[ Page 8639 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman's special report No 5.

Mr. Speaker –– 8639

Supply Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 57). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Cocke –– 8639

Mr. Davis –– 8640

Mr. Brummet –– 8641

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8645

Division –– 8646

Supply Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 57). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 8646

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 60: minister's office (continued) –– 8646

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Kempf

Employment Development Act (Bill 26). Report, (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 8650

Royal assent to bills –– 8650

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's special report No. 5.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 57.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1982

(continued)

MR. COCKE: My colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) clearly indicated to me that he wished me to say a few words on this bill, so I'm just following in his able footsteps.

We have before us a further interim supply bill — one-sixth of the budget, I'm told, for this year. One of the reasons we have to keep dealing with these odd little interim supply bills along the way is that the government is completely disorganized. They came in here on April 6, six days after our last fiscal year. Naturally they had to start immediately with the presentation of a budget and then an interim supply bill. Now we're working on our second interim supply bill. Had we come in here in an orderly fashion some time back in January, or even February, we wouldn't be in this unhappy position at the present time. The government is totally disorganized. It can't even get sufficiently organized to come into this House at the appropriate time and present a budget, and make some sort of gesture, or at least a speech or two, in defence of that budget, and then we could go through the estimates in due course, and by now we would very likely be in the process of discussing something other than supply. The estimates could have easily been through had they been in here early enough, but they can't get organized.

They can't get organized around the province. Yesterday the Minister of Finance was asked whether he'd be presenting another budget, since the budget he has presented has obviously shown that it is in tatters now. The Lord alone knows what it's going to be like. The Finance minister lives in an isolated little room in this building. He hasn't got a clue what's going on across this province in terms of employment, the delivery of health care and the general economic conditions. How can this government get themselves into such terrible shape when they were the ones who were business oriented? I fail to see that business orientation when I look at what's going on across this province.

HON. MR. FRASER: Tell us how you ran ICBC. Give us some background on that.

MR. COCKE: ICBC was in good hands. We built it and put it together. Even the Socreds couldn't take it apart.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may reflect on yesterday's sitting, there was considerable latitude, but I wonder what ICBC, then or now, has to do with interim supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the latitude which was granted yesterday is granted again today. A passing remark can hardly be cut off before it has been completed. However, the Hon. member must take upon himself the responsibility for being in order, and I would recommend that to him.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. As you know, I was merely providing the Minister of Highways with some information which he asked for.

In any event, our situation at the present time is such that the province needs some leadership. That leadership could easily come from the Minister of Finance in terms of providing some financial leadership so that we're no longer looking at our present jobless situation and we re no longer looking at our hospitals partially staffed. Yesterday I spoke to the Human Resources office in my area. The person I spoke to said that an entirely new group of people are coming in for assistance. They are people whose unemployment insurance has now run out, some of whom, he says, have summer homes, which they're told to dispose of. An entirely new cast of characters is coming along. They say: "Yes, we would love to sell our summer home or our car or anything else, but there's no market for anything."

Mr. Speaker, what we need today is leadership. We need confidence, and that confidence should emanate from the government. At the present time nothing is forthcoming; nothing to provide the kind of hope that is needed to turn this situation around. Let's hope that the Minister of Finance will reconsider what he said yesterday. What he said yesterday was there will be no further budget this year. I believe there must be a redirection, and a new look at priorities. We mustn't have situations such as the Children's Hospital where they cannot open beds in a hospital that they've been so proudly presenting to the public. I am getting phone calls, messages and letters indicating that there are little children badly in need of either surgery or treatment, and they can't get into the hospital. Traditionally we've had long waiting lists for some forms of elective surgery.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's this got to do with interim supply?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader says: "What's this got to do with interim supply?" What part of this sixth is for health care? None? Is that your priority? That's where it has to do with interim supply. I just thought that the House Leader might need that information. A major portion of this sixth is for health care. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you right now that a major portion of this sixth is badly needed for the delivery of health care. As I said, traditionally we've had relatively long waiting lists for sophisticated procedures such as open heart surgery and coronary bypasses. Mr. Speaker, we should not have the kinds of waiting lists that we're now having for procedures that are sorely needed for children. We should not be having the situation such as we have at Sunny Hill Hospital, where children suffering cerebral palsy are being neglected.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) decides to stand up and defend the health-care system in this province at the present time, then I will be only to pleased to see him.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the best health care in the world, and you know it.

[ Page 8640 ]

MR. COCKE: We'll discuss that more during the estimates.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the minister come to order, please.

MR. COCKE: It's interesting to me that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, a traditional Liberal, talks about the health-care system that we now have as the best in the world. It's interesting because that health-care system originally came from the old CCF and the NDP. Thank you very much for endorsing medicare and hospital insurance, because you know where it came from. But it's being neglected at the present time by this government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the best in the world.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Interruptions directed toward the member who has the floor always result in disorder in the House. I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to come to order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, as I see it, interim supply is going to be voted on in the next short while. In saying that, I would suggest....

AN HON. MEMBER: And you'll vote for it.

MR. COCKE: Of course we must vote for it; you have to be able to write your cheques. I want the Minister of Finance to think about it seriously from the standpoint that it's about time that he takes a new look at priorities and at the direction the money is going that we taxpayers are spending in this province. There are discussions, Mr. Speaker, when you see some areas of human services suffering and on the other hand you see megaprojects burgeoning. There is no shortage of money for northeast coal to subsidize the Japanese steel industry, none whatsoever. The Premier said that yesterday again.

I believe that some of this money should be rearranged in such a way as to provide the basic human services. I want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that of all times to starve health care, to do so when we are in a very tough economic time must be wrong. What do we see before us? Every statistic in terms of illness, stress-related illness — there's lots of stress out there — illness in terms of basic frustration.... We see suicides, attempted suicides and all of those factors growing at the present time, and at the same time we're cutting back on the delivery of health care. Sooner or later we're going to have to come to grips with this lack of priority. I suggest, if this government has any sense whatsoever, that it will be sooner rather than later.

MR. DAVIS: I want to say a few words on the subject of funding of government services in B.C. The government is asking the Legislature for authority to spend an additional $1.43 billion. That's at an annual clip of $8.6 billion a year. That's a lot of money, but I think it should be put in its proper context.

A few nights ago we listened to the presentation of the federal budget by the federal Minister of Finance, Hon. Mr. MacEachen. He disclosed a federal deficit — a federal shortfall of income as opposed to expenditure — of the order of $20 billion. That's $20 billion in contrast to our total provincial budget of less than $9 billion. That's $20 billion minimum. It may be more like $25 billion that has to be borrowed from a limited pool of savings in this country by the sale of Canada Savings Bonds over the next 12 months. In other words, the federal government will be borrowing between $20 billion and $25 billion.

Other provinces — not this one, because it's not in the habit of borrowing for current operating purposes — largely Ontario and Quebec, will be borrowing between $15 billion and $20 billion. Crown and government corporations, federal and provincial, will be borrowing moneys of the same order of magnitude again: $15 billion to $20 billion. The borrowing by the federal government is $20 billion to $25 billion for current operating purposes. Provincial borrowing for current operating purposes on the next 12 months is $15 billion to $20 billion. Federal and provincial government corporations' borrowing is between $15 billion and $20 billion. The total is of the order of $60 billion.

The total savings of the Canadian people over the next year is estimated to be $90 billion. Governments will be borrowing $60 billion out of a total Canadian savings of $90 billion. Governments will be taking out of the pockets of the, Canadian people savings amounting to two-thirds of their total savings. You and I, Mr. Speaker, business, industry and the private sector will have only one-third of Canadian savings left. Governments will be mopping up two-thirds of Canadian savings, and this is the situation in which we find ourselves as a provincial administration: trying to find money. Certainly if we were to be running any deficit, we would be bidding against other governments and government agencies for a limited amount of money, and bidding in a market in which the private sector will be desperately trying to get some money — some of our limited savings — to create jobs, new plants and new industry to provide employment for our people.

Most of that $60 billion — most of the two-thirds of Canadian savings — that will be going to government will be taken to pay interest on old debt. We're simply trying to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to keep up to past decisions involving running deficits that are mounting year after year. It has now become necessary because we borrowed so much, and because in the refinancing of all our past borrowings we're having to pay ever-higher interest rates. Can you conceive of interest rates going down in this country when governments are mopping up more and more of our savings, when governments are competing with us as individuals, and competing with the private sector for those limited funds, which are limited partly because we're in a recession? The recession is not just a Canadian or continental recession; it's a worldwide recession. So interest rates, at least in Canada, are bound to stay up. They may even go up in the short and medium term, because we have limited savings and governments are now so desperate for funds. Governments are now taking so much of our savings in order to meet current operating costs, including interest payments which they must make to the Canadian people.

Canadian banks are caught in a national situation, which is difficult. No wonder the external rating of Canadian banks has dropped from triple-A to double-A recently. No wonder the banks are going to have problems financing or refinancing large companies with large debts, such as Dome Petroleum. They're operating in that remaining one-third of Canadian savings, with governments taking two-thirds of

[ Page 8641 ]

Canadian savings. It's a very difficult situation; it's a backdrop against which we must evaluate our present budget.

Expenditures this year — the Minister of Finance is still telling us — are in the order of $8.6 billion. The opposition always goes for expenditures, consumption and spending money. They'll agree with this bill. They'll vote for it because they're always fond of distributing the public wealth, but they don't address themselves to the income side, which is terribly important. This debate, if it had any meaning at all, would be dealing with the income side, How are we going to finance an expenditure totalling $8.6 billion this year? It's going to be difficult because the resource industries are in difficulties and because they have provided in recent years the principal fillip to our income side. They're in difficult times. They will recover, but will they recover fast enough in the next 12 months to allow us to break even at $8.6 billion? If we have to borrow we are going to be competing with the Canadian government that now needs $20 billion to $25 billion out of Canadian savings. Other provincial governments and Crown corporations will take two-thirds of Canadian savings, a market in which interest rates will remain high.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have something to do with the public transit system and its development in greater Vancouver, and for the next few years we will have to borrow in order to finance that important development. We're going to have to borrow in a tight money market — at least a tight Canadian money market. We're going to have to pay 15 to 17 percent — hopefully not 20 percent — for our money. One of the matters which concerns me very much is that our national government is still offering Canadian money to other countries at low interest rates — 9.7 percent to the city of New York, so that they'll buy partly Canadian-built transit equipment, and to Argentina, of all countries, so that they'll be able to pay our prices for nuclear power plant facilities. We're acting as if we have a viable economy, even as if we've got money at low interest rates available. It's not available to Canadians; it's certainly not available to the private sector. Why should it be available to other countries to buy some of our exotic hardware?

Back to the supply bill, Mr. Speaker. We're all going to vote for it because there are commitments to people, to health care, to education, and to human resources — that's the great bulk of the budget — and those moneys won't be held up. I wish the hon. members would address themselves more to our income side, to what could well be a budget-balancing problem this year, and would admit that because this administration has managed to balance its budgets over the last half-dozen years and has indeed managed to build up a modest surplus, which is now rapidly being drawn down, we're still, compared to most other provinces, in a relatively comfortable position. To draw an analogy with a typical British Columbia family, the breadwinner, the principal income earner, is facing shortened hours. The rate of pay might be up modestly, but hours of work will be less and there'll be no overtime. Others in the family have been laid off. Income may be up, but only marginally. Expenditures are going up with inflation though. They're selling off some of those term deposits to break even this year.

That's really our financial situation at the provincial level. We're breaking even, but it's going to be tough. Therefore we need a restraint program. We're in a national economic environment in which governments are mopping up the savings. They are taking as much as two-thirds of all the savings of all Canadian people and all Canadian industry and simply spending it — nearly all of it on consumption and a large chunk of it merely trying to keep up by meeting interest payments. We're not in that unhappy position in British Columbia, at least as far as having to pay for current debt is concerned. Otherwise, we're in difficult straits and we've simply got to hope that the U.S. economy turns around soon and that some of our export industries at least will be able to give us some of the dividends necessary in order to balance our budget this year.

MR. BRUMMET: I would like to make a few remarks on this interim supply measure. It was interesting to hear the member for New Westminster (MR. Cocke) this morning suggesting that this would not have been necessary if the Legislature had been called in earlier. I would like to think that had it been called in a couple of months earlier they would have allowed the budget debate, the estimates debate and all these other things to proceed more quickly. However, in view of what I have seen in three years in this House, it stretches the imagination to assume that that would have happened, and that the interim supply measures would not have been necessary.

One of the things I'd like to suggest briefly is that we've heard a great deal about how much help the socialists are offering to the government. I've listened very carefully, not only in this debate but throughout, and the type of help and positive suggestions are: sort out the economy, recognize the problems, develop an industrial strategy, lower the interest rates, do some planning, bring in another budget, etc, I defy anyone to analyze those generalizations and find there a suggestion of how it should be done — how you lower the interest rates and this sort of thing. Yet they try to perpetuate the myth that they are actually making some helpful suggestions. Plan, do something, bring in adequate measures — anyone can suggest that. Those are not helpful suggestions; they are vague generalizations that contribute nothing.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) spent some time yesterday delineating the socialist philosophy. He was saying: why are you closing schools where they are no longer needed, and why are you opening schools in new areas where there are pupils, where they are needed? I say delineating the socialist philosophy, because they seem to say: keep open operations that are not necessary and not productive, and don't open anything new where it's needed or where it can produce some revenue. I think this is where the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) yesterday came up with his assessment that it's no wonder that they take this attitude when they have a social worker as leader, who is influencing them with that mentality. Social workers in our society do a great deal of good, but that leader, the socialist, uses that social-worker mentality with the attitude that we give it out. The social worker does not need to concern himself with where the money comes from; just write the cheque, help people.

Anyone in this society likes to help people. So often we hear: "They are in favour of the people; they are for the people." How you are going to help people by the measures they suggest is beyond me. Certainly, you can give someone some money today as long as you don't care where it comes from, and if you don't have to concern yourself with how much it's going to cost tomorrow. So we have this suggestion

[ Page 8642 ]

of subsidized operations. They say they would create jobs. The way they would create jobs, as I understand it, would be to kill the megaprojects; yet just try to pin them down. If you ask any one of them whether they would actually stop northeast coal, B.C. Place or any of these operations, no, they won't go quite that far; but they certainly infer that these projects should be stopped. And when they say that money is available for these projects but not for health care, education and this sort of thing, obviously they are inferring that you should shut down those projects and put that money into health care, into education, into whatever other government services.

What they don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the money government puts into these megaprojects invites other money from the private sector. For instance, we've heard a lot about how much money is going into northeast coal. Suppose we took the socialists' suggestion and shut down northeast coal. We could save the few hundred thousand dollars or few hundred million dollars that the provincial government is putting in, and certainly we could distribute it into areas that are not going to bring back a single buck. But at the same time, this would cancel the billion dollars that private industry is putting into it, and those billion dollars provide twice as many jobs as the government input.

If we want to cancel these big projects, then I think the NDP should tell the public that when you do so, you drive out the money that is still being invested in British Columbia in a few other places; you drive out that private investment money that also creates jobs. We need to have that money coming in. If we simply take the government money that we're putting into those projects and distribute it according to the social worker mentality, then that money is gone and produces no further revenue in the future. Yet the need is going to be even greater next year for funds for those purposes, and where is that money going to come from?

So the NDP is against every megaproject, every Hydro project. They say Hydro should not go into debt. First, let someone suggest that Hydro raise its rates so that it doesn't go into debt, and they object to that. And if you suggest that the Americans are willing to buy our power on a firm basis and pay for the dams we build, then we get into the issue that we must not export because it's a resource. They don't mind exporting other resources, but that's one they've zeroed in on — we mustn't sell what others will buy. They want to take more money from the people who are still making a buck and put it into sawmills, for instance, to keep them open to stockpile lumber. Stockpile lumber for what? You aren't going to be able to sell it. You have to have a market, or at least a foreseeable market, before you can keep producing a product, but that has never concerned the socialists. That was evident in 1972-75 when we had statements of "Keep things open!" Produce pulp that won't sell, and this sort of thing.

To abbreviate my comments, the NDP says they have a program to create work. That program involves buying ourselves out of problems. All we have to do is look at the federal example to see what sort of horrible catastrophe is created by trying to buy one's way out of trouble. We have the socialist philosophy of more government intervention — in other words, get government to do more. In order for government to do more, they have to take over more, run more, and take more and more from what's still producing. I can see why the socialists are trying to tie this party to the federal Liberals and why they're trying to dissociate themselves from it.

If there's one program that has done an immeasurable amount of damage to this country, it's the national energy program as put forward by the federal government. Let me use a few examples. That national energy program was, as I understand it, designed to Canadianize the oil and gas industry.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, "Canadianize." I maintain that nationalize is what they really want, because that's the socialist philosophy. It was to develop self- sufficiency. It was to encourage our oil and gas industry.

I am not an economic expert on how that works. I am just a plain, simple observer of what has happened, which is that since the national energy program was introduced, a viable operating oil and gas industry has virtually been destroyed in Canada. We have used taxpayer money, in effect, to destroy it, because we've collected more. Our price at the pump- has gone up; our gas prices have gone up. What for? To collect money from the federal government to Canadianize certain industries. Through this national energy program, this great salvation.... The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) yesterday said: "We've never benefited so much in this country as we have from the national energy program." Heaven help us, we can't stand any more of those benefits. Even though I'm not an economist, prices have gone up for the products in Canada.

The national energy program has also put a lid on oil exploration in Canada in areas that are accessible. It's trying to promote exploration through huge taxpayer subsidies in areas where it's too expensive to bring the oil out, such as the arctic and other glamorous places where we do oil explorations. These great things are wonderful, except that it completely ignores the market. The market says that if you can buy oil from foreign countries at $30 a barrel, you are not going to find people willing to pay $50 a barrel to pipe it down from the arctic. It has taken all this money out of producing oil and gas wells, out of the public's pockets at the pumps, and put it into these glamorous areas that are going to be impossible to market. It's great stuff. It costs us a lot more and destroyed our conventional oil and gas industry. On top of all that it has taken more money at the pumps to buy foreign oil and subsidize foreign purchases at an ever-increasing rate, while destroying our own industry.

The national energy program has probably done great harm to investor confidence in this country. I don't care if the federal Finance minister says: "We've realized our error. We're going to give you a year's reprieve." It is ludicrous to suggest that you can bring investor confidence and investment opportunity to the oil and gas industry by means of a one-year reprieve, with no promise beyond that. I don't know how many people realize that even from the time an oil well is drilled, and it takes a couple of years to get to that point.... Once the development program is tapped in, it generally takes four to five years before that well is actually connected and producing. We've got this fantastic effort to entice the oil industry back by giving them a year's grace. They cannot operate on one-year promises. They need four to five years. They need a long-range plan.

I think people sort of feel that the movies model, where you put up the oil rig, start drilling, and this great, big gusher with its black gold flowing.... Let me tell you, it takes an

[ Page 8643 ]

awful lot of investment in that field — refining plants, pumping stations, delivery systems — and four to five years, and then there might be some cash flow. It does not just sort of flow and turn into gold as soon as the gusher comes out. Would they believe that many wells are drilled before one produces.

I know I'm getting somewhat off the topic, but the socialist philosophy, "Let's just put more money out there; let's create some jobs," is ludicrous. What happens next year, when you've spent all your money on creating jobs this year that do not create anything that is going to keep the economy flowing?

Fin sure the Minister of Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips) would agree with me that if we cancelled the northeast coal project, took $300 million and spread it around and put people to work, we could create a lot more jobs right now. I'm sure anybody would agree with that. But what would you have when that $300 million was gone?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A post office on every corner.

MR. BRUMMET: Right. Next year you would have an impossible situation, because you wouldn't be able to get the next $300 million anywhere, and you would also have lost the $700 million which private industry put in. So the socialists, with their social-worker leader's mentality, are saying: "All we have to do to solve our problems is to spend money. Let's not concern ourselves with where it's going to come from next year." The federal example in this country is so obvious, so glaring, that you would wonder why anyone at this time would turn around and say: "Let's not worry about where it's going to come from; it will be better next year." Certainly it may be better next year.

I'll tell you what the socialist philosophy reminds me of. Remember years ago when Household Finance had a great program going on: "Borrow from us to get out of debt." You wouldn't believe how many people borrowed from Household Finance at 20 percent to pay off their 8 and 10 percent debts. They said to people: "Borrow from us to get out of debt." This is exactly what the socialists are saying: "Let's borrow to get out of debt." Even I could have been hoodwinked into believing that, except for the obvious examples in this country, where several provinces decided to borrow to get out of debt.

There is a distinction in borrowing. We're talking about borrowing for operating costs. A lot of companies and private-industry governments have borrowed millions of dollars to create assets worth millions of dollars or more — that's a different type of borrowing. It's the same as a person who borrows money to buy a house: that person has an investment to match what he borrowed. But if the house is worth $50,000 and the person borrows $100,000 against that house, obviously he might as well be a socialist. If the person is at all sensible, he would certainly not borrow more than what the asset is worth. That's what we're talking about. If that person, as an individual, started borrowing money to make the mortgage payments on the house, then that person is down the socialist road to destruction. Borrowing money to pay operating costs is quite different from borrowing money to build the house.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: I don't care about the fed-bashing. But it's certainly obvious that you end up having to take more and more tax dollars from anything that's left in a producing area in order to pay the interest. and that is nonproductive money. It doesn't generate any Jobs. There again, all you have to do is take a look at the federal national energy program and their takeover of Petrofina — at a premium rate, of course. Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money went to buy existing operations that never created one extra job or one more barrel of oil in this country. Yet somehow, socialist philosophy says that that's a good investment. I don't know how you could call a good investment something from which you don't create anything new. You simply take it over.

The amount of extra money that every taxpayer in this country is now paying for the takeover that created nothing is unbelievable. As a matter of fact, the takeovers have driven out the people who were here making our economy go. Do we attract them back by saying: "Come on in and invest your money in here, and we'll take off the top 25 percent as soon as you discover an oil field"? The socialist philosophy being promoted here in this province and operating at the federal level is unbelievable.

The only way that socialism can work is to keep taking more money from the taxpayers to allow government to lose increasing amounts of money and just keep paying it out. Anyone can see that that has a very limited timespan. In the early seventies people realized that the timespan was about three years from the time you start spending until you go into debt. If there hadn't been a turnaround.... Imagine the debt that British Columbia would be in today if that socialist philosophy were still in practice. The federal government would be pale in comparison to what these socialists in British Columbia would have done to this province.

Instead of that, we did have a turnaround, and we had people coming here. They came because they made a profit. When they made a profit....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they now?

MR. BRUMMET: They've been driven out by the socialists in Ottawa.

They were here and were willing to put more money into it, because on a long-term basis they had to make a profit. Would you believe that the oil and gas industry, at least a year or so ago, had put far more money into British Columbia completely and entirely from every cubic metre of gas and barrel of oil than they've taken out. They've actually got more money invested. Over the long term they'll recover it. But they have to make a profit. The socialists say that since these big corporations are making a profit, it's dirty. That's a dirty word. Steps were taken federally to eliminate their profits. When those profits went, they went, and with them went the jobs. When those people were doing well, so were the workers and government services in this province.

Somehow or other the socialists seem to believe that you can distribute wealth without creating it. People don't go out to create wealth if they can't see a way to make a buck at it. That is what encourages investors. We need investors to put money into this province. If they make a profit, good, because when they make a profit they also keep people working, they keep our resource development going and they keep government revenue coming in so we can provide services. When we drive them out.... Yes, we can take pride. We

[ Page 8644 ]

took them over. For heaven's sake, look at what it has cost us to take over the oil and gas industry in this country. I don't know how much of a price we're willing to pay, but I can tell you that from what I've seen in the last few years, we cannot afford the socialist philosophy or thinking in this province or country, because it has done a lot of harm.

We started out with an interim supply measure in order to keep funds going while we're dealing with these issues, as they're known. We've been bogged down with the same criticism and debate over and over again, using this occasion to reiterate what they've said before in attacking government. They'll do anything to keep us in this Legislature longer. I guess, in a sense, I'm contributing to it. I hadn't planned to speak on this interim supply measure, but when I hear the nonsensical and dangerous suggestions from this opposition, then a person does feel he has to stand up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. BRUMMET: They're all out there trying to figure out more ways to buy people's votes on a short-term basis by giving promises that they can't keep.

In the meantime, what are they doing? There were a lot of suggestions here to keep employment going in this province. I don't know whether they all would have worked. Take the B.C. Tel example, where they said: "Look, if those of you who are still working and doing well will take a half an hour or an hour a day less, we will try to keep the other people working." The labour bosses said to them: "No way. We're for jobs." Sure, higher pay for some people at the price of everybody else's job.

The B.C. lumber industry did make an effort. Again, we don't know whether it would have worked, but it was an effort to say: "Look, if you'll just postpone this increase for a little while, we'll do everything we possibly can to stay open." What did the labour bosses, with NDP support, say? They said: "No way are we about to discuss anything of that nature." We have it over and over again. The labour bosses say to them: "Don't give an inch. Let's pay the price." And the price is being paid by their fellow workers.

I believe the NDP is being very irresponsible by even holding out the hope that all it would take is an election and a socialist government in this province to turn things around. As the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) just said, any government could turn around and borrow all the money going. We're destroying the economy with this increased borrowing; A we have to do is borrow some more money. This government, a socialist government or anybody could just borrow some more money and put a lot of people to work this year and destroy the entire economy next year and in the future.

They're against any steps that are taken for restraint. We hear them talk about making motions here in the estimates to reduce expenditures. It's showmanship, because during the debate they keep asking for more here, there and everywhere else. Then they come in with these insidious little motions to cut back those expenditures.

I guess I'm getting a bit carried away, but I think a lot could be done in this province. You talk about lowering interest rates. There's a lot of money out there that could lower interest rates. I've heard some really pious suggestions from some of those labour bosses. They suggest that we've got to bring interest rates down because our people are losing their houses. In the meantime, where would they invest their $200 million strike fund? Would they put it in at 10 percent and loan it to their own people to save their houses? No way! They'll go out there and get the 16 and 20 percent interest that they can get anywhere. Let them put their money where their mouth is sometimes. If they're really in favour of it, they've got $200 million they could give to their own people to help them with their mortgage rates, never mind anybody else. But they say: "No, it's not our responsibility to look after our own people. We just talk brotherhood. When it comes to doing something, let the taxpayers of this province look after those people."

You add up all the money that's out there in strike funds and being used for various promotions that the unions are doing, and they could be saving an awful lot of their own members' homes. I thought unions were supposed to help their own members. Instead of that they invest their money at the highest going rate and wonder why the government shouldn't go out and borrow money at 20 percent to lower the mortgage rate to 12 percent. What a socialist philosophy!

In order to keep wages higher and keep extreme increases.... What are we talking about? They're asking for 25 percent or 40 percent in the construction industry and 25 percent in the B.C. Government Employees Union. They'll stick to that 25 percent, and they're asking all their members to strike rather than say: "We'll take a little less to keep the rest employed."

When you increase the amount of money that goes out, and you've only got so much money, you've got to decrease somewhere. They're willing to sacrifice all their members at the lower end of the scale. They're willing to sacrifice many members so that some of their members can get a lot more. When in heaven's name are some of these labour bosses in this union going to realize that it's not a political situation we're in? We're in a real economic recession in this country.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Brought about by you.

MR. BRUMMET: What I'm saying is that you can blame all the governments in existence right now for having brought this situation about. I am not about to accept a worsened situation by accepting some of the socialist philosophy — by borrowing to make the thing worse — because I see from the federal example what it's done. There are remedies in this province, Mr. Speaker, but those remedies are only possible if we can get the labour bosses, industry and government to all agree that they've got to contribute. We have the labour bosses saying: "No, sir, just give us a strike vote and we'll get what we're asking for. There is a problem, but we will not in any way take part in the solution. That's up to them." I don't know how many people throughout this country keep looking at government as "them," as though they have absolutely no participation in it.

As I've indicated, private industry needs profits in order to keep going. They've got to be able to afford to keep going. The labour bosses need industry. Everybody needs government, but everybody needs less government instead of more government that the socialists are promoting. I think that if we gave the people an opportunity, if the socialists would quit irresponsibly saying to people that there's a magic solution, and it's in politics — nonsense. There's no politician in this world that, can go out and say to the Americans.... I shouldn't say there's no politician in the world — maybe there is an American — but certainly there's no Canadian

[ Page 8645 ]

politician that can go down to the States and grab the Americans by the throat and say: "Even if our lumber is higher priced than yours, even if you don't need it, you must buy it, because we want to produce it." You cannot, so we've got to recognize that when you can't sell something it doesn't make any sense to produce it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we have the resources and we have the funds, but it will take a cooperative effort, not a confrontation tactic, to get this province back on its feet. We could, by cooperation, make it work. We really could, but as long as we have this socialist opposition saying "Just give us the reins and we'll hand out the money," that encourages people to have unrealistic expectations. We have a lot of young people in this province that would like to work — they'd like to gain experience. There are a lot of blockages. I could talk about training programs. What would the socialists do? They would just take money and somehow put these people to work. Doing what? Producing what? That's the second part that they've never mentioned. What would these people do? You could put anybody to work if you don't have to care where the money comes from. I think we have to be a little bit more responsible than the opposition. I think we have to keep in mind that it doesn't do any good to con people into believing that there's a money tree somewhere — that it doesn't have to be created by somebody somewhere. I think we could bring about a recovery in this province quickly if.... It's not going to be easy, because people are going to have to contribute in some way to restraints in their own spending and in wage increases in various ways. They can do it. I would soon like to see the day when they will recognize that the false promises being made by the labour bosses and the socialist opposition are false promises and cannot be maintained.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the debate in second reading on Bill 57 has covered a number of topics, some of which I will be happy to deal with in the debate on my estimates. There are two or three things, however, that I think should be pointed out. Again, this is interim supply. It seeks legislative authority for the government to continue to pay its bills, provide services and pay salaries for one-sixth or two months of the fiscal year we are now in.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is not in his seat.... I note, in fact, Mr. Speaker, that while the debate was so urgent and so fevered yesterday, there are only three members of the New Democratic Party out of their total number in the House at this time.

The member for New Westminster made a few remarks and then departed the chamber. I think the thrust of his comment, other than relating to health care, was with respect to the fact that interim supply should not be necessary and that interim supply is somehow an indication of the government's inability to correctly manage its calendar. The point was made by another member of the socialist opposition yesterday, and it was also made, as I recall, in debate on an interim supply bill last year.

Mr. Speaker, interim supply is not unusual in the province of British Columbia. I would point out that in 1974 the then NDP government introduced the same sort of bill which is before us today, and that was Bill 108, which was introduced and given third reading on April 9, 1974, and then the final supply act in June. In 1975, the last year of NDP rule in the province of British Columbia, we had two interim supply bills: Bill 11, which was given third reading on March 26, 1975; and Bill 80, which was given third reading on June 9, 1975, with the final supply act on June 26. The dates are not far off the date which have occurred this year.

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as we are debating the short-term expending of a portion of the year's budget, I think that the most germane comments I can make are to excerpt from the recent issue of the Financial Times of Canada, July 5, 1982. I don't offer this as a display, but it is, in fact, a small chart. The page reference is not available to me, but it is headed "The National Balance Sheet." I think this speaks more eloquently than I could with respect to what British Columbia has done in the course of this fiscal year in the detailed, lengthy, exhaustive and sometimes stressful preparation for this fiscal year, a portion of which is provided for in this interim supply bill. I want to cite a few figures in terms of spending.

I'm again quoting directly from the national balance sheet chart. This is the increase in spending for 1982-83 over 1981-82 in terms of the provinces of Canada, then the ten provinces averaged and then the national government. With the exception of Nova Scotia, the increase in government expenditure, which is of concern to every single Canadian today, in British Columbia this year over last is the second lowest, second only to Nova Scotia. Ours is approximately 8 percent; Alberta, 27.3 percent; Saskatchewan, 31.2 percent; Manitoba, 18.9 percent; Ontario, 11.6 percent; Quebec, 11.2 percent; New Brunswick, 21.6 percent; Nova Scotia, 6.6 percent; Prince Edward Island, 13.3 percent; Newfoundland, 15.8 percent. For the ten provinces, the average is a 14.1 percent increase in spending year over year; for British Columbia, 8 percent. Canada's increase in spending for 1982-83 over 1981-82 is 15.8 percent; again, match that against the approximate 8 percent in British Columbia.

There are other columns: revenues, financing required, debt service cost. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) spoke about this, as have other members on this side of the House. I think this is fundamental to the restraint we have exercised in terms of our spending, OUT lower expectations in terms of revenue. These figures are also extremely significant. They reach right to the heart of the care with which we developed this budget, one-sixth of which is now about to be approved on an interim basis. I should point out that the footnote indicates that for provinces, own-purpose direct debt only. This is a key to the column from which I am now going to read.

Increase in debt service cost over 1981-82: British Columbia, 5.9 percent; Alberta, 9.1 percent; Saskatchewan, 21.3 percent; Manitoba, 33.7 percent; Ontario, 18.2 percent; Quebec, 41 percent; New Brunswick, 43.3 percent; Nova Scotia, 36.4 percent; Prince Edward Island, 8.3 percent; Newfoundland, 7.4 percent. The average for all ten provinces in Canada in increase of debt service cost, 1982-83 over 1981-82, is 28.9 percent. Where is British Columbia? It is at the bottom with 5.9 percent.

We structured this year's expenditures with care, with recognition that recession was upon us. There were variations as to when the recession might end, and we looked at better cases and worst cases in preparing expenditures. The fact

[ Page 8646 ]

remains, however, that we have a responsible government. We have a responsible management of the public's money. We have held our expenditure lift to the lowest level possible without impairing programs that people have come to expect, and that they deserve in British Columbia. We knew that this would be a difficult year, in a difficult era. We have not contributed to the national malaise. We have not contributed to the national illness of spending more and more money than we take in.

There were several calls for an emergency budget. The government examines constantly, regularly and very objectively, through the issuance of quarterly reports, the state of our revenues and expenditures. These reports were introduced by this party when it formed this government, introduced by my predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I have indicated to members in Question Period — members who are not present now during the closing of second reading on this interim supply bill — that there has been some slippage. Some expenditures are up, some revenues are down. But we have the capability and courage to take the kind of measures which are necessary, without running into this House with a hastily prepared "emergency budget," to use the phrase which has been tossed across the floor by two, three or four hon. members in the course of this debate. We have the ability to adjust as we move through this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I have avoided, I trust to the satisfaction of the Chair, straying into some of the areas which, if I may say so, sir, in my view do not properly belong in a debate in second reading on interim supply. We are still in the estimates process. Key ministries have yet to be examined, including the Ministry of Finance. I will answer any number of questions at that particular point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 57.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I ask your advice in terms of assisting members to attend the votes of the chamber.

Because of the decision by the public accounts committee that the MLAs are to examine vouchers, rather than staff, the vouchers are being examined out of the range of the bells in the precincts, as I've discussed with you already. I'm asking if there is some way to assist the members to do their duty in examining vouchers closer to the precincts, perhaps in one of the committee rooms, rather than having to leave the precincts.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask if the Whips, who are not under the control of the Chair at all, could make those arrangements. I'm sure it would be appreciated by both sides.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, maybe the Whips could also make arrangements for pairing. We're the only Legislature on the North American continent that doesn't pair, and follows the barbaric practices articulated by the official opposition.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Matters of concern to the Whips are not of concern to the Chair. They certainly should not be taking the time of the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of you and this House that the bells did not ring in the offices of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). To fortify my concern on the matter of the bells, they are not satisfactory whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter of the bells is of ongoing concern. The people who are responsible for the bells are in the process of installing yet another bell system.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 57 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 57; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 57, Supply Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, with leave.

Leave granted.

Bill 57, Supply Act (No. 2), 1982 read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 60: minister's office, $187,000.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A question was posed to me by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) regarding a press release I issued on July 9, 1980, announcing a moratorium in

[ Page 8647 ]

Buckley Bay. The member was a little confused regarding what was happening. She claims she asked that question of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and that he suggested that the question should be asked of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I want to report back, because the member is seeking this information, and tell her the present status of that three-year moratorium.

The Ministry of Environment has completed capability mapping of the coastline. This ministry is in the process of preparing a detailed shore-zone plan for the sound. Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment are jointly preparing administrative policy for the mariculture resource of the sound. In the plan, coastal areas will be set aside for mariculture. A target date of mid-1983 has been announced for the policies and the plan, and it will be met.

MS. SANFORD: I have just one very brief follow-up question. Before they are actually adopted, will there be public hearings on the proposals the government wishes to introduce?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, there will be no public hearings; there could be public meetings.

I want to respond to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who raised the case of David Rozek and the lease fee charged him on his agricultural land. He thought our rates were exorbitant. We issued a 15-year lease to Mr. Rozek, with certain performance commitments on his part. He has held the lease for ten years; it expires in January 1987. Our policy was lease rental of 5 percent of the appraised value of the property. The appraised value is $25,888. He has had the 200 acres for ten years. The policy of the day was that he had to put 80 percent of the arable portion of the land under cultivation or seedbed condition. I'm not sure how much of that 200 acres is deemed arable. But I do want to say that he enjoys a benefit which most British Columbians don't enjoy; he has the opportunity of acquiring that land once he has performed. Once he has adhered to the lease terms and conditions that he agreed to and signed on the lease, he'll be able to acquire that land at a price that nobody else in British Columbia can acquire land for. That 200 acres of agricultural land will be offered to Mr. Rozek at $5.81 an acre. I suggest to you that the treatment of Mr. Rozek is more than fair.

MR. PASSARELL: We're going to go into the parks issue right now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up.

MR. PASSARELL: For sure, but I hope we'll have a reasonable discussion here.

We have a number of issues I'd like to address to the minister regarding approximately 13 parks in the province. At the onset, while the minister's turning around, I'd like to congratulate him on the good job he's done this year in regard to provincial parks. I think he's done an excellent job. I really can't attack him much today.

There are some concerns regarding parks in the province. There are three particular issues that come up regarding parks: logging aspects, mining aspects and hydro development in parks.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about trapping?

MR. PASSARELL: Just sit back and be a good boy for ten minutes, and we'll get this over with.

One of the biggest issues addressed to the minister and me is that of increasing the provincial parks systems in the next five or ten years from 5 percent to 6 percent of the provincial land-use base. This would enlarge the provincial parks in this province. A number of environmental groups have asked for this. The second thing the Western Canada Wilderness Committee has asked for is the objective of having 0.5 percent of B.C. Crown land in reserves by 199 1. The 0.5 percent is to protect salmon spawning, watersheds and natural forest ecosystems.

These are difficult economic times, as most of us are aware, and we re looking at parks as something used by many residents for recreational purposes. But we see that environmental groups, industry, tourist groups, unions and local residents all have their own concerns when it comes to considering the three aspects that I identified earlier in regard to parks. I think that so far the minister's office has been very accessible to environmental groups and people who are concerned about the natural parks in this province. Whenever I've had to discuss personal situations with the minister, I've always found he's been excellent in answering letters.

What I'd like to go on to are the 13 parks I talked about earlier. The first one is the Valhalla Park. Thousands of people have petitioned the minister and the government in regard to their park around Slocan Lake. The aim is to establish it as a class A provincial park. The multiple use of the land base as used by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has been termed a cynical joke in the press. But I think the minister who is responsible for parks has dealt with this particular park and is making recommendations. The potential logging area of the Valhallas is only 3.5 percent of the vast area. Can the minister guarantee that the moratorium will not be lifted in the near future in regard to the Valhallas?

The second question is an interesting one that we had last year in a fun discussion regarding petitions. It regarding Windy Bay. It's within tree licence 24 in the Queen Charlotte Islands. I hope the minister can give some positive commitments on what's going to happen with Windy Bay in the next year.

The third park is the Stein River valley. Logging is the concern again. It's the only sizeable valley within 100 miles of Vancouver. Has the ministry developed a cost analysis on the logging in the area. as opposed to keeping the Stein valley free of development?

A number of letters and questions have been addressed to me and the minister regarding Meares Island. We have had some good correspondence on it.

The fifth one is South Moresby and that's related to Windy Bay, the second park that I addressed earlier. Forestry and mining are the concerns there.

Robson Bight, the sixth park, was brought up earlier by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). Could the minister state what's going to happen with Robson Bight? Is it going to become a class A park? Is it going to become an ecological reserve? Maybe the minister could give some information to the House.

Skagit Valley. That's been addressed through the Environment estimates, regarding the hydro development and the international negotiations that are going on between Washington and British Columbia. Hopefully that'll come to some type of settlement to protect the Skagit Valley.

[ Page 8648 ]

The eighth one is a park that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and I share, and that's Spatsizi. What can the minister state in regard to that provincial park and the problems that happened last year? I know the new Wildlife Act that was addressed and voted upon in the House will make some further sense in regard to the unnecessary harassment that hunters find in Spatsizi. Hopefully the minister can make some statements in regard to that particular park — one of the biggest ones in the province.

The ninth provincial park that I would like to bring to the minister's attention is the Stikine valley. It's known, Mr. Chairman, as the Grand Canyon of Canada. There is a potential hydro development in the area. Has the ministry made any plans to make the Grand Canyon of Canada, the Stikine valley, a class A park or a class C park or an ecological reserve — through the canyon itself — to prevent the unnecessary destruction of it if a hydro development goes through? The same could be applied to the Liard basin, where there is a very similar grand canyon that would be destroyed by hydro development.

Pacific Rim National Park. It was in 1969 that the provincial government passed the West Coast National Park Act, which developed into the federal-provincial government designating areas to be included in this park. Has this park been gazetted or incorporated under the National Parks Act? If not, then hopefully the minister will be pushing the feds into doing something this year in regard to the Pacific Rim park. There've been a number of articles in the last few months in regard to the national park and the problems between the provincial and federal government,

The Cascade wilderness contains many historical trails. A moratorium was placed on the area, and I am wondering if the minister can state if this moratorium is going to continue for the next two years.

In conclusion, here are some of the suggestions that the official opposition would like to pass on to the minister in regard to parks. There have been a number of stories about the parks branch being thinned out in regard to its employees. There was an article in the Victoria Times-Colonist earlier this year, stating that the parks branch was losing 37 man years to staffing of higher priorities in the ministry. The statement was opposed by the B.C. chapter of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, and I was wondering if the minister has made any changes there.

The historical aspects of parks, Mr. Chairman. More historical trails are being lost, such as in the Cascade wilderness. We have an opportunity here, particularly in this park in the Cascade wilderness, to offer some kind of assistance to young people getting jobs clearing and maintaining historical trails in provincial parks in the summer months. As a suggestion, it would give young people part-time work in the summer. There are two trails: the Hope Pass and the Whitecone trails.

This year's budget cutbacks. Capital for parks and outdoor recreation is down by just under $900,000, about a 38 percent reduction from last year's level. We need capital, Mr. Chairman, for projects, and a 38 percent reduction in capital can only harm the provincial park system. In difficult economic times we hopefully will not sacrifice our parks. But I know the minister has increased the provincial park size threefold in the last year. Has it been threefold, or something of that magnitude? From 5 to 17?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Seventeen.

MR. PASSARELL I'd like to offer the minister two last suggestions about special categories of parks. The first one is the marine parks. There is an ever-increasing number of people who are using marine parks for boating, scuba diving and other recreational aspects. There is little maintenance involved in a marine park, and hopefully the minister could give some suggestions as to which way the government is going in relation to marine parks.

The second special category I'd like to discuss is river parks, such as the system that the federal government has instituted regarding heritage rivers. We should be developing heritage rivers, particularly the northern rivers, some of the last free-flowing, major salmon-producing rivers in this province — the Stikine and the Liard — before developing them into river parks which are free of destruction by B.C. Hydro.

These are a number of questions that I addressed to the minister, and I would hope he can answer them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'll just answer very briefly some of these questions which were put to me.

First of all, the Valhalla area. The member asked whether the moratorium will stay in place. The answer is yes, the moratorium will stay in place until such time as a decision has been made regarding the future status of that particular land and the Slocan Valley. A decision will be made on the Valhallas, I presume, within the next two to three weeks.

Windy Bay. That's an issue which will be examined this coming fall along with the South Moresby plan; I believe it will be sometime in October they'll be looked at.

The Stein River Valley. The Ministry of Forests has carried out an economic impact study there; unfortunately I don't know the results of that study. However, I do want to say that our ministry is not looking at establishing a park in that particular region at this time.

Spatsizi. Yes, I believe that the new Wildlife Act will hopefully resolve some of the conflicts that have taken place in that particular park. My ministry has looked at the possibility of aircraft patrols; that is, issuing permits for aircraft to penetrate Spatsizi Park. My reaction now is to hold back on aircraft permits until such time as we see just how the Wildlife Act will address this particular problem in the Spatsizi. If the problem recurs this year, then maybe in 1983 we'll have to have some degree of control on aircraft flying into that particular park.

We haven't examined the possibility of establishing a park or an ecological reserve over the Stikine Grand Canyon. We have a fairly large park adjacent to the Stikine River, the Mount Edziza provincial park, which is a large, very attractive park. I was in that part of the world just a couple of weeks ago, down into Telegraph Creek, and the only way I could get out of Telegraph Creek, I might say, was by way of the U.S. I had to come out through Wrangell, Alaska, to get back to the lower mainland, because the chartered plane that was going to pick me up from Terrace didn't show. It wasn't about to fly up because of weather conditions — smoke conditions because of forest fires — and the closest and easiest access to me to get back into Vancouver was Rangell, Alaska. It was the least expensive too, I might say.

Pacific Rim. Yes, there's been an ongoing issue about buying the inholding properties. We're well on our way to acquiring most of the inholdings in the Pacific Rim Park — or future Pacific Rim Park, because in order to establish that park it requires federal legislation. There hasn't been federal

[ Page 8649 ]

legislation passed as of yet. There will be a meeting this fall between provincial and Canadian officials regarding the very complex issue of timber rights being extinguished there. It's a very complex issue. It's the one that has probably delayed the establishment of this federal park. We're well on our way to buying out most of the properties that are in place there.

Cascade wilderness. Yes, the moratorium will stay in place until such time that a decision has been made on whether the historical trail will be preserved. We expect a decision to be made on that region within the next couple of weeks, I would guess.

The question of heritage rivers is a matter under discussion. It's strictly at the discussion stage between officials of the federal and provincial government.

MR. PASSARELL: What about Robson Bight?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We just recently established a fairly substantial ecological reserve at Robson Bight to protect the playground of the killer whales — the rubbing stones, as you might call them. In the meantime, we're looking at acquiring some backup lands there. It involves private timber holdings and private land — Crown land granted to MacMillan Bloedel. That's really essentially to provide additional protection to the ecological reserve that we've established on the foreshore. Again, it's another complex issue of timber acquisition and we haven't determined yet what kind of status those lands will take — whether they become a wilderness conservancy, a park or an addition to the ecological reserves. Those matters are still in abeyance, but I think we have ample time because it will take some time to negotiate the timber acquisition. We have lots of time to determine what kind of a designation should be on those lands. Essentially the designation should be such that it affords the greatest degree of protection to the killer whales in that region.

MR. KEMPF: Before getting back into the problems related to land that I want to talk about in this minister's estimates, while on the subject of parks I would like to say to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) that I am also concerned about that which takes place and has taken place in the Spatsizi. Again I would like to tell this House that I'm happy to see the anti-harassment clause in the new Wildlife Act, because it's an absolute necessity. Hopefully it will stop some of that harassment that has taken place for the last three years in the Spatsizi, but every anti-harassment clause in the world is not going to do the Spatsizi any good.

Mr. Chairman, there's not going to be any harassment of the hunters soon in the Spatsizi, because there won't be any reason for hunters to be in Spatsizi. There won't be any game for them to hunt if the anti-hunters, anti-guide- outfitters and those types who now make up a great number of the wildlife biologists that are hired by this province have their way. Without a proper predator control program, by the year 1988 or 1987 there won't be any game in Spatsizi or anywhere else in this province to hunt.

I was happy to see the minister approach the subject of the plight of one of my constituents, Mr. David Rozek, who was asked to pay an exorbitant lease rate for a piece of agricultural land that he has under lease. This ministry is trying to extract from that individual a very unfair amount of money yearly for that lease. I intend to take a great deal of time this morning, this afternoon, tomorrow and next week, if necessary, to point out why I have made these particular remarks. I intend not only to delve into this situation but also.into many others which I have on file here and in my office in order to, once and for all, get to the bottom of the very real land problem faced by the people whom I represent. The case of Mr. Rozek is not an isolated one, The individual lives in a very isolated area, but his case is certainly not an isolated one.

The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is asking Mr. Rozek to pay a lease fee of $1,294 per annum for a piece of that Crown agricultural land, which he has eked out of the wilderness, with a real value of $6,000. The reason I say that is that I have here a B.C. Assessment Authority assessment notice for that particular piece of property. It is a great deal different from the $25,800 the minister mentioned earlier, The 1982 assessment notice for the piece of property in question gives the actual value as $6,000. I'll table this document in the House — with pleasure. That's a lease fee of $1,294 a year for a $6,000 piece of land. In the five years that the minister mentioned, between now and 1987, we are asking Mr. Rozek to pay $380 more in lease fees than that particular piece of property is valued at. The lease fees in the next five years would be $6,380.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: The minister is right. That's on top of asking him to spend many thousands of dollars to clear and do whatever is necessary to bring that particular piece of property into production; to cultivate it to the satisfaction of some land inspector in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. On top of that difference, there is the kind of harassment perpetrated upon citizens of this province who are in a similar position to Mr. Rozek's. I'd like to read part of a letter dated June 10, 1982, which was sent to Mr. Rozek from the Smithers office of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing:

"In view of the circumstances, you are hereby advised that if payment in full of the rental in arrears is not received by Finance and Administration, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, Bag 5000, Smithers, B.C., VOJ 2NO within 60 days, or representation submitted to this office why payment cannot be made within this time, the ministry will have no alternative but to institute cancellation proceedings with respect to the lease concerned. Cancellation of your disposition will require you to cease occupation and the use of this land and premises, and may result in the seizure of all improvements, buildings, structures, machinery, equipment, goods, chattel, logs or other materials that may be on the Crown land."

All this, after and while the MLA has, for the last three years, represented Mr. Rozek in his plight. You still see this kind of letter being sent out of a government office.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's a shame, and it's the sort of thing.... And the minister smiles, but it's no laughing matter.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Well, I should hope not, because it's no laughing matter, I want to tell you. That kind of a letter from some lowly bureaucrat out there — some lowly, officious bureaucrat who, like many, particularly in this ministry, thinks he's God, Mr. Chairman, and has forgotten the fact that he's being paid by the taxpayers of this province; and being paid, I might add, very handsomely indeed to serve the

[ Page 8650 ]

public, to serve the very people that he writes these kinds of letters to. As an elected member of this province I take exception to that. I take exception to it, and I tend to dwell for a long time in this chamber on this particular subject, as well as on others. Mr. Chairman, many have forgotten the reason they're out there drawing their wages from the taxpayers of this province — and that too is a problem. Mr. Rozek's problem, as I said earlier, is not an isolated one. I intend in the hours ahead — days or weeks, possibly — to point that out in this chamber.

My question to the minister, particularly in regard to the Rozek situation, is: why, when the B.C. Assessment Authority values the land at $6,000, does the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing value the land at $25,850? Why does your ministry seem to think, for some reason or other, that they're more knowledgeable?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I rise under section 43. After all, do we have to go through this five times? It's tedious and repetitious. What does he want? He wants the minister to fall on his sword right in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order has been made. It's one which deals with irrelevance and repetition in debate. I ask that the member, when continuing his remarks, bear standing order 43 in mind during that discussion.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I have been told that the Lieutenant-Governor is waiting to enter the chamber. Although I have hours more debate on this particular minister's estimates....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I'd like to know why this member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has the inside knowledge that the Lieutenant-Governor is about to arrive. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing doesn't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A good point.

MR. KEMPF: That's not all the minister doesn't know!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT  DEVELOPMENT ACT

Bill 26 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the premises.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, with His Honour approaching the chamber, I suggest that we remain in our seats until the doors have been opened. I will ring the division bells so that all members will be cautioned.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Employment Development Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982

Supply Act (No. 2), 1982

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.