[ Page 7075 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate.

On the amendment.

Mr. Richmond –– 7075

Division on amendment –– 7076

Mr. Lorimer –– 7076

Mr. Ree –– 7079

Mr. Macdonald –– 7081

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7085

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. RICHMOND: Yesterday when I left off speaking against this amendment, I couldn't help noticing the response from the other side. When I mentioned nationalizing the banks there was much desk-thumping from the members opposite. In fact, I think I could almost see their pupils dilating and their nostrils flaring at the thought of nationalizing the banks. I think their true colours started to show through. As my learned colleague from Point Grey has said, the three-piece suits were there but the red underwear was showing through very vividly yesterday.

I suppose that after the banks would come the sawmills, the pulp mills, the copper mines, the smelters and so on. I think their entire debate on the budget speech has come down to the same old socialist philosophy of spending money they haven't got and nationalizing and promising anything. I think we've come down to that. The taxpayers of B.C. are still paying for those philosophies after seven years.

It is for certain, and we realize it as well as anyone in this House, that we have problems at this very moment in this province. We have unemployment. I don't think we try to run and hide from that fact. But empty promises will not help the unemployed.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) mentioned that there may be further downturns in the forest industry later this year. That is quite possible. I think we all realize that we can't predict exactly what will happen in the forest industry; a great deal of it is out of our hands. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) alluded to that in his budget speech. As he said, if further downturns occur, then further adjustments in the budget may be necessary.

The member for Mackenzie also said we haven't done anything about anything. This was immediately after he heard the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) itemize projects that would create 40,000 jobs, yet he can stand there and say we haven't done anything. They say to be specific, to talk about real cases, and the Minister of Human Resources yesterday did exactly that. She itemized cases about real people who are being helped; not pie-in-the-sky philosophy and generalities but real flesh-and-blood people who are being helped by her ministry. Contrary to what the socialists say ad nauseam, the Social Credit Party is the party that cares about people in this province.

They speak constantly about fudging figures, etc. and about cooking the books. Yet we don't have to look back very far, I suggest, to talk about fudging figures and overruns and hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. I shudder, as do a lot of people, to think what would happen if they were in government today, how many dollars we would be in debt, and how fast.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Millions.

MR. RICHMOND: Billions, I would suggest, sir. What alternatives do they propose? I hear very few alternatives: only one, and that is to spend. Everything is spend; borrow our way out of difficulty and spend. The policies they set forth would cost this province dearly, would cost billions of dollars, and doesn't work. Again I point to administrations across this country where that has been tried and it doesn't work. In fact, many of them right now are looking to us as an example of how to budget in these difficult economic times.

We are in a time of restraint but I really don't think they know the meaning of the word. I really doubt that very much. They will promise anyone anything. In short, if we were to listen to their policies we would very quickly end up nearly bankrupt, like the province of Quebec; or like Ottawa, so hopelessly in debt that we will never get out of it, and neither will our children. They forget the triple-A rating that this province has re-earned over the last seven years. That is very important to us. There are very few jurisdictions that enjoy it.

The people of British Columbia have confidence in this government. They can look around and see what is happening right here in this province during very difficult economic times. In speaking to this amendment, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite constantly want to talk about unemployment, but that's all they want to do. We are the party that's doing something about unemployment. The projects that we are doing have been listed many times here, but they seem to fall on deaf ears. I'll list them again in a few moments.

I want to talk for just a moment about the business policies of the New Democratic Party. This quotation I'm going to use has been used once in this debate, but I think it bears repeating because it shows the true economic policies of the members opposite. It is a quotation from the Savant college newspaper, speaking to young people. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was asked how corporations could pay for some vocational and technical programs. His answer was: "I prefer taxing the bleep out of them." He said — expletive deleted, a four-letter word — etc. "I prefer taxing the bleep out of them," which I think sums up their business policy, Mr. Speaker. They would do to business as they did to the mining industry from 1972 to 1975: virtually tax it out of existence.

Then they come to small business — that was talking about big business — for which they have some other policies. Sure, small business is in trouble in this province. We all know that and they know it. Their interest rates are high, their costs are high and their markets are shrinking. They don't need to be told that, but they also don't need false promises. They don't need promises such as "buy up all the sawmills," etc. Why stop at the sawmills? If small businesses are in trouble, why not buy them up, too? If someone's in trouble, you can bet the NDP will be there to promise them something to help them out of trouble. False, empty promises. Promise them something to get their vote. The businessmen of this province are not that short-sighted, and they have pretty good memories. They can remember back seven or eight years.

I've spoken recently with many people in education. I've had meetings with teachers and school boards talking at length about education, the problems in it, and the lack of money. Certainly we all wish there was more money to spend on education. It always seems that there is never enough. But when faced with the economic times we're in and the restraint program that we have put forward, the majority of those in the teaching profession and on school boards agree with our

[ Page 7076 ]

position. They can remember who built the educational facilities in this province. The educational facilities in this province, especially in post-secondary education, were built by this party, not by the member opposite, Mr. Speaker.

The people also remember who built the highways and transportation system in this province, the ferry fleet, etc. — not them. They remember too, Mr. Speaker, who put the mining industry back on its feet in this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, occasional interjections perhaps can be permitted, even though they are disorderly, but continuous interruptions must not continue. Please proceed.

MR. RICHMOND: The mining industry in this province is once again in tough times, but I can't imagine how tough it would be if the policies of the former government were still in place in this province. It would not be able to survive for five minutes.

The people remember who does and who has done positive things in this province. They know who will develop the projects that have been referred to here many times in the budget speech by many of my colleagues. But I think they bear repeating, because they don't seem to sink in across the way, however many times we mention them.

The people know who will develop B.C. Place and Pier B-C; who will make Expo 86 happen; who is developing the ALRT and who will develop northeast coal — all of these projects to provide thousands of jobs for the people of British Columbia. They also remember who wants to just talk and make promises, Mr. Speaker, and who would bring many of these things to a halt, were they in power. They know from listening who is totally devoid of policy in this debate and, as I said, who bring everything down to the same common denominator. They know who would spend us into bankruptcy in very short order, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I'm speaking in favour of the budget and against this amendment because the majority of the people, as I said, are very much in favour of this budget and against this amendment. Unfortunately, the majority of the people are the silent majority — those who don't get the headlines and the access to the media that some of the radical few do. But the silent majority will have their day when and where it counts, and that's on polling day at the ballot-box. They don't forget that quickly, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in this province in the last ten years.

So I submit to you, the members opposite, and the people of this province that it is the correct budget for the times that we're in. I will be supporting it fully and, of course, voting against the amendment from the member opposite.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 30

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Interjections.

On the main motion.

MR. LORIMER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I had any brains I'd quit while I was ahead. But no one has ever accused me of that.

I'm sorry the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has disappeared. I had a message for him. I spent this last weekend in Hope, and I might say that he's got a few problems in Hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't drink the water.

MR. LORIMER: The water is one of the problems. The other problem is the minister. Although they certainly think he's a fine gentleman personally, as a minister they think something is lacking.

They're also very upset with you, Mr. Speaker. They tell me that their forestry offices were moved from the minister's town of Hope and into the Speaker's riding. They can't understand why a Minister of Forests would allow such a happening at Hope. They feel that somehow or other the government is trying to make up to the Speaker by moving that fine installation into the Chilliwack district. They think the minister has very little muscle in cabinet, and no muscle at all with the civil service. As I mentioned, I hope someone will take that message to the minister, because I don't want him to be taken by surprise when he visits Hope next time.

We've been provided with a budget. It's a pretty thing, but it doesn't have much in it. What it is, is an estimate of a number of expenditures that have to be made and the corresponding figures of revenue in order to balance the expected expenditures. But the trouble is that the revenue side is not in any way realistic and is merely figures put in the document in order to balance an otherwise unbalanced budget. It is presumed that the forest industry is going to improve. It's presumed that the economics of the province are going to improve, and I hope the minister is right when he estimates that this is going to happen. However, I can see no sign of any improvement in the economy of British Columbia. It seems to me that present indicators are all in the opposite direction. As a result, I suggest there is very little chance that this budget is realistic in any way. It's merely a minister's fantasy.

Now at a time of recession, or depression, it is certainly the responsibility and the duty of a government to use its initiative in providing plans for the creation of employment for its citizens. What is required is a government with pol-

[ Page 7077 ]

icies, and positive measures to get our people back to work. At the present time we read about cutbacks in almost every area of the province. The forest industry is almost at a standstill. In the Peace River country you have to be careful not to be run over by the rigs moving to other areas. The mining industry is in the worst shape it has been since the thirties. Cominco is closing down for a period of five or six weeks and probably longer. The Sullivan mine at Kimberley is likewise closing down. This is probably the first time since 1890 that there have been closures in these areas. Even during the thirties that smelter and those mines were operating — operating at full shift. The mining industry is receiving no help from this government. Even the grants for prospectors have been watered down to such an extent that prospecting in this province will be basically non-existent this summer.

Efforts should not be made solely in getting rid of our natural resources. Our thrust should be in spending our time creating secondary industry — creation of jobs throughout the province. We should have a balanced workforce, both in the primary sector and in the secondary sector. Efforts should be made for job-creation in projects within the limits of expenditure that will provide employment. The megaprojects provide some employment, but the amount of money being spent on the number of jobs provided makes each job a very expensive operation. There are very few jobs in comparison with the money spent on most of these megaprojects. People who are employed add to the economy and bring revenue to the province to carry the costs of our social and economic programs.

As an example, a concerted housing program could be initiated. This would not only resolve the social problems in the shortage of affordable housing, but it would also create jobs, which in itself would bring back revenue to the province.

A proposal was made a month ago by the leader of this party. He set out in some detail suggestions for consideration by the government as to what might be done for an economic recovery. I trust that the government is taking a close look at these suggestions which might assist in alleviating some of the suffering and the problems faced by our unemployed people. Many small projects could be undertaken by government, but the government has to have the gumption to act and provide leadership in a period of recession. The government has been working in the opposite direction.

An example of this is the Railwest plant that was building boxcars in Squamish. This plant provided hundreds of jobs, directly and indirectly. There is always a demand for railcars, and there has been for a great number of years; there is always a shortage of railcars. It was closed around 1967 by this government. They said the reason for closing it was that there were no orders for cars. But at the same time as the closure, B.C. Hydro had an order for some 400 cars, and the orders were given to Quebec and the United States for the purchase of 400 cars. So the whole operation was a case of poor management when this government took over in 1976. At the present time hundreds of cars are on order, and these should be produced in our local plants. We should be providing funds and work for the people of this province; we should not be exporting our jobs to other jurisdictions and exporting our money to pay for those cars that are going to come from other jurisdictions.

Another example is the property at Dominion Street and Boundary Road in Burnaby that was purchased for the construction of buses. In 1975 an agreement was reached between Volvo of Sweden and the government for the construction of Volvo buses at that plant, under licence from Volvo. The Volvo people had examined the plant site and approved the buildings as a good location for the construction of vehicles. However, after the election of '75, this project was killed.

If the project in which Volvo had agreed to allow British Columbia to produce all Volvo buses for the North American market had gone ahead, there would have been hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly created for this operation. But the project was killed and those jobs have gone.

The bus market is increasing every year as more and more cities in North America are looking at the transit systems as an answer to the movement of people in the urban area. There is now a "for sale" sign on the property, which is an indication of what is called "Social Credit progress." This government has mismanaged so many areas of its responsibilities that there is little wonder that the unemployment figures have risen so high in this province. I appreciate the fact that the province itself is not able to turn around the economy at the local level. However, as I have mentioned, there are many options open for our government to assist a number of people by creating jobs and certainly lessening the blow for many of our citizens.

The tree-planting program should be expanded rather than cut back. It's a case that would create substantial employment at a time when we're in trouble and also add to the provincial benefits by the restocking of our forests.

I want to talk a little bit about the money that is being spent at Oakalla at a very rapid rate. Since 1969 I have been calling for the removal of the prison facility from Burnaby. This high-security prison is located right in the urban centre and creates a great deal of apprehension to the citizens of Burnaby.

Bob Bonner, who was the Social Credit Attorney-General, said that the Oakalla prison would be phased out. He said that in 1964. The Attorney-General at that time said that it had to go because it was a decrepit jail. It was of little value as a centre for prisoners, and he said it would go and other jails would be built in other areas. This was echoed by Les Peterson, who was the Attorney-General later in the Social Credit government.

As a minister in 1975, I was able to arrange for the transfer of control of the 160 acres of farmland within the Oakalla fences to the district of Burnaby for park purposes, as a 99-year lease for $1. That was the promise we had made, and that others had made before us in the Social Credit government. I also promised that when funds were available, buildings would be replaced and smaller jails would be constructed in other areas throughout the province. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was in Burnaby two or three years ago, and he promised the city council and the people of Burnaby that this jail facility was going to go.

What concerns me more than anything else in this whole affair is the conduct of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). About one year ago I asked the Attorney-General whether or not funds had been committed for the construction of jail facilities at Oakalla. I was advised that no moneys had been committed for such a project. But we found out some time later that at that time three studies were in progress as to the construction of new facilities at Oakalla. I was able to obtain the second copy dated January of 1981, some five months prior to my question, and it was obvious from the

[ Page 7078 ]

report that new construction was going to take place in Oakalla. It would have been done in secrecy except for the fact that the Solicitor General in Ottawa, Hon. Mr. Kaplan, made an announcement that new facilities were going to be built in Oakalla. At that time there had to be an admission that in fact studies were being made on the Oakalla site.

The citizens of Burnaby, on hearing of this, were very angry at being treated so badly after so many promises had been made over a great number of years, and a non-partisan citizens' group calling itself the "Oakalla Must Go" committee was quickly formed. They have done a terrific job in organizing the universal objection to new facilities on the Oakalla site. I told the committee that construction would have already started except for the fact that the treasury was bare. There's no money to build new facilities. I will give the Attorney-General full marks in that since that time, as I understand from my conversations with him, he has been attempting to find other sites for the Oakalla Jail. I hope this is correct. We want a commitment in writing from the Premier that no new facilities will be built in the centre of that urban area. Hostages have been taken in that area, and shots being fired at escaping prisoners have caused some concern among the residents, and understandably so. It's regrettable that this facility is still where it is.

Someone dropped a letter into my constituency office. It's addressed to the Hon. Bill Bennett. I don't know who it's from, but I can tell you what it probably says. It probably says that they don't want Oakalla in the centre of Burnaby; they want it removed, and they want a commitment for its removal. I'd like to give this to one of the members across the way in order that the Premier will receive it, but I'm not sure who is talking to the Premier at the present time, or who sees him. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says that he will deliver it to him, but the last I heard he wasn't allowed in the Premier's office, so I don't know whether or not we should give it to him. But we'll gamble on that. I would ask the Page to pass it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for safe delivery to the Premier.

I would say that the financial affairs of this province are in a crisis situation. Megaprojects are bleeding the tax moneys of those lucky enough to have jobs to pay tax, and they are bleeding money at the expense of our educational, health and other projects. The province is going deeper and deeper into debt. Apart from helicopter rides for the minister, blasting of a mountain for media consumption, and the periodic repeat announcements of the minister, there is not too much action taking place at Tumbler Ridge. The government is in deep trouble over this project due to their inability to handle the operation properly. They have fumbled at every step of the way. Inability to negotiate a proper agreement with the purchase of our resources, inability to make agreements for the benefit of the province and inability to plan for the economic extraction of coal from Tumbler Ridge have caused the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development many headaches and many gray hairs. The government, although they are not admitting it, are in deep trouble. They have found that there are far more problems than there are solutions.

I want to talk briefly about the fiscal management of this province. I want to discuss how the province is going deeper and deeper into debt. Since 1976 the debt put onto the Crown corporations has multiplied. In March 1976 the debt of the Crown corporations amounted to $4.6 billion. In 1977 it was $5.7 billion. In 1978 it was $6.8 billion. Every year it is going up. In 1979 it was $7.1 billion. In 1980 it was $8.1 billion. The latest figure that has come out for 1981 is $8.5 billion. Because of a change in bookkeeping, the $8.5 billion may not be accurate; it may be slightly more. The true figures will show up next year because of the making up of the figures in that particular year. It has been estimated, through a number of government and Crown corporation documents, that in 1982 the borrowing will be $1.9 billion, which will bring the total debt up to $10.4 billion. In 1982-83 it will bring it up to $12.8 billion. In 1983-84 it will be $14.8 billion. In 1984-85 it will be up to $16.8 billion. In 1985-86 it will be around $19 billion, if the estimates that are presently provided are accurate. That is an increase in a period of ten years from $4.6 billion to $18.9 billion of deadweight debt owed by every citizen of this province: a great record of fiscal restraint; a great record of a government that claims to be able to handle the economy. It is a complete disaster. Never before in the history of this province have we been so deeply in debt. This amounts to approximately $7,600 debt for every man, woman and child in this province, created in the last ten years. It is a very sad day for this province to realize that in ten years a debt of only $4.6 billion has now reached the staggering figure of $18.9 billion, and probably will still go up for this government in power.

I want to say just a few things about transit. I'll spend more time on that particular subject when the ministry has its estimates before us. I just want to say that I have mentioned before to the minister that the ALRT is a bit of a gamble. Not being an engineer, I can't say whether it will function or won't function, but I think I'm as much of an engineer as the minister, and I don't think he can say whether it will function properly under working conditions. We have a lot of experts who say that it won't; others say it will.

The ALRT system is without a doubt a more expensive system than the conventional light rail transit system, but on top of that it's an ugly system. It is another example of how man can destroy the beauty of a city. The construction of cement ramps in and about the lower mainland will be anything but beautiful. In my opinion, it will create an unsightly mess in a lot of areas where we should be looking more to beauty than to ugliness. Concrete bridges, concrete ramps — it will be a city of concrete.

I noted with some interest that the reports regarding the sod-turning for the ALRT system.... I might say that this is the first sod-turning, and there will be many others; it will be repeated quite frequently to make the people believe that in fact something is being done in transit. Social Credit policy in transit is to create the maximum number of agencies, have them duplicating their efforts, make as many announcements as possible, but do nothing in the transit field.

A recent report issued by the GVRD — "Returning to Work," which came out about a month ago — has stated that nothing has happened in transit since 1976, and the service has declined since that time. The 200-trolley fleet ordered a year and a half ago was a good step, and I commend the government for ordering these vehicles to replace the old vehicles which originally came around 1946 to 1950. But it must be borne in mind that these trolleys will not provide new service; these are replacements for the vehicles already there which will be taken out of service. This will not result in any increased service or any increased transportation. But the interesting thing about this trolley order is that it was announced a great number of times: it has been announced about two years ago, six months before they had been or-

[ Page 7079 ]

dered; it was announced two or three times since then, and they had a big opening of the first vehicle as it arrived. For the casual observer, the person who doesn't use the transit system, it may well appear that the government has a handle on the transit needs of the province. However, it is really a gimmick to try to make people believe that something is being done, when in fact no action is being taken for the providing of new services and new systems for the people of Vancouver.

The ALRT system has been chosen by this government for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Experts in the field called it a turkey; I think they were referring to the vehicle. Now this may have a very sophisticated electrical system; it may have very fine provisions for a good system. But I would warn the minister that BART in San Francisco also had a great system. The costs incurred by BART in getting the system to work, which took about two years after construction, probably cost as much to the area of San Francisco as the original system cost to begin with. I'm fearful that the minister is going to run against the same problem with this so-called "turkey." However, I'm not so concerned about the total system, because I am quite convinced that there will be no system built in the lower mainland except for a small circular run from B.C. Place to Pier B-C. That will be possibly a two-mile system. I don't think the people in Burnaby, Surrey or New Westminster should hold their breath waiting for the first ALRT to come around. I don't think they're going to see that, and certainly if there is a change in government, I'm sure they will never see the ALRT system.

The only time that transit has moved in this province in the last 30 years was for a three-year period. Everybody knows about this. They know about it over there. For three out of 30 years, transit moved ahead. I'll tell you something else about this minister, Mr. Speaker. He was there trying to drive a trolley at Oakridge in the last week or two, and he was saying: "Leave it in our hands. Look what we do; we built the SeaBus." He was taking credit for the SeaBus, which he knows that his government wanted to stop but because it had gone too far, it couldn't be stopped at that time. And he was standing up there saying: "We looked after the SeaBus; we'll do this and we'll do that." That was reported in the newspapers.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: The SeaBus was designed in Esquimalt and built in local shipyards. We made sure that the construction was done in British Columbia.

When they extended the ferries, Mr. Speaker, where did they go to get the engineering? Do you know where they went? They didn't put it out for bid. No, they went to Sweden and had it designed there without bid. They paid $200,000 for the engineering studies for the expansion of those ferries. There are engineers in Canada that would have loved to have had a chance to bid on this particular contract, but no tenders were let.

What happened was that they went and got a Swedish firm to engineer this change themselves. That's what a government does when they say: "Put B.C. first." They go out of the country, give out contracts without tenders and do away with jobs for British Columbians by exporting jobs and money.

I'll have a lot more to say about transit, Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the minister across the way. The budget as presented to this House is merely a fantasy of the minister in charge of budgetary matters.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to stand here today and support this budget that has been presented in a responsible manner. It is a pay-as-you-go budget, Mr. Speaker. There are no increases in taxes for corporations or in income taxes for individuals, and we are managing to pay our way as we go. This is a basic difference between the opposition party and the government. The government is a pay-as-you-go party.

The other day I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition on the radio. I think it was on the "Rafe Mair Show." Mrs. Mair had driven the Leader of the Opposition down to the station that morning, and I think Mr. Mair asked him if he minded the ride. The Leader of the Opposition said: "No, I don't mind a free ride.I'll take a free ride anytime, as long as somebody else is paying for it." That is the basic philosophy of the opposition. They are on a free ride all the time, as long as they don't have to pay for it. This is basically what we're finding in their program, with the suggestions they are making here. They don't have to pay for it. They can take from somebody else — the doers of this province, the people who create things. That is what the opposition wishes to do.

I think it was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who yelled across the floor yesterday: "There's nothing we hate worse than the rich, except their lackeys." They hate people who go out, create and do. They hate the rich and their lackeys. They would do away with us. The member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) was suggesting that the eventual policy of the opposition is nationalization of all means of production — complete control of production.

We've listened to this debate here in the last few days. It has been most lacklustre, particularly the debate coming from the opposition. There have been no substantive suggestions from the opposition. We had the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) making the comment yesterday that the role of the opposition is to criticize and make some constructive suggestions. All we've heard is the criticism. We haven't heard any constructive suggestions. In particular, there was nothing constructive in the comments of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Had he made some constructive comments, he probably would have suggested that we go out and build more parks today. As the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) commented on the radio the other day: "We should be creating employment by spending money and building parks" — not by putting the money into anything that will create a lasting job. Certainly we need parks in this province. Parks have been built by this government during good times, but in bad times that would not be a sensible expenditure. No, they would build parks instead of northeast coal, which creates lasting jobs, or Pier B-C, B.C. Place, Lonsdale Quay, or any of the other projects this government has supported, is promoting and is doing which create lasting jobs — not only jobs in the creation of the project but jobs after the project has been finalized.

That's one item the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would have suggested. He probably would have also suggested another item: that is, as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) suggested, that we should not be building northeast coal at this time, but that we should be out constructing forest roads. In other words, we should spend our money on a product which there is not the demand for

[ Page 7080 ]

today, and not spend it on a product for which there is a worldwide demand — a product which could bring revenue and a return back to this province.

That is another suggestion that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam might have suggested. He might have also suggested, as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) just finished saying, that we should be spending the money on the Squamish railyard. We should be building railcars there. That is the sort of philosophy that comes from that whole opposition. We got it from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) when he was talking about failures. They wish to go out and support failures. They would support the failure of the Squamish railyard.

They would also support the failure of building buses. We know what they did with the bus system in Vancouver. How many hundreds of buses did they buy from the other NDP government in Saskatchewan? We bailed them out. Those buses are still sitting idle, because they can't run. They also bought some other buses that I think were split in the middle or that ride on tracks. Well, the tracks aren't there for them to ride on. That's the sort of transit system they would have us adopt in this province — a failure type of transit system.

We are supposed to worship failure, according to the member for Alberni. Our Premier should have experienced failure. The only Premier in this country who has experienced failure was the Premier between 1972 and 1975. He experienced failure in 1975 and this province experienced failure as the result of the experience of that government. The reason he is not Premier today is because he has failures behind him; he has people who worship being a failure. We don't want failures on this side leading this province. We want people who are doers, people who are successful people who know what they're doing and where they're going, and people who can provide for this province. We don't want a failure, a bankruptcy for the province of British Columbia.

We have other suggestions from the opposition as to what they would do on the creation of jobs. What was it? Borrow $200 million, or some such thing, at current interest rates and loan it out at reduced interest rates. They didn't mention what the total cost to the province over a period of time would be for that. It would run to at least $60 million or $90 million for the province to subsidize that sort of a system. But we were told that their additional projects would cost this province an additional $300 million. A great deal of that would be by borrowing. They also talked about taking $93 million from B.C. Petroleum Corporation, a tax-gathering corporation which was created by them when they were in government, a corporation that caused a loss of reserves to this province and a downturn in drilling of wells in this province during their three years because of their penalty systems against lack of production. They are going to take money from that corporation. I don't know how they will get additional money from that corporation, because at this moment there are limited export sales of the products of the corporation because of federal pricing. Until those sales can increase there will be no increased revenue to the corporation.

There is an alternative method for them to raise revenue from that corporation. They can increase the cost of the products to the public of British Columbia. That would get them the additional money. That is the general philosophy of the NDP: to have a free ride, take it from the people and give it away again. They would wash that money from the people back to the people. I don't think that would be of any advantage to this province, because one of the biggest problems we have today in Canada — high interest rates and inflation — is a result of governments' overspending. I believe the federal government is now spending about 22 percent of the gross national product. It has increased from about 14 percent when the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister 14 years ago. This large spending by governments has caused the high interest rates and the inflation we are experiencing. The opposition would continue to spend money in that way, continue to tax the people of this province excessively in the hope that they might reverse what that process actually does, which is to create high interest and high inflation. I can't see any advantage in that sort of philosophy. We don't need them as government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The way things are formed in this province, looking at it with respect to other jurisdictions.... We are supposed to worship failure, according to the member for Alberni. Our Premier should have experienced failure. The only Premier in this country who has experienced failure was the Premier between 1972 and 1975. He experienced failure in 1975 and this province experienced failure as the result of the experience of that government. We have had many labour governments in England. Last year I had the pleasure to travel up the B.C. rail line from North Vancouver to Fort Nelson and had the opportunity of touring the Tumbler Ridge northeast coal development. On that trip we had a gentleman from England. Every day his eyes seemed to bug wide open at what was being done in this province, the development in this province. I finally asked him why he was so amazed at this development. He said: "If this was going on back in socialist countries or in England under the former government of England, it would still be in the committee stage." That is what would happen in this province if the opposition were government today. We would still have committee hearings on whether to go ahead with Pier B-C. We would have committee hearings on whether to build B.C. Place, or even acquire the land down there. We would have committee hearings on whether we should be developing Lonsdale Quay, which is a tremendous asset to North Vancouver and to my constituency. We would still be going through committee hearings with respect to ALRT. I know the member for Burnaby-Willingdon will be speaking loud and clear at that hearing, saying that ALRT is ugly. He wouldn't say what he's going to do; he would still be knocking it at that committee. It's going to be an ugly thing. There are no suggestions by him on whether he would do anything different.

We listened to the comments of the opposition. We realize, and I think the people of this province should realize, that there has been no change in those members' thinking or ideals or anything else since they were defeated in 1975. They have not learned one lesson. The people who have supported them in the past should be happy, because they are still the same people. They still want to do the same things; they want to bleed this province dry. The only thing they have changed is their clothes, and I'm thankful that they have changed that. Sometimes it is advantageous, because if they kept the same clothes they had then, they might have the same odour that their policies have.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, you're sick.

Interjection.

MR. REE: Yes, Mr. Member, they're still pink. They don't even need a strong brush to make them pink.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget. This is a responsible budget. This is a budget that will keep British Columbia on track. When the markets for lumber come back, which we

[ Page 7081 ]

hope are not too distant in the future — the end of this year or the beginning of next year — I think that with the restrained budget that we have in British Columbia, you're going to see the economy of British Columbia take off. I think we'll have a prosperity that we have not seen before. If we were to over spend today and have overruns like the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) did in his tenure, we would be mortgaging our future; we would not be responsible. We would be like the opposition that wants to take something for nothing. They want it now.

I had a lady call not too long ago complaining about the government not deficit funding on its general expenses. I suggested to her that her children would have to pay that money back. She said: "I don't care. I want mine now." That is the philosophy of the opposition: they want theirs now; they want it for free. They are not concerned about the people of the future. They want what they want when they want it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I promise not to raise my voice. I promise to be nice to everybody. I promise to tell it as it really is. You won't like that so much. I promise not to say much about the last speech or the speech by the member for Kamloops (ML Richmond). How they love those comfortable old lies — you know, that the NDP left debts.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that reference to an hon. member is most improper. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. MACDONALD: I said they loved the comfortable old lie that the NDP left this province in debt. Mr. Speaker, that is a lie.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the hon. member attributing to any hon. member in this House?

MR. MACDONALD: No, not at all. I just said that he's comfortable living with that kind of thing. Every year the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) comes into this House and he explodes this business that we left a debt behind as a slick con trick, but it doesn't make any difference to those people over there.

This morning the daily Province has an announcement about the northeast coal deal, for which we have never received a cost-benefit analysis, although it was promised and work has begun. It says that Quintette is going to guarantee to British Columbia with its assets of up to $600 million what the province might lose on the deal. At the same time Quintette and Denison are asking the province to guarantee their investment. So I say no more. It's a matter of the government being asked to guarantee itself. The financial consequences of northeast coal should mean having all of the papers tabled in the chamber for examination by all the members. For a responsible minister of the Crown, the high-flying, high-living, high-spending Minister of Economic Development, whose travel expenses were $39,000 last year.... To say that he will have a cost-benefit analysis of northeast coal in due course, when the work has already begun and the province is committed to the extent of many millions of dollars, is economic idiocy of the first order.

The other day I spoke to a man who came down from the Tumbler Ridge branch line where he had been working. He told me that in order to make a headline in the paper, on April 1 he was asked to blow the face off the mountain and then the company at the other end, which was Commonwealth, would do the same on the other side of the mountain. There are two and a half miles in between. That was on April 1 and it was a political gesture. He said there is nothing but disorganization in terms of the government plans. Since April 1 there has been one other powder blast, and they've gone 20 feet. They have two and a half miles to go on that one tunnel. What we are criticizing is not the development of northeast coal; we've made that point perfectly plain. We're saying that you have been out-negotiated all the way along by the companies and by the Japanese contractors. You've been out-negotiated, and there is dreadful mismanagement with the project.

We know mismanagement when we see it, and that's what we're saying. We say: bring your cost figures into this House. Don't let that Minister of Industry and Small Business Development say he's got them and they're coming if all we get are public relations flyers — political publicity at the expense of the taxpayer. That's what we're talking about. Bring in the figures. Stop hiding it. Stop making politics out of it. Don't make it another Dease Lake extension, where the previous Social Credit government cost the taxpayers $300 million starting a railway for political purposes that had no freight and no future.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It was there when we came along.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: So did you. There's no choice. It was dreadful mismanagement of the resources. Don't let that happen as it did under the previous Socred government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say one other thing about the budget. I think it is very sad that in the accounts of the province we see a dividend in the sum of $7 million being paid into the provincial treasury from the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. This was a corporation that was started to develop land, to provide housing units, to service land.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: This is the depth of ignorance. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) says that Dunhill, which became B.C. Housing, never developed.... Where does this $7 million come from then, Mr. Minister? The depth of ignorance on those benches over there, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely staggering. In 1975 the NDP invested $5.8 million in the shares of Dunhill. Even now, after paying dividends to the province over a period of years, it still yields to the people of this province $7 million, as you see on page F-188 of the Public Accounts of the province.

It was an opportunity to provide employment to thousands; it was an opportunity to provide affordable housing to many thousands of families; and it was killed for political spite by the Social Credit government, simply because it was a good NDP idea. Now we see it finally winding up, and they are taking out $7 million — the last of it — and disbanding the only public housing corporation we have, a housing corporation that exists in all of the other provinces of Canada. They talk of employment; is there no employment in creating

[ Page 7082 ]

shelter for people, which could have been created under that corporation?

I'm going to talk now about a big Social Credit scam. You won't mind that, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure. It's not so small; it's as big as what happened before the last election when the NDP assets were put into the hands of BCRIC. The insiders flourished then and Edgar Kaiser and his friends walked off with millions and millions of dollars at the expense of the shareholders of the new BCRIC and at the expense of the public. I think what's coming along is as big a thing as the BCRIC fiasco and sellout. I'm referring to the takeover of Inland Natural Gas by Jim Anderson and Ben Macdonald and the Trans Mountain Pipe Line, because that is only the first step toward a huge, private energy conglomerate in B.C. It is like Nova, which began with Alberta Gas Trunk Line and diversified into many, many fields. Jim Anderson is a Social Credit fund-raiser and, I might say, Mr. Speaker, a man who talks too much; who boasts about his friendship with the Premier and how he can be in his living-room at any time, as he did in London not too long ago. Ben Macdonald is a very fine British Columbian, but he too is a Social Credit fund-raiser. In the middle of the 1979 election, when the Socreds were running a little short of cash, Ben went down to San Francisco to Standard Oil, which was his company, and raised oil money to help the Socreds win the last election.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, in his inimitable way, lets it out of the bag where this thing is going, as Anderson has been doing. Speaking on March 18 to the sales marketing executives at the Bayshore Inn, he made an announcement in a fit of oratory — my informant clocked him at about 120 words a minute, with gusts up to about 135. He dipped into the future and said: "We will soon be announcing our natural gas company, our own PetroCan" — or call it Nova. Just wait! My informant was very intrigued about that in view of the takeover that was then proceeding on Inland Natural Gas, because what we are seeing is just the first step. With the takeover of Inland Natural Gas, the last step is the dismemberment of B.C. Hydro and taking the publicly owned gas division of B.C. Hydro at cost into this new private energy conglomerate that will be closely controlled by the boys who are friends of this government. The people who will pay the shot initially will be the consumers at the gas tip of Inland Natural Gas, but ultimately they will also be the consumers of the gas tip of B.C. Hydro.

In London, Anderson boasts about the plans and how they can make some incidental diversification and some money along the way by rolling in companies such as Sun Mask Petroleum Corp.

The takeover plans were discussed and well known to the government and cleared with the Utilities Commission and the Premier's office months ago. Nobody pays $20 cash — 33 percent over market — for the shares of a regulated B.C. public utility if that's all there is to the transaction. They would lose their shirts. No financier, no bank, would support them. They would not be able to raise the funds. No sensible businessman would do that.

MR. BARNES: They must have known something the bank didn't know.

MR. MACDONALD: The people who are involved in this takeover know something that the other people do not know. They know that this is only the first step and they know that they will have a compliant Utilities Commission. They know that they can reorganize with Trans Mountain Pipe Line and raid its treasury, which is about $20 million. They can reorganize the capital of Inland Natural Gas, and then they can go back to the public utilities commission and ask for an increase based upon the recapitalization, and they will get it.

No, Mr. Speaker, there is something very strange, something far more than meets the eye, about a proposition where two local boys — well-known as they are in the back rooms of Social Credit politics — do not have to put up a single dime out of their own pockets. They get Trans Mountain Oil, of which five multinational oil companies have control, and they put up the $20 million. Then Trans Mountain — which has the security, of course — guarantees the bank loans of this mysterious company in the background: No. 108195 Canada Ltd. The registers show a Miss Duguay as that company's....

Trans Mountain Pipe Line is guaranteeing almost $40 million, and is putting up $10 million. Yet it is only getting 50 percent of the equity and only 33 percent of the votes. Now you may say that, well, that's not the real situation that is being presented, because if they had more, then FIRA might give them something to fear. It would look very much like the multinational oil companies were taking over a well-regulated and well-run local public utility in the province of British Columbia. There's something there that does not make any sense, but it does make sense in terms of the grand design of these promoters as I'm spelling it out today.

The government of British Columbia gets into a bit of a tizzy. This part of what I'm saying is kind of amusing, if I may say so, although the subject isn't particularly amusing. On Wednesday, March 31, in the course of my research.... Because I intended to present a brief to the Utilities Commission, I made a search — through someone else, but it was known to be me — at the offices of Inland Natural Gas, through the share register, to see what trading there had been in January, prior to the takeover offer, before it was really known publicly, that took place in February. There on the books I saw the name of R.J. Bennett, who had purchased 6,000 shares in the pre-takeover period. But I wasn't intending particularly to make use of that information. A little bird might have told him. He might have got it from street gossip. An insider trading in the kind of capitalist economy is sort of.... You almost take it for granted these days that whenever there's a takeover, the rich get a little richer. Sure, we know that. Nevertheless, the word goes back to the Premier's office that the name of R.J. is known to be on the books and known to me, and the government of British Columbia, which up to that time hadn't said a word about the takeover of Inland Natural Gas, springs into action. The Premier is in touch with Inland Natural Gas. What is all this about R.J.?

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who had been stood in a corner, cut right out of this thing in terms of any activity whatsoever, made an announcement that the government of British Columbia was going to intervene and ask questions about this deal. But this was 48 hours before the hearing — very strange, standing by itself, that such a thing could happen. Then on Thursday night, with the hearing advertised, set for Friday morning at 9 a.m. and the public invited to attend and make their submissions, the hearing disappeared without a trace, like a stone thrown into a pond — a few ripples and then it was gone.

[ Page 7083 ]

The people who were objecting to the takeover of Inland Natural Gas said: "We wanted to have a chance to argue as to whether you should have adjourned that hearing, because we say that if you adjourn it until the takeover crowd, which is TMA Western Resources, has a majority of shares in their hands, it will be too late to stop them. We want to make that point." But they never had an opportunity to make that point and the thing went on with the revised offer terminating at midnight on April 13. At midnight on April 13, in spite of questions raised in this House, the government again did nothing until it was too late, until the horse had bolted and the TMA crowd were in control of the majority of Inland Natural Gas shares and had paid for them. After it was too late they passed an order-in-council and said: "Naughty, naughty, naughty. Don't vote those shares." But it is too late. No government could be so capable of blunder as to first say they are going to a hearing on April 2 without any brief or preparation and announce it 48 hours before; then, with the new deadline approaching when Anderson and Macdonald and Trans Mountain would be able to pick up the shares in the trust company, nothing was done until two days after these people had their shares. Oh, it was a pretend fight. It was a make-believe fight against their takeover Socred friends. They knew all along that this takeover was going to take place.

There's too much of a history in this province of the granting of public franchises to friends of the government. I refer particularly to Delta in the course of these remarks I'm making. I start with the question of pub licences, and then I come back to land. I come back to land because it's all wrapped up. The people who have taken over the majority shares in Inland Natural Gas, of which Trans Mountain is one, have an option to purchase the Spetifore land — a 16 percent interest. So the whole thing is tied together. But in Delta you find the rich Socreds get neighbourhood pub licences.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good.

MR. MACDONALD: Who said good? Karl Frangi gets his Sawbuck's neighbourhood pub. Herb Feichel gets the Duke of Wellington. Bill Sullivan gets his Sundowner. Sullivan turns up, incidentally, at the Spetifore meeting in the Laurel Point Inn that was, naturally, closed to the public. Gerry and Bob Olma get their Kennedy Heights shopping centre pub after another applicant by the name of Pridie had been denied the licence on the grounds that it was in a shopping centre. Then when prominent Socred fund-raisers and friends of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) come along — and the member for Delta attended the political appeal.... Oh, it's kinky — the kind of appeals they hold on neighbourhood pub and land licences. Nobody knows it's taking place. There's no gazetting of when the hearing is going to take place before the minister.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That was granted in your time. I know the history of the pubs fairly well.

The member for Delta was here when they reversed the standing rule and, having rejected another applicant, gave the Kennedy pub to friends of the government. The hearings, as I say, are bizarre, because nobody knows they're going to take place in the minister's office. Nobody can protest. There was a Catholic church objecting to that particular neighbourhood pub. They didn't know that the minister was going to grant it. The member for Delta knew, however. He sat quietly in the back of the room, having assisted with the application.

In the case of the Sundowner, again the member for Delta comes over to Victoria. What the rest of the people of Delta might have thought about the granting to Bill Sullivan of the Sundowner pub licence doesn't matter, because they didn't know that there was going to be a hearing held on that matter. They didn't know that Sullivan, having been rejected by the liquor licensing administration, would go to the top political authority, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). They go on the ferry to Victoria — the member for Delta and Bill Sullivan, a prominent Socred...

Interjection.

MR.MACDONALD: ...who contributed quite a lot, Mr. Former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), to the party that you've now joined, in terms of the Delta Inn.

Now then, let me go on to the other friend — another Delta case. You have Jim Happy Honda Anderson, who sells his car dealership. He invests in five acres of land on Highway 17 right near the Delta Inn.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Tell us about Cottonwood Corners.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm going to say something to you, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, if you keep interrupting, because you are the one who encouraged Spetifore....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I've got to keep moving or my time will be up. How many minutes have I got, Mr. Speaker?

In the case of the Anderson property, I give you this as an indication of the way this government can print money for its political friends. Five acres of good potato land, so declared by the technical planning committee of the GVRD, overruled by the politicians, overruled by the Land Commission, and the moment Anderson gets that land out of the reserve he puts up a showroom and a garage. Now this is five acres. He goes to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and gets a loan for $2 million on five acres.

MR. LAUK: Is this downtown Vancouver?

MR. MACDONALD: No, out in Delta. He goes to the Continental Bank out in Delta and gets $500,000. That was released, and then he goes to the Toronto Dominion Bank and gets $1 million. The banks, which do not treat the ordinary homeowners of the province of British Columbia so kindly in terms of their mortgages, treat those who are able to get the ear of government and get their land out of the land reserve very kindly.

In the case of the Spetifore lands, more acres are involved. Good industrial land, you might say, is worth about $100,000 an acre in that area. Again there is a political appeal. On July 15, 1980, Delta, with its Socred majority, came to Vancouver and had a quiet meeting in the Laurel Point Inn on the night of July 15. Nobody knew about that. It was chaired by Boyd Ferris, the lawyer. They rehearsed their

[ Page 7084 ]

lines. The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) was there, but his constituents didn't know that he was there assisting Spetifore in this application. On July 16 ELUC meets from 8:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m., and in those few minutes they release the Spetifore lands by their recommendation to cabinet, but nothing is known until next January. Again it was a secret hearing. Again it was known to the local member, and again it was not known to his constituents that he was assisting in the release of those lands. Now Spetifore is in with Anderson through Dawn Development, and he goes to the bank too and places the following mortgages against that land: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $17 million; Bank of Montreal — this is again on the same date, July 17 — $9 million....

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that what we see here is the government giving the right to some people to print money on a fantastic scale at the expense of the ordinary people without the ordinary people even knowing anything about the hearing taking place. And then later, the third mortgage with Spetifore and Sons is in the amount of $25.8 million — back to Spetifore and Sons when Anderson, through Dawn Development, bought that land. The next is the Royal Trust debentures. Bear in mind that these mortgages, if you count the last one on the list, the unregistered mortgage to Spetifore and Sons add up to $172 million of encumbrance against that farmland. They say the first potatoes in all of Canada were actually grown on Spetifore lands.

Interjection:

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it was very early potato land.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was in Ashcroft. Your history is all wet.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay. I said "I think." But that land, which is still undeveloped, which only has the promise by this government that it will become industrial land for Anderson and his friends, has encumbrances against it now of $172 million. It's absolutely unbelievable. Where did those millions go? Did they go to Spetifore? When they went right to the bank after the release by the cabinet of the Spetifore lands and they raised $26 million, did that all go to Spetifore? As I say, when we talk about the scam of the purchase of Inland Natural Gas by Trans Mountain, Anderson and Macdonald, it's important to bear in mind, in terms of the scenario, that Trans Mountain at the same time took an option to purchase 16 percent of the equity in the Spetifore lands.

So there, Mr. Speaker, you have the scenario of what Anderson was talking about a long time ago — and he talks too much, if I may say so, from the point of view of a promoter. He shouldn't talk quite that much. But his scenario is unfolding on schedule. The takeover of Inland, as he has announced to the press, has been "successfully completed." The government is fighting it after the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) let the horse bolt the barn. Two days after they got the shares in their hot little hands, you passed your order-in-council — which is an illegal order-in-council anyway. How are you going to make them divest those shares? It was a farce; it was just a feigned fight against your Socred takeover friends.

That's step number one. Step number two, which is referred to in the cash offer, is a merger or another amalgamation with Trans Mountain Pipe Line with $20 million in cash reserve. Step three is diversification to include companies the boys control like Sun Mask Petroleum. If you take Dawn Development which owns Spetifore and which is guaranteed the collateral obligations in the Inland takeover, you find on the board of Dawn Development and Sun Mask Petroleum the same directors: F.J. Anderson, R.N. McRae, Barry Ehrl and W.J. Esselmont, who does the legal work for all these kinds of political companies.

On February 12, when the cash offer to take over Inland was being prepared, who jumps on the board of Sun Mask? Ben Macdonald. He shouldn't be cut out of that, should he? He's part of the....

The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) has 50,000 escrow shares in Sun Mask Petroleum. People do not get escrow shares without a special deal with the promoters. That is not what you go out and buy on the open market; that is what you get for either nothing or services or 10 percent of the value or something of that kind. Those shares were up to $4.50 on the market. Now, I am sorry to say, they are down to $4 — only $200,000. But, Mr. Speaker, I tell you this: the member for Delta is serving some people of the constituency of Delta better than he is serving the whole of the constituency of Delta.

I mentioned the Spetifore lands. Inland has been issued the invitation now to put in its bid for the pipeline to take natural gas to Vancouver Island. It could be LNG that goes over there, and that will be the terminal.

HON MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you going to talk at all about Vancouver East or have you forgotten them because of Williams?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Minister, I am talking about the province of which you and I are both citizens. I don't want to see the kind of scam that happened in the BCRIC thing happen here. I am going to fight it every inch of the way. I don't want to see the hundreds of thousands of gas customers of Inland and Hydro being treated like schmuks and subjected to price increases to pay the profiteering of the insiders. I am going to fight it.

If you listen to some of the people talking around you, they love that word "privatize." Did you know B.C. Hydro is going to be "privatized" by this government if they win the next election? They wouldn't dare do it without winning an election, but they will privatize that and turn it over to this new Nova consortium.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they won't, Alex, because they won't get elected after that.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay. We tried to stop it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I've laid it out as best I can. I'm sorry that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Premier did nothing to stop the coming into the hands of the TMA Western Resources group majority control of Inland Natural Gas. You've made your gestures, Mr. Attorney-General, but you made them after they got the shares. You know that this is just a gesture. You know it's too late. You know that the Premier wanted his boys to have that. You knew that he knew they were going to get it a

[ Page 7085 ]

long time ago. You knew he stood the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources down in the corner and barely talked to him about the whole transaction. You put up this feigned fight that you're really fighting it at the last minute. You're not fighting it very successfully.

You have to take things like this to the people, because here we have a public utility which is run by local businessmen who are not, as far as I know, NDPers. It is reasonably well run, with 100,000 customers — including important industrial, commercial and residential customers — throughout the interior. These people pay $20 a share — 33 percent over the market price — for the shares of a regulated utility, and you tell me that they're not going to get that money back? I ask you: who are they going to get it back from? From the consumers of the province of British Columbia. It's as simple as that. And it ought to be stopped dead in its tracks, because this is the kind of scam we do not need in this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to take my place in this debate and offer a few comments with respect to the motion which we have before us. Perhaps that will give me an opportunity to bring some clarification and some sanity to the matters which the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has dealt with. Accordingly I will move adjournment of this debate until next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.