[ Page 4609 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Uranium Mining report.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4609

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Barrett –– 4609

Alleged oil company overcharging. Mr. Macdonald –– 4610

Milfoil control. Mr. Skelly –– 4611

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4611

Mr. Levi –– 4612

Mr. Hall –– 4618

Mr. Howard –– 4622

Mr. Brummet –– 4626

Mr. Mitchell –– 4628

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 4631

Tabling Documents

Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia report for the calendar year 1980.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4632

Criminal Injury Compensation Board of B.C. annual report for the year ending

December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4632

Law Reform Commission of British Columbia annual report for the year ending

December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4632

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There are four people in the House today who are associated with our Ministry of Human Resources. Diane Alexander is from Sidney, Nancy Buritt and Linda Irish are Burnaby financial assistance workers, and Dawn Wright is from Vancouver. They are participating in an information exchange, and I would ask the members of our House to welcome them.

MR. LORIMER: I ask the House to join with me in welcoming 30 students and their teachers from Moscrop Junior Secondary School, along with 30 exchange students and their teachers from Louis Hébert School in Quebec who are here on an exchange program.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I know you'll be pleased to know that we have fine citizens from Vernon in the gallery today. Mr. Joseph Nagy, barrister and solicitor; Alderman Ken Danchuk; Mr. L. Ehrlich, who was formerly a deputy minister to the Minister of Agriculture of Hungary; and Mr. Bill Clark. They are mature in experience but are students of the Legislature, and I know that you'll all want to give them a very warm welcome and a sound performance.

MR. LAUK: Visiting with us today are students from Capilano College who are seeking a meeting with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). They are Stephen Howard, Mike Miller, Catherine Ludgate and Stuart Morris. A member of the faculty of that post-secondary institution, Arnie Tomlinson, is along, lending support to their cause. I ask the House to welcome them all here this afternoon.

MR. REE: Being a member from the North Shore, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my welcome to the students from Capilano College. I've been informed that a delegation will be meeting with the minister later, as they have requested. I ask the House to welcome them again.

MR. BARNES: On behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and myself, I'd like to ask the house to join in welcoming 40 grade 10 students from Britannia Secondary School in Vancouver who are presently touring the precincts.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like the House to welcome a visitor from Ottawa. Mr. Ian Waddell, MP for Vancouver Kingsway, is with us today.

MR. BARRETT: Even more important, with the Member of Parliament, Ian Waddell, is his able executive assistant, Sharon Olsen. I ask the House to welcome her as well.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of Britannia Secondary School I learned long ago never to forget the workers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In the precincts today are a group of students from Ladysmith who are here on the Crown Zellerbach tour. I had an opportunity to meet them this morning in my office, and I would ask the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Joe Rogers, who is a commissioner of the Agricultural Land Commission. With Mr. Rogers is Mr. Everett Lew, a staff member from the Land Commission. I'd ask you to bid them both welcome.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe filed the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Uranium Mining.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in his capacity as the cabinet representative on the B.C. Rail board of directors. Can the minister advise whether or not the British Columbia Railway has negotiated a full commercial freight rate with Teck Corp. and Denison Mines regarding carrying coal from Tumbler Ridge to market?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite happy to answer the Leader of the Opposition's question. Both Teck and Denison had negotiated a rail freight rate with both the British Columbia Railway and the Canadian National Railway. However, since those negotiations were finalized there has been an increase in tonnage to Denison of one million tonnes, and it is my understanding that Denison is also negotiating at the present time for an additional two million tonnes and will be renegotiating with both the Canadian National and the British Columbia Railway for a freight rate to look after the additional tonnages.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the minister to tell the House exactly what the freight rates are that have been negotiated for the known contracts at this point, and I would ask as a supplementary what they are negotiating for in the future. What has been negotiated up to this point regarding the freight rates that the minister said have been negotiated?

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the exact figure here, but I believe it's $15.86 minus $2, and that $2 was negotiated as an incentive rate with both the British Columbia Railway and the Canadian National Railway.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister has now informed the House that the freight rate negotiated by Teck and Denison was $15.86 with the $2 reduction for incentive. Is the minister telling the House that the CNR has also negotiated a $2 reduction of freight rate for an incentive?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It was $2 — $1 from BCR and $1 from CNR. That was a commercial negotiation and was down from the original freight rate.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister for being so candid. We're getting there.

On a supplementary. Is the minister telling us that the freight rate of $15.86 is not being reduced by $2, as he said in an earlier answer, but is a $1 reduction by BCR, as he said in his second reply?

[ Page 4610 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, what I am telling the Leader of the Opposition is that in the original negotiations between the coal companies, both Teck Corp. and Denison Mines Ltd., and British Columbia Railway and the Canadian National Railway, the coal companies were able to negotiate a better rate. That better rate consisted of a $1 reduction from the original quote for both CNR and BCR for a period up to 1989, which is normal commercial practice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister. Is the minister saying that the BCR freight rate, originally negotiated at $15.86 per tonne, is now $14.86 per tonne, pending further negotiations as he stated in his earlier answer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I said that I think it's $15.86. I'd be quite happy to get the exact figure. What I'm saying is that that is the gross rate for movement both over the BCR and the CNR. The gross rate was reduced by both railways by approximately $2 a tonne through commercial negotiations.

MR. BARRETT: To be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression, perhaps erroneously, that the minister was telling the House that there was a $1 reduction CNR and a $1 reduction by BCR. How does that add up to a $2 reduction by BCR's freight rate?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't say that the British Columbia Railway reduced their rate by $2 a tonne; I said it was both railways. It was reduced $1 by CNR and approximately $1 by British Columbia Railway, and one plus one makes two.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the minister this. If B.C. Rail is reducing its freight rate from $15.86. what is the reduction? Is it to $14.86 or to $13.86?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think that I shall have to draw the Leader of the Opposition a small diagram. I am talking about the gross rate to move the coal from Tumbler Ridge on the spur line to Anzac, and from Anzac to Prince George, where they interchange with the Canadian National Railway, which then moves it to Prince Rupert. The gross rate is in the vicinity of $15.86 and was reduced by approximately $2: $1 off the Canadian National Railway portion and approximately $1 — it wasn't quite $1 — off the British Columbia Railway portion. Now that is for a period up to 1989. However, during that period — and I want you to get this perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member — approximately 80 percent of that gross rate will be increased to keep up with inflation — 80 percent of the $15.86, not 80 percent of the $13.86. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition understand that?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the gross rate, I along with every other citizen of British Columbia understand that minister clearly. If there is confusion out there, it is not my fault. Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to ask the minister how much of that gross rate of that total of $15.86 is BCR's charge.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I would really like to take that question on notice. [Laughter.] I want to be perfectly honest and candid with the House, and I don't want to quote a freight rate here in this Legislature that isn't exact. I have the papers laying right on the top of my desk. If you'll just give me a moment, I'd be quite happy to run up and get it. I'd be quite happy to give it to you. Maybe if somebody is listening on the squawk-box upstairs they can bring it down to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the question was taken as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm under the same impression.

While he takes the previous question as notice, would the minister also inform the House whether or not a published rate of $4.88 minus $1 is the B.C. Rail charge, and if the statement of Mr. Andras, the former federal cabinet minister, is correct that the reduction is from a charge of the commercial rate of BCR alone, rather than CNR as well?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that is not my understanding of it. There is $1 off both CNR and British Columbia Railway. I want to add further, for the House and all the great citizens of British Columbia, that one of the main beneficiaries of hauling this coal is going to be the railway. Just like CPR, they don't want to haul any more coal, yet 60 percent of their income comes from hauling coal. They say, "Don't haul coal, because you're going to lose money," yet they want to haul more coal. I can't understand the CPR saying that.

MR. BARRETT: In light of the minister's statement, can he guarantee this House that B.C. Rail will not lose any money in hauling coal, considering the costs of the construction of the Anzac line and the two tunnels?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is beyond the scope of question period.

ALLEGED OIL COMPANY OVERCHARGING

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In light of the combines investigation report which indicates that the people of this province and other provinces have been grossly overcharged in terms of gasoline and home-heating oil, and in light of the Utilities Commission Act, which the minister is familiar with, as is the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and the broad powers in Part IV of that act, which are at once inquisitorial, regulatory and empowered to roll back prices, I ask the minister whether he has referred this matter to the commission to hold an inquiry and make such orders as are necessary to recoup the people who have overpaid for these products.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member to the Blues for yesterday, in which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) answered the question quite clearly, especially in regard to vilifying and slandering people before they have had their chance to have their day in court.

The answer to the question about the Utilities Commission is no.

[ Page 4611 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to be clear and leave alone this business of this kind of thing. I am asking the minister why he has not decided, as a matter of public policy, when you have the power in that act, to refer this matter at once to this commission, in terms of a rollback. Has the government taken no decision to do that, when you have set up the commission?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the member refers is a federal government report, seven years or so in the making, which did not come to any conclusions about charges being laid. I understand further inquiries are being held, perhaps for the next seven years. It's in the proper competence at the present time, I believe. The government has not referred it to the Utilities Commission, nor does it intend to.

MILFOIL CONTROL

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Environment. The ministry has used Aqua-Kleen, a 2.4-D ester formulation, in the Okanagan milfoil control program over the past several years, and additional permits have been issued for the application of Aqua-Kleen this year. A federal research program has discovered that all 2.4-D ester compounds tested to date contained dioxin impurities, with possible long-term toxic effects. In view of the federal government's concern over the possible long-term toxic effects of dioxin in such compounds, has the minister decided to suspend the use of Aqua-Kleen in Okanagan Lake until research on its chronic toxic effects has been completed and assessed by the federal government?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not, but I will take the member's statement under advisement and try to bring an answer back to the House as to why this matter is even being considered.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: After I speak maybe I should get the opportunity to answer the member's question. because I don't want to take time out of my speech. To be brief, it's $15.86 per tonne. Well, I'll be! It isn't broken down between the CNR and CPR. I'll have to get back to you.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The total is $15.86. I haven't got the breakdown. I'm almost positive it's $4.88, but then again I wouldn't want to mislead the Leader of the Opposition. I will certainly be most happy to get back to you.

Yesterday I was saying that the socialists were chastising us in this government for building monuments. I had to go on and say that yes, indeed, this government was building, monuments to the people, for the people, with the people and by the people of this great province of British Columbia. I was talking about the great monument at Roberts Bank to serve commerce and industry; Duke Point; the remaking of downtown New Westminster; Lonsdale Quay; the new floating drydock at North Vancouver; and new pulpmills too numerous to mention springing up all over the province. Certainly they're monuments to the workers in those mills.

I also want to say that there are monuments being built all over the province, in the form of new sawmills; in the form of new mines being opened up; in the form of that great petrochemical industry up in Kitimat, Ocelot Industries; and new metal processing facilities in Trail. Yes, they're all monuments. They're monuments to this government; they're monuments to the people of British Columbia. People have faith in this government and in this province. Yes, those are the kinds of monuments we're building all over the province.

I talked about the great new grain facilities at Prince Rupert; I talked about new manufacturing plants that are springing up all over and new industrial parks that are being built in practically every sector of the province. I talked about the new ski facilities at Hudson Bay Mountain in Smithers and a new world-class recreation village in Whistler. It's a monument to the people in Whistler: its a monument to all British Columbians — it's not a monument to the Social Credit government. Although I must add that it's because of the dynamic leadership of this government, certainly, that that little $400 million or $500 million project is going ahead. It will be a shining example to all recreational villages anywhere in the world — built right here in little old British Columbia.

Yes, that's the kind of monuments we're building. There's another world-class ski area being built up at Panorama, outside of Invermere.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Have no fear, my friend, we'll make the snow.

There's expansion at Big White and at Hemlock Valley and what have we got going on down there in that great little area of Kimberley? We didn't do it, but we certainly assisted the people of Kimberley. There's a new village, a new ski area, a new golf course and there are new year-round recreational facilities to assist our tourist industry. Yes, those are the kinds of monuments we're building. Expansion at Hemlock Valley, new hotels and restaurants being built all over the province — those are the kinds of monuments that the people of British Columbia are building. New highways, new bridges, new airports, new hospitals, new schools, new extended-care facilities, new colleges — those are the types of monuments being built today.

The people of British Columbia have faith in the future and in the policies of this government. That's why these monuments are being built all over British Columbia. They're monuments to and for the people of British Columbia, because they have faith. All of those monuments will provide the much-needed jobs for our young and growing labour force, so that those young people and the people presently employed can look to the future with security, knowing their jobs are going to be there. That's the type of leadership and those are the types of monuments being built because of the policies of this government.

I want to compare the record. Mind you, we've been government for a little over five years and they were only government for three years, but I want to compare the record.I want to talk about the monuments they built when they were government. I can name them on half of one hand. What were their monuments? What was their record compared to ours? Let me see. They had Panco Poultry. They bought it from

[ Page 4612 ]

somebody else. That was one of their monuments — turkeys all over the place. Then they had another monument — I think it cost the people of British Columbia something like $12 million — Swan Valley Foods. So help me, I've searched and searched and I can't find any more monuments to that government anywhere in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Casa Loma.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, Casa Loma. I remember Casa Loma, yes. There are three, and all of them were failures. I want you to compare the monuments that they say we're building, which I've outlined in my talk, with their monuments. When they came to government the kitty was full; the treasury was overflowing. When we came to government we were in debt because they shovelled all the money out of the back of a truck. Yet this is what is happening today. They left a memory for the people of British Columbia when they left government though — the memory of unemployment, despondency, no faith in the future and people moving out.

I've mentioned a few of the monuments that are presently under construction, and I didn't even mention northeast coal and that great port development at Duke Point and the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be invested by the private sector.

Just for the record, I want to talk about a few more monuments that will be coming onstream or are being constructed at the present time: Sam Goosly mine, a silver, gold and copper mine with an investment of $129 million; Alice Arm molybdenum, with an investment of $135 million; Granduc copper, with an investment of $50 million; Highmont copper, with an investment of $150 million; Similkameen Mines, a copper mine, $23.4 million; Lornex expansion, copper and molybdenum, $160 million; and Boss Mountain expansion, $12.5 million. They're not monuments, but I'll tell you what they are. They are private investments by the private sector that will provide hundreds and hundreds of jobs for our growing workforce here in British Columbia, jobs, expansion and profits that we can tax to provide the social services that the people of this great province have come to expect and, indeed, should have. They are services that can only be paid for by a growing economy and by taxing profits, because I don't know of any government that ever taxed a loss.

What else do we have, since we're talking about the economy? What else have we proposed? I'm sure most of these will come to fruition: a ferrosilicone processing plant to process metals, Kamloops, $60 million; a magnesium ferrosilicone plant for Kimberley, $60 million; a shipyard — to start our own shipyard here in British Columbia has been the dream of people for years; Dome Petroleum proposed investment, $250 million; an LNG plant proposed for the province, $1,000,400,000; petrochemical industries, proposed, $2 billion; Highland Valley, copper, $500 million. There are as many aluminum smelters as we want to come in knocking at the door; we could have as many as we want.

I haven't mentioned coal mines, and I won't even mention the two major ones up in the great northeast. But what about Greenhills proposed expansion and new project for B.C. coal, $200 million; Lime Creek, $180 million; Fording Coal expansion, $115 million; and Byron Creek, $25 million? Because I don't have that much time, I've just touched on a few of the proposals for this great province — investment by the private sector that will keep our economy rolling along.

In the two or three moments I have left I just want to make one point. I want to quote a person. I won't say who I'm quoting but I want you to pay attention to this quote: "With the trains came industry, towns, economic opportunity and a system of transportation that has survived despite increased competition from many other, both bolder and newer, transportation modes."

Who said that, Mr. Speaker? You might have thought that I was talking about northeast coal when we're putting in new railways. You might think that it was some far-sighted politician from years ago when they were building and opening up this country. No, that quote is from the Leader of the Opposition when he was promoting his way out to build a railway to Alaska. But now that we're building a railway that has a firm contract to haul British Columbia products — contracts that will open up the great port of Prince Rupert and upgrade our second railway, our railway from Prince George to Prince Rupert — what do the Leader of the Opposition and his gang over there say? He says: "We're against it. You're going to be subsidizing." What did that same man say not too long ago when he was proposing his way out? Oh, Mr. Speaker, he said that with the railway would come towns, mineral exploration, some tourism and facilities to service the people who would be required to set up and maintain transportation systems. My, how they change.

I want to give you one more quote: "Not only would the construction employ many people, but there would be many residual full-time jobs." The reason that I'm giving you these quotes is to point out to you, the Legislature and all the people of British Columbia that when the Leader of Opposition wanted to spend some $2 billion to build a railway to haul Alaska oil through British Columbia to the mainland of the United States, my, it was a great deal. He spoke glowingly of all the spinoff economic benefits that would accrue to the people of British Columbia: towns, economic development, spinoff jobs, and how we should still build railways even though other modes of transportation had come in. That was just a few short years ago.

He went to Washington to try and sell it. He had a meeting with the Governor of Alaska. While he was trying to promote this $2 billion deal, the construction of railways to open up new areas and to create new economic activity was a tremendous deal, he said in Hansard, "even, Mr. Speaker, if we have to subsidize it." Yes, he said that, but that's when he was promoting something.

Now we have a different deal in northeast coal. We have firm contracts and more to come. It's just the beginning. And what are the Leader of the Opposition and his socialist gang trying to do? They're trying to scuttle it. As I've said before in the Legislature, they've been against everything that's been good for British Columbia. They always have been and they always will be. On that high note, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say thank you very much.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether to start this way or this way or this way. It's remarkable. Here is the man who is the minister of economic development and small business and small ideas, and yesterday, he took off with his mouth at full throttle for 24 minutes and told us all about monuments. All he had to do this afternoon was to answer two or three simple questions about northeast coal — just two or three simple questions. Yesterday it was "hun-

[ Page 4613 ]

dreds of millions of dollars!" All he was asked by the Leader of the Opposition was: "Was it $14, $15 or $30?" In that enormous space, that receptacle, that he has between his ears, he somehow couldn't get his cash register going to figure out exactly what it was. That's the very issue with this man in terms of northeast coal. He has yet to tell us what the facts are. That's all we're asking.

He had a go this afternoon and it was absolutely abysmal — his performance in terms of those figures. His office even sent him down some aides because he couldn't even read it. We still don't know from that minister if there are signed agreements, how much it's going to cost to ship the coal and if there are rebates. Those are three simple questions. He goes off into full flight and tells us absolutely nothing. He doesn't want to tell us anything because he 's got himself into a real mess with this coal thing, and he's telling us that we're against it. The only thing we're against at the moment is your inability to tell us exactly what's going on. If you had anything good to say you would have said it. You have nothing good to say.

For 40 minutes we had flimflam about monuments. Well, I want to talk about a monument that the Minister of Finance is responsible for — and he will shortly become responsible for an even bigger monument. The other day when I attempted to elicit some facts from that know-nothing minister in respect to the Systems Corporation, he gave me exactly the same answers this year as he gave me last year.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You weren't here when I answered.

MR. LEVI: No answers! You haven't got a clue what's going on over there, so we're going to start from the beginning and see whether we can teach you something. Perhaps you might know by the time your estimates come around how to tell us exactly what's going on in the Systems Corporation, because you don't have a clue. He told us the other day that he hasn't been to a meeting of the board for months. During that time he said to us: "I have not been to the board of directors meeting for some months.'' That's what you said. He shakes his head; agrees, Mr. Speaker.

During the past seven months that board has made a number of interesting decisions which presumably, because the minister didn't attend the meetings, he was not a part of. First we deal with the option to go to the main-frame IBM.

You don't shake your finger at me. You haven't got a clue what's going on. We listened to three hours of audition the other day for you to go into the radio business when you guys get defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: We want to listen to the facts, and see if we can elicit from this member some facts on what's going on in our Systems Corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Your figures the other day were wrong.

MR. LEVI: Never mind that. All you have to do is to come back and tell us what the facts are, and frankly you've never done that. He will not tell us how many people work for the Systems Corporation. He will not tell us about the tenders for the IBM. He didn't come back last year and he hasn't come back this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The undertaking to a take a question as notice is, in my view, a serious commitment to return to this House with answers. The imputation is that there is a refusal to answer a question. and that is not the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. minister, although he may have a real concern, does not have a valid point of order at this point of time and should not be interrupting the member who is speaking.

MR. LEVI: You see. Mr. Speaker — perfect example of how little that minister knows.

Let me just go through something from April 29, 1980. The member — myself —said: "I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the Systems Corporation. Will the minister inform the House whether it's still the practice of the B.C. Systems Corporation to hold an open tender for new equipment?"

The minister replied: "Insofar as I know, they do. If there is a specific problem which he wishes to bring to my attention, here or in writing...." I don't write to that minister — takes too long to get a reply, and when I get the reply I finally forget so I have to wait for the House to sit. "To reiterate, as far as I'm informed, the practice is that tendering is utilized whenever practical."

Then he goes on. I asked him: "Can the minister advise the House whether he was informed by the Systems Corporation of a recent lease of a second IBM 333 computer at a cost of approximately $4 million? Is he aware of that?" He says: "The B.C. Systems Corporation is expanding its equipment on a continuing basis. I don't want to give a straight yes or no at this moment. I'm trying to learn the language that is associated with the business of that corporation. I could take the question as notice." That was on April 29, 1980. This is the minister who provides all sorts of information.

On July 24, 1980 I asked the minister another question.

I have a question for the minister.... I asked the minister on April 29 about the IBM, but I guess he hasn't found out about that, so I have another question. Two years ago the minister's predecessor told the House that the government has renegotiated the Honeywell computer contract for $6,488,000 ending on December 31, 1982. At that time, the Honeywell was split and sent to Vancouver at great expense. Now I am informed that the Honeywell part that was in Vancouver is back in Victoria.

Then the minister replied: "Mr. Speaker, first of all to the member opposite. I'm sorry if I did, in fact, take a question as notice on April 29 and not respond. That was an oversight on my part." It's very nice of the minister to admit that it was an oversight that he didn't give us an answer. But again: "...not without most careful consideration by the directors, who, through me, are responsible" for the minister. The decision taken was a careful decision. All right. Then he goes on.

I asked him: "Mr. Speaker, to the minister, the contract is $6.4 million, still has 18 months to run, and there's probably another $2 million to $2.5 million that has to be paid. What's going to happen in respect to that payment?"

The minister replied: "I think we have now reached the point where I would want to take the question as notice." There he goes again — no information. He's got to take it as notice. So he took it as notice and we never heard anything else.

[ Page 4614 ]

The other day — on Monday — I again asked the minister about the Systems Corporation. That's no little corporation. I'm going to enlarge on that in a minute. On Monday I asked the minister a series of questions:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance.... Last year I tried on three different occasions to get an answer from this minister on the Systems Corporation, and I'll try again this year. Last July the B.C. Systems Corporation announced they were opting for IBM main-frame architecture, and I'd like the minister to tell the House what steps have been taken to dispose of the $11 million worth of Honeywell equipment that presumably will become surplus to the needs of the Systems Corporation.

The minister replied in a little preamble: "I think I did assist the member to the fullest possible extent last year." I think the minister has to accept that he didn't assist me at all. I just quoted what he said last July. He didn't tell me a thing. He said: "In order that I can deliver an absolutely complete and correct response to the hon. member, I'll take the question as notice." So I asked him four other questions and he took them all as notice. Today he takes umbrage at the fact that I say to him that I don't think he's going to come back with any answers. He's got to find out something. He's got to find out what is going on at the Systems Corporation.

The reason I say that it's a monument.... You have to go back three years to when the Systems Corporation was set up in 1977. At that time the minister's predecessor told us the objectives of the Systems Corporation. We didn't disagree with the objectives of the Systems Corporation. We wanted to be sure about two aspects of the operation. One was that the government did not enter into the operation of the Systems Corporation in the way that they wanted to do it, which was to take over everything and centralize it in order to save money and be more efficient. That's what they started out to do with the Systems Corporation.

The minister of the day, who is now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), said: "It will cost $22 million to operate the system." When the first public accounts came in, in 1978, we found out that it cost $29 million to operate the system. When we went into the second year, we found it cost $36 million to operate the system. Last year, we're told, it cost $40 million to operate the system. But what the minister, who knows nothing about the Systems Corporation, has not been able to tell this House — and it may very well be that he is reluctant to tell us.... Last year, when the Systems Corporation announced they were going to deal only with the IBM main-frame architecture, the president said at the time that this is the way large operations are going, opting for one main frame. I presume that's why: they don't have to train two sets of people in different machines; they just have to train them in one. So the question I asked the minister this week was: "What is going to happen to $11 million worth of Honeywell equipment?"

We know the story of the Honeywell. We know that the government split it. They sent half to Vancouver; they kept half here. The minister's predecessor went out and negotiated a new contract, which he was so happy to tell us about. He saved the people $311,000 when he renegotiated the contract. Then they announced that the IBM main-frame architecture proposal was where they were going, and suddenly the Honeywell became redundant. It is gradually being phased out. That Systems Corporation is now embarked on a conversion. They're going to convert from the Honeywell to the IBM.

I asked the minister the other day: "How much is it going to cost?" He hasn't come back yet. I said to the minister: "It's going to cost up to $25 million." Just so that the minister can have some idea how we arrive at the $20 million to $25 million, I'll tell him this: in order to rewrite all the programs that are on the Honeywell system and put them on the IBM, it's certainly going to take longer than September 1981. During that period of time there's going to be a delay in the delivery of service and it's going to cost $5 million. On top of that, you have to talk about $11 million worth of equipment. What are they going to do with the Honeywell equipment? It's surplus to their needs. They're gradually converting it. Are they going to sell it?

First of all they've got to buy it from Honeywell, then they're going to have to sell it. We don't know who they're going to sell it to. The people who use the Honeywell at the moment are the Health system. They've spent a great deal of money putting in a one-line system, a responsive system, and to convert that to the IBM is going to cost almost $5 million — $11 million and $5 million is $16 million. They have a contract with Honeywell. The contract with Honeywell runs out at the end of 1982. This is the contract that the present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) negotiated in order to save $311 million. Now he's going to lose $2 million, because he's got to pay right up till the end of the contract.

We begin to get some idea. We listened this afternoon to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who can't tell the difference between $12, $13 or $15. Now we've got a minister who's inherited the idiocy of renegotiating a contract which shortly afterwards was thrown down the drain, because the government was going out of the Honeywell business into the IBM. Those are the published facts; those are the announcements by the president of the corporation. That's how they've been running this system. The Crown corporations committee last year felt serious enough to say: "It's time somebody looked at the Systems Corporation to see what's going on." It was an all-party committee and we all agreed that it should be added to the schedule of the Crown corporations reporting committee so that people can get all of the necessary explanation of exactly what's going on.

I want to talk about something else for a moment; I want to talk about something that's been built in the riding of the Minister of Finance. About eight months ago a piece of property was negotiated by the Systems Corporation for $1.7 million. They bought some land, and that land is where they are going to build a Systems Corporation building where they're going to attempt to concentrate most of the people in the Systems Corporation who are spread around the Victoria area in some seven locations.

Mr. Speaker, that government went to a great deal of trouble to form the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They said that that corporation would handle and expedite all of the construction needs of the government; they would see about the acquisition of land, about design and about contractors. So the Systems Corporation engaged the B.C. Buildings Corporation as the construction manager. They didn't deal with them on the purchase of land; the purchase of land was simply something that the B.C. Systems Corporation did itself. They didn't go to the experts; they decided to do it themselves. So they acquired the land, then they spoke to the B.C. Buildings Corporation about doing the construction management. Well, evidently things did not go very smoothly, because now the B.C. Buildings Corporation is no

[ Page 4615 ]

longer involved in the construction of this building. This building, by 1983 when it's completed and housed, will have more than 1,000 staff of the B.C. Systems Corporation in it. The other day, Mr. Speaker, I asked that minister how many staff were in the Systems Corporation. I said: "Can he confirm that the staff of the Systems Corporation has ballooned to some 600 people, not counting the contract people who are hired through what is known as body-shop operations — private contractors who supply people for the systems work?"

What we are talking about here with the Systems Corporation is the way this government has managed the development of a Crown corporation, a Crown corporation that started out with some very reasonable ideas, except for one thing that we had great difficulty with and never did secure: the report on which the idea for the Crown corporation was based, the so-called McMinn report, which apparently nobody has ever seen. William McMinn is long gone from this province. The basic idea was to centralize it, put it together, have a user committee and allocate the needs of the departments. That was the objective. Bear in mind that there was one disadvantage to the corporation: within one year of its operation the Premier went to the president of the Systems Corporation and said, "Look, I've got a little job for you to do," and they dumped the BCRIC issue right out on the table and said: "That's a major priority." During that period of time the services available to departments were completely confused, so much so that six deputy ministers of the major ministerial users of that signed a report which I released in 1979, in which they complained about the operation of the Systems Corporation.

The reason I'm going through this with the minister is that I don't want to be in the position when his estimates come up that everything I say will be a big surprise to him; then he'll be able to go through the Blues and he'll find all the facts to refute what I've said. He has yet to refute one thing that we've said, but nevertheless he should have this opportunity. I would hope that when his estimates are up he won't just sit there by himself attempting to answer questions of his department, but that he'll have the good sense to have the president of the corporation sitting along beside him so that we can get some answers. His predecessor, who knew nothing about the B.C. Systems Corporation, only did that once and then decided to wing it, so to speak. We got no information from him, and we're not getting any information from this minister.

What we're looking at with the B.C. Systems Corporation is not dissimilar to the kind of fascination that that government, once it became the government, found it had with ICBC. We can remember what they said about ICBC. If they got in they were going to open up the system to private enterprise and make it compete, and if it didn't compete it would have to fall by the wayside. Suddenly they got on the inside of ICBC and became completely fascinated with the operation. It was a very large insurance company that they found was running very well. Sure, they started to tinker and make all sorts of messes with it, but the thing was running very well. This was despite the fact that in 1976 those idiots, if one might refer to them.... That's the general not the particular, and we're talking about a number of people now....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Don't get defensive now: it s a general, not a particular statement.

They felt that the only way to deal with ICBC was to make the thing operate right away like a business that had been operating for five years, paying no mind to all the money that had to be laid out to start it. You know, we went through all that process in this House. We had the so-called accountants telling us this while smiling out of one ear and telling us out of the side of the mouth another thing.

Now they have the same fascination with the B.C. Systems Corporation, and the B.C. Systems Corporation is an example of the classical way that these people pour money down a bottomless pit in terms of trying to make an operation work. There is nothing wrong with the idea of the B.C. Systems Corporation, but I'm telling you that there is certainly something wrong with the way it's being operated. There's certainly something wrong there when you enter into a contract with Honeywell and then a few months later you've changed over to IBM. Then you're talking about conversion and reorganization. You go out to Saanich and build a building. You don't deal with B.C. Buildings Corporation, but do it on your own. You hire them to do the construction management and then you fire them. The minister is not able to tell us anything about the conversion schedule. I hope by Friday, when the minister gets his report from Mr. Stanhope on how the progress of the conversion is going, he'll have the ability to come into this House and inform us about exactly what's going on with the B.C. Systems Corporation.

We have had problems — we talked about them the other day — in terms of what is going wrong with Crown corporations. It is that government that has set up the Crown corporations reporting committee, which is a very unique committee. For a period of two years. It's been that government that has so far refused to attach to the schedule of the Crown corporations committee their ability to look at those two Crown corporations, the Systems Corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corporation. If anything made sense at the time when they created those two Crown corporations, it would have been to make them available to the Crown corporations reporting committee at the earliest possible time. It's been a very difficult process for the members of that Crown corporations committee to get a handle on the other Crown corporations that have been established for some years. You don't simply go in and learn overnight about B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries or B.C. Rail. We didn't get a chance to learn too much about the Housing Corporation, because it was dissolved, but we would have learned in very quick order what was going on in the B.C. Systems Corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corporation, because they were just being started. We could have sat in and listened to what was going on, and we could have seen that and acted in a watch-dog role to avoid the kinds of problems that they now have.

Let me put it to the minister this way. You have in the B.C. Systems Corporation, in terms of employees, some 360 people who are in the collective agreement. You have another 80 people who are excluded from the collective agreement. You have a number of auxiliaries employed, and then on top of that you have contract people who are hired completely from the outside. Why does the B.C. Systems Corporation need to ask private contractors to provide them with employees? You've got over 600 people working in that organization. The building that's being built in Saanich envisions over a thousand people. Yes, within two years they'll have a thousand people employed, and they want to put most of them up there.

[ Page 4616 ]

Remember, we started with the B.C. Systems Corporation in 1978. The first full year of operation commenced on April 1, 1978. At that time the budget was seen as $31 million. Now what I'm surprised about — what I'm having a great deal of difficulty looking at — in terms of understanding the financing of this corporation, is just exactly what is being spent, how it is being spent and where it is being noted. Last year, 1979-80, the total revenue of that corporation was $40 million. That was up from $26 million in the space of one year. This year they've come in with a budget of $46 million, which is the same as the budget for 1980-81. The budget for 1981-82 is going to be the same, within half a million dollars.

I ask the minister — because we've got to find out from him; he's not prepared, but we have to find out — who is going to pay for the conversion costs. The total conversion costs and the Honeywell problem is going to cost $20 million to $25 million. Where is the money coming from to build a $30 million building? We don't have any of these facts, and that minister refuses — and that's a gentle way of putting it — to come to this House and tell us exactly what is going on. We can't get anything from the annual report. All we have there are some bald figures and that's it. All we want is to have the minister take an interest in the Crown corporation that he is responsible for. I don't think ministers should be responsible for Crown corporations, frankly. It's too difficult; you don't have time to address yourself to concerns about Crown corporations if you are running a ministry. Nevertheless, that's the way it is set up. He is the minister responsible; he has to answer the questions and he's shown no willingness — no evidence of any accountability within this House at the moment. I would ask him to tell us — we need to know — where this $50 million that they need for the conversion and the new building is going to come from.

Now the key question is this: every time the cost of that operation goes up, the cost to the ministries goes up. It becomes a key factor. You simply have to look at the Ministry of Forests this year. The Ministry of Forests has almost doubled its budget for computers; it's gone from 39 to 66.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Sit down. You don't know what you are talking about. It has almost doubled.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Ah, he says: "Why don't you go and look at what's happening." You see, he's so defensive he thinks there is something wrong with that.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: If you want to talk, get up on your feet. Don't babble from the sidelines.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's one of the things. If they can put you into the machine and you don't come out the other end, I think it will be worth $2 million.

The point is that we know why the Ministry of Forests has got more computer services: because in 1978 you couldn't even send out the billing and you were down $200 million in revenue — just read the auditor-general's report on that. Yes, so you had to do that. You had to make it possible to send out your bills before you could charge the interest if they were late coming back. That's fair enough. But the point is, those are the kinds of things that go to make up that problem.

The minister got up and made a long speech about funding, and how they are accountable. The other day he was quoted in the paper.... His answer to the way he does his budget is very similar to the way the Premier says that you can either go into debt or not go into debt, but you mustn't pass anything on to the future. Then we got into the business of Crown corporations and how they pick up debt. But of course the minister says: "If only the NDP would understand the difference between borrowing for operating and borrowing for capital." That's what he said. There was a plaintive little plea that came from that little minister. He was saying: "Please understand." We understand it but the taxpayer doesn't understand it.

A debt is a debt. Don't tell me that your $6 billion of contingent liability — which is a phrase that you understand better — is not having to be serviced through light bills and surcharges on B.C. Hydro for transit. That's all a tax. It's no good telling the taxpayer that that's not creating future debt. Of course it is debt. Everybody who uses hydro or purchases gasoline will be paying that kind of debt for years. Within the next two years it is more than likely that the B.C. Hydro debt will be of the order of $10 billion. That's a Crown corporation that we as a government endorse. We have to back it up in terms of its investment. We are talking about $10 billion worth of debt. That's incredible. But don't tell us that you are not running up any debt, unless you are telling us that nobody has to service it. Don't tell us, for instance, that when B.C. Rail cannot collect enough money to cover its operating expenses, you have to give it a grant. We know about B.C. Rail — more than $700 million in the hole. They insist on interpreting it that way, but you can't interpret it that way to the taxpayers. That's why we've made the issue we've made in this debate on the budget.

Last Friday morning the Premier gave us a lecture on his brand of economics. The sum total of it was that there is no continuing debt. But there is a continuing debt. In 1976 the total debt in the province was in the order of $4.2 billion. It's the liability we had that we have to be concerned about. Nobody disregards the fact that you have to accumulate some debt. It does happen that you have to. That's how you run.... In the fiscal year 1979-80 it went up to $6.4 billion — a 33 percent increase. That becomes part of the debt load of future generations. I don't subscribe to his principle that somehow it's immoral to leave debts for the future. We have to pay for debts of people in the past; they'll come after us to pay for that. What do you expect to get — everything for free? That's the kind of argument we've heard from these people for years. When it's translated into some kind of inefficiency.....That's why I've gone to the lengths I have with the Systems Corporation. There is some unusual fascination with the way this corporation operates. They are at arm's length from it. That minister is at more than arm's length from it. He hasn't got a clue what's going on.

They are incurring an expenditure that is way beyond what they envisioned when they started it. We were told that it would be a straightforward operation which would pay for itself. But now it's going to be a real monument. We're going to have a building with $30 million-plus. It's got to be at least $35 million to $40 million by the time they complete it. It's going to have more than 1,000 staff. Then we have to ask the

[ Page 4617 ]

question: what is the responsiveness of the system they've built? What is going on in the corporation? Is it able to deliver the service they need? If it works — and the minister should be able to tell us whether it works well, what is going on, how it's being monitored — then they will have been successful. But they are not going to be successful when they have a minister who is not prepared to take any interest at all in the operation.

If the minister is still mulling over the idea that yes, he should give it to the Crown corporations reporting committee, then let him do it, and we'll find out exactly what's going on, what the objections are, whether they're being met and just how much money is being spent. The great difficulty is that if that thing is not brought under some control, that government is going to have some serious trouble, and it will find this thing hanging around its neck. It is the kind of thing that you can make a good election issue about. After all, what are they telling us? They're telling us that in the past five years only they have been able to manage the economy. When they first came in they put up taxes; then when they got a deal on the federal sales tax they put the taxes down. Now they've put them up again.

It was the Sun that reported that after five years of Socred government, they've had to put up the sales tax. What does that really tell us? If the minister, as good as he feels about the budget, were to go to the people tomorrow on the issue of whether or not they support his budget, he wouldn't be in his job again, and they'd be defeated. That's what's remarkable about the government. With all the things they say in here, they've not been able to transmit to the people out there anything other than that uneasy feeling that exists among the people of this province that these people cannot manage the finances of the province. They cannot give a feeling of confidence to the people. They do not have the ability to get across to people that there is leadership here. They know as well as we do that in the past five years they've stumbled from one problem to another. Just six months ago they created what could have been for them, had they been candid about what they were doing in terms of the northeast coal.... But all we've had since the announcement of that program is a series of barriers and fabrications from which we've not been able to extract from the minister responsible one piece of perfect information that's unchallengeable. We saw this afternoon that he couldn't even give us a candid answer about what it would cost to ship the coal. That's the way they're managing the economy. That's the way the Minister of Finance is managing the economy and the Systems Corporation. I've been watching that corporation go through its problems for the past three years.

I would hope that minister is going to come into the House more prepared than ever to answer some questions. not to tell us that he doesn't want to make a statement right now and that he wants to be sure of his facts, so he'll take the question as notice and never come back. He's never come back. He's got to do that. It's no good looking at the Speaker. He keeps looking at you, Mr. Speaker. What am I saying that's so terrible?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you're looking at me; I thought you were looking at him. That's good. Look at me. I would hope that he looks at me and listens to what I'm saying. Answer my questions. That's all I want him to do. Come back. Give us the answers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If you go back to the office.

MR. LEVI: No, no, I don't have to go back to the office, Mr. Minister. You haven't come back and refuted one fact — not one fact. You're not building a building in Saanich worth $30 million, you didn't fire BCBC from being the contractors, you didn't suddenly go from the Honeywell to the IBM and somehow you're going to find $11 million to buy the Honeywell. What are you going to do — dump it on the Health ministry? What are you doing there? You're not telling anybody anything. He sits there with his benign smile, but he's told us not one fact about the Systems Corporation in the time he's been Minister of Finance. This is Mr. Cool of the cabinet. We're not talking about the other people that are in the cabinet that don't have the ability. This guy's supposed to have the ability. But we've had not one fact, and that's why we've got to get his attention. I hope he'll get his executive assistant in the next few days to go through the speech, cull out the things I've said, and then during his estimates....

Or hopefully he'll do the right thing and after question period ask leave to answer some questions, because he hasn't answered one question. I know he's touchy about it. After all, if you don't go to a board meeting in eight months, how can you know what's going on?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Several months. I would say several months could be anything from five to eight months. If I'm wrong and it's six months I will humble myself before you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're still wrong.

MR. LEVI: Still wrong, Well, you see, we're going to play a kid's game. "It's not six, it's five; it's not five. It's four." What we need is some maturity from that minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Your information is wrong.

MR. LEVI: He keeps telling me my information is wrong and he hasn't had the temerity to come into the House and disprove one fact. Not one fact have you been able to disprove.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You haven't given any facts.

MR. LEVI: Oh, quiet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has only a few moments left. Let's not interrupt him.

MR. LEVI: Why are these people so touchy, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. CURTIS: When did you ask the question? Monday?

MR. LEVI: I asked the question last April and last July — read Hansard — and you've come back with nothing. You said you would. but you didn't.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You didn't bother to be here....

MR. LEVI: I was in Winnipeg on a parliamentary conference.

[ Page 4618 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, let's have orderly debate. The member will address the Chair, and other members will not interrupt him.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I've obviously pricked something in the minister. I'm not sure what it is and I hope it's something that's going to be very practical. If he says he has facts to dispute what I say, I'd be delighted to hear them; that's what I've been asking for the last 18 months. Tell me the facts. The one thing that keeps me quiet is when somebody says "these are the facts" and they show me the information. But we've been waiting since April of last year and we haven't had one fact. Don't tell me about your estimates — we're starting fresh. I was a minister; I knew when we got questions. You could answer them or not answer them. If you wanted an answer you got it the next day. Here we are on Wednesday. I hope that tomorrow, which is the last opportunity the minister will have, unless he wants to do it Friday.... He can do it Friday, of course. He can just get up and ask leave of the House. I'd prefer he did it in question period so I could rebut him. It would be much nicer.

The minister has got the message. That's been my objective this afternoon — to call his attention to what I think is a very serious problem. Nobody is disputing the future value of that corporation. It's valuable, it has all sorts of possibilities, but somebody's got to take a look at it. That's all I've been intending to do in my remarks. If the minister can dispute what I say I'll be delighted, but that's what the objective is. That's part of the attitude. The facts — that's what this whole debate's about. You haven't given us any facts to substantiate that we should support this budget, and that's why we're against it. That's the way you've been for five years.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a government spokesman, in the normal way, to be the next speaker. There not being a government speaker to speak in favour of the budget, I'll do my best to see what I can do.

The first thing I want to say refers to the remarks made earlier today by the member for South Peace River, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who appears to be something of a tease. He likes to go on television and radio and tell us what a great and wonderful affair the development of the northeast is going to be under his stewardship, but when given an opportunity to prove it by presenting some figures, he always neglects to do so.

I'm a student, I think, as well as a practitioner of politics and representation. It seems to me more than passing strange that a minister and a representative would say so much in favour of such a good idea and yet never give us the facts so that we could all applaud that good idea that he spends so much time talking about. His reluctance to give us the figures, in my view, actually does his own cause more damage than he himself does. That's saying a great deal. If I could give that minister some advice — and I'm not too sure whether he'd take it — it's simply, why fool around any longer? Why not give the public of British Columbia the simple facts?

I have known the minister since 1966. For the minister to sit in his chair and tell us that he can't remember whether it's $12, $13, $14 or $15 really is beyond belief. I know that he doesn't expect us to believe it. That's what is probably galling the press and the opposition more than anything else. If the minister gets some kind of obscure, somewhat medical — if not clinical — kick out of that, that's his problem. I can assure him that the public's getting no kick out of it. His constituents aren't getting any kick out of it. I just can't understand why that minister simply doesn't lay the facts on the table when they're asked for instead of playing silly devils with the figures.

I have some general comments on the budget which was tabled and delivered by the member for Saanich and the Islands almost two weeks ago. It is interesting what has happened since, because whether or not one can applaud the minister's performance that day, one can honestly say that he was given a task to do that would have bedevilled some of the giants of the past, both in fiction and in politics. One thinks of jobs of cleaning out stables and all sorts of classical references, but certainly I think he made a good job of it. I want to congratulate him for making a long speech as well as he could and for delivering some unpalatable information as sweetly, nicely and well mannered as he did. I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude for that. He may have sent some of his guests out of the chamber, but I'm sure he can always charm them back in again with his own ineffable style.

However, he didn't charm the editorial writers the following day. I don't suppose he expected to, because any minister that's going to announce the kind of palliatives and increases of taxation that he did must expect a fairly rough go. That may be, indeed, why there wasn't a speaker between myself and my colleague from further down the row. The Province opened up the following day with a headline which calls it a "tax smokescreen." I suppose one could characterize the Province as being a socialist newspaper. I don't think one could characterize the Province in the same words that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development would like to use to characterize this side. They call it a "tax smokescreen" and say that the Minister of Finance, "as with Finance ministers before him, has been unable to resist a temptation to heap blame on the federal government while administering a pill that many British Columbians may find distasteful." The editorialist also went on to say: "The government should be prepared to deal with its cost problems as they arise, rather than try to build in automatic revenue increasers." In fact, the whole editorial says that the government has taken the wrong approach to solving its financial mess.

In the evening edition of the paper the heading is even more to the point. It says in large print: "The Money Grab." The Sun, which on its masthead says it owes no political favours to anybody, calls this budget a "money grab." It says: "Who would have thought that our forests, our mines, our gas and oil, would fail us and that in the coming year they would provide substantially less money than before?" Anybody who stood in this chamber and listened to the stewardship accounts of the ministers of resources from the other side as I have done since 1966.... Who would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that we'd have so comported ourselves that that paragraph could ever be written about a government? Who would have thought that our forests, mines and gas and oil would fail us? It's difficult to imagine that forests, mines and gas and oil can fail you. Really, it's the stewardship about those resources which have failed us.

[Mr. Davidson in tire chair.]

It goes on to say: "The government, in retaliation, has increased taxes on almost everything. Finance Minister Cur-

[ Page 4619 ]

tis said that he had placed great emphasis on the ability to pay." Yet the major increase in taxes, the increase in sales tax, will affect everybody and thus bear hardest on the poorest. And, of course, the sales tax has no relationship at all to the ability to pay. It also goes on to say that the Finance minister would have us believe he blew a surplus in last year's budget. Again, that particular myth is punctured and the Finance minister knows it — as he leaves — because as the Sun points out, it would appear as though we had a budgetary surplus of at least $105 million.

That's not all. The Finance minister talked about setting up a resource-revenue stabilization fund next year because we can't afford it this year. In fact we've already got another $1.24 billion stashed away in what's called special purpose funds. So you see they're saying one thing and doing another. The editorial writers don't believe the smooth, honeyed words of the Minister of Finance.

I want to go through three of the taxes that were increased last Monday. They're either imposed or increased in the budget, and I want to look at them individually.

First I want to look at the sales tax — a 50 percent increase in sales tax which we know will produce an 80 percent increase in revenue because of the multiplier effect. It's a regressive tax. It hits the people hardest who are the least able to afford it. What are the past statements of both the current Minister of Finance and his predecessor on the question of sales tax? I also think of the statements made by the Premier when the sales tax has gone up and down in the years since 1976 in this on-again, off-again behaviour of the government as far as this easily applied tax is concerned. When it was cut to 4 percent the Premier said it was a permanent cut. The Minister of Finance said it was a reduction. Now I think that we're entitled to take from those statements that that was it. The Minister of Finance said that that 4 percent would be the reduction and that was the end of it and we could expect that 4 percent to stay there. That was the clear message that he gave us, taken in the context of his speech. The Premier said it was a "permanent" cut. While the member from the north may take some exception to what I'm saying, he can't wriggle his way out of the fact that the Premier said it was a permanent cut.

What's more important is why that cut took place. That cut took place because the federal government transferred $115 million to the province because the province cut the sales tax by 2 percent. I think most of the members seem to have forgotten about that. As we go into this Canada-bashing exercise that the Minister of Finance and other members on that side love to do, we seem to forget that the last reduction in sales tax took place because of the Canadian government's actions in offering this government $115 million in transfer payments if it reduced its sales tax 2 percent. We reduced the sales tax 2 percent, picked up the $115 million, said thank you very much, then put it back up again and decided to attack Ottawa. That seems to me — and I will take second place to nobody in my dislike of the Liberal Part in Ottawa — to really be having it both ways. You may want to take your hatred of the nation's government to paranoiac standards, but I certainly don't.

It was those terrible people in Ottawa that Eave Lis that 2 percent cut, that enabled the Premier to go around the province saying: "Look what a good boy I am. I reduced the sales tax 2 percent." Now he's trying to avoid the political implications of putting it up. Mr. Speaker, you've been around in politics a short length of time, not as long as some of us, but you know you're not going to get away with that so easily. I think you know that even the Premier, with his noted fleet-footedness, won't get away with that for as long as he'd like to do. Of course, it's catching up to him. They, meaning the federal taxpayers, paid for that 2 percent reduction to the tune of $115 million or more. That amount was transferred and provided by that government to this government to be able to reduce the sales tax 2 percent.

The gas tax. This increase is now part — and I want to make this abundantly clear — of this government's surrender to inflation, which is the trademark of this particular minister. This government can only thrive and succeed on inflation. It's built into its budget now. They can't do it any other way. They have produced no other ideas at all.

An indexed tax — and they've now indexed more that side of the revenue picture than any other government in the history of B.C. — is an affront to the legislative process, the legislative practice and the history of this province. It's another step towards the centralization of all our decision-making.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, it seriously impedes and goes to the very root of why we have parliament, why we have a legislative assembly. The Premier went around this province talking about "not a dime without debate," and then sees in the budget of his Minister of Finance a method to get lots and lots of dimes without any debate: by indexing taxes. So the old tradition of the government having to come to this place for supply is no longer valid. no longer true.

While you may think this is a technical point, I think it goes very deeply to the heart of parliamentary democracy. I for one am certainly against taxes being indexed in this way, and I want to place my voice and my vote on record as being against the ability of the government to tax in that way without scrutiny and debate each time another penny is taken from our taxpayers. The departure of that kind of decision-making to the cabinet by indexed decisions, by regulatory process, is something which I can't support. We've already seen the proliferation of orders-in-council, proliferation of sections of statutes of this province going that in direction, and I don't think we should support anything which makes it any easier for the control to depart this chamber. Mr. Speaker, "not a dime without debate" wasn't a bad slogan, but it has certainly been dropped by the party opposite, as we're now taking this basic question outside the chamber.

The third tax, Mr. Speaker, is the hotel room tax — 8 percent for certain rooms and 6 percent for other rooms. I can't imagine, nor have I heard yet, any rationalization for a two-level tax system on a hotel room, I've certainly not heard the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) stand up and talk about this tax. I don't know whether she's going to do it; I hope she does. But certainly there has been no measurement of the effect of this tax on the tourist industry in this province. There was no worrying of the problem with the industry beforehand. Now I know there is no way in which a Minister of Finance can tell any section of the industry that there is going to be such and such a tax — that would not be correct — but there is a way in which you can worry these problems out with people, get their feedback, get their input: find out, for instance, when the best times to apply taxes are; find out whether indeed a two-level tax would be administrable. Nothing like that was done in this case.

The day after the budget, promoters all over the world — and we frequently hear the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) talking about "all over the world" —

[ Page 4620 ]

were removing from the shelves their brochures and their packages on British Columbia. Because you see. Mr. Speaker, in many places there is consumer protection legislation which will prevent that tax being passed on to the consumer, and the promoters whom the tourist minister should be working closely with will have to absorb this tax increase. Many of them are only working on the kind of tax increase — the kind of percentage points — we're talking about. There is no way that a package tour promoter in West Germany, in the U.K. or in the eastern United States is going leave all brochures on the shelves and be promoting British Columbian tours when there is a tax of this nature that he's going to have to absorb.

Where was the minister when that went on? What has she done to answer the concerns? This hotel tax will produce far more than is now spent on tourism. Now I don't believe that you should necessarily equate the income from any one industry with the expenditure into that industry; that would be foolish. What is needed to be spent on the promotion, the development or the encouragement of the industry is what it really takes, what really should be spent. But there is no getting away from the fact that if we remove from the budget of the Minister of Tourism the production and other associated costs of Beautiful British Columbia, for instance, the annual budget of Tourism is very, very small indeed when one compares it to the income that's derived from this hotel tax. Not a very salubrious performance by the Minister of Tourism, who — I'm reluctant and sad to say — seems more interested in her own travel experiences than in her department.

Mr. Speaker, other criteria speak volumes about the mind-set and the motivation of this government. Let's look at some details and take, for instance, the advertising program. A week ago, when I was going through the estimates, I noticed some of the figures for advertising. I noticed that the 1980-81 estimates contain an increase of $4.7 million for government publications for a total this year of almost $20 million. The government is going to spend $20 million telling people about itself. This is an increase of almost $5 million. They now have ministers going onto half-hour prime-time programs with complete production facilities. They've hired advertising and promotional experts. I presume they've wound up their mailing machines — household mailers are now the order of the day. They are sending Hansard to the U.K. by air cargo. I don't know how many were sent, but we'll find out about that in question period. In the field of print advertising, the quotes are going out of sight.

Let's look at some of the big increases. We have a fairly new Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and he feels that he has to double his advertising budget in the administration and support branch from $185,000 to $325,000. This is just for one department of the Attorney-General. I'm not talking about advertising in court services, police services, corrections, legal services to government, B.C. Parole Board, Law Reform Commission, Fire Commission, B.C. Racing Commission, or film classification. I'm just talking about the advertising budget for the Attorney-General's office, which he is going to increase from $185,000 to $352,500. The total for his whole ministry goes up from $400,000 to well over half a million dollars.

What could the previous Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) have done with that budget? What is he going to get? He's not doing too badly though on Intergovernmental Relations. After all, after the wedding's over — after all the fuss and mess is all over — Intergovernmental Relations.... You'll never have as busy a year again, Mr. Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, because there never will be another constitutional debate. Your advertising budget has gone from $34,500 to $55,500, which is a huge percentage increase.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's information, not advertising.

MR. HALL: You know what it's all about; it's to smarten up your image. I don't know why, because you're not going to run again. You know it and I know it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll run against you in Surrey.

MR. HALL: Anytime you like.

Mr. Speaker, Consumer and Corporate Affairs has gone up 33.3 percent in its budget, but the interesting thing is that there has been a reduction in the advertising allotted for consumer services and a huge increase in the advertising for corporate affairs. That might give you some idea about the mind-set of this government. I don't know if the corporations need much protection with you over there, but I do know that the consumers in this province need an awful lot of protection and need to know an awful lot about your programs when you're prepared to spend in proportion almost $2 for every $1 you spend looking after the corporations in terms of advertising.

What's the next one? It's Forests, and the minister has just come back. The amount of money spent in advertising in the provincial forest and range resource management vote has been increased by four times. In the general administration branch of the Ministry of Environment, the advertising budget has been increased from $148,000 to $227,000, which is twice the amount. In Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, advertising has been increased by three times, from $135,000 to $355,000.

Where are the reductions? There are occasionally reductions. There is a reduction for advertising in the Ministry of Health. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) isn't with us. They decided to reduce the advertising on direct community-care services. There's an interesting item. Spend more money on the corporate affairs side of the budget, but reduce it by three-quarters when it comes to direct community-care services. Where you used to spend a dollar, you now spend 25 cents to look after direct community-care services.

What about small business services? There's the minister sitting over there. They've reduced their advertising information services on small business. They've been using so much, there's nothing left at all. They've wiped the program out altogether.

Another reduction is in safety engineering in the Labour ministry. I'm sure our labour critics will have something to say about that. There was no advertising at all of $138,100 last year — no advertising of information at all about safety engineering by this government which is increasing its budget by $4.7 million.

Municipal Affairs is the only department of government that shows any modesty at all. You may think, ah, he's the member from Surrey — he's looking after his buddy in Surrey.

[ Page 4621 ]

MS. BROWN: Yes, I think you are.

MR. HALL: Well, maybe I am, but it's understandable, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) doesn't need an advertising budget. He announces everybody else's programs any time he goes past a camera. He doesn't need an advertising budget. He's into agriculture; he's into all sorts of things. He doesn't need it.

Then, of course, the government information services itself, under the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), that mild, modest and quiet pillar of rectitude sitting at the end of the chamber, has increased its budget from $8,000 to $403,000. It's scandalous what this government will do to win votes back. There's an increase of $4.7 million in advertising. When the government of which I was a member had an advertising program he used to stand up in the House all the time and talk about it. They were modest little advertising programs; I've got all the figures here in case anybody wants to know. But your $20 million puts you in the top figures in Canada. You know what you're doing. You're doing it callously, coolly and coldly to try and restore your image from right down at the bottom to where you're trying to get to a year from now.

The next criterion in terms of government performance is staff. Mr. Speaker, I know that you're interested in staff. Here are some figures — again worked on since the budget speech the other Monday. The tax breakdown of the figures shows a total in the 1981-82 estimates of 34,847 established positions in the public service, an increase of 1,058 in one year — over 3 percent in one year. A government that's committed to reducing government spending to taking government out of the lives of more and more of our citizens and out of our day-to-day existence in British Columbia — the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows all about that; he makes speeches about it all the time — a government that's free, a government that believes in free enterprise, free-wheeling, free-spending, free-flying and, some say, free-loading has budgeted for an increase of over 1,000 established positions in staff this year — to be exact, 1,058 positions. That's better than a 3 percent increase, which if continued, and it certainly looks as though it will be, because you went way over 3 percent of establishment...

MR. KEMPF: How many did you create from 1972 to 1975?

MR. HALL: You just listen; you make your own speech.

...will see the public service alone, regardless of those removed by statute, which you've already done, go from over 34,000 to way over 40,000 established positions, and that doesn't include other people who get paid. I'm talking about established positions. If you add the payroll up as well, because you always have two sets of figures over there, if you include the people who get paid as well — that's always another 10,000 to 12,000 people — there will be over 60,000 employees in direct government service alone by 1986. That doesn't include Crown corporations other than B.C. Hydro and ICBC. That doesn't include B.C. Buildings, B.C. Systems and all the other quasi systems you've set up. That was the government, you remember, that came to power in 1976 saying they were going to act the payroll down, get people out to work, and doing a day's work, and reduce the public service. The member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) remembers all about that. You remember all those kinds of slogans. All you've done is to make that load heavier and heavier on the very taxpayers that elected you and put you into office. You've just got bigger and bigger.

I raise this only to compare those words against their deeds. They were going to get government off the people's backs, they said. They produced all sorts of public relations gimmicks to give support to that announcement. Deregulation was one. The net effect of deregulation was to assassinate overnight an insurance company. The net effect has been a $6.4 billion budget that will probably be $7 billion before this year is out. Those kinds of figures that I've mentioned, and after they called the administration of 1972-75 every name in the book for being bureaucratic big-spenders!

I did speak at some length on advertising, as you know. I didn't include, of course, all the organizations that are close to government and controlled by government that are presently spending ever-increasing amounts of money to repolish the tarnished image of the government. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has disappeared, but I know he watches a number of the television programs that I watch. Take for instance what happens every Saturday during the hockey game or on a Sunday during the soccer — game of the week. On those particular high-profile, prime-time programs we see the glamorous, well-produced ads of the Development Corporation. You all remember the Development Corporation, I'm sure. There must be some 10 ads altogether. I strain my eyes to see any mention of the author of the legislation that saw the corporation formed. I strain my ears to hear any recognition that it was formed in 1972-75. I know I'm straining your credulity to think that I would expect any mention of this government on the television. I just say that in passing. In case anybody might be listening to my words — to remember which government it was that set the Development Corporation into action. You might think, on a Saturday evening about 6 o'clock, somewhere between the first and second periods, they might slip in an ad that it was this little group on this side that set that corporation going. Somewhere in between the half-time scores on the game of the week on Sunday on CKVU, they might slip in that it was the member for Vancouver East, my colleague Mr. Macdonald, who introduced that legislation.

I thought maybe I didn't remember this too well, so I went to Hansard. April 11, 1973. I think we can quote Hansard in this House now. The Hon. A.B. Macdonald, Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce had introduced Bill 102, the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act. He introduced this bill, which was modelled on a number of other statutes across the country — a modest enough bill at the time. The spokesperson for the other side, the then Social Credit opposition, was the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). The member for Okanagan North then took maybe nine or ten pages of Hansard in telling, us how bad the bill was. She was really complaining and upset about the bill, really pulling it to pieces. She got into terrible trouble with the Speaker, she got into some trouble with the party to her left and she was interrupted frequently. However, once she decided that everything about the bill was bad.... She even talked about the fact that she understood this bill was so that we could buy an airline — that the Barrett government was going to buy an airline....

Let me quote:

There's talk of a publicly owned British Columbia airline, Mr. Speaker, and that this should be a top priority of the British

[ Page 4622 ]

Columbia Development Corporation.... Mr. Speaker, the third largest airline in Canada is Pacific Western Airlines. It's a British Columbia company. It's a growing company and it's a good company and it has good management.... It would be a disaster.... There is no way that the taxpayers' money...should be funnelled into a...airline which is really just to serve cabinet ministers....

Now she can't remember what it is that she really wanted, but when she finished up she said: "Mr. Speaker, we will support the act."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who said that?

MR. HALL: The member for Okanagan North. I quote:

MRS. JORDAN:...enough is enough. Enough government intervention is enough government intervention, Mr. Speaker.

Here's the bill, Mr. Speaker. Use it wisely but use it on the basis of incentive and don't play British Columbia roulette with the poor, overworked press gallery and the initiative and industrious attitude of the people in British Columbia.

We will support the bill.

That took everybody by surprise. Then it went on and on. Premier Loughheed of Alberta bought the airline, by the way. Then all of a sudden up jumped the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I think he straightened out the member for Okanagan North very, very quickly, because by the end of the day the ten Socreds in the chamber were not going to support the act at all. They changed their minds and voted against the act. In fact, not only did they vote against the act; they voted against every single section of the act. They voted against it on second reading and they took an incredible step that's hardly ever used in the parliamentary process: they even debated and voted on third reading of the bill.

One of the members who voted against the act is seen on those television ads. An elegant gentleman with papers around his desk is seen making split-second decisions: "Get that bulldozer over there; drop that weight over here; drill here; fly there; save this; cut that red tape." He voted against every single aspect of the B.C. Development Corporation. Newell Morrison, head of the B.C. Development Corporation, voted against every single section.

I just want to refer to another couple of things. The member for Okanagan North moved amendment after amendment. She was obviously the critic of the official opposition at the time when economic development.... While she was doing her homework on the bill and, I'm sure, developing a Social Credit position on the bill, the only trouble was that it was in direct conflict with the Kelowna charter, which they'd just enunciated in Kelowna. It was also in direct conflict with a private member's bill that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) had just put on the order paper. The homework wasn't too good. There were also a few exchanges between the member for Point Grey — I don't know which member for Point Grey it was, to tell you the truth; I guess it was the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — and the member for Okanagan North, which were not very pleasant. I was going to remind the minister of that, but perhaps that would be taking advantage of time. But if the minister wants me to I shall certainly show her the reference. It shows you how politics can make very strange colleagues.

I strain my eyes to see any mention at all of any authorship of the B.C. Development Corporation. That's the kind of cynicism of the mind-set of a government that's determined, by the expenditure of the moneys it controls in Crown corporations like B.C. Development and others, to start to spend its way out of electoral trouble. The corporation, which was fought against and blocked every step of the way by the Social Credit opposition, is now a corner-stone of their advertising campaign. As I say, whose face is seen on the screen but the then first member for Victoria, Mr. Newell Morrison, who voted against every single section of the bill.

In review of the budget, as we look at the 1980-81 fiscal year — which was better than expected, as the minister said — the thing that bothers me was how we squeezed through with the conflicting statements made from different departments to government about revenue and how we've made decisions in the past to appreciate every surplus as it became available. It left us in a position with no financial reserves, and we'd have had to have borrowed to cover up any deficit.

As we debate the estimates next week, I'm sure we'll see other speakers will deal with the shortcomings in the priorities — examples of specific problems to follow from that kind of attitude. One thing which I think is very important is what plans the government has to deal with the potential decline in terms of revenue from natural resources and the decline in federal transfer payments. The decline has already been announced and hinted at. In fact, it's a decline that they all support and applaud when they talk about the government getting out of activity with the federal government. So the silence in answer to those questions indicates failure. That means that I can't support this budget.

MR. HOWARD: I guess if no one on the government side wants to rise to support the budget, I'll take part in the debate and have a few words to say about it — not to support it, of course. From the outset I want to tell you how much I enjoyed listening to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development last night and again today. I enjoy him because he enjoys it. He just glories in that type of bombast and blarney — no facts and no hard information, just froth and foam and fury. I enjoy listening to that and watching that, because I don't get much chance to see some of the comedy shows on television. I can take part in them here.

I would have thought that last night or today the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, with all the interest exhibited in this northeast coal deal, would have come in with some facts, figures and statistics about it and said: "Here's the case. Here it is in black and white." You'd have thought he could have taken the general public into his confidence and related to the citizens of British Columbia what that deal is going to be all about. He didn't. I guess we'll have to wait for his estimates and hope that when they come, he will be in a position then to present facts and figures and information about the northeast coal deal to British Columbians. I rather suspect, Mr. Speaker, using the old slogan, that figures don't lie, but there's a reverse reference there as well.

What the minister is doing is having his statisticians, public relations people and writers in his department putting together a package that will be so confused and confusing that nobody will understand it — in other words, a manufactured document of sorts to present to the House a case about northeast coal which may not be in accordance with the facts, Anyhow, we'll wait for that time.

I listened intently to what the member for Surrey had to say about estimates of expenditure for advertising, propagandizing and promotion. "Public relations" is a euphemistic

[ Page 4623 ]

term for it. Something in the neighbourhood of $20 million this year for propaganda — government propaganda. I'm reminded when I heard that of a statement the Premier made just prior to Christmas at some function he attended in Vancouver. He was reported to have said that he would not call an election in this province until he, the Premier, was sure in his own mind that his Social Credit Party would get re-elected as the government. I immediately thought he was going to bring in an amendment to the constitution to eliminate the five-year period so that it could be some indeterminate period into the future. But he didn't. He made that statement that he, the Premier, would call an election when he thought it was best for Social Credit.

What that means in the context of the attitude of the Premier towards politics — and we know it never has been at a very high level or a level very respectful of the general public in this province — is that to this government, Mr. Speaker, politics comes first — crass partisan politics on behalf of Social Credit comes first — and the public interest comes at some other level, second or third, but certainly not the prime interest. That's what it means.

To those of you who have an opportunity to see television advertising about the government programs, there's a very subtle psychology involved in what's taking place. This $20 million this year fits into it. You can bet your last dollar that if we don't have an election in the next year.... You're shaking your head in disbelief, Mr. Speaker, or is it a negative response to the question? If we don't have an election next year and we have another budget presented, we will find that $20 million escalated. You watch the subtle, gentle and bland advertising that's taking place at the moment from government departments and government agencies. Psychologically it is creating in the minds of the television viewers and those who read newspaper ads the feeling of: "Isn't this a lovely government, not hammering at me about anything intense but just saying that things are going along nicely!"

It's laying the groundwork psychologically as we get closer to an election for those same agencies, once having established themselves in the viewers' minds as being gentle folks, to be able to inject something a little bit more direct and advantageous to Social Credit — to be able to inject even in a subliminal way, propaganda advantageous to Social Credit — and using the taxpayers' money to do it. That I foresee as happening. Knowing the Premier and his level of respect for high-honour politics; knowing the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and her level of respect for honourable politics, I can very easily see that happening.

I'd like to spend a moment or two dealing with an aspect of the budget which I find very disturbing. That is the aspect of it that has a pro-separatist stance and a pro-separatist flavour to it — that aspect of the budget which talks about federal-provincial relations and which goes on, paragraph after paragraph, attacking the federal government. There may be good grounds for doing that, but it's there. The thing that disturbs me and the thing that should disturb all British Columbians about that is that after nearly four pages of condemnation of the federal government there is a paragraph on page 31 that says: "It is because of these problems that I have notified the federal government of British Columbia's intention to withdraw from the Tax Collection Agreement. If absolutely necessary we shall administer our own tax system."

Well, for one thing, if that does take place I think we should all appreciate that it isn't going to alter one whit the level of taxes that British Columbia taxpayers are going to pay to the federal government. The federal government has the constitutional authority to levy taxes by whatever method it so desires, and it will continue to levy them as it sees fit, or from its point of view, whether we like it or not. So withdrawing from the tax-sharing agreement isn't going to change that.

I'm not talking about whether or not the minister thinks there is a bona fide rationale for withdrawing from the tax-sharing agreement, but once having said that they intend to withdraw from the tax-sharing agreement and levy taxes in the province on personal and corporation income tax separate from the federal government, I think it is incumbent upon the Minister of Finance and this government to level with the public of British Columbia and tell them what's involved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One thing that is involved if they do that — and you should recognize this and realize what will happen — is that we will set up within the province another bureaucracy to collect taxes. We'll have Revenue B.C. We'll have a group of additional public servants to administer the tax collection system of personal and corporate taxes in this province — a duplication. The general public should know that that's going to cost some money.

Secondly, the general public should know that if the government goes along with its intention to levy its own personal and corporate income taxes and collect them, it will mean residents in this province will have to fill out two separate, individual, distinctly different income tax returns. Many of us have enough difficulty filling out the one we have to fill out now, without having to fill out two of them. But that's what we should expect will happen, and that's what we should be told will happen by this government. There is one province in Canada that now exercises the right — and it is a right — to levy its own direct personal and corporation income taxes combined. That's the province of Quebec. Residents of Quebec are required to fill out two income tax forms, one for the federal government and one for the government of Quebec. That should be recognized.

It should also be recognized that if we do embark upon this road of separate income tax collections in this province, the taxpayers in this province can expect to pay a higher level of tax. Not only are they given the information in the current budget in which taxes are raised nearly all across the board at a variety of levels, but they should expect and will have to pay a higher level of personal income tax than is being paid now.

One of the appendices to the budget speech, Table E7, gives comparative provincial tax rates, March 1981. In the one column on the left-hand side there is personal income tax, corporation income tax, capital tax, insurance premiums and so on: and it allies them all across the nation, with the various provinces. Personal income tax — this is a provincial tax rate — is shown as a percentage of federal tax payable: British Columbia, 44 percent. In other words, personal income tax in this province — its marginal rate or whatever it is — is 44 percent of the federal rate. Those of you who doubt that can get a hold of your current income tax forms and you'll find it laid out right there — when you work it all out, there is that 44 percent figure. There is a footnote to that which, of course, refers to the proposal in the budget to impose a surcharge of 10 percent tax on provincial tax pay able over $3,500. So I guess that 44 percent is really a low figure.

[ Page 4624 ]

Then we go across the top of the table looking under the provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and so on — and we come to Quebec. Under Quebec there is another footnote — 2. Look down below — in fine print, hidden away here — under footnote 2 it says: "Quebec levies its own tax, which has an approximate range of 50 to 60 percent of the federal tax." If this government has its way — sets up its own personal and corporation income tax structure — and duplicates that which is already in effect, not only will it set up a duplicating bureaucracy to collect the tax, not only will it force people to fill out two distinctly different income tax returns, but it has its eye on elevating that provincial tax as a percentage of the federal tax up into that 50-60 percent range. They're money grabbers. That's all they're interested in. It's separatism, in order to be able to grab more tax dollars. It's implicit and clear in the budget, as far as I can read it.

There is another indication that this provincial government is looking at grabbing hold of more taxes from the residents of this province. Towards the middle part of the background papers to the 1981 budget — another document that the Minister of Finance tabled that day — there is a rather intricate examination made and definition given of tax expenditures, limitations, caveats, foregone revenues and all that sort of thing. Then there are some tables — tax deferral matters and major British Columbia tax expenditures under the income tax system — and they give an estimate of foregone British Columbia income tax revenue. You read it all the way through and look at these tables — the dollar figures that I'm going to give you here, basically say: "If we had in the province of British Columbia our own income tax collection system, then we'd be able to get our hands on all this extra money; we'd be able to levy some more taxes." And what do they identify as some of those things?

Look at page 33; this should shake the financial budgets of any homeowner today; this is a new one. It's called: " Non-taxation of imputed rents on owner-occupied homes — $253 million." That's lost revenue — foregone revenue — from an imputed rent on an owner-occupied home. Now what that means is this — the government in putting forward this document is saying to everybody who owns their own home: "You're living in a home and it has some rent value to it to you as an individual; you own your own home, but if you didn't own it, you'd be paying rent somewhere." That amount — that's what they call "the imputed rent" — of money in your pocket should be taxed; that's what they're saying. It should be taxed, and they identify it as being a loss of $253 million on the personal income tax level. So homeowners — Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you're a homeowner; when you get out of the chair and down in the chamber here in your place and vote for this budget, remember you're voting for the possibility of this government grabbing hold of your pocketbook and extracting tax because you own your own home.... Is that a good deal? That's what it says.

They've got another one in here for homeowners. Pay attention to this: "Foregone revenues. Non-taxation of capital gains on housing...$171 million." That means that if you own your own home, live in it, sell it, move to another house and you make a capital gain on the home that you sell, it's non-taxable, because you're not in the business of buying and selling homes. It's non-taxable at the federal level. The provincial government looks upon that as being a lost revenue, so are they contemplating levying, at the provincial level, a capital gains tax on homeowners who sell their own homes simply because they want to move into a different area or district, or have to move? Is that what they're talking about?

Go all the way down the list, and there's a whole range, on page 33, of those questions of income tax exemptions and non-taxable income that are identified as foregone revenue to this province. It says at the heading: "Estimated Foregone British Columbia Income Tax Revenue." The total of all the categories — age exemptions, old-age pensioners over the age of 65.... "We're going to nail you too," says Social Credit. "We could get $12.7 million out of you if we could just eliminate that age exemption." Those of you who have children, working mothers and working families that have child-care expenses, you can deduct that on your federal form. You get a personal income tax system in effect with this government here and you're going to pay $2.7 million, because that's what the government says, in this table, they're losing in revenue now. There's the exemption to the blind and disabled, the marriage exemptions and a whole range of them. The provincial government has said there's a foregone potential British Columbia income tax revenue in 1981-82 of $871.4 million. So those of you who intend to vote for this budget and have spoken in the House and said what a beautiful thing it is, please, at the same time....

The other day I heard the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) telling us what a glorious, lovely thing it was and how he was going to explain that to the people in Prince George. Tell them about the foregone taxes, the two income tax returns, the 50 percent to 60 percent of the federal tax that the Minister of Finance has got his eye on, the imputed rents of people who own their own homes, and tell the old-age pensioners about the potential that is going to be effected on them. I'd suggest to the member for Prince George South that he tell his constituents in Prince George that side of the story as well.

The other day I had made some comments about an attempt to borrow $100 million in the U.S.– Eurodollar market. An article appeared in the Vancouver Sun about that, and part of that article quoted the Minister of Finance as having said something. I don't have the article in front of me to give exactly the quotation, but the sense of it was this — and I'm sure if I've got a word missed in it or something like that, the minister will correct me. What he said was that the NDP doesn't understand the difference between borrowing for capital and borrowing for operational expenses. That was the essence of what the minister said. He gets caught in a corner on something and back he comes with that overbearing, supercilious attitude of his that says oh, those guys don't understand this sort of thing. That was his response.

But what was he saying? Was he saying that $100 million he attempted to borrow on behalf of B.C. Rail was for operational purposes of B.C. Rail? Is that what he was saying? Was he saying it was for capital borrowing? What I said it was for was borrowing in order to find the money to pay this year's interest on the debt B.C. Rail has, plus maybe a retirement, a rollover of $10 million or something, that's coming due this year. Is that what the minister was saying — that he was borrowing it for B.C. Rail for operational purposes? It certainly wasn't for capital expenditure for northeast coal; he's made that clear on at least three occasions. The capital budget for B.C. Rail this year, apart from northeast coal, isn't $100 million; it isn't anywhere near $100 million.

So is the minister saying he was attempting to borrow that money for operational purposes of B.C. Rail? If he is saying that, then he should not be Minister of Finance, because you

[ Page 4625 ]

don't go out on the money markets — and I've tried to get this thought across to the minister to indicate what knowledge we have about differences in borrowing for different purposes — of the world to try and borrow $100 million for 15-year terms if it's for operational purposes. If there are operational purposes and you need money, you do like any other business does and you establish a line of credit at the bank. You get your cash flow and borrowings in that form for operational purposes. As you get income coming in, you seek to retire the debt to the bank. What was the minister talking about when he made that comment in the Vancouver Sun? Maybe he was just trapped: it was found out that he had tried something not quite on the line of full disclosure of information to the general public.

Since I spoke the other day, I've been advised of some other pieces of information about that attempted borrowing. I think I should outline them here. I was told by officials in the minister's department that January 15 of this year was the first time the investment firm of Wood Gundy had shown up as being involved in syndicate operations with respect to borrowings by the provincial government. How did Wood Gundy get into the scene on this for the first time in January of this year? The other day I said that Wood Gundy was the lead manager trying to borrow that money in Europe. What were they doing? Here I'm told that just 15 days before they tried to get the money, Wood Gundy showed up as a participant in the syndicate.

The two traditional investment houses — and there's a third one that has been in and out of it — the two traditional long-standing investment firms in Canada that have been involved in the syndicate handling British Columbia government borrowings have been A.E. Ames and Co. and McLeod, Young and Weir. I talked with both of them at their head offices in Toronto to try to find out what was going on. McLeod, Young and Weir people told me — and this is common knowledge of anybody in the market — that once the syndicate is formed and establishes an ongoing relationship with whoever it's borrowing money on behalf of — in this case the government of the province of British Columbia — 99 percent of the time that is the syndicate that handles all borrowings. Why? Because they know what the desirabilities are of the person doing the borrowing. There's faith and trust on the part of the borrower with the syndicate. They know each other's historic attitude about borrowing. They're in constant touch finding out what the market is doing, what funds are available, what the interest rate is — a regular continuous relationship.

With respect to that abortive attempt to get $100 million (U.S.) in Europe without anybody over here in Europe knowing about it, A. E. Ames and Co. told me that Wood Gundy was the new entrant into the syndicate. And A.E. Ames and Co. also told me that they, a part of the traditional syndicate, were not even invited to participate in this issue.

Why? Was the minister trying to block them out? Was the minister trying to establish another relationship with Wood Gundy? Was he trying to bring a new investment firm into the field? Is there some politics going on in this? Is that what it was? What happened to the old traditional houses? Did they do something wrong? Haven't they been serving the interests of the province? If they haven't, it's up to the minister to disclose that information. Was A.E. Ames or McLeod, Young and Weir doing such a bad job that the minister had to identify them as lacking in professional activities? Were those the ones he was talking about in the quotation I read to him the other day? As long as that statement of the minister's, smearing the whole investment community in Canada, sits there without any identification of who he was talking about, he has created an awful lot of enemies in the investment business.

I tried to outline that the other day, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to indicate that that sort of activity is going to cost the taxpayers of this province millions upon millions of extra dollars in unnecessary interest charges when Crown corporations go to the market in the future. The investment business, both here and in the United States — Solomon Brothers and Kuhn, Loeb are also participants in the syndicate on the U.S. market — knows what happened. They'll be wary of dealing straight-on with this minister and this government from now on. Who's going to lose? The taxpayers, Mr. Speaker. The minister doesn't care too much about that. He was trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes with that manoeuvre and it backfired.

I'm told further by the investment community and people I know in it that two days after that attempt in Europe failed, the lead manager of the attempt in Canada tried to set up a mechanism to borrow the money in New York. Half of the paperwork was done when they were told by former members of the syndicate, which had operated before and been left out, not to bother. There's a sour taste left after that stupid attempt to enter the money markets in Europe for some unknown purpose and reason. An injury took place, and the only people who are going to suffer are the general public. I know the minister doesn't care much about that, but I happen to, and so do members on this side, which is why we're relating what we can about this at the moment. I would hope the minister would come clean if he has an opportunity to do it now, as he did the other day and will in his estimates. I would hope he would 'fess up and say what happened, or just relate what happened and set the record straight, if he thinks the record has not been properly put forward. Let him clear it up if he wants to. If he doesn't, that's his business.

I want to talk for a few minutes about the Anzac development of northeast coal. I may not have time to go through all of this within the time limit. First, the budget says that the Anzac line for northeast coal is going to be financed out of debt, backed by the government, borrowed by B.C. Rail. They use a figure in the budget of $310 million — 1980 dollars. I don't know why they didn't use 1960 dollars to make it look better. They could have built the line for maybe $50 million then. Being the simple kind of guy that I am, I just take an ordinary 10 percent figure as an inflation factor. It's a round figure that's easy to work with and not too far off the mark, and I compound that over into 1983 when the line is scheduled to be completed, and I get $412 million. With that simple kind of arithmetic progression that's what it will be. But I won't rely on my computations as to what will happen. I'll take those of the president of the railway, Mac Norris. He knows more about what's going on in that railway than most other people. He sure knows more than the Minister of Finance does about it. Mac Norris says a conservative estimate of that line is $485 million. That's not the $310 million 1980 figure that the minister is trying to fob off on the general public. I believe Mac Norris over the minister any day on this matter. He spent years working on this.

Now what I've done is be conservative and generous in my figures here. I assume that money will be borrowed at 12 percent. which is a very generous percentage figure in today's conditions. The minister said that on March 11, B.C.

[ Page 4626 ]

Hydro borrowed $100 million. They had to pay 14.5 percent for it, but I'm using a 12 percent figure. I'm using a figure of $2.50 surcharge to pay back the capital money — $2.50 a tonne for Teck Corporation and $3 a tonne for Denison Mines. Those are the only figures I can find, and I take them to be accurate figures. They've been touted enough, even though the minister has not told us about them. These are set figures for five years. I've assumed that from then on there will be a 9 percent rate.

Let me tell you the worst case in taking these figures over the life of the contract — 6.7 million tonnes. Now at the time of doing this, there was doubt as to whether or not that other million tonnes of thermal coal was actually nailed down. I heard the minister saying in answer to a question today that Denison has just signed a contract for a million tonnes. Now I don't know if that's the same million that was left out of the earlier figures or not, but I took it to mean that. I took 1.7 million tonnes to be delivered annually by Teck — and that's what they'll be delivering — 5 million tonnes by Denison, put them all together and multiplied them by the $2.50 and $3 a tonne surcharge. The surcharge will bring into the province $19.25 million during the first year of coal delivery in 1983 or 1984, depending on when it starts. Those are the figures.

The $485 million that has to be borrowed at 12 percent, the generous, conservative figure, that will be an annual interest charge of $58.2 million. So in the first year, they're $46 million short. Project that over the life of the contract. This is the worst case possible; I'll tell you about the other cases on another occasion when we can get to the estimates. Over that 15-year period taxpayers of this province will be footing the bill to the extent of $1.8 billion. In the best case possible — giving everybody credit for everything, going all the way down the line and no matter what happens being as generous as we can — we'll only lose $69 million over that 15-year period. I submit, because of the other computations we've made on different foundations, that the more likely figure of cost to the taxpayers of this province to subsidize the export of a non-renewable resource in order to create jobs in another country will be $1.3 billion for British Columbians.

I hope that when the estimates of the minister of small development and giveaways of natural resources come before the House, he gives us some figures that are wrong or that are different from the ones I have just presented. I doubt that he can. It's going to cost this province $1.3 billion in any event, just to create jobs in Japan so they can take that coal, put it through a blast furnace and make steel that the Toyota manufacturers can make into cars to ship back over here, so we can put Chrysler and Ford workers in eastern Canada out of work. It's a good deal.

I gather my time has concluded. I'm very pleased to see the applause from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is obviously saying that he agrees with my figures completely. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

MR. BRUMMET: I must have done something wrong already. That is the first positive action I have seen that opposition make in this House in two weeks.

It's interesting to note that the previous speaker, the member for Skeena, was using considerable figures. He was elaborating on his full understanding of the budget. I'm sort of moved to suggest that if a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing then you should feel perfectly safe, hon. member. He had an opportunity to spell out the worst case situation and he was doing very nicely with that — in keeping, of course, with their philosophy — as long as he described the worst case. As soon as he got to the best possible case, he faltered and stumbled. I suppose that's part of the difficulty in getting to anything positive.

MR. HOWARD: That's an untrue statement. That's a false statement and you know it.

MR. BRUMMET: Back to, the budget. I rise to support this budget. I believe the budget is realistic, honest and that it's a courageous budget. It does take into consideration the best interests of the people of B.C. in the long run. It sacrifices political expediency. How that opposition can accuse us of bribing the people with this budget at the same time as they are saying that we are wasting their money.... I fail to understand that type of juxtaposition — that you waste people's money deliberately and yet at the same time you are bribing them.

This budget favours those who are least able to pay. Forty percent of the taxpayers benefit from the income tax reductions. The top 3 percent are asked to pay more. It favours the small businesses. It cuts their taxes from 10 percent to 8 percent. Where taxes have been increased, they affect to the greatest extent those who can best afford it or those who spend the most.

The elderly and the handicapped are also favoured in this budget. The budget provides more for those in need of assistance through the Human Resources budget. I have said this budget is courageous; it chose to maintain and improve health services, education and social services in this province, even though it meant unpopular tax increases. Two-thirds of this budget has gone to those areas, Mr. Speaker. This budget is realistic and honest; it doesn't try to fool anybody by suggesting that we can get something for nothing.

I am always intrigued by the financial wizardry of members on the opposite side, but I must admit I would prefer to put my faith in the New York financial houses, who give us a triple-A credit rating. This is the third budget debate that I've been involved in since I have been elected to this House, but in following any debates prior to that, I've heard the same sort of criticism — that the policies of this government will ruin the taxpayers in this province and that it will create doom and gloom, and so on. Yet, Mr. Speaker, all the evidence points to the contrary. In other words, everything that has happened in this province in those years has been prosperous; the economy has grown and the people of this province have benefited.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think the members of the opposition are doing a disservice to the people of this province by creating illusions that we don't have to pay for what we get. It is easy to make promises, but they found out in three short years that it's a little more difficult to deliver those promises and that you have to have proper policies in order to be able to carry out your promises. They are doing a disservice to the people of this province by suggesting that jobs can come without development. They never come out and say any of these things directly. They are simply against any industrial developments, any energy developments or anything of that nature which creates jobs. At the same time they say that they are

[ Page 4627 ]

trying to create jobs. It just does not happen that way. They do a disservice to the people of this province.... Apparently they seem to say that revenue is not necessary to maintain services to the people, and they're saying this again indirectly; they never say anything directly. They're against anything that produces revenue for the province, yet they say that they are supporting the services. That does not happen.

We did have, I believe, one positive suggestion from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke): to get out of acute-care beds and to add to the number of extended-care beds. He must have read the budget. On page 13 it says that of the almost 2,000 beds that are being added to this province in 1981, over 80 percent of them will be extended- and long-term care. So he did pick up this positive suggestion by finally reading the budget.

The opposition is very negative; they carp and criticize the lack of funds for one program after another. You hear this government being castigated for not putting enough into this, not putting enough into that, and so on. Yet they never seem to add things up and come up with a total. They don't seem to like that kind of arithmetic. Of course, I guess statistics can be used whichever way you like, but they don't seem to want to add up the total. So they give a false impression to the people of this province by saying that they are in favour of reduced government spending and criticizing the spending that this government does. At the same time they try and create the illusion that they are supportive of more staffing and more spending in many individual areas. I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that it's time they added up the requests and tried to give people the correct impression of what's really happening. You cannot have a bunch of small projects added up without coming up with a big amount of money that you have to finance from somewhere.

I was saying that this opposition does a disservice to the people of British Columbia with many unfounded allegations. In other words, if the people of this province took them at their word, we would not have B.C. Rail and we would not have the northeast coal development. We would not have any of these, because they continually keep telling the people that all of these things are bad fiscal investments and that they are bad for this province. I think they do a very great disservice to those people.

In making those kinds of statements.... That is the party that says they support the labour force in this province. It does not matter how many benefits labour can accrue if there are no jobs. In order for them to get those benefits they must be able to have jobs to get the hard-earned benefits. As I've said, this opposition is very much against any project that creates jobs. We have such foolish accusations that the jobs are being created elsewhere. Why would the Japanese or any other country want to buy coal from us if they were not benefiting from it in some way? That group fails to understand that it takes a satisfied buyer and a satisfied seller before you can have a deal. That is one thing that they can't seem to understand.

I've heard a number of allegations in this House that some of the best customers of British Columbia wouldn't live up to their bargains, that they wouldn't keep their word, that they are ripoff artists. I think that's an insult to our good customers on the Pacific Rim. They come out against northeast coal — again, not directly. You never say anything directly because that way it's pretty hard to be pinned down when you have to work your way out. As the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said, they come up against all these monuments, as they call them. So they come out against things like B.C. Place, which will create jobs on a temporary construction basis and certainly on a continuing basis, when you consider the revenue and activity those types of facilities will attract to this province. So jobs in tourist and service industries will be greatly amplified for the future, and many, many jobs will be created by it. These people are against that, yet they claim they are on the side of the workers. They're against roads. They criticize any road programs. They're against spending on that. They're against any energy project. Those energy projects create jobs both directly and indirectly. Energy leads to industry, which leads to further jobs. I think if you took the multiplier effect you'd find thousands of jobs. They seem to be against tourist attractions, convention facilities. They're against all those things that create thousands and thousands of jobs in this province, as well as revenue from the products we export. Yet they have the audacity to say they are in favour of the labour people in this province.

I'd like to just touch briefly on another disservice which I believe those members perform to the people of British Columbia. It's a real disservice, in that they refuse to carry out their responsibility to the people of this province. The people of this province have elected a majority government which theoretically represents them, both here and in Ottawa. Yet these people refuse to represent the official position taken by the province of British Columbia. In a democratic system generally the official position of any meeting or organization is that which is achieved by a majority vote. This government, this province, has taken an official position in Ottawa regarding the energy program, natural resources and the constitution. Yet the elected members, provincially and federally — the federal NDP members from this province — are all going against the official position of British Columbia. In that respect I say they are doing a disservice.

MR. LEA: Sorry!

MR. BRUMMET: I don't think you have ever been sorry for anything negative you've ever done, Mr. Member. If you were, you'd be sorry all your life.

I think it's indicative that many other members of their philosophy have gone against the grab for natural resources that has been taken up by the federal government and against its position on the constitution. Yet we have these members holding firm in order to represent, as they say, the people of this province. But it certainly does not represent the position that this province has taken through its properly elected government.

The member for South Peace River did say quite a bit about monuments. I find it somewhat astounding, if you like, that members on this side — a number of them are northern and interior members — are supporting things like a stadium for the city of Vancouver and B.C. Place, simply because we at least have a broader vision to see that if B.C. prospers, then we all end up prospering, because we all get some benefit. To me it's ironic to find that the socialist members from Vancouver, who are supposed to be representing the people in Vancouver, are trying to stop every one of those projects.

They talk about monuments. I'd just like to add a couple that the member for South Peace River perhaps didn't mention. For instance, we have an increased, improved educational system in the Peace River area. Northern Lights Col-

[ Page 4628 ]

lege has added facilities in all of the centres there. These facilities have come about because of the economic prosperity of this province. They would not have happened otherwise. So that is a monument that certainly benefits the people of the north. We're a little different from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who wants some of these facilities but, in keeping with his party's philosophy, wants all development in that area stopped. I think his position is that he wants these amenities for his people but he wants the money to come from outside. If we all take that attitude, if we all want and don't contribute, then none of us is going to get. That's the position that the party over there has taken.

I could go on about B.C. Rail, the Hart Highway that has opened up a lot of facilities up there, and the oil and gas industry. Talk about a monument to a man with vision. Mr. McMahon opened up a plant in Taylor years ago that has greatly benefited this whole province, not just the Peace River area.

I'd like to conclude by saying that regardless of all the rhetoric that goes on, since 1952 when this party introduced the pay-as-you-go philosophy this province has prospered — from a have-not province to a have province. This party decided to spend some money investing in the future, and they are carrying on this policy. This party has decided to encourage private enterprise. Earlier this afternoon you heard the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) talk about how much money is being put into this province by private investors. Imagine if the taxpayers of this province had to pick up all those billions of dollars of investment. They couldn't afford to live, for heaven's sake, if they had to do that to generate these industries that, in turn, generate jobs that generate revenue. So, regardless of all the rhetoric, British Columbia has prospered. The people have benefited. We've been able to afford the benefits and we'll be able to afford them in the future rather than mortgage our future. This government made it happen.

I'd like to conclude by pointing out the one monument in the annals of British Columbia history that will live forever. That is in the period 1972-75 when there was a dip in the graph of every economic indicator in this province. That was their doing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, as one who believes in the policy of democracy and that there should be a government and an opposition, I rise as an opposition member to bring to this government some of the concerns that we feel are important.

Before I start I would like to take this opportunity, though the member is not here, to congratulate the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). For a long time he sat over here beside us and we became quite attached to him. In fact, we used to give him a lot of advice on how to get ahead in the cabinet and how to progress. In fact, one of our members over here penned a little poem to Peter. It goes like this:

Peter was nimble, Peter was quick,
Peter side-stepped the member for Central Fraser,
And jumped over George, Jack and Jack.

Obviously the member was not a poetic type. Anyway, the second member for Vancouver South did take our advice and he did get into the hallowed chambers.

I would like to make some comments on his first speech, on his major attack on individuals who I feel — and I say this very honestly — became and are important people in the development of British Columbia. They are men and women who have actually pioneered new ideas and new principles and brought new benefits to the people. I know that in his so-called fantasy fairy tale he made a lot of snide remarks against individuals.

I think, as one who's been around the political scene and has been around public life for a number of years, that I must bring to this House's attention some of the record of the accomplishments that took place under different people that he attacked. I know he made the remarks that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) was trying to become Conrad Hilton. And I say, in all fairness to the first member for Vancouver East, that he was the Conrad of the Hilton. When he came to power as Premier of this province in 1972, after 20 years of Social Credit mismanagement, B.C. was faced with a hospital freeze and they found there was not one hospital on the planning board of this province and not one plan for new extended-care facilities. He brought in, in the first three years, from a dead stop, 800 extended-care beds in the lower Vancouver area. This is what was needed in the province of British Columbia, and this was what was not accomplished by the previous 20 years of Social Credit government. What did he do? How did he go about it?

I'm going to bring a few stories to this House, stories that I was involved in personally. Prior to my election I was a police officer, and prior to 1972 one of the industries known in this province was the business of conducting and operating nursing homes. Nursing homes were considered a method of making a profit, not of giving a service and treating people as patients should be treated. I know that in my own municipality we had many people that got in the business, bought an old house, took in boarders, took in sick people and kept them in beds without any real intent to give a service or a proper rehabilitation treatment.

I remember one particular case — this was under the previous Social Credit administration. We went into one house that was classed as a nursing home, and we were called in there by a 16-year-old girl. This girl was a student who was working the weekends as a part-time nurse's aide. She called us and said that one of the patients appeared to be having trouble. We checked with the lady and it turned out, according to the young lady, that when she came on at 7 o'clock in the morning she was asked to help the cook with the breakfast. She prepared the breakfast, took the breakfast in to this particular patient and the patient did not respond. She put the food down beside her and then carried on. She went back in at 10 o'clock and noticed that the patient hadn't eaten her breakfast, At dinner time she went back in and again noticed the patient hadn't eaten the breakfast. At 3 o'clock, when she went back in — and I'd like to point out that she was the only girl operating a nursing home on a Sunday — a 16-year-old nurse's aide without any training — she noticed that the breakfast was still not eaten, so she called the police. When we attended, that particular patient was dead.

This was the type of nursing system we had, the nursing care that was given to the elderly people in British Columbia in the first 20 years of the Social Credit government. And when the present member for Vancouver East came to power, these were the problems he faced. He did become the Conrad Hilton of extended care and he did change it. Not only did he change the services that were offered to the people, but he brought in a lot of the better types of nursing homes under the guise of the local hospital societies. There were some good

[ Page 4629 ]

homes being run by the Salvation Army and the Roman Catholic church, but all the ones that were dilapidated they closed down, and they brought in a new concept to extended care, a concept that gave some dignity to those who needed extended care and those who were ill. He gave the employees the right to organize, to work and to get a better wage schedule. With a better wage paid to the employees, the administration had the right to demand a better type of service. They demanded better training facilities. It was that same member, when he was Premier of this province, who brought in a lot of the new licensed practical nursing courses and training in the hospitals for the aged. He pioneered what was known as extended care for the aged.

Another crack that was made against another gentleman by the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) — and I'm happy to see that he's in the House — was the attack made against the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). When he was Attorney-General the second member for Vancouver East did a lot for a business that I was in as a police officer.

I'd like to go back to 1955 when I met, with all the mayors from the greater Victoria area, all the members of the police commissions of that area and the then Attorney-General of the Social Credit government, Mr. Robert Bonner. At that time all the municipalities in the greater Victoria area had asked the government to set up a police academy and to bring in a police act so there would be some policy and a development program for the police. At that time it was turned down. We were given the assurance that a study would be made. For 20 years they studied it. For 20 years the previous Social Credit government studied and did nothing. It was the second member for Vancouver East, then the Attorney-General, who not only brought in a police academy to upgrade the training that was given to police and upgrade the input to various police departments, but brought in a number of innovative methods to help police at that time.

There was always a shortage of manpower, and he brought in the sheriffs, who relieved all the duties of court administration, escort duties and the serving of summons from the active street policemen. He relieved over 300 active policemen to go out and do police investigation, to do the types of investigation needed for child molesting, and violent criminal acts, and also to do something that I know ICBC is promoting today: a proper method of preventive traffic education. This cannot be done without some assistance from the government, and it was given by that same member — and little remarks were made about a new occupation for him. Not only that, but they brought in the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, which went a long way to make a positive attempt to stop organized crime in British Columbia.

Another remark that was made against the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was that he should take a job as a hotel doctor. That member has never professed to be a doctor. He's never professed to be anything but what he was: the best administrator in the public health field that British Columbia has ever had. What did he do? Let's just go over some of the new policies that he brought in during those three years that he was in power. He brought in the first Pharmacare program in British Columbia. He brought over 400 new hospital beds to the lower mainland. He brought in the mobile dental unit that consisted of fully equipped vans and trailers. They travelled the province giving proper dental care to people who have never had it until then. There had been 20 years of previous Social Credit administration. He amalgamated all the medical insurance carriers in British Columbia so that when you moved from one job to another you didn't have to change all your insurance.

The one thing he did bring in that I, personally, was very pleased with and very involved with.... Prior to my election, as I said, I worked within the emergency service, and one of the emergency services we had to cover was ambulance service. I ask you. Mr. Speaker, because you're a compassionate person, if you can consider what it would be like to try and take a patient who was suffering from a heart attack, in a lot of excruciating pain, to a hospital in the back of a station-wagon police-type ambulance, at the same time trying to hold between your knees an oxygen bottle to administer oxygen and give some preventive care. You can't do it. But it was the member for New Westminster who pioneered for all the people of British Columbia one of the best ambulance services this province had ever seen. It's important that we consider what happened in those three years and we give credit to those people who worked, who brought in new, innovative ideas and gave the people who were sick some dignity, that was not given by 20 years of the previous administration, because they we're not interested in sick people — the little guy who couldn't afford the price of an ambulance when it was a profit-making business. When the NDP brought it in they had a maximum charge of $5, and everyone had the best facilities the province could afford. I think we should give that man credit and not make snide remarks that he should become a doctor.

I always feel that in a democracy, and when we stand up in this House, it's a great privilege, because we have been given an opportunity to represent a lot of people. It doesn't really matter what side of the House we're on, we're here because in our own ridings there were a lot of people who were committed to take political action. These were people from all walks of life who spend a lot of their time being involved in community affairs, being involved in bringing in programs that they, personally, feel would be better for this province. The same type of people are in both political parties, and there's not one of us who.... I say this in all honesty: for all our feelings of importance, if we did not have our political workers back in our ridings, we wouldn't be here.

When the new minister — and maybe it was because he was new in his position and was trying to impress his fellow cabinet ministers — made an attack on Yvonne Cocke, whom I know personally, by bringing her name into this House in a flippant manner when she couldn't come in here and stand up and defend herself, I thought it was disgusting. As I say, it's people like Yvonne Cocke who have worked and committed themselves to what we know as our political democracy, and not one of us can afford to stand up and make insults against these people, because it's not only Yvonne Cocke you're insulting. You're insulting every person who gets involved in his spare time in the political activities of this province in making democracy work and be people- oriented, not dominated by any group or section of society but by rank and file citizens of this province. When you make an attack on one person who cannot stand up here to defend herself, you're making an attack on every person who is involved in politics. We can't afford that, because we have to encourage people in politics, not insult them on the floor of this House.

I have had to smile every session that I've been in here, because of all the kinds of bright remarks made against NDP members on this side of the House. Every time I listen to them. I have to smile. One of the names that keeps coming up

[ Page 4630 ]

is Bob Williams. I have no intention of defending Bob Williams, because I imagine that when Bob returns here he will be able to defend himself.

I would also like to bring to the attention of this House something that the new minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) said when he said that everyone should read the Waffle Manifesto. I'll tell you what they should read: the news clippings of the speeches that Bob Williams made in 1971. I know that it would be nice if I could say, "Read Hansard," but there was no Hansard.

But I remember one series of speeches. One of the world renowned entertainers took some of those speeches into one of his songs, called "Vancouver Town" — that was the famous entertainer Rolf Harris. It was these speeches that became the reason for the lines in that song, and I'll read these lines:

Now there were two wild Kelowna boys
And Bennett was the name.
They bought some land and sold some land,
And made a capital gain.
And when their daddy spoke to them
In accents loud and shrill,
They said: "We merely follow the lead
Of the sons of Flying Phil."

I say, Mr. Speaker, if anyone wants to make any discussions about or learn anything about building hotels, I think Flying Phil would be a good person to start with.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Are you saying that Flying Phil's hotels are non-union?

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, that's what you're saying. I didn't say that his hotels were....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please continue to address the Chair. I'm trusting that the hon. member will soon relate his remarks to the budget.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes. I really did want to bring a few things on the budget to your attention, Mr. Speaker. It was the budget speech that I was talking about, and it was the people who were involved in it.

I find it quite odd that there is a new section brought into it another, as we would say, punitive tax — and this is on page 25. It says: "Fuel tax used in the propulsion of steam-driven ships will become taxable at the coloured gasoline tax rate." Why would this government bring in a special piece of legislation that was only going to affect three ships in the province of British Columbia? One is the Princess Marguerite, the second is the Princess Patricia and the third is the Prince George. As far as the Marguerite goes, I guess the government's conception is that they can take the money out of their left pocket and put it in their right pocket, and it really doesn't make any difference. I quite believe that the CPR won't miss the amount of money that is involved in this particular tax.

But I would like to bring to the attention of this House of a new company started in British Columbia. You all know that the ship by the name of Prince George was built in my riding. It was designed to ply the coast of British Columbia as a tour ship and to service this coastline. Because of the change in CNR policy the ship was sold to the provincial government in 1975. With the change in government the present government had a desire to get rid of anything that was noted to be part of the NDP business, so they sold it. They sold the Prince George to become a floating restaurant. Well, that never took place. Anyway, she was towed to Portland to become a hotel for people involved in a work stoppage in that area.

The part I want to bring to the attention of the House is that three ships that will be running up and down this coast are the last of a breed. They are the last operating steamships in North America. They are the last three steamships operating that are actually floating artifacts in the shipping world; there are two other steamships on the Mississippi — two riverboat ferries. But these are the last of the pocket cruisers. I was surprised that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) wasn't there to fight and defend a new tourist industry that was struggling to get off the ground, a new industry that was trying to get started, a new industry that is going to attract tourists from all over North America. When another ship is in business it will bring more people to B.C. I was surprised that the Minister of Tourism didn't fight to keep that tax off. I was also surprised, when I checked the various departments, to find that this particular ship did not qualify for any grants under the TIDSA program, but another ship, known as the Pacific Princess, which was not running but was tied up to a dock in Ucluelet, qualified for over half a million dollars in grants over a period of five years. It is very interesting, when you know that the owner of the Pacific Princess is an avowed, active Social Crediter.

I'm happy to see that the minister is in his seat. I would like to bring to his attention a problem that is arising in my riding. I have a dealer who sells farm implements, tractors and heavy equipment for farming, industry and the building trade. One of the products he sells is commonly known in the trade as a Bobcat. For years, under the particular social service tax, the majority of the people who are farmers and the majority of the people who sold Bobcats felt that they came under section 4(c) of the social services tax. These are the "farm implements, farm machinery, horse drawn vehicles, farm tractors and parts for the them; horses, livestock, poultry, binder twine, metal wire or netting for fences and harness for horses, when acquired and used by a bona fide farmer to be used solely for the needs of his farm" — these will be exempt from social service tax. Many farmers purchased Bobcats to use in the barns and around the fields. It's part of the farm industry.

When you study a book called "E.G. — Inventor by Necessity" — that book talks about farm equipment that was invented in the States. Reading out of the book, it says: "They had been in operation for several years when Eddie Valo, a local turkey farmer came in with a problem. He wanted some sort of machine to help him clean out his barns. The latter had so many upright poles that he couldn't find a mechanical device capable of zigzagging among them."

Out of that request from a turkey farmer, the Bobcat was developed. The company that sells Bobcats has a whole line of equipment that is sold to the farm industry for pig farming, manure handling, horse barns.... For all types of jobs in the farming industry there is a Bobcat or a piece of equipment specially designed to be used as a farm tractor. Lately they have decided that they need more money for the social services tax. They have said that the Bobcat is no longer a tractor. I've gone through all the motor-vehicle branch's regulations

[ Page 4631 ]

and I can't find what they class as a tractor. The closest I can find comes out of the motor-vehicle branch regulations where it says that a tractor can either be wheel- or track-driven. I'd like the minister to really look at that particular section. I don't know how many thousands of dollars he's going to collect from it. I do know that there are a lot of people in the farm community, in the Fraser Valley and through my riding who are being hit very hard because, all of a sudden, years after they've bought and used the piece of equipment, it is no longer being classed as a farm tractor.

The dealers have been told to go out and try to collect the social services tax. I don't know if they're going to be collecting it at the 4 percent rate, the 7 percent rate or the new 6 percent rate. In all fairness, I really feel that this minister in his wisdom can look at that, and he will find when he studies all the descriptions and technical background of this particular piece of equipment, its design and how it's used, that it is a farm tractor and that it should be exempt in all ways from that particular tax. It is part of an operation and.... We in B.C. should be encouraging industries, businesses and farmers to run a productive and efficient operation so that they can compete with cheap labour from other parts of the country. This is what this particular piece of equipment has been designed to do — to save labour, to be efficient and to get into places very efficiently so that it can do a job.

In closing, I would like to go over that again with the Minister of Finance. I would ask him to consider the Bobcat issue and the tax on the Bobcat, and to consider removing the tax on the last of the three steamships in Canada to be running. I hope that the Minister of Tourism will come to my aid.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I always rise to the call of a turkey, Mr. Speaker, and that has to be Pinko-Panco Party's best. He may be a good drinking buddy and he may have been a good policeman, but I'm not sure that he isn't the leader of the flock when it comes to presentations in this House. Mr. Member, I felt that your presentation, as pleased as I was to listen to it, was a very classic and shining example of what has been consistently going on in this House. As I rise to support this budget I also have to express my grave concern that there has been nothing but negativism, negativism, negativism. When you talk about the tourism industry, Mr. Member, which I know you are very interested in, you are a very shining example of what you should not be in this industry. You're showing that the NDP philosophy is yours in terms of trying to weaken and cut down instead of fostering strength and confidence and helping this industry stand on its own feet.

I'd just like to mention that there are a lot of comments that you made in relation to the former Minister of Health and his role in British Columbia, which I'm sure will be addressed by our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), but I would like to correct you in one of your many mistakes. He was not the father of the mobile dental unit. That was the product of the Social Credit government. It was started by Dr. Gray in Kelowna with the government, and it was started in my constituency. That was long before you even had a chance to pretend at being government.

The one area where I did agree with that member was when he said that it's a great privilege to be a member of this House and to have the opportunity to serve the people of British Columbia. It is with a degree of humility and pride that I stand here today, really having my first opportunity to speak as Minister of Tourism. But before I answer some of the questions about tourism in terms of your asking for some accounting, I would like to try to answer the questions that have been brought up in this debate.

I would first address myself to the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who in himself has a bit of a problem with tourism. In fact, I think he has a bit of a problem. He's a jolly little fellow, in a quiet sort of way. I listened very carefully to your comments in the House yesterday, Mr. Member. I would tell you that perhaps the greatest problem you have is in not doing your homework and not being aware of what is going on. Because as I understand it and as I read Hansard, you were complaining that the north had been neglected, your constituency had been neglected, and Tourism was not paying any attention to you and you were going to have great difficulties in the future.

I'd just like to let you know that I have here in my hand a collection of literature and publications, all of which contain information about your constituency and all of which are publications of this past year. We've given particular attention to you in the four annual issues of our Beautiful British Columbia magazine, and we have a special edition which was put out on a regional basis by our ministry. I'm just looking for it here in case you haven't seen it, and I'd recommend it to you. It's called "The Great British Columbia: The Great North." It's a beautiful three- and four-page spread on Atlin, Stewart Lake and all the things you should be talking about in a very positive way. You should be helping us sell to those visitors. You're in last winter's edition of Beautiful British Columbia. I recognize there was a typographical error but, nonetheless, you could have taken that error and turned it to your advantage and got more publicity for your area if you had used your imagination. You're in the accommodation directory and a number of publications which are supported by our ministry.

You're in a position in this House where you're consistently knocking the private sector in your area, and yet here's a beautiful publication called "Welcome to Cassiar Country" put out by a private company that operates in your region. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member; you're either proud of your constituency and you recognize the people who contribute to it, or you pipe down.

Here's another book put out by Heritage British Columbia, the Ministry of Environment. Atlin is mentioned three times in that book.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister would assist in keeping order if she would address the Chair.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, through you. I would advise you that since being minister I've had writers and photographers in your area.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, they have been working to put together a number of articles and a series of information which is now coming out in private printings as well as government printings. In this spring's edition of Beautiful British Columbia there's a magnificent article on that member's area. Mr. Speaker, I know that in the fairness of your attitude you would want to know that in 1979-80 the

[ Page 4632 ]

Social Credit government contributed $47,000-odd on a contributing grant basis to the hon. member's region, and in 1980-81 it was $54,000, all of which goes to help this region promote itself and to cost-share in their own program. There may be a problem up there, but it might well be you.

You mentioned the hotel tax, and I will address that a little bit later in my presentation. You also mentioned the high cost of gasoline and how it was going to destroy the visitor industry.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to maintain order in the House. I'm sure you are having difficulty with us when a member continually speaks to the member, not to the Speaker. I just feel that it's about time the member who was first elected in 1966 learns the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I will seek to guide all hon. members on a continuing basis. Please address the Chair, hon. member.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it. You'll have to forgive me. The courtesy in our home has always been to address people and look them in the eye; in the House I find it difficult to move from that.

I would just like to advise the member that he has had an increase in tourism in his area, if he would just check the record and discuss it with his industry, and also to advise him, when he talks in terms of the problems his area is going to have with any increase in gasoline prices in British Columbia, that first of all he should look to where his market is. A lot of his market is the overseas market. I'd like him to know that in West Germany gasoline is 73 cents a litre, with a tax of 29 cents; in Italy it's 85 cents a litre, with a tax of 59 cents — it's a socialist-communist country; in the United Kingdom, which is the product of socialism, gasoline is 71 cents a gallon, with a tax of 44 cents; in France, where some of his market is, the tax is 51 cents. Right now gasoline in his area will be about 32 cents a litre plus, depending on the type of gasoline and the individual operator. All other countries will relate to 73 cents, 85 cents, 71 cents and 76 cents for gasoline. Again, it's another area where this hon. member should be positive and should analyse the market, then help his own industry understand it. With that, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia for the calendar year 1980.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the ninth annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Board of British Columbia for the period ending December 31, 1980, and the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia for the same period.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.