinational corporations. Then they bring out the old natural resources: "No return to the people of this province; no return to the worker on natural resources." Well, you know, they used to do that with great gusto until 1972. Then from 1972 to 1975 they were the custodians of those natural resources. During that period of time, what did they do so that there would be benefits to the people of British Columbia? They drove the natural resource industries out of British Columbia. They drove the expertise in the natural resource industries out of this province. They drove the petroleum industry out of this province. They brought investment in our forest industry to a grinding halt. They brought investment in our mining industry to a grinding halt. That's how they were going to reap great benefits for the people of British Columbia. They were going to tax the coal in the ground.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who spoke just a moment ago. He was talking about northeast versus southeast. Well, that's another whipping boy. My friends, what has happened since last April, when we announced that we were going to open up northeast coal? Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tonnes in contracts have been signed between the southeast producers and the steel companies elsewhere in the world. Oh, they tell me we're going to flood the market with 7.7 million tonnes of coal. We're going to flood the world market, which produces 3,300 million tonnes of coal, with 7.7 million tonnes. I want to tell you right now that coal companies are out there negotiating additional contracts for both the southeast and the northeast, and this is but the very beginning.

I'm glad they're against it. They were against the opening up of the southeast; they were against Roberts Bank. They didn't want any money put into infrastructure. What happened last year? What did Kaiser pay in income taxes last year — benefits to the people of British Columbia? It was over $80 million. How many people were employed? Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. But they're against it, and I'm glad they're against it, because we've finally smoked them out. When I reveal the figures on the benefits of northeast coal, they're going to look sick. I'm glad they're against it and they're fighting it. They can say we're subsidizing and they can say it's costing the taxpayers of this province money, because when I tell them the figures the people out there will know.

They sat down in caucus and one group said: "Well, we should be against northeast coal." Another group said: "Oh. no, we shouldn't be against it, but we shouldn't be for it either. Let's just criticize it; let's pick it apart. Don't be either for or against it." It wasn't until yesterday that they came out and showed their true colours. I haven't heard the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) speak out against northeast coal, because he knows that northeast coal is going to be the catalyst that is going to provide the dream of his constituency and develop a great port — a dream of over 70 years. You won't hear the member for Prince Rupert come out hard against northeast coal.

Our policies in this government are a fair return to the people of British Columbia from the development of their natural resources, a fair return to the workers who develop our natural resources and a fair return to those who put up the risk and venture capital. That's our policy. and that policy has worked for years and years. It's that policy that provides all the benefits we enjoy and gives British Columbians the greatest amount of social benefits anywhere in any jurisdiction.

It's very easy for them to get up and talk about natural resource development. But they were once government, and the people will be reminded and will remember how they killed the economy of this province, how more people were leaving than were coming to our province, how our mining engineers had to go seek jobs in Europe, Australia and other countries, how there was no investment in our number one industry — the lumber industry — and how there were no investments in new mines. Contrast that with the good life we have in British Columbia today.

They talk about a fabrication industry and a manufacturing industry. Hundreds and millions of dollars have been invested in the manufacturing industry in British Columbia in the last five years. It's development like northeast coal that's going to help our fabricating industry. We'll be putting on seminars; we'll be ensuring that the benefits of northeast coal development flow to the business community in British Columbia — and it will be of great benefit. Not only will it create direct jobs in the mining industry itself, but indeed in the fabrication industry and in the manufacturing industry.

We sometimes have short memories in this Legislature. One of their policies was that we wanted to develop a new area called the Grizzly Valley — it was the Grizzly Valley gas field. It provided investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in pipeline and scrubbing facilities; it provided jobs and was the key to opening up new exploration. What did they say? "Oh, we can't build a pipeline — there's no gas in the ground!" That pipeline tapped one of the biggest gas fields, probably, in the whole world. That gas field was not proven up until the pipeline was built because nobody was going to plough hundreds of millions of dollars into an area when they couldn't sell the gas. That's what the Grizzly Valley pipeline was all about.

But your policy — and you talk about return on natural resources.... What happened when they were government? They made sure the take-or-pay clauses in the sale of gas to the United States were taken out. That's why the United States isn't buying our gas today. They made sure it was taken out and they talk about being able to do business. They said: "Oh, we'll raise the price of gas!" They've raised the price of gas so high that nobody will buy it today. It gives us a great return, doesn't it — the return from natural gas sales is down hundreds of millions of dollars! The people will never trust you again to harvest their natural resources,

I want to talk for just a moment about monuments. This government has been accused of building monuments. Yes,

[ Page 4606 ]

we built a whole number of monuments — monuments to the people of B.C., built by the people of B.C., and monuments to the entrepreneurship of our citizenry. There was no entrepreneurship out there, because when they left government....

MR. HANSON: The Marguerite.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you've got great hindsight, haven't you? You've got great vision in the back of your head.

Sure there have been monuments built. I've heard a lot of criticism about the trade and convention centre. I tell you, if they were government there'd be no idea of a trade and convention centre that will serve not only the province of British Columbia but all of Canada. From the time it was started until now the price has gone up a little bit. I want to tell you — and I don't wish to condemn it — that great building down there that we call Robson Square started out to be $70 million. If Dr. Shrum hadn't come into the picture it would probably have ended up over $200 million. As it was, it cost us approximately $180 million. Does it do anything for the economy of Canada or British Columbia? No, but it's a monument, and I'm proud of it. I want you to compare that with what a trade and convention centre will do for the economy of this province and Canada.

Here we are: British Columbia, gateway to the Pacific Rim, which houses 41 percent of the world's population, the area that has the greatest potential growth of any part of the world, the area that in the next two decades will provide the greatest opportunity for Canada and for British Columbia. What we want to do is invest a few dollars in a trade and convention centre as a show-window to the area of greatest economic potential in the world. They've got to pour cold water on it because it's a good business deal. Yes, we'll build a monument, but that monument, when built, will serve not only British Columbia but all of Canada.

Go to little Singapore, a country of six million people, They have a beautiful world trade and convention centre. But we couldn't do that in Canada, because that would be too good; we'd be forward-looking, we'd be recognizing the Pacific Rim. Go to Jakarta in Indonesia and look at their world convention centre. They're bringing conventions in there from all over the world, but we couldn't do that here because we've got to have criticism from the NDP.

As I said yesterday, it's time we in British Columbia and in Canada opened our eyes to what our future is, recognized it, and had a little guts, courage and vision. B.C. Place for British Columbians. Yes, it will be built for British Columbians. Sure, if you want to call it a monument call it a monument.

Transpo '86. This minister, when he was Provincial Secretary, grasped a vision. It didn't come easily. He had to go to Paris and fight for it and prepare documents. [Laughter.] Well, they're laughing. What will it do? It will focus the eyes of the world on the city of Vancouver and on the province of British Columbia. I call that vision.

I want to talk about another monument. Yes, the expansion of Roberts Bank is another monument to the people of British Columbia that will serve the economy of this province. Why is Roberts Bank being built? It's being built because there aren't going to be any more coal sales from the southeast, so we're just building it so it'll be a monument there. It'll just sit there vacant and empty.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, by the time Roberts Bank is built.... It's running over capacity now, and in a very few short years the expansion will again be under capacity. Call it a monument if you want to. Yes, it's a great monument to commerce in British Columbia, and it's a monument that will serve the trade and commerce of this province and therefore benefit every citizen in the province.

We're building another monument called Duke Point, and I mentioned it yesterday. It's a monument to serve commerce and industry for the people of Vancouver Island. Yes, it's another monument and one that this government and I are proud of because we had the guts and the vision to go ahead with it.

We're building another monument that took a lot of vision and planning. We're building a downtown redevelopment in the first capital of British Columbia, New Westminster. It took a lot of vision, courage, planning, hard work and business sense. We're all proud of it on this side of the House — a rejuvenation of the downtown core of a city. Yes, it's a monument and we're proud of it. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it would never have happened if they'd been government, because they lack vision, courage and ability. As I said, they have great vision in the back of their heads. We're also building a great new floating drydock to serve the world commerce and ships that will come to British Columbia, and it's being built over there in North Vancouver. Yes, it's another monument — a monument to trade and commerce and a monument to world shipping being built here in British Columbia.

I want to tell you it didn't come about easily; there were a lot of negotiations. Yes, we have to put some money into it. You can call it another monument to British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, if you want to. It's a monument that I'm proud to see being built here in British Columbia. Yes, I'm very proud of it.

There are monuments literally in the form of new pulp mills being built all over British Columbia. Yes, all are monuments. They're monuments to the workers of the province and the free enterprise society. They're monuments which will help further process our natural resources, particularly our forest products. Yes, they're monuments, and there are so many of them that I didn't even bother tabulating them. They're springing up all over the country, and there are others that will be announced in the very near future. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are monuments. There are new sawmills being built all over the province. There's hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in new sawmills. I call them monuments. Yes, they're monuments. They're monuments to the workers in the International Woodworkers union. Yes, they're monuments to courage and faith in this government, faith in the stability of government. Again, there are so many of them happening around the province that I haven't got time to tabulate them. They're springing up all over. Yes, they're monuments, my friends — hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. They're monuments for the workers in the IWA; they're monuments for the workers in our forest industry.

And they're building another monument up there in Kitimat. It's called Ocelot Industries and, yes, it's going to process our natural gas. Yes, it's a monument — hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in new jobs. I want to tell you, it's a monument. It's a monument to faith in this government; it's a monument to faith in our resource policies.

[ Page 4607 ]

Mr. Speaker, again, several new mines opened last year; seven or eight more will open this year. Are they monuments? Yes, they're monuments to the workers in those mines — to provide sound jobs. We're building monuments all over the province in the form of new pulp mills, new sawmills and new mines opening up. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent in Trail to further process our industries. I had the opportunity to open up the first zinc-leaching plant anywhere in the world. Yes, that's a monument. That's a monument to the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Swan Valley.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll get to Swan Valley in a moment.

I want to tell you there are monuments going up all over the province — new grain facilities in Prince Rupert on Ridley Island. Yes, that's a monument. Who said we'd build the road? Who put the first dollars up front in cooperation with the Alberta government? Who said it was a good deal? It was this government, Mr. Speaker. It'll be a monument to the farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and a monument to those great farmers up in the Peace River area because they'll be able to get their grain to tidewater. Yes, sir, they're monuments that I'm proud of.

New manufacturing plants are springing up all over the province. Yes, they're monuments. There are new industrial parks through the British Columbia Development Corporation in practically every area of the province. Yes, they're monuments. They're monuments that this government is proud of, and we'll build more of them. It's hard to go anywhere in this province where there aren't tens of hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in great new ski facilities to make our province a 12-months-a-year tourist attraction.

Oh, they're monuments. I've had the opportunity recently to open a few of them. I want to tell you, I could just go on and on and talk about the monuments. They're monuments, not to this government, Mr. Speaker, but to the people of British Columbia.

On that high note I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

AMENDMENTS TO FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 13, intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 13.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.