[ Page 269 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

BCR schedule disruption due to bridge fire. Hon. Mr. Phillips — 269

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. King — 269

Mr. Speaker — 269

Mr. King — 270

Mr. Speaker — 270

Mr. Gibson — 270

Mr. Speaker — 270

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 271

Mr. King — 271

Mr. Speaker — 271

Mr. Macdonald — 271

Mr. Speaker — 271

Mr. King — 271

Mr. Speaker — 271

Mr. King — 272

Mr. Gibson — 272

Mr. Speaker — 272

Mr. King — 272

Mr. Gibson — 274

Mr. Lauk — 274

Mr. Speaker — 274

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act (Bill 32) Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 275

Oral questions

Release of Thompson River task force report. Mr. Lea — 275

Urgency of restructured grants. Mr. Gibson — 275

Additional ferry sailings. Mr. Wallace — 275

Student summer employment programme. Mr. King — 275

Mining in provincial parks. Mr. Skelly — 276

ELUC report on mining. Mr. Lauk — 276

AIB agreement with federal government. Mr. Wallace — 276

Distribution of budget speech. Mrs. Dailly — 277

Federal-provincial cable TV negotiations. Mr. Lockstead — 277

Disposition of MacNeil Place. Mr. Nicolson — 277

Value of B.C. Tel and Westcoast Transmission shares. Hon. Mr. Wolfe answers — 278

Budget debate (continued).

Mr. Stupich — 278

Mr. Gibson — 289

Mr. Wallace — 300

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this assembly to join me in welcoming this afternoon two groups from the great constituency of Omineca; Mr. and Mrs. Bradford and their family of four, from Talkwa, Mr. and Mrs. Carl McKilligan and daughter Carol, and my good wife — all of whom are in the gallery today.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome three of my friends from Alberni: Mrs. Edna Souther, who was our candidate in '72; Mr. Bud Schroeder, who was our candidate in '75; and Mrs. Elsie McGillivray, our membership secretary.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are three people from Comox constituency who are taking advantage of the school spring break in order to come down to see the legislators at work. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Harry Dougan and Mr. Peter Sanford.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, we are honoured today by the presence of Harry Jerome in our gallery. I would like the House to join me in welcoming one of the outstanding great athletes of British Columbia as well as one of the new directors of the Pacific National Exhibition.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome two people, two very distinguished school teachers from Vancouver Centre, Neville and Cathy Thomas, who are here on their spring break.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you, two people situated in the gallery today, my wife Sheila and my young son Gregory.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Mr. and Mrs. Randy Phillips of North Vancouver, and family and friends.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome my constituency secretary, someone who helps me represent that constituency of South Okanagan so well, Mrs. Jan Duncan and her husband, who are visiting with us today.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the House that a bridge located at mile 147.3 of the British Columbia Railway, approximately 10 miles south of Lillooet, caught fire and burned this morning at approximately 11 o'clock.

In view of disruption of shipments caused by recent labour disputes, and the resumption of railway operations this morning, I want to report to this House that the railway is moving as quickly as possible to restore service. By 4 o'clock this afternoon, the railway will have determined whether the crossing can be shoe-flied, making it possible to resume service within the next 24 to 36 hours.

In the event that this is not possible, it is hoped that a new bridge can be in place within three to four days. The management of the railway has advised me that they are moving with all possible haste to restore service so that the needs of the British Columbia Railway shippers can be met at the earliest moment.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the rules of the House be suspended for a matter of urgent public importance relating to statements contained in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — specifically those statements which cast a reflection of improper conduct upon sister nations of the British Commonwealth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if you're rising on a point to suggest a matter of urgent public importance for debate, then you should have prepared a motion about the matter, stating the matter for presentation to the Chair in a written form so I can read the motion and declare, after a short time, whether it is in order or not. But I have nothing before me.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite prepared to prepare the motion, given a few moments. I would point out that the matter of urgency relates to the fact that the budget, as I understand it, is under mass production at this time and will be distributed throughout the nations of the world. I think the unfortunate references to other nations and their sovereign matters should be removed from that budget before any such distribution.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would draw your attention to the rules of the House, the standing

[ Page 270 ]

orders, on page 10, where a member rises to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. In order to do that, the member stands in his place to move such a motion and then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it is in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the House.

At this point, I have nothing before me to indicate...or for me to look at before I could even make a judgment on the matter. I respectfully suggest that because of the rules of the House and our standing orders, that would be the first prerequisite before I could even determine whether the matter was in order concerning a debate of urgent public importance.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I would point out that I think, alternatively, it's quite within the rules of the House to raise this matter on a point of order. There is a statement before the House contained in the budget. The references to which I object are clearly spelled out in the budget, and I think that on a matter of a point of order the House would want to withdraw any insulting references to other nations. I am sure the government would agree that the references contained in the budget go beyond an attack on the official opposition in this province and insult the integrity of another nation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That is not a proper point of order you are raising, hon. member. It would seem to me that if you or any other member takes exception to what is said, or something that was printed in the budget address, there will be ample opportunity to debate that matter in the debate that's presently taking place.

MR. KING: That's quite true, Mr. Speaker. I would point out, however, that the main emergent aspect of this is the fact that the budget will be distributed, and it is under printing now....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KING:...and if this matter is to be deleted action would have to be taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I have no written submission before me.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I have just suggested that it was not a proper point of order. Is this on the same matter?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (Vancouver-Capilano): Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker, and this is a point of order, I assure you, and I will cite you references.

MR. SPEAKER: Please do.

MR. GIBSON: First of all, as Your Honour is aware, our first and general rule of this House is that:

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as may be applicable to this House."

Now I would draw Your Honour's attention to May, 18th edition, page 417. It is a section entitled "Reflections upon the Sovereign," et cetera. It deals, Mr. Speaker, with the propriety in debate in the House, which debate, of course, includes the budget address, on reflections that may be properly cast or not.

"A reflection that may not be properly cast is as follows: Nor may opprobrious reflections be cast in debate on sovereigns and rulers over, or governments of, independent commonwealth territories or countries in amity with Her Majesty or their representative in this country."

To buttress that submission, Mr. Speaker, I might draw to your attention Beauchesne, 4th edition, citation 171, where Beauchesne sets out some of the matters which are improper in oral question period, which gives us some guidance as to the things that may properly be said in the House, and no. 0 of citation 171 notes that: "A question, oral or written, must not refer discourteously to a friendly foreign country." I would suggest, Sir, that if you consider the language on the penultimate and final pages of the spoken text of the budget address you will find a proper point of order when considered within that term of reference.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in rising in your place on this point of order, you referred to general rule No. 1 which applies specifically when we have nothing in our own standing orders or our own standing orders are mute upon the matter. I refer you to page 12 of our standing orders, rule no. 40, which reads:

"No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor-General or person administrating the Government of Canada, nor of the Lieutenant-Governor or person administrating the Government of this province. No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House, nor shall he

[ Page 271 ]

speak beside the question in debate. No member shall reflect upon any vote of the House passed during the current session except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded."

I would suggest, hon. member, that the rule is quite specific. It is in our rules, in our standing orders, and on the basis of our own rules and standing orders, I do not see that you have a proper point of order at this time.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to reach an understanding of this serious problem, I would suggest, Your Honour, that the fact that our standing orders prohibit the expression of disrespect to one class of persons does not mean that it permits the expression of disrespect towards another class of persons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: And where our rules are silent, the rules of the British House set down in May prevail; and I suggest, Your Honour, that May says very clearly that friendly, foreign countries are not to be spoken of disrespectfully in this House. I would ask Your Honour to consider the budget in that context.

MR. SPEAKER: I have before me now a statement signed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). The statement says, and I'll read it:

"On pages 34 and 35 of the budget speech derogatory references are made to other commonwealth nations. The budget is under printing for worldwide distribution. Accordingly it is urgent that this House debate the acceptability of transmitting insulting language to other nations."

It is moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to ask whether the derogatory word is "socialist". I've been reading it. I'm just asking what the derogatory words are.

MR. KING: The Premier's question is directed to me. I would be happy to respond, and read the portion of the budget speech which I find insulting to other nations and quite inappropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you just take your seat for a moment, because before you can go further than the statement that I have before me, I have to rule whether it is in order or not.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): The urgency of debate is distribution at this time. That's not the kind of thing that can wait until the conclusion of the budget debate and putting of the motion on the budget. That makes it an urgent matter of public importance: that the question of distribution be debated and decided today, before it is too late.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please! The pertinent words in the motion that is before me are that references are made to other commonwealth nations — derogatory references are made to other commonwealth nations. It would appear very clear to me that on the basis of our own standing order 40, and on the basis of the urgency of the matter as defined in standing order 35, the matter does not qualify as a matter to be debated at this moment on a motion of urgent public importance.

I would point out to the hon. members that we are embarking, this afternoon, on a full debate of the budget.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

Reference will be made, I'm sure, to remarks contained within the budget and, as long as they are proper references, they will be accepted by the Chair. My duty as Speaker is to rule on the matter with respect to the urgency of debate. I rule that, because of the fact we are in debate on this particular matter at the present time, the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) does not qualify for another urgent public debate on the same matter.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I regret your decision in this regard because as my colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), has pointed out, the budget is under mass production, and if anything is to be done regarding the substance of the motion, it can only be done at this point, certainly not after the fact. However, if that is your decision, Mr. Speaker, so be it. The Premier has asked questions, indicating his interest in determining the validity of the concern expressed by the opposition. In light of his good will, in light of his willingness to discuss the matter, which he has already demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous leave of the House to discuss this matter. Because I am sure that no one, regardless of the party they represent, would want to be guilty of insulting our sister nations in the commonwealth.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure it is a matter that will be debated within the remaining hours this afternoon and the days that will follow in the budget debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for unanimous leave of the House. I believe the Chair has an obligation to put that question.

[ Page 272 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KING: Are you backing out now?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, under our standing orders, even for me to put a motion to the House asking unanimous consent I have to give my opinion as to whether that is in order at this time or not. I have told you that the rules of the House will allow ample scope and opportunity for debate. It's not a matter of appeal or not at this time. It's a matter that the rules of the House prevail and that we are, in fact, in the budget debate at this time.

Further, it is my opinion that it is not a matter of urgent public importance that would be debated as a separate motion at this particular time.

MR. KING: You have ruled on that, Mr. Speaker, but I have never seen a situation where the Speaker of the House denies the House the right to set their own priorities and their own order of business. We have no indication whatsoever as to whether or not the government benches would be prepared to accept this important matter. I think that it's reasonable to find out what the consensus of the House is in this regard. Now that has nothing to do with the ruling you have just made. I think that the House certainly sets its own business — its own orders of procedure. I request unanimous consent of this House to discuss this important matter before we are placed in the position of international embarrassment in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker — and I would make it very clear that I am not now referring to standing order 35 under which Your Honour has ruled — but I would point out that under standing order 9, "Mr. Speaker shall decide questions of order." I have raised a question of order, Sir; the question is whether the abusive language used towards some of our sister commonwealth nations is, under the practice in this House and in the British House of Commons...whether that language as contained in the budget is parliamentary or not. I would appreciate a ruling on that, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no statements of that kind.

MR. KING: A shocking performance!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the point of order raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, first of all, I have already given my opinion as to the matter that was before us and the urgency of debate. The other thing I must take into consideration is that if there was an offence, then it would have to be raised at the earliest opportunity The earliest opportunity would have been last Friday and not this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! On the matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if the Hon Leader....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You weren't ashamed of being socialists last Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask for unanimous leave of the House, then I would suggest that he state the matter and ask unanimous leave.

MR. KING: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to do that. I would read for the edification of the House the matters to which the opposition objects. I quote, starting on page 34: "Mr. Speaker, as I stand here contemplating once again the sad and wretched state into which our province has fallen in three short years, I...."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, it's not a matter of debate at the present time; it's a matter of stating concisely the matter...

MR. KING: That's what I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ...you wish unanimous leave to debate.

MR. KING: Right, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So please don't inject debate into the matter before you've got unanimous leave to debate it.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm reading from the budget speech to outline and emphasize the wording to which we take objection, the wording which we consider to be insulting and derogatory to other nations in the British Commonwealth of Nations and, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, other nations under

[ Page 273 ]

the same sovereign to which this Legislature pays their allegiance.

I would point out that the language charges certain improper conduct by not only the opposition party in British Columbia, but certainly by other nations which are named here. Specifically it charges, Mr. Speaker, that money was wasted carelessly, that political expedience replaced sound management, that there was a disgraceful financial cover-up.

The language goes on, Mr. Speaker, to say....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. You're now entering into debate on a matter which you have not put before the House for unanimous leave. It is a matter for the House to decide if unanimous leave will be given.

Now as I understand it, your point is that you take exception to certain words that are contained within the budget address.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may....

MR. SPEAKER: That would be what you would ask leave to discuss.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, you have asked me, you have invited me to make a statement specifically indicating what we object to, and that's what I intend to do in a succinct and brief way, if I may be allowed to proceed. I do not intend to go beyond emphasizing the precise language which contains a direct insult to other nations.

Now certainly it seems impossible to ask for unanimous leave unless the House is aware of precisely that language to which I take objection,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, take your seat please. Hon. member, it's not a matter that you can interject in the form of debate at the present time. It's two separate matters. The matter that you wish to object to is certain words contained within the budget address.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I never went beyond the words contained in the budget. That's precisely what I am outlining.

MR. SPEAKER: To read the budget address, or parts of it, is not really proper until you have been given unanimous consent to either debate or not debate, depending on whether that is given.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it, you wish to have a debate on the substance of certain statements that were made within the budget address, and you should ask for leave to debate that, and that alone.

MR. KING: That's precisely what I intend to do, Mr. Speaker, and I want to demonstrate the precise language to which we object, which you invited me to do. You invited a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is language apparently within the address which you object to.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That will be the matter of debate if unanimous consent is given.

I would suggest to you that the matter you put now is the matter of unanimous consent to debate language within the budget address, to which you object, and that and that alone is the matter.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, how can the House possibly make an intelligent decision on the need for a granting of unanimous consent unless they are aware precisely of the content of the budget speech to which we object? I certainly am not intending to debate the entire budget address at this point. I am drawing reference to a matter which, in the view of the opposition, is an emergent situation, and I certainly have to be in a position to identify and outline that wording to the House before any intelligent decision can be made as to granting unanimous leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have some respect for the Commonwealth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've already outlined to you what, in my opinion, was the decision respecting the matter of urgent debate. I now suggest to you that to enter into the debate without unanimous leave is improper and offends against the rules of our House.

You have stated a number of times the subject matter which you wish to have debated. I think now it is a matter that you ask for unanimous leave to debate the matter, and that will be decided by the House.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that's your decision, that's your decision. But I would hope that the Chair is not trying to make a fool out of the Leader of the Opposition. You invited me to make a statement. I accepted your invitation at face value, Mr. Speaker, and I attempted to make that statement only to be constantly interrupted by Mr. Speaker, after first inviting me to make a brief statement on the matter which we found objectionable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can find some approach here that is going to be constant and that is going to be understandable to the members of this House, because you have given conflicting direction

[ Page 274 ]

to this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I've said a number of times, and I'll repeat, that you are asking unanimous leave of the House to debate a matter. The matter, it would appear, is certain words contained within the budget address. That would be simply and concisely put, and if that is the matter that you wish to debate, then put that question to the House and let the House decide.

MR. KING: Could I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to just at least identify the meat of what we find so objectionable? Otherwise, the House doesn't even know what phrase, what page, what issue of the budget speech is at issue here.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you've in a number of ways given the substance of the matter that you wish to debate. Now I would respectfully ask you, sir, to put the question to the members of this House if that's what you wish to do, and ask for unanimous leave.

MR. KING: All right, Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous leave of this House to debate the need for deleting from the budget speech charges that governments in other nations have been guilty of financial cover-ups, have improperly used public funds, have attempted to stifle productive growth. I find these statements insulting and certainly bereft of all the academic and basic fundamental diplomacy that should be expected from any democratically elected government.

MR. SPEAKER: You have stated the matter. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, you passed so quickly from your comments on the point of order that I had raised to the question raised by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would like to, just for a moment, bring your attention back to that in order that I can better understand the position you're taking.

If I have it correctly, you were suggesting that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and that failing that, if I understand it correctly, Your Honour is prepared to leave on the record of this House language which by precedent and law of this House is clearly unparliamentary.

First of all, may I understand if that is the ruling you have made? Secondly, I would draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the earliest possible opportunity to check what was actually said with the written copy...and, of course, it is only what is actually said that is under the purview of this House and the publication by this House of what is exactly said.

The first opportunity arises with the Blues which arrived today, and therefore this is the first opportunity to raise the issue. Lastly, may I refer Your Honour to page 430 of the 18th edition of May where it is suggested that it is the duty of the Speaker to interfere in the first instance when questions of this kind arise?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thank you for your comments. As you know, I have ruled on this matter; we have also put the matter of a debate to the House to ask unanimously.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm just shocked, just shocked!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I thought about half an hour ago we were on Introduction of Bills and I am just trying to introduce a bill, but I'm not sure what's going on down here.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Clerk tried to get on to the business of Introduction of Bills and then he gave way to a matter which came to the floor of the House. I would presume that we would then get back to the Introduction of Bills, hon. member, as soon as this particular matter that we were dealing with is settled.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Liberal leader, I'm wondering whether that point of order is understood. The point of order that he was making was that at this first opportunity he is asking the Speaker to demand the withdrawal of language by a speaker of this House, a person standing in his place, at the first available opportunity. The language that is impugned is now before Your Honour and you should now rule whether or not that language should be withdrawn from the body of this speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you never let Dan Campbell get you into this mess again. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that matter of whether language is within the accepted concepts of parliamentary language or not is sometimes very debatable; it's sometimes very difficult to ascertain.

MR. KING: Let's debate it.

MR. SPEAKER: I am prepared to take what the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) brought up as a point of order under advisement and consider the matter.

[ Page 275 ]

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On the point, Mr. Speaker, are you prepared to make a ruling on what you've just alluded to?

MR. SPEAKER: I presume the hon. member did not hear what I said. I said I would take it under advisement.

Interjections.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RELEASE OF THOMPSON
RIVER TASK FORCE REPORT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): This is a question directed to the Minister of Environment: has the Thompson River task force report, which was prepared jointly between the provincial government and the federal government, been released and, if so, on what date?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, in reply, I do not believe the report has been released to this time. If the hon. member would like a further answer, I will be happy to find out from department officials when it is anticipated it will be released.

MR. LEA: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, there were representatives of the city of Kamloops and/or representatives of Weyerhauser, who operate a pulp mill on the Thompson River.... Were these representatives of either Weyerhauser or the city of Kamloops, or both, given an opportunity to see the report in the month of January, prior to that report going to the Queen's Printer?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I will have to take that portion of your question as notice.

URGENCY OF RESTRUCTURED GRANTS

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: under the provision of the Audit Act on March 1, order-in-council 701 issued, allotting $9 million to the cities of Nanaimo, Prince George, Kelowna and Kamloops for what is called restructured grants. Could the minister explain to the House why, as the order-in-council states, the money was considered urgently and immediately required for the public good?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, because it was clear, on the basis of my information and a review of the matter, that the former government was very tardy in making payments to these restructured cities and, in fact, to the hon. member, in the case of Kamloops and Kelowna, there were delegations here seeking these payments at the earliest possible opportunity.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since my understanding is that the city fathers of some of the cities concerned were surprised by the receipt of these grants, would the minister assure the House that the purpose was not simply to press expenditures from one fiscal year to another?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is improper. If the hon. member would care to indicate which "city fathers" were surprised, I would be happy to have the information.

Interjections.

ADDITIONAL FERRY SAILINGS

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications a question regarding the ferry service, which is getting a lot of attention these days. Is it a fact that the ferry system will not be running the additional services usually provided between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen from May 1 which in the past have been provided by extra sailings by the Queen of Sidney?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

STUDENT SUMMER
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the hon. Provincial Secretary: in light of the information given to the House by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) that it took a matter of some months to recover moneys granted to a Social Credit constituency association for the student summer employment programme, is it still the Provincial Secretary's policy to prevail upon constituency associations of the Social Credit Party to make

[ Page 276 ]

application for these funds?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member.

First of all, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition: you are reflecting now on a question that was put to the House and answered by the Minister of Labour. You have enlarged upon that question now to the hon. Provincial Secretary. I feel it should have been a separate question, and it's not a question of her responsibility if it's a matter of the Minister of Labour's decision.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you are not aware that last year the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), publicly stated that she was making these applications on behalf of Social Credit constituency organizations. I wonder if she intends to pursue that policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, last year the hon. Provincial Secretary was not the Provincial Secretary; there was a different government in office at that time.

MR. KING: She was Social Credit's Provincial Secretary. She still is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MINING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, a question directed to the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry. Has the minister, or her department, been approached by any mining company or by the Department of Mines to approve exploration and development for mining purposes within provincial parks?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, but if the member would like to have assurance from my department, I am pleased to give it at this time that that very sensitive matter of mining in parks, and the situation of parklands, is under very, very good study by our two departments, and there will be a statement of policy from this department in the very near future.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: can the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry assure the House that no mining exploration or development will be permitted in parks, and no deletions will be made from provincial parks for the purposes of mining and exploration?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think the hon. minister did give you an indication that there will be a policy announcement. I suggest you hold that question until that policy announcement is made.

ELUC REPORT ON MINING

MR. LAUK: A question directed to the Minister of Mines: is the report and recommended guidelines of the Environment and Land Use Secretariat's report on guidelines for coal mining, open-pit, strip and underground mining, as far as environmental procedures are concerned, completed? And if it is completed, when can we expect that that report will be made public?

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to transfer that question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), hon. member?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this question can best be directed to the Minister of Mines. The Minister of Mines has received the report. Is it complete and when will it be released?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Will the Premier let the Minister answer?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In reply to the question from the hon. member, yes, the report is completed, and it will be released very shortly.

AIB AGREEMENT WITH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, since he stated on February 27 that an agreement with the federal government would shortly be signed giving the Anti-Inflation Board control over the public sector in British Columbia, has a date been set for such a signing, and has the Ontario court decision that their agreement with Ottawa is unconstitutional caused any delay in British Columbia signing?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Oak Bay, the signing is still being worked upon between our government and the Government of Canada. We are not using the court case as a reason for delay. This government is proceeding with discussions. On question two, our government is taking a position of an intervention in those proceedings, and will make the British Columbia position known — that while we support the federal guidelines, we will not support it to the detriment of provincial jurisdiction.

[ Page 277 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier's comments very much. I just ask a supplemental: are we awaiting any further court decisions from any of the other provinces or from Ontario until British Columbia does sign, or has a date been set for British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, we are not awaiting any other court decisions, and negotiations are proceeding.

DISTRIBUTION OF BUDGET SPEECH

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mrs. McCarthy): have copies of the budget been printed to date? Also, my supplementary question, if I can ask it now, as it is tied in with it: what is the time and date for distribution of the budget?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I shall take that question as notice because I don't have that information at hand.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is it too late, in the event that the House decides for changes to be made in the text of the budget that is being printed?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question about the budget was taken as notice. I would assume that your question is on the same matter. It would best be put to the minister when she replies to the first question.

MS. BROWN: I am just asking the minister whether it is too late, or indeed whether there is still time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would like to point out something to all the members of the House, and that is that there is a tendency for hon. members to place a supplemental question to a minister after the minister has taken the question as notice. I suggest to you that the proper time to place the supplemental would be after the question is answered by the minister. A question is taken as notice; that ends the matter until the answer comes back to the floor of the House.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be willing to accept it as a brand new question, not a supplemental?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hope you understand what I was saying, and that is: a new question is just another way of asking a supplemental on the same thing when it's the same subject matter. I would hope that you would wait until the answer to the original question comes back.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL
CABLE TV NEGOTIATIONS

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications: I would like to know what the status is of the federal-provincial negotiations on redefining their respective roles and responsibilities.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in respect to what matters?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm sorry. This is the matter of the negotiations now going on between the federal and provincial governments in regard to community and jurisdiction of cable television.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You left that part out — it made it hard to answer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My mistake, sir.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications for Canada (Hon. Mme. Sauvé) has stated her intention of having bilateral meetings individually with members of the provincial governments across Canada. I expect to be meeting with her some time in the next month or two.

DISPOSITION OF MACNEIL PLACE

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Housing: are there any plans to dispose of MacNeil Place in North Vancouver by any method other than rental?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could give a further identification of MacNeil Place. Is that 2nd Avenue?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Talisman Tower?

MR. NICOLSON: No. There are two....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with....

MR. SPEAKER: Do you say there is a problem of identification? Could you narrow it down?

MR. NICOLSON: Through you, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 278 ]

there are two properties on 2nd Avenue, I think, presently under construction: one is the tower, which I believe will be.... This is a low-rise complex which was designed for family use.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've started to do your homework.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Yes, there is confusion because of the two properties on 2nd. I'll take the question as notice.

VALUE OF B.C. TEL AND
WESTCOAST TRANSMISSION SHARES

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He asked a question a few days ago regarding the present values of the shares now held in B.C. Telephone and Westcoast Transmission. I have that information now, Mr. Member, if you wish to make a note of it.

B.C. Telephone shares, incidentally, are held in our government pension plan. We hold 1,001,955 shares at a current market value on March 23 or $11.75 a share, or the total value of $11,772,971.

Westcoast Transmission: we hold in the provincial government treasury 1,157,125 shares. The current market value at March 23 of this year is $23.25, for a total valuation of $26,903,156. I trust that is the information you required, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. I just wondered.... As part of the question I also asked whether or not there had been any selling and buying of any shares since the Minister of Finance took office.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no, Mr. Member.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Premier seems anxious to have a quick vote. I don't blame him a bit — I wouldn't want this budget talked about neither, were I sitting where he is. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's "either."

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to start....

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Look who's talking about language.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to start, if I may, Mr. Speaker, by welcoming and asking the members to welcome, in the galleries several carloads of people who came from my constituency to listen to what will be a fair appraisal of the budget speech.

Also, Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity in one of the formal debates, I would like to congratulate you on being chosen to be Speaker of the House. While we did have some disagreement in the beginning — and I don't think we really had any hopes that anyone else would be chosen — perhaps, if anything, what we were hoping to impress upon you was the importance of your position and the importance of your having the general confidence of the House, and not of just some members in the House. Nevertheless, we do congratulate you. Perhaps today wasn't the best day to raise that matter, but it's my first opportunity and I will raise it.

Secondly is something that was a feature of the House when I first entered in 1963, and that I really haven't heard since: the reference to this House as being an exclusive club, perhaps the most exclusive club in the whole province. Membership is very tightly limited. It may be changed, of course, from time to time as the club may decide, but it is an exclusive club — an exclusive club that provides for membership of 55 members at the present time, and a club that is very important in the life and in the affairs of this province.

It is a real honour to be chosen, Mr. Speaker, to be a member of this club. I think it is an honour that we should all treasure and try to live up to in the best way that we may, regardless of where we happen to sit in this House today or in any time in the future.

I notice the Premier has followed through on his promise to cut the salary for the members of this club. While I don't intend to get involved in the discussion of this at this time, I would like to point out that the members of this club are really the directors of a province and of a provincial economy within the direct expenditures and revenue of the government itself. We are now reaching $3.6 billion and, apart from that, there are the Crown corporations and the Crown agencies that really come under the control of the members of this House, directly or indirectly.

It is a very important club and I am not sure that it really holds up the importance of that club in the way that it should when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) will receive a salary for his participation in this club less than what a tradesman in one of the pulp mills in that constituency will be receiving.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You'll be

[ Page 279 ]

showing leadership.

MR. STUPICH: However, at this point, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I really didn't want to make an issue of this. I simply wanted to stress what I feel is the importance of this club in the affairs of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget. It's called a budget: British Columbia budget, March, 1976. It's not original but it's the first opportunity that anyone has had to say in this House that rather than a budget we should be calling it a campaign leaflet, the first leaflet to be produced for the by-election campaign in Vancouver East. As a campaign leaflet, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is too long: 41 numbered pages. It's doubtful if the people will really read the details of this — that is, the voters in Vancouver East. So I think it should have been shorter if it were going to be used as a campaign leaflet. Too wordy to be read. It should have photographs in it if it is really going to be useful as a campaign document. So it is lacking that way as well,

We've heard all kinds of talk as to who it was who really drafted this budget. I think perhaps for the rest of their leaflets the party might well look to someone else. It has one advantage from the point of view of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Speaker, and that is that it is economic from the point of view of that party because the taxpayers of British Columbia will be paying the costs of printing this campaign leaflet for the Vancouver East by-election.

However, there's one omission that I have not yet mentioned. It's the most important of all from the point of view of using it as a campaign leaflet and that is that there isn't a picture and there isn't even the name of the candidate in the by-election. If they held up long enough they surely could have included the name of the candidate, even though they haven't officially chosen him yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was introduced today.

MR. STUPICH: As a campaign leaflet then, Mr. Speaker, it is lacking. But as a budget speech....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I know you are giving your undivided attention, even though some others might not be.

As a budget speech it is even worse than it is as a campaign leaflet. Mr. Speaker, it is a speech of revenge. I'm disappointed but not surprised that some of the people are so anxious to take this revenge on the voters of British Columbia. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) who presented this budget speech was one of those who suffered defeat in the 1972 election, and he took this opportunity of getting his personal revenge. Mr. Speaker, the Premier didn't lose his seat in 1972 but his father lost an election campaign. So I am disappointed but not surprised that he, too, is taking part in this method of revenge against the voters of British Columbia.

One of the authors, no doubt, of the budget speech, a Mr. Campbell, is also one of those who lost his seat in the 1972 general election campaign. So I say I am disappointed but not surprised at the note of revenge that persists throughout this budget.

In addition to being a speech of revenge, it is a speech full of insults. There has been some attempt to discuss that this afternoon. However, we were not allowed to discuss it, although we spent the best part of half an hour deciding whether or not we would discuss it. We were not allowed to discuss it. So I think I now have an opportunity to say something about the insults in this speech, Mr. Speaker, insults against the people of our sister dominions of New Zealand and Australia. But while they say in this speech that the Labour parties in those dominions no longer hold the government, nevertheless there is a substantial body of people in both of those sister dominions who still support the Labour Party.

It was an insult against the people in those sister dominions. It was an insult against the people of the United Kingdom where the Labour government, Mr. Speaker, is still in power. It was an insult by implication against the social democratic governments in the Scandinavian countries, in many parts of Europe including the Netherlands, West Germany and Holland as well as the governments of Israel and Iceland. It was an insult against all of these places where the social democratic parties form the government and in other places where they have a strong body of support among the people, whether or not they form the government. It was an insulting speech, Mr. Speaker, and one that is not worthy of the Government of the Province of British Columbia.

It was an insult, Mr. Speaker, against the voters of Vancouver East because it said that if the voters of Vancouver East do decide to re-elect the New Democratic Party member as their MLA, they will be participating in an effort to allow someone to slide into this House, Mr. Speaker.

I said in my opening remarks that I consider this to be a very exclusive club; I'm honored to be a member of it. And people don't slide into this House, Mr. Speaker. People win the right to be in this House by offering themselves to the voters of their constituencies. This, Mr. Speaker, is an insult to the House, to suggest that people slide into what is the most important Organization in the province of British Columbia.

I say again: I'm not surprised but I am disappointed that the Premier and the Minister of Finance should be party to this kind of a document today in the history of British Columbia.

[ Page 280 ]

Mr. Speaker, if it were just my opinion, perhaps you wouldn't be terribly interested. Mr. Speaker, if it were the opinion of the fellow members of the New Democratic Party caucus, perhaps you wouldn't be all that interested. But it is the opinion of many people who are not known for their support of the New Democratic Party — for example, an editorial in The Vancouver Sun, Saturday's Vancouver Sun. Certainly this paper has never been known to say anything good about the New Democratic Party — government or opposition or caucus. As an editorial policy they support the Social Credit government, they supported the Social Credit in opposition, but they don't really like the NDP.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not going to read the whole editorial. Sure, the whole editorial is sympathetic to the government, and it talks about the need for this kind of a budget. But they do say: "There was, unfortunately," — you know, they have to put that in — "an excess of partisan stridency in Finance Minister Wolfe's rhetoric." Even the Sun has to join in that kind of condemnation of the language in this budget.

Another columnist who is not known for her support of the New Democratic Party....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. STUPICH: In the same paper it's Marjorie Nichols who talks about this budget speech as being one of political invectiveness. She goes on to say: "There is evidence that the sacrifices that will be demanded of literally every individual in B.C., as a consequence of this budget, are excessive...are products of an ideologically based prejudice."

Mr. Speaker, another columnist in the Sun, Alan Fotheringham, who has never been known to support anything: "Either way...."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Vicious attack!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I know you are giving me your attention. You're not interrupting at all; I must be in order.

"Either way, no one, including one resident Ottawa columnist present for the occasion, had ever seen a budget speech debased for such cheap political shots." It's not my opinion, Mr. Speaker, but the opinion of someone who, as I said, is not known as a supporter of the New Democratic Party.

Then we go to the Province and Bob MacMurray who talks about the budget in his article, but again has to, in some element of fairness, include some reference to the tone of the budget: "...has to be at the same time one of the most political budget presentations ever in B.C. finance."

HON. MR. BENNETT: No politics in this House.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll come to that. The Premier suggests that there should be no politics in this House, and I will come to that.

An editorial from the Victoria Times, moving along: "It was a vindictive performance, unworthy of any Legislature, a vitriolic frame for a harsh budget."

And if I may refer to one more colonist by name, Mr. Speaker — Jim Hume, whom I accused this morning of once before saying something unfriendly about the Social Credit government. I do recall once; he says that it was more than once, but I do recall once. So, to my knowledge, this is the second time: "Political observers of many year's standing said they could not recall a budget speech so clearly tailored as a political document."

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of people who are not supporters of the New Democratic Party are unanimous in opposition to the cheap political attacks in this budget speech.

Mr. Speaker, the election was fought. On December 11th the electors voted. Social Credit won that election.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The people won.

MR. STUPICH: The Social Credit won; the people lost. And the people are becoming more and more aware of just what they did lose. Nevertheless, that happened on December 11. Mr. Speaker, why can't we forget that the election campaign is over?

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd like that, wouldn't you?

MR. STUPICH: Why can't we keep...?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier has suggested there should be politics in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: I agree, Mr. Speaker. There is a place for this kind of political squabbling; it's right here in this House, and it's here in this province, but it is not in the area of the whole world. We should not be taking this kind of political squabbling out into the world when we send this budget speech throughout the world, to the nations with whom we hope to do business, to the nations where we hope to trade, where we hope to borrow money. We should not be using this type of cheap political budget

[ Page 281 ]

speech to try to tell the people of the world what the situation is like in B.C.

Mr., Speaker, we expected more of this government. Many people expected more. Many people are becoming more and more disappointed with what they are seeing in this particular government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get into the budget speech itself. On page 34 there is a quotation: "Clearly the facts have revealed the shocking need for...action." Right out of the budget speech.

Well, let's look further and see just what the facts are. Let's look on page 6 of the same document. There are references there to another document that was produced, called "The British Columbia Economy". I have that document as well, and both of them have facts in them.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has said that the facts have revealed the shocking need for action.

Well, let's look at some of these facts. When we look in this government publication that is referred to in the budget speech we see what has happened to certain key indicators as to what is going on in the province. We look at the gross provincial product, and we see that it has climbed at a rate faster than ever before in the last three years. We see that although there was some fall-off in the last year — and that is reported in the budget speech and in this summary of economic activities — we did better than the rest of Canada, even though our economy is more closely tied to resource industries that depend so much on international trade and an international booming economy. In spite of all that, B.C. has done better than other provinces, better than the average for Canada.

These are the facts. Population growth: if you look at the graph, Mr. Speaker, it's a steady line showing that the population in B.C. has continued to grow.

This is a government publication offered by....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I read the one.... More? Are you suggesting...? Mr. Speaker, the Premier is suggesting I should read another report. Is he suggesting that the government publication, which his government produced, is in error, is wrong — that the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) produced? I haven't read that one; I've read this one. Now if you want to attack your own report, and stand up and tell us where it is in error, I will listen. But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to an official government publication, as is reported in the budget speech.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Total labour force has continued to grow in the province.

The number employed in selected industries: if we look at this table for the number employed in selected industries, and if we look at one in particular, the construction industry, the table in this book — this official government publication deals with 11 years in the history of British Columbia, from 1965 to 1975 — shows that the lowest index for employment in the construction industry was in 1972. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that was the last year under the control of the previous administration, the Social Credit administration. That was the lowest year, and it shows that since that year, since the election of the New Democratic Party government in 1972, this index grew at a very fast rate — evidence of the sort of confidence there was in the business community with the government of that day.

Capital and repair expenditures: again, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the table, if you look at the graph, you'll see that in 1972 there was a falling off. In 1972 the rate was almost the same as for 1971. But after the defeat of the Social Credit administration in 1972, capital and repair expenditures went up at a very sharp rate, sharper than ever before.

There is one other reference I would like to make to one of the graphs in this book. It is an interesting one, Mr. Speaker, from which you may draw your own conclusions. But on plate 3 in the appendix of the British Columbia summary of activity, there is one for births. It shows that the birth rate in B.C. was climbing slowly and steadily right up until 1969, and even for a period of approximately nine months of the year after that date — after the date of the 1969 election when people were expecting there was going to be a change in government and things would improve.

But when they realized that change in government did not materialize in 1969, and when that caught up nine months later, then note, Mr. Speaker, how the birth rate dropped in the province as people lost confidence in what was happening in B.C. (Laughter.) Then it stayed down at that low rate until approximately nine months after the '72 election when the birth rate started climbing again as people had more confidence.

It will be interesting to see what happens some nine months to a year from now. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, it's not just our own government publications that tell us what is happening in the province of British Columbia. There was a newspaper

[ Page 282 ]

report recently talking about B.C.'s credit rating. B.C. has to borrow; certainly the Minister of Finance will be very much aware of that; he is already. The new chairman of B.C. Hydro (Mr. Bonner) has pointed out the need for B.C. Hydro to borrow will be approaching $1 billion a year not too many years from now. But B.C.'s credit rating was strong when we assumed office in 1972, and remained strong during our three years in office. A U.S. banker is telling the Municipal Financing Authority that B.C.'s credit rating is still strong in New York. "You" — meaning the Municipal Financing Authority — "and B.C. Hydro have developed strong credit acceptance in New York, but the trust you have secured is so fragile it must be jealously guarded; otherwise, you will lose it."

Mr. Speaker, it was not lost; it was strengthened during the three years that we were in office.

There is concern at the direction being followed by this government, at the tenor of the budget speech itself, at their preaching of doom and gloom, and our credit rating may be impaired. That would be a disaster for the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. I would urge the government to have that in mind, to have some care, to have some tempering of their remarks when they are talking about the future of the province of British Columbia lest they impair something that is very important to us.

It's not just what the U.S. bankers are saying. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, a reference in the budget speech to a loan from off-shore sources that was finalized in mid-December. Again, I would point out that several provinces were after that kind of financing at the same time as was B.C. and B.C., because of its strong credit rating that had been maintained and improved during our three years and four months in office, was the first province to be able to take advantage of that second issue of off-shore dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. We were talking about facts, and those are some of the facts.

What about unemployment rates? Unemployment rates have been documented. We know that in the last three years of the Social Credit administration the average unemployment for B.C. was 7.4 per cent. We know that for Canada as a whole it was 6.2 per cent. In the last three years of the Social Credit administration unemployment in B.C. was running 1.2 per cent higher than the national average. That happens in B.C. That's really the general pattern.

But, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to compare that with the three years during which we had charge of the administration of this province. B.C. was still higher than Canada, but B.C.'s rate, instead of being the 7.4 per cent that it was under the Social Credit administration, had been reduced to 6.9 per cent — 0.5 per cent lower. Canada's average rate had dropped 0.2 per cent. During our first three years in office we narrowed the gap between unemployment in B.C. and Canada from a 1.2 per cent difference to a 0.9 per cent difference. That's the kind of progress we were working towards. That is the kind of progress which is disparagingly referred to in this budget.

If you look at the facts in the government's own publications, if you look at the facts presented in this budget speech before us, and if you look at the facts of international finance and the high repute in which we were held in the international markets of the world, this is a very sharp contrast to the sort of doom and gloom that we heard from that party before the election campaign, during the election campaign, and that we are still hearing today, Mr. Speaker, some three and a half months after that election campaign. I wish they would get on with the business of governing this province rather than worrying about what happened before and trying to find the dark side of every shadow that they imagine appeared on the horizon.

The budgetary position — again referring to the budget on page 8, those who want to look at the budget — and it says here: "When we took office, we needed an immediate assessment of the budget position."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's true, and the comptroller-general provides a monthly assessment of the budget position. His figures are available to the Minister of Finance, and to anyone to whom he wishes to make them available, monthly, within seven days of the end of the previous month. The Minister of Finance may, if he chooses, make those figures public. That's up to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never did.

MR. STUPICH: We did. That's right. We didn't do it regularly, monthly. I'm suggesting now that if you want to, that's open to you. I am saying that that was the basis of the public statement that we did issue in mid-December. But my point, Mr. Speaker, is that they say: "When we took office we needed an immediate assessment." They were getting that regularly, on a monthly basis. That was available to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. STUPICH: The comptroller-general supplied these figures. These figures were the basis....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: They weren't available to the

[ Page 283 ]

public. Granted, Mr. Speaker, they weren't, but they can be now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you make them available?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Read the speech.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it's suggested in the speech that they are going to issue them quarterly. Now it could be done monthly. Right after the seventh of the month they could issue those figures, make them available to the press, if they chose to do so.

I am not the government today. I was the Minister of Finance for five weeks. The new Minister of Finance, if he thinks that is a good policy, may follow that policy. That choice is open to him.

This is the point, Mr. Speaker: when the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was talking in the throne speech debate he correctly stated that the firm of Clarkson, Gordon had not been asked to do an audit but had simply been asked to compile figures that were supplied by the comptroller-general and the Department of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier interjected by saying: "But don't you trust the comptroller-general and the staff of the Department of Finance?"

Mr. Speaker, we were not the ones that raised the questions about trust of our own dedicated, loyal, conscientious, hard-working civil servants; they're the ones that raised the questions about trust. The opening part of the Clarkson, Gordon report starts off by saying: "You asked us to add up certain figures that you were going to get for us from the comptroller-general and from the Department of Finance." The implication is that you didn't trust your own comptroller-general to do this addition.

No, Mr. Speaker, we were not the ones who lacked trust; it's the government across the way that lacked trust in the figures that are being supplied to them on a regular monthly basis, and that they may — and I take some encouragement from the Minister of Finance's interjections — that they may issue monthly, regularly, publicly, to tell us where we stand month by month.

Mr. Speaker, I read the speech and it says quarterly, but I gather from what the Minister of Finance is now saying that he intends to do this on a monthly basis. We will certainly ask him on a monthly basis whether or not he has received these figures from the comptroller-general yet, and whether or not he intends to make them public this month or would he rather wait until next month.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, on this same.... You know, my speech is going to be long if these people keep interrupting. I'm just thinking about the poor members who are going to follow me.

There is another sentence in this budget speech: "The forecast deficit for British Columbia at March 31,1976, is" — and this is the word I have underlined — "therefore $541 million." What do they mean by "therefore"? Mr. Speaker, I'll say it out loud: "...Is therefore $541 million". What he is really saying, and what Clarkson, Gordon said throughout their report, is not "therefore" but rather that a politically inspired decision was arrived at to reach a deficit of $541 million.

It was not, Mr. Speaker, a financial axiom, a financial "therefore". It was a politician's choice. I'm not saying there was anything wrong with that choice, any more than Clarkson, Gordon did. I'm simply saying that the politicians in control arrived at a decision that there would be a deficit of $541 million.

Now even having arrived at that, Mr. Speaker, I think it's an interesting comparison when one recalls that at a recent meeting, I think a rather small meeting, the president of Weyerhauser is said to have replied to a question as to what was the value of the Can-Cel operation that the people of British Columbia got for nothing. All we did was guarantee a loan that Can-Cel is making payments on and paying interest on this operation. We paid not one cent for Can-Cel. When he was asked what the value was of that operation that the people of B.C. got for nothing, he said: "In today's market" — and today's market, Mr. Speaker, is not very good for the lumber products — "approximately half a billion dollars." That one item alone is enough to make up for the politically inspired deficit that was arrived at, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it could have been more; it could have been much more. The figure 541, by making certain political decisions...it could have been a good deal more. For example, $200 million to provide for the Dease Lake extension could have been added to this and just as properly. More properly than giving $175 million to ICBC when the Premier says they don't need it.

It would have been less. It could have been whatever figure the government, the politicians, wanted to make it. Again, I'm not criticizing that. I'm simply saying that it could be whatever figure they wanted it to be. So when they say "therefore" the forecast deficit is "therefore" 541, what they're really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that a political decision was arrived at to calculate a deficit of $541 million.

Mr. Speaker, there are items of non-budgetary revenue, revenue that is not normally included in revenue, that we could have included and intended to include in revenue of this period, and the present

[ Page 284 ]

administration intends to include them in revenue of the next period, it would appear.

For example, Mr. Speaker, one of the bills that I won't talk about today, but I will simply mention that the B.C. Harbour Board legislation which does provide for authority to borrow...we are now going to change that so that the government may guarantee that borrowing — presumably so that the Harbours Board can borrow that money and pay back to the government the money that it owes to the government that we were going to get back in the previous period. It's a political decision as to when you bring that money in. This government has made a decision to bring it in in the following period. That's fair enough.

The B.C. Rail agreement that we were going to bring in $30 million from...and the government made a political decision by saying that our reports indicate that it's not a good agreement. Our reports indicate....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to that too, if you like.

The B.C. Rail agreement was going to bring in $30 million and they said it was a bad agreement. To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there have been no new studies. They're simply waiting until March 31 is past, and then all of a sudden this agreement will be a good agreement and we can bring the $30 million into revenue in a subsequent period. Again, that's a political decision; that can be done. BCPC — it was our decision, our policy to bring into revenue all of the cash that BCPC had left over. Clarkson, Gordon indicated in their report that the present administration has made a political decision to leave $26 million in that fund, and that they can do. That's a political decision. If we had brought it in in the previous period, it would have reduced that deficit. They're going to bring it in in a subsequent period and reduce what might be their deficit or increase their surplus. It's a political choice.

Special funds: again, this could have been done in the previous period, or the next period, or sometime in the future, depending upon the political decision of the government. I'll come to that. Yes, I will — I've got it down as a note — if I don't forget that note. You ask me before I finish.

The implication in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, when it talks about this deficit is that expenditures were being exceeded in spite of the fact that it does note in another page in the budget that we did bring our expenditures under control when we realized that revenues were falling short.

The implication is that one of the problems is that expenditures were being exceeded. Mr. Speaker, non-budgeted expenditures are thrown in to build up this deficit. They know that and we know that; it's a political decision. Neither right nor wrong, a political decision to grant to ICBC from the general taxpayers of the province $175 million that the Premier has said they don't need — a political decision.

The transit bureau grant of $26 million — a political decision to grant that money at this time rather than some other time or rather than do it some other way, a political decision to throw into that pot $26 million to build up that deficit.

A Hydro grant — and again, the BCR grant of $20 million, a political decision, Mr. Speaker. They may well want to grant a lot more to BCR. As I said earlier, rather than $20 million it could be $200 million and it would be more justified than granting money to ICBC, money that ICBC does not need.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, there is a growing suspicion in the minds of some of us that even the budgeted expenditures in the period ending March 31,1976, are going to be inflated. One concrete example of that — we have others that we'll bring in later — is a question that was asked about a special warrant that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is also a member of Treasury Board, sought from the Treasury Board and from cabinet and got approval for in the amount of $7.5 million — an urgent expenditure for which there was not any other provision in the budget, so urgent, Mr. Speaker, that he had to get immediate approval from Treasury Board and from cabinet. Yet when he was asked what the urgency was of this — "Why did you need this money?" — he had to take it as notice.

MR. KING: He didn't even know what it was for.

MR. STUPICH: Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was asked; the Minister of Finance didn't know what it was for. He's chairman of Treasury. I presume he was at the meeting — I don't know. We didn't have opportunity to ask the third member of Treasury, the Minister of Economic Development and Agriculture, or Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), to see whether he knew, although I doubt very much that if the other two didn't that he would know anything about it.

Finally, the Premier was asked and the Premier had to refer it back to the Minister of Education who by this time — that took him a week — found out at least where the money was going but still apparently had no idea as to why it was so important that this be done in such a hurry other than the fact that the universities found a way to use $7.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, there is a suspicion in our minds that expenditures in this '75-'76 period — even budgeted expenditures — are going to be inflated in order to create the maximum possible deficit in that period and make it as good as possible for the next fiscal period. There is that suspicion, Mr. Speaker, and I

[ Page 285 ]

think we'll have further questions to ask about that at a later date.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance will have an opportunity to tell us later on if he is able to come up with some explanation as to why this money was needed.

Revenue-raising — I would like to make some comments about the methods of raising additional revenue. Leave aside for the moment the amount of extra revenue needed. Personal income tax.... Mr. Speaker, we have always argued that the personal income tax is the fairest form of raising government revenues. I can't help but feel that the method adopted recently by the Province of Saskatchewan when they chose to increase the personal income tax rate in that province but gave some added protection to the low-income earner was a better one than the one chosen by this government. Mr. Speaker, had they come in with even a higher rate of personal income tax increase but given more protection to the low-income earners, I would have been more in favour of it than the present proposal before us.

Sales tax adjustments, Mr. Speaker. There can be no argument but that the sales tax is one of the most regressive ways in which a government can raise money.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could I interrupt you for just one moment to suggest that there are bills before the House....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please — one moment please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding!

MR. SPEAKER: I....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, there are bills before the House dealing with these matters. I don't think it's out of order to deal with them in a general way as long as you don't refer to the bills and the increases in a specific way.

MR. STUPICH: Shucks, Mr. Speaker, I had even forgotten there was a bill on that so I wasn't going to refer to the bill specifically.

I will say this: it is regressive. We have statistics to show how regressive it is and we will introduce those statistics and we will answer the questions of the...

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:...Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) when the occasion arises because we....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Why didn't you do it then?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You wanted to be there; now accept the responsibility.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to get away from this issue of sales tax in cooperation with you. I appreciate your advice; I wish the members opposite would have listened to the advice as well.

I do want to make one more reference to it. I think, perhaps, this would not really be used properly at the time of the debate on bills that I will not mention, This is a reference in the Premier's address dated February 20, 1976.

"The financial review discloses an alarming trend. More and more government revenues are coming from taxes collected from people. Personal income taxes return by far the largest cash contribution to government and are the fastest-growing revenue source; the 5 per cent sales tax is next."

A truly alarming trend, Mr. Speaker — look what we're doing with it in this budget.

Sales, tax, Mr. Speaker, in this budget is projected to be increased by 47 per cent over the revised figures for last year — a 47 per cent increase in what the Premier has talked about as "an alarming situation."

Personal income tax, Mr. Speaker, is projected to be increased by 24 per cent — again, one that the Premier is most concerned about. It's a pity he couldn't be here to know just what's happening to make him more concerned than ever with his remark in his own address.

These percentages are both substantially higher than the increase for the budget as a whole. But perhaps most alarming of all is the increase in B.C. Medical Plan fees where the increase is even higher than it is for sales tax. It's a 50 per cent increase in what really is a levy against individual people in spite of the Premier's concern about the degree to which money is being raised from people.

I notice one calculation in The Province this morning, I believe, showing that the average taxpayer in the province is going to be paying $150 more a year. There is reference in this budget to cooperation

[ Page 286 ]

with Ottawa on the anti-inflationary fighting programme. At a time when we are asking wage-earners to be moderate in their demands, to say to them that they shall pay an extra $150 a year so that certain government services may operate at a profit, I think is not even paying lip service to the anti-inflationary fighting programme.

The reference to B.C. Ferry Authority — and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there will be legislation here as well — I will simply say briefly at the moment we are turning the clock back now, and I have no objection to that. We have a situation that arose, I suppose, about eight years ago when the B.C. Ferry Authority was got rid of, and the B.C. Ferry accounts were brought into the Department of Highways' accounts.

Presumably by setting up a new authority we are going to have more borrowing authority — and I am not opposed to that — borrowing authority to pay for the capital expenditures of the B.C. Ferry Authority. That's fine. But I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that there will continue to be some charge against general revenue for the operations of the ferry system — an extension of the highway system.

I think it's proper that there should be some contribution from consolidated revenue for this very important link in our highway system. So I hope by setting up a new authority we are not intending that it will be an authority that will be entirely self-sustaining.

I see it's in this budget but I am not just sure what happens when you set up the authority. I know it's in the budget. I saw that.

It does raise one interesting question and that is the future of the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) since we are taking away from him what is certainly by far the largest part of his work and his responsibilities. Perhaps another way of effecting a government economy will be to remove that minister from his post and to move him down to some of the back benches. It will be a very worthwhile saving.

If we are going this route of setting up Crown corporations to take care of capital expenditures — and, as I say, I am not opposed to this in the slightest as I think it's a good idea — why would the government not consider as we considered a housing corporation that would take out of the budget the capital expenditures on housing programmes? Why not a public works corporation that would take out of the budget the capital expenditures for public buildings? This is one of the things we were considering as well.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the revenue proposals in the budget, some questions about what the government did, why they did it and why they didn't do something else.

For example, gasoline tax. Included in the budget is an item of $40 million to pay interest on money that the government is borrowing — money that it has admitted to a large extent is not needed but that for political reasons it is going to borrow.

Almost half of that $40 million will be on account of the money that is borrowed to give ICBC money that it doesn't need. I think it is not fair that the people are being asked to pay 7 per cent sales tax in this province and are being asked to increase other taxes so that service will run at a profit.

I would suggest that if the government has considered — and they might still consider — an increase in the gasoline tax by something like 2 cents a gallon, it would provide more than enough to pay to general revenue the interest charges on the money that is being gratuitously transferred to ICBC.

Mr. Speaker, they might even consider a further increase in gasoline tax to improve the transit system. They are concerned about the losses in transit. Well, we, too, are concerned about the losses in transit. But don't we want the transit system to be accepted? Don't we want it to work?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), is asking what we were going to do. Mr. Speaker, we were not charged with the responsibility of bringing in the budget. We were considering all sorts of things and we did show an indication of how we felt about transit by putting a 2 cent increase on last year to support the transit system, and we certainly were married to the prospect of continuing to encourage people to use public transit.

Mr. Speaker, there's another item I would like to comment on — an item the government might have chosen to collect more revenue — and that is with respect to coal production.

According to the government's own report, the coal production in 1975 was 10.3 million tons, and the government publication also tells us that it was worth $348.5 million — an impressive sum, Mr. Speaker, and an impressive production. We know that the average royalty on that production was approximately $1.45 a ton, so the revenue from that will be approximately $15 million, and $15 million out of $348.5 million is a return to the people of this province of 4.3 per cent.

We are asking the poor people, the middle-income people and the wealthy people, if you like — it won't hurt them much, but we are asking them as well — to pay 7 per cent instead of 5 per cent on their sales tax but we are saying to the people who are extracting a depleting resource from our ground and shipping it out of our province to create jobs in other communities, we are charging them only 4.3 per cent royalty.

Mr. Speaker, had we charged 7 per cent it would have meant a $10 million increase in that revenue, and, certainly, if the minister were now to ask me what we were going to do, it was our announced policy to increase that coal royalty; and I would

[ Page 287 ]

recommend to the government that they increase it. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the figures for natural gas do not really indicate to us that this government is determined to get more money from another wasting resource — a wasting resource that for too long was shipped out of this province to create jobs, and to create comfort for people in the United States, at a price that was lower than our own consumers were paying for it here in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me; it concerns me that they do not seem to have any real determination to increase the revenue from that source.

Mr. Speaker, in general it is the pessimism of the budget that concerns me, a pessimism that does not seem to take into account at all a feeling abroad that things are improving in 1976, and will improve. If I could just call on one reference, and that is one that is extremely important to the economy of British Columbia, for all of our resource industries in particular that really form the basis of everything else we do, and that is the number of housing starts in the United States.

We know that 1975 was a very bad year. We know the number of housing starts, 1,171 million units in 1975. The figures from four different sources, when you average them, show that it is expected there will be a 60 per cent increase in the number of housing starts in 1976.

Now we know that it's election year down there, and we know that has a bearing on it, but a 60 per cent increase in the number of housing starts in the United States should be the cause for more optimism in this budget than is reflected in the prose and in the figures of this budget.

The effects of this attitude are the things that worry me, Mr. Speaker. When they talk about how bad things are, it can't help but have a depressing effect on our whole economy. It can't help but have a depressing effect on people outside of our community who are reading this. Unemployment, for example. I made some mention of unemployment previously; I will again.

In February of 1975 — that's the month we can compare it with — unemployment in the province was 9.6 per cent. Very high. February, 1976, just after two months of this government in office. Not lower, Mr. Speaker, but up to 9.9 per cent. What has happened since the election, Mr. Speaker? In the last two months of our administration, unemployment was going down. In November, 9.3 per cent; in December 7.5 per cent; in January, after the effects of the election of this government started to be noticed in this community, instead of going down, an alarming jump to the highest rate of 10.7 per cent. Still up at 9.9 per cent in February, and these figures, Mr. Speaker, are from the Department of Labour research department.

Mr. Speaker, if I could refer to a page in the budget — it's page 6, Mr. Speaker, that I want to refer to now. Page 6 in the budget, Mr. Speaker, has a very interesting comment: "Government, like people, cannot go on spending more than it makes."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear "hear, hear," from across the way. Mr. Speaker, there are two things wrong with that statement. First: government is not "like people." Government has a responsibility to the whole community. People have responsibilities to their own families. People have to be concerned if their earning power may disappear today, or tomorrow or next week or next month.

Governments know that they are going to go on living. Governments have a responsibility to their own people, to the people that are coming. People have a responsibility to the individuals with whom they are in closest contact.

Governments are not "like people," Mr. Speaker. Governments have a responsibility. I would like to quote — at the risk of boring some of the members, Mr. Speaker, but I know you will give me your undivided attention — from a noted, and I was going to be facetious and call him a left-wing economist, but I think I'll simply say it's from a book "Prosperity Without Inflation" by Arthur F. Burns, one of General Eisenhower's advisers when he was in office as President of the United States.

Certainly, from the point of view of the members opposite, he should be someone that they would listen to with some interest, and with some respect:

"Only a generation ago, men concerned with economic affairs typically held the view that it was best to allow storms of business depression to blow themselves out. They knew, of course, that unemployment and business failures at times increased sharply. They deplored such development and therefore persistently argued for monetary stability and the prevention of booms.

"But once a business recession got underway they were inclined to oppose any large government efforts to check the economic decline. In response to such proposals they often took a position that economic adversity stimulated people to practice thrift and industry..."

The minister shuffles in his seat!

"... that it served to redirect or weed out inefficient workmen and inefficient enterprises, and that economic progress was furthered in the process."

Incredible as it may seem, these were the measures for curing a business depression that were widely and effectively advanced a mere 20 or 30 years ago. And this book, Mr. Speaker, is 20 years old.

[ Page 288 ]

So he's suggesting the economy that is preached in this budget speech went out of date 50 to 60 years ago. And there's something else in here that brings it really up to date: "Anti-recession and anti-inflation policies must best be seen as two sides of the same coin. "

Mr. Speaker, you can't fight one without fighting the other, and we have to fight both in this country. Mr. Speaker, those are much the same words that the Minister of Finance for Canada (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) used at the first Ministers of Finance meeting that I attended in Ottawa. Two sides of the same coin; you have to be fighting both.

Mr. Speaker, government has a responsibility to set the tone for development in the province, to set an optimistic tone for what is happening in the province rather than to set a pessimistic one as this government seems so determined to do.

Mr. Speaker, government is not "like people", but even people borrow for capital investments. I would suggest that even.... I believe the press has recorded to date eight millionaire MLAs on the government side of the House. I would suggest that even those eight millionaire MLAs borrow for long-term capital investment. That's good financing. There's nothing wrong with that at all, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest they do it regularly.

The norm is for government to borrow for capital investment. All governments do it; even the Government of Alberta with all of the money that it has at its disposal is borrowing for capital investments, Mr. Speaker. Year after year they show a deficit in their current accounts. I'm not recommending that's the way we should go; I'm just saying that this kind of attitude really does not belong in this particular budget speech.

It's not a question, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not we should borrow, because we are borrowing and we have been borrowing. Mr. Speaker, if you'll look at the government's own budget speech, if I can dignify it by calling it that, and looking on page 38, you'll see an example of the extent to which government in the Province of British Columbia has been borrowing for capital needs.

I say this is good; it's the way it has to go. Why should we not borrow and get these capital projects constructed while we are here and while we can use them, and then let the people who are making use of those services pay for them as they use them? But in table D on page 38, British Columbia's Direct and Contingent Liability Debt, the columns are there showing the extent to which direct debt, as it is called, decreased over the years, and the gross contingent liability debt increased.

Mr. Speaker, the gross contingent liability debt is the measure of the extent to which expenditures which are indirectly controlled by this government are carried on and are financed over a long-term period to acquire capital assets. All the question is, Mr. Speaker, is to what extent should long-term assets be financed by this method, and to what extent should they be financed in the budget itself?

I've suggested, Mr. Speaker, several examples. The government is already moving in one direction. I've suggested other examples where at least long-term assets might be financed by long-term financing.

On page 6 of the budget there's a reference to the governor of the Bank of Canada, and to Gerald Bouey as another authority on finance. I'm going to take issue with this one, Mr. Speaker: "But Bank of Canada Governor Gerald Bouey warned us only the other day that too much borrowing by government will stifle growth of the economy."

Mr. Speaker, that's the same sort of attitude that the Minister of Finance might have had in mind when he was writing this ... having read 'Lil Abner, remember: "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for America." Now the suggestion here is that if private capital, private industry is borrowing, that's good for the economy. If government is borrowing, that's bad for the economy.

Mr. Speaker, there are proposals in my own constituency for building one, two or even three shopping centres. The question is not whether we really need all this additional shopping space. No doubt the people who go ahead and construct those one, two or three shopping areas will make a profit out of doing it. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot be convinced — at least I don't think I can; nobody's even tried.... I think not even the Minister of Finance will not really try to convince me that money spent on building those shopping centres by private capital will be good for the economy, but that money spent by the government providing the much-needed expansion to the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital will be bad for the economy because it's the government that does it.

Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest that it's better for everyone concerned if we provide social capital for projects like that that are needed by the people of the province. It's not who's borrowing, Mr. Speaker; it is what is being done with the money that counts. And if government is going to do a better job of using those funds it has borrowed than is private industry, then it is better for the community that the government direct the investment of those funds.

Mr. Speaker, I think the attitude of this government can best be summarized as was summarized by the authors of this document on the frontispiece in the budget speech. This is the page that has the only picture in the whole budget speech, but it's an unfortunate quotation from the budget speech to use as the opening.

"This budget is a start on the road back — a 'recovery budget' — moving us in a positive direction to restore confidence in British

[ Page 289 ]

Columbia as a good place to invest, to work, and to live."

Mr. Speaker, again I'm not surprised but I am disappointed at some of the members opposite applauding that order of priority.

Mr. Speaker, the invitation is there: come to B.C. and invest. Come to B.C., the Guatemala of the northern hemisphere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: Argentina may not be safe, but come to B.C.

Remember the ads that appeared in the paper in 1972, Mr. Speaker, in the American papers? "B.C. Town for Sale." Now the budget speech is going out and its first priority: B.C. for sale! Here's a province for sale. Come and invest; come and buy it. Not lend us your money so that we can develop our province, but come and buy it. B.C. for sale! Come to B.C. and make your profits and take them out of the province. Come to B.C.; it's the second priority to work.

It's the priorities that disturb me, Mr. Speaker. It's the emphasis on coming here to invest — come and buy our province; it's for sale. Secondly, come here to work. Come here and make profits for the people who come here to buy our province. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, and the least important of all apparently: come here to live. Come here and live, so that you can pay ferry rates that will make this part of our highway system service operate at a profit, now leaving open the possibility of a subsidy that we don't know about yet, although there is a reference in the budget. But come here and pay these ferry rates that will make that service operate at a profit.

Come here to B.C. to live and pay auto insurance premiums that will make that service operate at a profit, to attract investors to come back in and invest in B.C. and make profits and take those profits out of B.C.

Most heinous of all, Mr. Speaker, come here and pay medical insurance rates.... The budget decries the fact that the medical insurance programme has been operating at a loss. Come here to B.C. and pay medical insurance rates at a level that will make that service run at a profit — and the implication, Mr. Speaker, run at a profit or run not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the invitation is there. Come and buy B.C.; come and work in B.C. and make profit for the people that buy B.C.; come live in B.C. if, Mr. Speaker, you can stomach this budget speech.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I may be somewhat even-handed. Mr. Speaker, we have the somewhat interesting circumstance here where the 1975 election was refought in the budget speech, and we heard a little of the 1972 election in the last speech. I may have to disagree slightly with both, but I want to start out by giving great credit to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who is an aggressive defender of the financial perspective of his party. I will go further and perhaps say boldly that had he been Finance minister for three years his party might still be in government.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Madam Member, I was making an observation.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Is this another kind of threat that we got through the election?

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no. I can't think the hon. member would make a threat.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, before I speak substantively about the content of the budget, I would like to draw to the minister's attention the fact that there was, in addition to the matter raised by the official opposition on Friday, a possible leak in the manner in which the budget was prepared and some of the documents emanating from it were produced around the province.

I cannot go into any great detail, and therefore I say only a possible leak, but I have to tell him I received a telephone call very shortly after noon last Friday advising me — as a matter of fact, not a matter of conjecture — that, as a result of documentation that certain persons had seen, that the sales tax was going to be 7 per cent. I simply mention that to the minister in order that he may review the procedures that his department followed in the dissemination of certain of the consequential documentation surrounding the budget.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it's a question perhaps the Premier might want to examine, as I suggest, Mr. Member, because he did assure the House on Friday afternoon "that none of the relevant figures contained in this budget have been made available or placed in the position of coming under the scrutiny of anyone but the Minister of Finance and his department and, at times, the Premier working on the budget."

I have some reason to believe, and suggest to the hon. member, that the Premier may not have had full

[ Page 290 ]

information when he made that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did he have to phone you?

MR. GIBSON: Because he thought he'd get an intelligent response, Mr. Member.

Moving on now to the budget itself, I wish that the hon. first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were here when we need him. You know, year after year he has brought forward in his.... Here he is! He just walked in, Mr. Speaker. I hope he is here with the alternate budget that the hon. member has presented year after year in this House (laughter), a budget that....

HON. MR. BENNETT: But it's a job that had to be done.

MR. GIBSON: A job that has to be done...a budget that member presented, often uncannily accurate in its results at the end of the year.

MR. GIBSON: Well, last year it was curious circumstances, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: An intelligent response.

MR. GIBSON: Last year his judgment was somewhat imperiled by the fact he joined your party, too.

But somebody has to give the real budget, Mr. Speaker. Now the hon. minister was kind enough when he distributed the budget — and I want to thank him very much indeed for his courtesy in giving a copy of the budget to opposition leaders contemporaneous with his starting to speak in the House — he was kind enough to include, for the edification of everyone, budget highlights. I have produced some different budget highlights, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to draw to the attention of the House — what seem to me the real highlights of the budget.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

First of all, an increase in revenue to the Crown: an extraction from the pocketbook of the private taxpayer of $300 per capita for every man, woman and child in British Columbia. That's the first budget highlight the taxpayer ought to look out for.

The second budget highlight: revenue underestimated.

The third budget highlight: government puts self in strait jacket on subject of deficit.

The next budget highlight: most revenue raised from most regressive tax.

Next budget highlight: inflationary.

Next budget highlight: 16 per cent increase in budgetary spending, which is a figure contrary to what is said in black and white in the budget, Mr. Speaker, and which I shall justify.

The next budget highlight: revenues when user charges are included up to 35 per cent.

The next budget highlight: ferry rates up over double.

The next budget highlight: school taxes at the local level up, over 25 per cent if services are to be retained.

Interjection

MR. GIBSON: I don't think so, Mr. Minister. I'll go through the arithmetic for your benefit when I get to that stage of the speech. Those are the real budget highlights, Mr. Speaker.

Now the budget contains some good things. Naturally, when you spend....

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Naturally, members, when you spend $3.615 billion, almost in spite of yourselves you have to do some good things. I give full credit for that.

I want, first of all, to compliment the minister on getting more money out of the federal government. This is a field that has to be assiduously tilled. I am glad to see that the government is going after that and are making it a particular point of their financial policy.

I would suggest to the government that it would be a wise thing to do a study on British Columbia opting out of almost all shared-cost programmes in response for tax points, as has been done by the Province of Quebec.

I'll tell you why British Columbia should look at that: those 50-cent dollars distort our priorities — they distort them very badly. Thus, in medicine, for example — as the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will know and the former minister knows — because you get 50-cent dollars for acute-care beds, and not for intermediate-care beds, there is a significant bias towards acute care in this province when intermediate care, in many cases, would be much cheaper. Because you get 50-cent dollars to look after certain day-care services, under the Canadian Assistance plan, there is a built-in bias against integrating the day-care centres with the public school system where you would lose those 50-cent dollars — and that is the sensible place for the day-care centres to end up.

Therefore, we would have a tremendous amount more fiscal freedom in this province if we received those revenues as a matter of right to deal with according to British Columbia spending priorities

[ Page 291 ]

rather than spending priorities set long ago in time and thousands of miles away in space, and not necessarily related to our needs.

I commend the increase in expenditures in consumer services and economic development, the one being for more stringent auditing of price increases and the other being, hopefully, for a concentration on the creation of jobs in this province.

I commend the government on the generally increased level in health care and in human resources, two areas where there had been serious concern on the part of many British Columbians as to whether existing programmes would be maintained.

In the housing area I commend two things very particularly: No. 1, the growth grant, that extra $500 per new unit to each municipality, which will, with the federal contribution of $1,000 for the same amount total $1,500 for each new unit and, I would think, encourage municipalities around the province to assume their share of the province's growth.

Secondly, the contribution of $600 in respect of outright grant and $1,200 in interest-free loan for new rental units — very badly needed in this province, and the sine qua non of finally getting rid of rent control in due course when the federal controls are taken off.

I commend the same minister, while wearing his municipal affairs hat, for finding a little bit more money for the municipalities. I grieve at the fact that he has not been able to convince the British Columbia Railway to pay taxes to municipalities, and I'd been so hopeful on that subject in the throne speech.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's never too early to correct a wrong, Mr. Minister. Perhaps if I bring in a special bill? I have a message....

Well, those are some of the good things, Mr. Speaker. Now I'd like to look at last year in perhaps a slightly different perspective than the previous speaker looked at it. The job security budget of a year ago somehow didn't work out the way it should have.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: If you look at page 10 of last year's budget, you find the following: "We expect to end this fiscal year in a surplus budgetary position." It's almost incredible, Mr. Speaker, that a year later we could be looking at a very different situation.

The gross national product, per capita, in British Columbia, was marginally up — less than 1 per cent — but it is not correct to compare that to the general Canadian experience and say we did better, because when you adjust it on a per capita basis you find our gross national product, per capita, in real terms, was down 2 per cent last year. Our housing expenditures were down 5 per cent; tourism growth as much as stopped; stagnation in forestry and mining; factory shipments seriously down; retail sales down in volume.

Now why should this be? Some of it had to do with poor world markets. Some of it had to do with serious labour-management difficulties, particularly in the forest industry, and some of it, Mr. Speaker, was unquestionably due to the previous government. But I'm more concerned with the longer trend, and if you look over the last decade in British Columbia the real gross provincial product, per capita, has been growing in our province more slowly than anywhere else in this country. Over the last 10 years our growth in that area has ranked 10th out of 10. Somehow, somewhere, there must be something wrong with the economic approach of successive governments, and I'm afraid I do not find the solution in this budget to that underlying problem

For the coming year, the prospects are not good in mining, except for coal. The prospects are mediocre in forestry. I heard a submission recently from the head of the Investment Dealers Association of British Columbia in which he suggested — and this was a submission to the Pearse commission — that there is essentially no more economic room for growth in the forest industry of British Columbia. There is room for about doubling in terms of raw, sustained yield, but in terms of commercial yield he suggested there's no more room for growth. As we have seen in the budget this year, very mediocre growth in tourism.

If those three major industries are all in the doldrums, where are we going in this province? Where are the new directions that we should be able to strike out in to look after the fact that our growth trend line in this province is 3 per cent per year? That's an enormous challenge to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is sitting there looking challenged. (Laughter.) But the budget itself gives us no clues in this area.

Now what happened to bring us to the current financial situation?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I will on your estimates, Mr. Minister — I'm still thinking. Well, that's time for another debate.

Looking at the differentials between the original budget last year and the Clarkson, Gordon forecast, we see some very curious things, and answers that I hope this House will receive. Mr. Speaker, the social services tax was overestimated by over 10 per cent. That's incredible in that tax. It's a relatively stable tax yield, the social services tax. How could so much more revenue than materialized have been estimated.

The corporation income tax. Well, that's a little

[ Page 292 ]

easier to go wrong on. But now let's look at motor fuel taxes. Motor fuel taxes were more than 15 per cent overestimated. That's very bad, Mr. Speaker.

Now let's look at timber sales, where the estimate was $135 million instead of $35 million, and when speaker after speaker on this side of the House stood up and told the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett): "There's no way you're going to get $135 million out of that." That's a very serious overestimate, Mr. Speaker.

A further overestimate — and I would like to know the answer on how this one happened — on federal recoveries of more than $80 million. This, too, should be a very stable, predictable thing.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is who is responsible for these overestimates? If it was the government of the day, tell us. The people have already dealt with them. But if it was the public service, those people are still there and I'd like to know who it is, and I would like to know how these estimates went wrong. I think this House deserves to know those figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to blame the government. You can't blame the workers.

MR. GIBSON: If indeed the advice of the professionals was disregarded, Mr. Premier, I think this House should have chapter and verse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep speaking!

MR. GIBSON: The next question that confuses the public...

AN HON. MEMBER: Marc Eliesen can tell you.

MR. GIBSON:...is whether, in fact, there is a deficit. Well, he's out describing that in other areas, Mr. Member.

The next question is the question: "What is the actual deficit?" The public is understandably confused about this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us, tell us.

MR. GIBSON: No, I don't agree with that figure, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think it's 800?

MR. GIBSON: Well, I think it is probably more like 700 — that's my guess.

Interjection,

MR. GIBSON: Well, yes, but it's important to get right numbers. Now let's look at where that arose.

The revenue shortfall, of course, was $323 million, and I have just discussed that. There was an attempt to cut budgetary expenditures, but it was difficult to do. It always is in government. They held it back 1.5 per cent.

But the non-budgetary items, as listed in the Clarkson, Gordon report of $259 million, I think are fair — the ICBC deficit. There is no question that it belonged in the fiscal year just past because that is when it was incurred. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this government will not hesitate year by year to bring forward losses as they are incurred in the Crown corporations. I think that is tremendously important.

I hope, as the previous speaker mentioned, that this government will not hesitate to reveal to this House the monthly figures — not just the quarterly figures — that are available from the comptroller-general. We have the word of the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) that those figures are available on a monthly basis.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough to say what "they" did.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quarterly!

MR. GIBSON: I hope that you can rise to a standard of excellence that will be remembered in this province for years to come.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quarterly!

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no, monthly will do, Mr. Minister. Quarterly is a start, but you have the basis for monthly figures. You can do better.

Now when you come through that and you get to the end of the Clarkson, Gordon study, then it seems to me that you have to count in that gas tax that's owing — the natural gas producers tax for the year owing to Ottawa, $52 million.

Reimbursement of the Medical Plan Reserve Fund ... and I think it is proper to consolidate the losses of the other Crown corporations, just as long as you do it on a equivalent basis year after year. I think that's right. And that brings you to around $700 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Shame!

MR. GIBSON: Now I want to keep some kind of balance and perspective in this because I'll concede to you that the current government, Mr. Speaker, is better at keeping books than the previous government.

[ Page 293 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: But I also suggest to you that the previous government was better at looking after the assets of British Columbia than Social Credit has been historically in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, you're losing.

MR. GIBSON: They get awful touchy, Mr. Speaker, when you try and take an even-handed approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a Liberal....

MR, GIBSON: And look at the hon. first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) sitting there shaking his head. How he used to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, about the Columbia River — about the Columbia River and the former Social Credit government.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): And the Liberal government in Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: The gentleman behind you, the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) — you should discuss with him the subject of the Liberal government in Ottawa. I wonder what he thinks of the debt policies of your government...when he came out from Ottawa. I am amazed at that, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Don't let me be diverted from my essential point, which is this: the Social Credit government has not been very good about looking after the assets of British Columbia. The Social Credit government has been in the giveaway game in terms of the land of British Columbia and who owns it, foreign owners or Canadian owners...

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't say that when you worked for the prime minister.

MR. GIBSON:...in terms of the Columbia River. I did, Mr. Member, and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Columbia River, Wenner Gren, giveaway of the Rocky Mountain Trench — remember that one? That's a Social Credit legacy.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): That was before you were born.

MR. GIBSON: No, that wasn't before I was born. No, young fellow, down, down! The foreign-owned tree farm licences, Mr. Speaker, the foreign-owned tree farm licences — that sure came in during the Social Credit government. Let's forget for a moment whether tree farm licences, per se, are wrong.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no, TFL No. 1 — who did that go to?

AN HON. MEMBER: It started in coalition.

MR. GIBSON: The first TFL was in coalition. That's right.

But its full blossoming — it reached its blossoming in terms of foreign owners during the time of the Social Credit government. Mr. Speaker, there's nobody in this House knows that better than that hon. member who wrote a book on it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I only made the mistake of buying a copy of that book, Mr. Speaker. Nicely autographed.

AN HON. MEMBER: A bargain at twice the price.

MR. GIBSON: I think you know, Mr. Speaker, we open this Legislature with prayers. I think we should have a reading each day as well, a reading from Politics in Paradise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Feel free.

MR. GIBSON: Here's the point, Mr. Speaker. Let that government not be too smug about a bit of bookkeeping. Let them look after the assets of British Columbia.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): We will.

MR. GIBSON: Remember, Mr. Member, when you say that so confidently that the budget from which I read, that job-security budget, is only one year old, and the budget we're looking at now may look just as foolish a year from now. Never be too certain.

Now let's look at expenditure proposals. I'd like to take a quote from page 15, Mr. Speaker. The minister says: "The inflationary problem of the past three years was compounded by the excessive competition for limited resources between the public and private sectors. It is not our wish to continue that competition." What the minister was trying to say

[ Page 294 ]

there is that the government is backing off, that it's not spending so much money.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): That's a good idea.

MR. GIBSON: "That's a good idea," says the member. Who are you going to take those expenditures away from? I'll leave you to address that in your speech.

I want to comment on the statement that the minister makes on the budgetary increase. He makes it at the bottom of the page. "It is only a 5.4 per cent increase over the current year's revised estimates."

Mr. Speaker, that is a very misleading figure. It is such a misleading figure that I would call it a deceitful figure, a figure which does not represent to the British Columbia people what the government is doing in this budget. It was only reached by including in the estimates for this year extra ICBC charges and not including that extra revenue in the comparison year, this year. It was reached only by removing certain B.C. Ferries charges from the new fiscal year and leaving them in the old fiscal year. Let me give you what the real comparisons are, the honest figures on this budget.

If you take budget over budget the increase is 12.2 per cent. If you take this year's budget over the actual expenditures of last year the increase is 13.7 per cent. If you take this year's budget with B.C. Ferries left in, to make a proper comparison over the actual last year, the increase, Mr. Speaker, is a full 16 per cent, and that is what I am suggesting to you is the true year-over-year comparison, is the true amount by which this government has increased its expenditures. That figure that we were given is twaddle, yes, and tommyrot.

Mr. Speaker, that number of 16 per cent means that this so-called free enterprise government is taking more out of the economy of British Columbia this year than was taken out last year.

Mr. Member, I'm talking about expenditures. Would you get your numbers right? I'm talking about expenditures and use of the gross provincial product. I'm not onto revenues yet. I'll get onto revenues in a minute, at which time you will be even more amazed.

Let's look at the expenditures as they have been reported on page 60, and have a little adjustment of these figures, Mr. Speaker, because I think that we should consider what is the real growth in the expenditure in each department and not the growth that is the artificial result of inflation. So the figures I'm going to read out to you are the calculations I've done assuming an inflation rate of 9.5 per cent, which is what the government assumed in drawing up the budget. If we do that, we find that the legislation vote rather than increasing, as it would appear from the raw figures, declines by 8 per cent.

The executive council has a remarkable rise, 31 per cent. This is the Premier's office and ancillary services. Hardly restraint there, Mr. Speaker — 31 per cent.

Agriculture has an adjusted rise of 6.4.

The Attorney-General, I'm sorry to say and my former colleague must be sorry to see, is down by 4.4 per cent.

Consumer Services up by 32 per cent and Economic Development up by 32 per cent as well. Neither figure, Mr. Speaker, to which I object.

Education, not so good at all, Mr. Speaker. Education is up by about 11 per cent before inflation adjustment, but just about zero after inflation adjustment because, as the minister knows, most of the costs in education relate to salaries, and most of the salary settlements are running more than the education vote has gone up. Therefore there's actually a little going downhill in the education sector generally — leave aside the public schools, which I will come to in a moment.

HON. MR. McGEER: There isn't much growth there.

MR. GIBSON: Well, yes. There's sure not much growth in the vote, yet there's a considerable growth in the cost.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's percentages that matter, Mr. Minister. Wait until I get to the public school system; I don't want to get out of order.

Environment is up 6 per cent on this adjusted basis.

Finance is up 31 per cent, which of course reflects the interest on the new deficit. You can't get away from that.

The forests are up 14 per cent.

Health is up 10 per cent. As I said before, I congratulate the government for maintaining its emphasis on that largest item in the budget.

Highways and Public Works: I see the minister looking sombre over there, and well he should because on an adjusted basis it's down 13 per cent.

Housing: this one we're going to have to wait to hear the intervention of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in this debate because it's nominally down 17.5 per cent, and it should be up. But there have been certain programmes transferred, the exact dollar value of which isn't evident from the budget.

Human Resources is up 11.7 per cent. I've congratulated the government on that.

Labour up 23 per cent; Mines and Petroleum up 25 per cent; Municipal Affairs up 8 per cent, all of this on an inflation adjusted basis.

[ Page 295 ]

Provincial Secretary: up 14 per cent. Recreation and Travel Industry — and I regret this one — is down 10 per cent. Transportation and Communications is down over 13 per cent as a result of that book-juggling with the B.C. Ferries deficit.

Now let me give the consequence of this kind of budgeting in one department, and that is with respect to the school tax implication. In a press release of the Minister a month or so ago it was noted that school budgets for this year are up 19.3 per cent. The minister's provision for the public school system is up 9.4 per cent.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, according to the figures of the B.C. School Trustees Association, the provincial government paid 45 per cent of the operating costs of the schools, and the local areas paid 55 per cent. Too high a fraction on the local areas still, but nevertheless that's what it was last year.

Now what do we find as a result of this budget in the 9.4 per cent increase in education? If you get your pencil out, you'll find that as of the end of this year the provincial government will be paying much less of the local cost, down from 45 to 41.3 per cent of the total, and the local taxpayer will be up from 55 to 58.7 per cent. A very, very regressive move in the educational system, Mr. Speaker.

That very minister, when he was of a different persuasion, used to speak in this House with some eloquence — not a lot, but some — about the subject of returning the school costs to the provincial government and taking it off the local residents. It's going the wrong way this year, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe it.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's not our fault.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): When he crossed the floor he changed his image.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what that minister said! He said: "It's not our fault." He just drew up the budget, and he said: "It's not our fault."

HON. MR. McGEER: You increase taxes.

MR. GIBSON: We increase taxes. Do you know how much local jurisdictions are going to have to increase their school taxes if they want to maintain the same level of services? You just look at those same figures, those index numbers I just gave you: over 25 per cent, that's what!

HON. MR. McGEER: You were the one who objected to ICBC being put on a pay-as-you-go basis. Remember that? You didn't even want us to take that off the government's back.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what the minister is saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Neither can the people.

MR. GIBSON: I suggested to you you should put a surcharge on the gasoline tax for the ICBC, and if that's not a pay-as-you-go basis, that's a pay-as-you-go-down-the-street basis, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Regressive taxation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: Check your press releases more carefully.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor and I would suggest that we allow him to continue with his debate. Hon. member, may I suggest to you that perhaps the best way of having a controlled debate in this House is to address the Chair? Thank you very much.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your detachment and wisdom are much appreciated.

So there we are with the local tax on schools up more than 25 per cent if they want to maintain services — that's where we were when we were interrupted. I don't think that's very good. I don't think that a local mill rate increase of something on the order of 8 or 9 per cent is what this government should be forcing the local school districts into. I'll send over a computer, Mr. Minister. I can just see the wheels going around there — that's what it is.

HON. MR. McGEER: You said 20 per cent.

MR. GIBSON: No, I said over 20 per cent; I said 25 per cent. The average mill rate last year was 35 per cent, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Speaker just told you to behave yourself. Now be quiet.

HON. MR. McGEER: I was just trying to help him out.

MR. GIBSON: It was 35 per cent. If you take over 25 per cent of that, that's the problem you're putting the local school districts in this province into, unless you are suggesting very serious cuts in services. And, as the minister agreed a few minutes ago, Mr.

[ Page 296 ]

Speaker, the costs are mostly costs of personnel. If that's his policy, let him say so, not try and hide behind what he claims to be a good increase in this budget.

Now about the B.C. Ferries: we get an interesting insight into what is going to happen to the B.C. Ferries in the expenditure portion of this budget. We know that the deficit to be covered for the first three months of the fiscal year is $34 million, on revenues of $13 million. Those are there in the estimates book. We know that what is available in the balance of the year to cover the deficits of the Crown corporation is on the order of $25 million.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a little pencil work and on the assumption, which is pretty close, that that one-quarter of the year contains a quarter of the business of the year, which is pretty close in the ferry system, you will find that ferry rates are going up two and a half times. That's interesting, something we learned in the budget.

MR. WALLACE: Too much.

MR. GIBSON: It would have been better, Mr. Speaker, if they had just come out and told us. But that's what it's going to be.

MR. LOEWEN: What would you suggest? Make a suggestion.

MR. GIBSON: Now we pass from the question of expenditures to the questions of revenue. I have already mentioned my pleasure that the government is attempting to get more out of the federal government.

I will next mention my surprise that a very specific election promise has been rendered inoperable, or inoperative — is that what they say in Washington? — has been rendered inoperative by this government. Remember, Mr. Speaker, the freeze on taxes that was promised during the election, because new taxes are inflationary. The government knew that, but they went ahead and raised taxes in the most inflationary possible way.

Let's look at some of the tax increases — first of all, some of the ones that were hidden away in the expenditure side; but they're more money out of people, and they should be counted as taxes.

Co-insurance: an additional $14 million. From $1 to $4 on acute beds: that's fine for those people who are in fact only in hospital for that average stay of eight and a half days that the minister quotes. But what about those people who are unfortunate enough to be in an acute bed for 90 days or 180 days? There should be an upper limit on that one, because the principle of medical insurance in this province, and in this country, has been that people should not be unduly injured in a financial way because of their misfortunes in a medical way. There should be an upper limit on that co-insurance for acute beds.

I plead with the government to go slow on that $7 a day for the extended-care beds. The ramifications on the thousands of different cases, the thousands of different financial situations — depending on the marital situations of people on Mincome around this province, and those on Mincome in extended care, and those partially on Mincome and in extended care — the ramifications are so complex and so unfair with a straight-across-the-board application that I beg you to go slow on that one. Phase it in. Hear the difficulties it is going to cause before you draft your exact regulations. Then make sure it is not just an across-the-board $7.

Next is the B.C. Medical Plan — $40 million. That's a tax, Mr. Speaker. Why isn't the government straight about it? Why does it hide it in the expenditure? That's a revenue, and it should be there with the next taxes. Another $40 million out of the hides of British Columbians.

Now we get to the taxes that they acknowledge to be such. Corporation tax: $31 million — that's fine. Personal income tax: $23.5 million — that's good. Cigarettes: $10 million — maybe that should have been a little more. Liquor licences: $3 million — good.

Then we reach the single most regressive, harsh, unnecessary measure in this budget, which is the sales tax, which is alleged to raise $200 million, and allegedly to be paid $90 million by corporations. Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense; corporations do not pay sales tax. Corporations are not charitable institutions; corporations pass their cost along to people, and people happen to be the taxpayers of British Columbia. So that's point No. 1: don't let the government try and hide behind that kind of economic nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Absolute economic nonsense! The hon. member over there is saying that the end user pays, and he is going to go on and make the point that sometimes the end user is outside of the province. But what he's not understanding in that is the fact that the people working in that particular end-users plant could be paid more if it wasn't for the fact that this was passed on.

So in the end, Mr. Member, there is nobody who pays taxes but people. Corporations don't pay taxes. If you can get that through your head, then you'll stand up and speak against this statement in the budget saying that $90 million of the sales tax revenue is provided by corporations, because that is nonsense.

Next, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that a sales tax is the most inflationary kind of tax that anyone could

[ Page 297 ]

possibly imagine to impose. Inflation is measured by the cost of living. The cost of living is increased directly by the imposition of a sales tax.

MR. LOEWEN: Make a suggestion!

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to make a suggestion, Mr. Member.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: Had the Minister of Finance consulted me I could have saved him the embarrassment of having to make this suggestion in this Legislature. I could have told him beforehand....

AN HON. MEMBER: Please tell us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR., GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What are the other amounts, before I come to the suggestion as to what to do with the sales tax? — and it will not relate to anyone's ear. (Laughter.) What are some of the other amounts that have been taken out of the hide of the taxpayer of British Columbia?

An extra $170 million out of ICBC. No question — if you're going to put it in one budget you'd better put it in the next to be comparable.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the people pay taxes.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Extra-user charges on the B.C. Ferries — it's just a guess, Mr. Speaker, after looking through the estimates and the B.C. Ferries numbers we have, but I suggest the extra usage charges on the B.C. Ferries are maybe going to run to about the amount of $75 million. It's a guess.

Extra-user charges on B.C. Hydro — we already know those — those rates have been announced, about $50 million.

MR. LOEWEN: Oh, come on, give us a clue.

MR. GIBSON: So when you take the new revenues, add in the user charges, you get $616.5 million in new revenue, and when you add into that the automatic new revenues that are taken out of the people of British Columbia by the automatic action of the tax system and the growth of the economy — which is an extra $419 million, being the escalation over the $2.9 billion receipt of the last year — you find that compared to last year there is an extra $1.35 billion that is being taken out of the hides of the people of British Columbia by the new taxes and user charges of this government.

If you do a little percentage on last year's budgetary revenue of $2,900, you will find that that is 35 per cent more, and I suggest to you that that is quite an extra chunk to take out of the economy of the province.

MR. LOEWEN: Make a suggestion.

MR. GIBSON: I'll make a suggestion in just a minute, Mr. Member.

MR. LOEWEN: I can't wait!

MR. GIBSON: You'll have to get used to the process of logical thought by which these things are developed. (Laughter.) It wasn't bad, was it? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It was twaddle, not Tweedledee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

MR. GIBSON: They found another $28 million.... Just to complete the picture, Mr. Speaker, they found another $28 million in getting rid of a bunch of funds, $28 million in funds, which were flim-flam in the first place, and the hon. first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) knows that. He always used to stand up in this House and say how those funds were flim-flam. So it's a good thing that some of those funds were gotten rid of.

He's shaking his head. Look at that! He doesn't like to be reminded of the fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never said "flim-flam."

MR. GIBSON: It's a good word, though. Flim-flam funds.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you had a variety of expressions. I remember.

MR. GIBSON: There was one mistake in those funds they got rid of. Most of the funds are of no consequence; they were dodgy public relations devices of the former Premier, the former-former Premier (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett), once removed, whatever it might be. Except for one fund that was set up for good and sufficient reason to guarantee the independence of a certain body...and that body was the Economic Policy and Analysis Institute of British Columbia, which should have some independence of the government of the day if it's to work.

[ Page 298 ]

The government cancelled that fund, Mr. Speaker, and clearly they have no independence because they're going to be dispensed with, and this government is badly going to need economic advice. So that was a mistake, to cancel that fund. You see, Mr. Speaker, they deal in personalities, not in principles. Very wrong.

Now just before giving my suggestion, Mr. Member, I have to say two other things. The first thing is that this government has a totally nonsensical deficit phobia. They seem to think that if government goes into debt it's wrong. But it's not wrong if the B.C. Hydro goes into debt under their authority. It's not wrong if the BCR goes into debt. It's not wrong if all of these Crown corporations go into debt.

Why is it wrong for the government? We're back to that same old Social Credit nonsense: funny money updated to 1976. Overtax people today in order to buy favours from the voters tomorrow.

MR. LOEWEN: That wasn't us.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Member, you don't know your history of this province. You don't know the political history of this province. You don't know how Mr. W.A.C. Bennett used to take a little more money than was useful in year x so that in year-x-plus-three he could give a little more of it back.

MR. WALLACE: He's been reading McGeer's speeches!

MR. GIBSON: I was watching closely, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: He read McGeer's speeches! I read McGeer's speeches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GIBSON: This single-minded avoidance of a deficit, Mr. Speaker, is not consistent with the debt that runs all through the Crown enterprises. We don't hear the Premier or the Minister of Finance forbidding the Crown enterprises to undertake debt. Of course not. It is not fair to the citizens of today because it fails to spread over the appropriate time, be it 10 years or be it a generation, the cost of a public work such as a new highway, which may last 10 years or a generation depending on which minister builds it. (Laughter.) But you choose the appropriate write-off time.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Name names! (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I will bite my tongue, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Bite it hard.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: So, Mr. Speaker, that's not fair to today's citizens, is it?

MR. WALLACE: The ghost of Gaglardi!

MR. GIBSON: It's certainly not. It robs the citizens of today for pay for tomorrow. British Columbia is growing at 3 per cent a year. That means there is tremendous new infrastructure, Mr. Member, for hospitals and schools and parks and roads and all those fine things that new citizens of British Columbia need — growing at 3 per cent a year. That means that you are paying for those things today rather than the people who are going to use them paying for them over the next few years to come. The thing is, if you keep books that way, you are taking too much out of the hide of the taxpayers today.

The Minister of Finance talked about not having a drag on the economy by avoiding a deficit. I suggest that moderate deficits incurred as a result of capital programmes and properly amortized with sinking funds as those assets are written off ...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Like Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON:...are much less of a drag on the economy that a new sales tax that will be there for ever and ever and ever and a day and will not be removed as compared to one year's deficit which would have made it unnecessary to put that sales tax on.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Finance like Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. Premier says: "Finance like Ottawa." The hon. Premier can't keep his books as well as Ottawa. He tells us we can only have it quarterly. Ottawa can tell us what happens every month. I wish you'd borrow that technique from Ottawa, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Who are the other Conservative provinces in this country? Alberta and Ontario. Alberta is running a deficit this coming year.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Against a surplus.

MR. GIBSON: That's right; that's what their books say. Ontario is running a deficit of $1.2 billion this year and it's expected it is maybe going to be $2 billion next year. So I suggest that it is not completely out of the question for British Columbia

[ Page 299 ]

to examine the not-exactly-new financial technique of financing capital assets over the period of their life.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We'll remember. You're advocating Ottawa finance.

MR. GIBSON: But remember, Mr. Speaker, the motive for this year — the motive for not doing any kind of what I would call humane financing this year — relates to a political need of the government, a political need of the government to build up a financial position that two or three years from now, based on the cost to people today, will allow them to distribute goodies at election time.

That is what this budget is about; this is what this budget is about, Mr. Premier, and you know it, because you're the architect of this budget.

What about the underestimate of revenue on this budget? You know, Mr. Speaker, that's what Social Credit always used to do, underestimate revenue — that was the old Social Credit game. Then at the end of the year, lo and behold, there is a surplus. God bless us! Put it away in a fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want Ottawa financing.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting to you that based on the minister's own figures he has underestimated revenue growth in the existing tax system this year by over $100 million. The minister told us...

MR. LOEWEN: Would you suggest over expending?

MR. GIBSON: The minister told us.... I would suggest correct estimating, obviously, Mr. Member.

MR. LOEWEN: That's another one for you,

MR. GIBSON: The minister told us that a 10 per cent growth in the economy produced a gain in the tax yield of 11.2 per cent. He told us that a gain of 18 per cent in the economy produced a tax yield of about 24 per cent. And then he went on to claim that a 14 per cent growth in the economy, which is what he forecast, would produce something like something less than a growth of 14 per cent in revenue — only 13.7 per cent. Those figures don't jibe, Mr. Speaker.

If you do your interpolation on that line based on previous experience, you'll find that the likely growth is around 17.5 per cent. That means that there will be $100 million more revenue at the end of this year than this government is forecasting — over $100 million more at the end of this year.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They're the ones that gave the growth rate for British Columbia; they predicted it. It's right out of their figures.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier doesn't understand what this discussion is about. The discussion is not about the growth rate, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. I've accepted your figures. God bless us, let's hope that they're right.

The question is not about the growth rate; the question is how much revenue and how much cash is that growth rate going to throw off in the tax system. I say you have grossly underestimated it.

The conclusion, Mr. Member who has been waiting with bated breath, is this: that you don't need to increase the sales tax in British Columbia at all this year and you can still balance the budget. You find $100 million in that extra tax growth that the government has chosen to ignore.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's on the average. I used the same prediction that your minister used.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I hope the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has more precise indications about the growth of the economy that he just indicated here. Listen to what the Minister of Finance said in his speech.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: About shoe-fly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shoe-fly?

MR. GIBSON: I'll apple-pan you.

The minister said: "In 1975, the gross provincial product increased only 10 per cent, and provincial government revenues 11.2 per cent." He said: "Obviously, in the absence of an 18 per cent growth in the British Columbia economy next year, revenue adjustments are necessary." Obviously, that's correct, but then he went on and predicted that a larger economy would throw off less cash flow, and in that he contradicts every single past experience of this province and, I suggest, by $100 million.

So that's the conclusion, Mr. Speaker. You do not need that sales tax.

MR. LOEWEN: What do you do?

MR. GIBSON: I just told you what you do. You've got an extra $100 million, you see.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where? Show us where. Talk's cheap.

MR. GIBSON: There in the books. You'll see at

[ Page 300 ]

the end of the year. The government's underestimated it. Then you borrow another $100 million to build your highways, to build your public buildings, and then you've got the $200 million that you don't need to put the sales tax on for.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: That's not a magician's trick, no. That's just what's going to happen in the coming year, and I'm telling you that is a better thing to happen than imposing an extra sales tax on the people of British Columbia that will never come off.

HON. MR. McGEER: How do you know?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there's a general review of the budget. It is a highly partisan document.

MR. VEITCH: Partisan for the people.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, one of the government backbenchers just said: "partisan for the people." This is a pretty naive assumption, that his party is the representative of the people.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Elected representatives.

MR. GIBSON: I sent a note to a member of the treasury benches last week, when a Social Credit backbencher was speaking along the same line of logic. It wasn't the same member. I said I'd like to heckle but how do you imitate a turkey?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: That is the kind of talk we get out of that back bench, and I really hope...

HON. MR. McGEER: You don't have to imitate one.

MR. GIBSON:...that there's not too much of that kind of philosophical influence on the cabinet. It looks bad enough already.

MR. CHABOT: Gobbledegook.

MR. GIBSON: Gobbledegook is what's in the budget. That's exactly right, Mr. Member, and I congratulate you and may you not be a backbencher much longer.

It is a partisan document, Mr. Speaker, and the time this government goes wrong...this government has competent people. They are capable of doing competent things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: The time they go wrong is when they get motivated by a mean partisan spirit that is reflected in the last page of this budget, words that are unworthy of ministers of the Crown in a state document which is circulated around this country...

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON:...words that indicate that it's a bush league operation we've got over there, when they've got to use that kind of language to indicate the true state of affairs in British Columbia. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not the job of a new government to take the legacy they were left with, whatever they may think of it, and make the worst of it. It's their job to take it and make the best of it, and this budget distinctly does not advance that cause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the hon. member for Oak Bay, I recognize that in the speech of the former speaker, the phrase was used "deceitful figure," it could be called a deceitful figure. I'm sure that the hon. member did not mean to indicate any improper motive to any member, because it is the responsibility of the Chair to inform the other members of the House, some of whom are here for the first time, that the use of the word deceitful is not allowed in parliamentary procedure, and by the example of the use just made it could fall into everyday use in this House, which we could not afford at all. I appreciate the attitude of the member.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I did enjoy your little speech. I am just reminding the members of the House about the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, why not?

MR. WALLACE: I think the budget was best summed up by the wit who said that the Minister of Finance was so obsessed by pay-as-you-go it is a wonder he didn't reintroduce the pay toilet. (Laughter.) I don't think that really went through, Mr. Speaker, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: Flush it again.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We'll flush it out of the records. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the main theme of the budget and the main emphasis I would like to develop for a few minutes is the approach that, regardless of the measures required to achieve that

[ Page 301 ]

goal, this has to be a so-called pay-as-you-go budget. A moment ago, the Premier interjected that the budget is a report to the shareholders. I think in these four words the Premier very accurately reflects his attitude to government responsibility in the same light as indeed a board of directors has to its shareholders.

The big difference, Mr. Speaker, is that the government of this province is not a board of directors and it is not a corporation in which the citizens of this province buy shares, and that analogy which the Premier interjected in the debate I think absolutely epitomizes the basis for our criticism from this side of the House that the primary goal of this government, as they see it, regardless of any human element, is to balance the budget no matter how or who gets hurt in the process, or, what fiscal or taxation measures are required.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I never even expected that the Premier would be so blunt as to say that his appraisal of government responsibility through the budget is analogous....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't say that.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, don't shake your head now, Mr. Premier. You just said a moment ago — and I would hope it's in Hansard — that this is a report to the shareholders.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Which it is.

MR. WALLACE: And you drew an analogy which I am explaining from this side of the House and which I tried to....

MR. LOEWEN: Explain the difference.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I was just in the process, Mr. Member, if you'd just give me a minute. Some of these logical answers just take a minute or two to outline. I touched on this point when I quoted from a very interesting article in The Vancouver Sun during my throne speech, and I'd like to quote it again. I am glad to see that Frances Russell is in the press gallery because she wrote this article in The Vancouver Sun on March 8,1976. She says: "It's a rather frightening prospect for British Columbia." She's talking about capital expenditures being taken out of the operating budget for the kind of purposes that the Liberal leader was talking about a moment ago for highways and ferries and public buildings which will be used for 20 or 30 years by many other citizens in the years ahead. The article indicates that is a fundamental attitude to government that is hardly in keeping with the demands on the modern state.

This is where I would like to refer to the Premier's interjection and the analogy about the report to the shareholders because this attitude of government views the government as a completely neutral force. It is not to be a positive tool for social and economic betterment. It is merely in rhetorical terms to keep the trains running on time and operate the post office. I think that if the Premier feels that his government, in presenting the budget report to British Columbia, is acting in just the same way that a corporation board of directors reports to the shareholders, then we do, indeed, need to wonder if that isn't a very neutral approach to government based only on the concept that as long as there's nothing but black ink on the ledger then everything is all right with the people of British Columbia.

In the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the acute polarization between the two main parties in this House and the need or the hope that there would be some moderation both in political postures and in legislative debate. Unfortunately, this budget speech does not introduce that note of moderation into what in my view is a bitterly divided political scene. The speech, Mr. Speaker, is vindictive and harsh in its criticism of the former government, and this note further intensifies the polarization between the two main parties.

The sad fact is that the majority of people in British Columbia do not see the conflicting views of British Columbia's economic situation in such black and white terms where the Socreds are all right and the NDP were all wrong — or vice versa, that the NDP were all right and the Socreds are all wrong.

Extremism, as we mentioned the other day, is never the solution to any human problem political or otherwise. It seems to me most unfortunate that the swing of the pendulum in British Columbia is always so complete.

In the economic sphere we've swung from the free-spending big-government practices of the NDP to the rigid pay-as-you-go dogma of the Social Credit Party, no matter how taxes have to be raised and no matter what hardship the tax increases will inflict on certain groups.

Again, I just ask the question: does it always have to be one or the other? I happen to think not, and judging from many of the people that I've discussed the budget with over the weekend, there are many people who hold the view that a more moderate, more balanced and more equitable budget could have been put together.

The harsh and bitter tone throughout the speech has led many people to conclude that the Minister of Finance allowed political vindictiveness to cloud his sound reasoning on the economic situation in British Columbia. As a result we have been given not only a political tirade but a budget which in some respects — certainly not in all respects, in some respects — in the

[ Page 302 ]

area of the sales tax in particular, is punitive and is quite unfair to lower income groups. The justification for these measures, Mr. Speaker, is frequently attributed in the budget to the sins of the former government. I really believe that this is political extremism to a sorry degree.

The last page, Mr. Speaker, in particular, with all its "never agains" I think would have been well omitted from the budget speech. As I mentioned in response to the media at the weekend, while the former Social Credit Premier and I might have had our differences, I must acknowledge, and I wish to acknowledge, that despite Mr. W.A.C. Bennett's political fervor for which we all had respect, when he was Minister of Finance he did not prostitute budget day in the fashion in which it was used on Friday.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: And although I didn't take part in the discussion earlier on this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear on the record that I also feel that regardless of the protocol or procedure by which we try to correct situations in this Legislature, I do believe that it will do British Columbia no good whatever to have that last page of the budget speech circulated nationally and internationally.

The budget speech, Mr. Speaker, has like the throne speech, certain contradictions. As I mentioned a moment ago, the overall thrust of the speech seeks to blame the former government for all our financial ills. I would only say that I think there are many areas where blame is due and these have already been highlighted in the throne debate in this House.

I could not agree more that ICBC and a rapidly inflated payroll of public employees created serious problems in British Columbia. That is on the record and it's quite clear for any person with a reasonably objective approach to come to that conclusion. But, Mr. Speaker, the budget speech right on page 1 acknowledges, and I quote, "low world demand for our principal export products."

Page 7 of the budget says: "Recessions experienced by British Columbia's major trading partners, U.S. and Japan, resulted in reduced demand for some of our major products, particularly wood products, pulp and paper, copper and molybdenum."

Mr. Speaker, I submit that it wouldn't have mattered what stripe or colour of government we had had in British Columbia; there's very little that we can do to increase demand for our basic export products in other countries.

The specific figure that's worth mentioning which the budget spells out quite clearly says that one of these primary drops in revenue was $100 million because we didn't export as much lumber as was anticipated, and that that $100 million represents one-third of the revenue deficit.

I don't really feel that we're all being very intelligent with this black-and-white approach to the budget that all our financial problems result from the NDP or that from this side of the House we suggest that everybody over there is so stupid that they can't solve the problems. But there are national and international factors which, regardless of our provincial government, can create in very short order financial problems, either in terms of reduction in revenue or increased and unforeseen expenditures.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I have to sound a little cynical and say that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, and whether it's the world of politics or the world of MacMillan Bloedel, somebody has to carry the can back. I think that's unfortunate, and I think that in this debate I would hope to hear a note of moderation from both sides of the House where perhaps we could recognize fault and blame where it is due, but where we could establish also the fact that many of the external causes of our problems are not within the ambit of this House to solve at any time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to repeat the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) who just spoke a few moments ago. But I would like to ask one or two questions about revenue and expenditure in this budget, because the essential thrust of the budget is that British Columbia has a large deficit and that it has to be raised in the following manner, or the revenue has to be raised in the following manner to ensure that the budget is balanced.

We've all heard accusations here in former sessions about how you can do anything with figures. So I thought that perhaps we should at least zero in on the federal income tax paid by individuals. In 1975, that figure is shown as $52 million — I'm just taking round millions and not the hundreds of thousands, for simplicity's sake. But in 1975, personal income tax was $521 million and in 1976 it was $658 million, which we are told represents personal income tax at a time when real growth in the provincial product was less than 1 per cent. That increase amounted to $137 million in income tax — personal income tax.

The very interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the projected figure for 1977, even allowing for an increase of income tax rate, is only up by $157 million despite the fact that we are told that we can reasonably expect, or hopefully expect, something approaching 4.5 per cent in real growth.

Now I would agree that, as was mentioned by the Liberal leader, maybe 4.5 per cent real growth is overly optimistic. Mr. Speaker, in between '75 and '76, it was less than 1 per cent and income tax receipts went up by $137 million. Now we're looking at even 4 per cent real growth, and yet this budget shows a projected income tax revenue of $815 million, which is only an increase of $157 million. So

[ Page 303 ]

if there is any measure of real growth in excess of 1 per cent, then I think there's little doubt that the projected revenue from personal income tax of $815 million is very much underestimated.

Now we've heard comments in this debate about underestimation of other figures, but there's one figure, Mr. Speaker, which is fairly reliable, because the more jobs there are, the more wages that are earned, the more taxes that are paid. If we're assuming a 4 per cent or even 3 per cent increase in real growth, that spells out more jobs, more employment, more wages; and the more people working and earning more wages, the more people pay income tax as well as other taxes. I'm just trying to highlight the fact that the projected personal income tax revenue of $815 million, if we are going to have any kind of real growth at all of the order of 3 or 4 per cent, is grossly underestimated,

That brings me again to this concept of a balanced budget at all costs. I thought that one of the statements of the Minister of Finance in the budget very much reminded me of a joke we used to hear very often back in Scotland. The Minister of Finance on page 30 raised this question of operating and capital expenditure being taken from income, and he says: "The implied rationale appears to be that whatever everyone else is doing must be right." It reminds me of the story of the mother who was proudly watching her son graduate from military college, and as they all marched by, she said: "They're all out of step but our Jock."

It seems to me that maybe it's the other way around, Mr. Speaker. The British Columbia government, with this particular approach to financing — when in fact many other jurisdictions are raising capital over a longer period of years, and using operating capital for that single purpose, to operate the year-by-year budget — merits some attention.

It was already mentioned that other jurisdictions have deficits. The former speaker referred to Alberta. I am quoting from the March 20 newspaper, where the Alberta budget is up by 8 per cent, and where the government is transferring $570 million to the Alberta heritage trust fund to bring the total of the trust fund to $2 billion, which is a very wise long-term approach for the very simple reason that Alberta appears to have a date with destiny when they run out of oil, and has to have either a diversified economy or a great deal of capital investment which will bring them income 10 or 15 or 20 years from now.

But the point that I am trying to make is that even with these large amounts of money which Alberta is presently earning through its oil revenues, it chooses on an operating basis to budget for a deficit. So I would have to agree with other comments that have been made this afternoon, that this obsession with the idea that no matter what happens we must have a balanced budget is something which I think merits reconsideration by this government.

I particularly make the point, if my earlier suggestion is correct, that the projected income tax revenue for 1976-77 has been grossly underestimated. If you calculate something even of the order of 3 per cent natural growth in the economy, it probably will be underestimated by at least $100 million. Yet the government has taken in the budget tax measures to increase taxes, which will cause hardship for some people.

The budget, whether we like to admit it or not, is inflationary. There were comments on the other side of the House about corporation tax, but whichever way you define it, an increase of corporation tax increases the cost of doing business, and there's no doubt that the increased costs sooner or later are financed by the consumer who buys the product put out by that corporation.

Personal income tax has been increased, Mr. Speaker, and I would say that at least if more revenue has to be raised, then at least personal income tax is based on the ability to pay, much more so than sales tax, which I think is totally bad. It is a bad tax in principle. At the present figures which we have discussed, if there's a real possibility that income tax revenue will increase, then the $200 million being raised by a bad tax will probably prove to have been completely unnecessary.

I am not as convinced as others appear to be that the funds which are being recaptured were all flim-flam. I think there's a tragic air of cynicism in this House, if we're talking about the Provincial Major Disaster Fund as being flim-flam. In an affluent province like British Columbia, in a country like Canada, I think we are being mighty chintzy if we talk about an aid to developing countries fund that's got five miserable million dollars in it, at a time when the future of the third world and the development of the third world countries is probably the most influential factor in world economies. Here we are with a $3.6 billion budget, and we think that really it doesn't make too much difference to recapture the fund that was trying to make agricultural aid available.

MR. VEITCH: Charity begins at home.

MR. WALLACE: "Charity begins at home," someone says behind me. I don't know where the concept of the global village is when we talk, but charity beings at home for $5 million out of $3.6 billion, when we're talking about developing countries. But even more than the sum of money involved, Mr. Speaker, is the very easy suggestion in the budget that of course the interest from these funds has been allocated to the budgets of different departments, and the interest will still be made

[ Page 304 ]

available year by year. Mr. Speaker, that's a very naive assumption. I agree that it will happen this year, but I will go on record right now and say that in the years ahead, it will be very difficult in this House, going through budget figures, to find these items in the respective departments.

It's a little bit like the myth that was propagated years ago that when the sales tax went from 3 to 5 per cent the extra 2 per cent funding would be used for hospitals. You try and find that anywhere defined in the departmental estimates.

The sales tax, Mr. Speaker, deserves a passing comment because it is inflationary, it is unfair. It's quite obvious that from the figures published in the budget in relation to income tax on page 31 that a single wage-earner with an income of $10,000 will pay an extra $1.23 a month. I would agree that $1.23 a month to somebody earning $10,000 is not going to cause any hardship. But that's a far cry from the low and middle-income earner who has to pay an extra 2 cents on every dollar's worth of goods that he buys.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) isn't in the House because I happened to hear him comment on this on the radio at the weekend. He quoted the average citizen earning $10,000 a year. I felt that that so-called citizen earning $10,000 a year, yes, would not be penalized by another 2 per cent on buying consumer goods.

But I checked back on some of the records from the Department of Human Resources. At the present time, or at least in December, 1975, the number of persons in receipt of Mincome totalled 121,864. As far as I can determine from Statistics Canada there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000 persons employed either at minimum wage or very close to it. If you put the minimum-wage earner together with the recipients of Mincome, Mr. Speaker, you have almost a quarter of a million people in British Columbia who are just living on the border.

They have no flexibility in their budget. They are not the people that are buying cars and washers and dryers and expensive appliances; they are people who need every dollar they've got for the basic essentials for month to month and year to year.

I think it's a very simplistic answer to say that sales tax is okay because everybody pays. You bet your life everybody pays! The point is that everybody pays an additional 2 per cent. To some people it doesn't make much difference, but, as I have said, to at least a quarter of a million other people it makes a great deal of difference.

The Minister of Finance was quoted as saying that it's a good tax because it's up front — it's visible. But surely the visibility of a tax has nothing to do with its justice or equitability.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it's a very easy way out for the government and its conviction that it needs another $200 million. I've already said that I'm not convinced at all that they need that $200 million — but even if they do and even if events prove me wrong, I still feel that it would be a much more just and equitable way to tackle the raising of the money through income tax or some other tax or some preferred income tax on the higher earner. But raising sales tax is just too easy; it's just too simple. The government calls upon the retailer as a low-paid tax collector to bring in the $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, we've talked about the question of a balanced budget and the tremendous preoccupation which this government obviously demonstrates. I think it's fair to contrast this very rigid government approach to two other areas. The one has already been mentioned, namely the Crown corporations where last year we borrowed $855 million; this year it is to be over $900 million.

These are enormous debts, Mr. Speaker. Just because they are shoved off, as it were, into some Crown corporation budget, makes no difference and doesn't change the fact that the individual consumer finally is paying very large debt charges when he or she uses electricity.

I'm not suggesting necessarily that we can cope with Hydro without further borrowing. I'm not saying that at all. But what I am saying is: let's not be hypocritical. All this holier-than-thou approach that we've got the budget balanced and the reason it's balanced is that we believe in a pay-as-you-go principle, when we know very well that neither corporations nor Crown corporations, nor probably anybody right here in this building right now, could survive economically if we weren't borrowing somewhere....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Borrow selectively on the ability to pay.

MR. WALLACE: That's right.

We've heard lots of cracks about the car dealers in this House — and I don't propose to join in the kind of reflection that's being cast upon that title — but I would like to ask....

MR. CHABOT: Do you know any car dealers?

MR. WALLACE: I've a very good friend who's a car dealer, as a matter of fact. He ran against me in Oak Bay. (Laughter.)

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): What's wrong with car dealers?

MR. WALLACE: There's nothing wrong with car dealers. I was just trying to get to the point, Mr. Member, when the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) baited me.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker...what percentage

[ Page 305 ]

of car sales are paid in cash? How many cars would be sold if there was no borrowing? And, in fact, it makes no sense just to talk about cars in that relation, as I said a moment ago, whatever — washers and dryers and floor polishers and hair-dryers, and all the other appliances that for many, many people are only obtainable if they borrow.

I suppose that an even more explicit example one might quote is housing. How many of us would own a house if there was not the availability of capital? And even that isn't as available as it might be. But at least many people are able to acquire a mortgage and pay to acquire a house, which obviously they couldn't possibly consider if they had to find the cash,

So all I'm saying is — and I agree with the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — that borrowing must be a selective process. It certainly wouldn't be my suggestion, nor I hope the suggestion of any partisan party in this House, simply to go hog-wild in borrowing just to close a deficit.

As I'm saying, we're looking for some moderate answer, and the pendulum doesn't have to swing over in the other direction and balance it at all costs, even if it means putting up income tax, sales tax and several other taxes. I'm saying that there is a more middle-of-the-road and a more moderate way in which we feel the present financial situation in the province could have been handled.

MR. LEA: Or cutting services.

MR, WALLACE: I'm saying, Mr. Speaker... And one of the members was out of the House when I touched earlier on some pretty solid financial figures and percentages which suggest that the projected income tax revenue for 1977 is quite seriously underestimated. If the 4.5 per cent real growth in the economy which is projected is anywhere reliable, then it's certain that the $815 million figure will be much higher, if the economy really does grow by something even less than 4.5 per cent.

I'm saying that instead of going overboard in trying to be absolutely dead certain that we raise enough money to balance the budget, there's an area of flexibility in the budget that I think could have been more sympathetically considered. There may well be $100 million more in income tax revenue in the next year. If we look at the concept, perhaps, of a deficit of a $100 million, which in a $3.6 billion budget isn't much, that kind of balance between the income tax revenue and a deficit perhaps not exceeding $100 million would mean that you don't have to raise the sales tax at all. Raising the sales tax has to be inflationary — and think what these tax increases are going to do to the bargaining table.

It was the Minister of Labour who interjected a very reasonable question a moment ago, saying: what would we do? I just respond, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). The income tax, the sales tax, are two areas of increased expenditure to the ordinary employee which must surely be reflected in the argument they bring to the bargaining table.

All I'm saying is that, in the long run, a little bit of.... I won't use the word "gamble" because that's not what we're talking about. But the budget as it's now drawn up seems to make it very, very clear, from the taxes that are being raised, that this government will, indeed, balance the budget.

We think that some of the measures I've mentioned, and perhaps with looking at a moderate deficit in relation to the $3.6 billion, some of these tax increases could have been avoided. It would not only then be a case of not raising the sales tax, but we would be avoiding some of the other consequences, one of which is the inflationary consequence of unions quite correctly using this argument to try and justify a higher increase in wages.

As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting this is black and white, and that everything the government's doing is wrong and everything we say is right, I'm just saying that there are many factors in the budget which leave room for some flexibility which has not been exercised.

I particularly wonder in relation to the idea of quarterly reports, which, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, is one of the best parts of the budget speech.

There is often the feeling that governments know very well in which direction the financial state of the province is going, and any of us who spent the weekend trying to ferret out a lot of facts and figures find that it's not very easy sometimes. But if at least we did have a quarterly report from year to year, not only would we do a better job as legislators and opposition critics, I hope, but certainly the public generally would have a better idea of what was going on.

I try to take advice from people who are expert in the field of economics, and one of the simplest responses I've received from a person in this field is that this is not the time to raise taxes other than the absolute barest minimum needed to assure the government of either balancing the budget or coming close.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: When you need money for programmes, particularly parks or recreational social programmes, once you have the economy rolling and more revenue, which takes care of itself if the economy is rolling, that additional revenue can then be taxed. But to try and raise more tax at a time when the economy is just beginning to pull out of a recession, in the view of some economists, is the worst thing to do.

[ Page 306 ]

Now I can't accept that in total, because it seems to me that there has to be some reasonable attempt by government to at least approximate or close the deficit which now exists. What I suppose we are arguing about is the degree to which you go that last mile to be absolutely sure, or as sure as one can be at this time of the year, that a year from now your revenues will, indeed, slightly exceed your expenditures.

One of the other elements in the budget that really puzzles me somewhat, Mr. Speaker, is that I think we are all agreed about the need to get the economy going and that if the economy does pick up then more people will be employed and more money will be earned and more taxes will be paid. But there is strangely little, very little in the budget which I can see that could be considered as incentives to achieve that very goal in industry.

There is no mention of productivity or an attempt to enhance productivity. Again I would suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), that there is no interesting suggestion such as profit-sharing or any suggestion that maybe we should approach the federal government, because profit-sharing has to be attractive both to capital and labour and would involve Income Tax Act changes, perhaps.

But what we really need, or what I think is lacking from the budget, regardless of the interpretation of all the figures, is lack of incentives to industry; no mention of increasing productivity; and no mention of ways of raising other capital by means of profit-sharing.

I've mentioned already the fact that we seem to be very much obsessed by balancing the budget. I have a note here in my notes that you sometimes get the impression that this government regards borrowing as some cardinal sin, and yet, as I stated, Mr. Speaker, I've got the exact figures now in front of me that B.C. Hydro borrowed $881 million in 1975-76 and plans to borrow $995 million in 1976-77.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's capital.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm not necessarily saying that's okay. I'm just saying that we've got a black-and-white approach to borrowing in this House which really, when you look at all the aspects of it, doesn't make a lot of sense.

I would just say in passing also, Mr. Speaker — and perhaps the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) will speak in this debate — that there's a very disturbing statement in the Clarkson, Gordon report regarding the pension fund for B.C. Hydro employees. That is on page 29 of the Clarkson, Gordon report. It says:

"An actuarial survey of the employees' pension plan" — I'm talking about B.C. Hydro — "indicated a deficit in the plan of $41 million at December 31, 1974, and conditions which caused the deficit together with subsequent changes in the plan will result in an additional deficit, the amount of which has not been determined. The decision as to how to fund this deficit has not been made, and no provision for it has been made in the accounts."

I just assume that we'll be able to debate B.C. Hydro in much greater detail later in the session, but I think that particular paragraph regarding a substantial deficit in the pension fund of B.C. Hydro...I might give as notice to the minister that we would like to debate that and get the answers to it later in the session.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few comments in various areas. I think the budget speech very correctly emphasizes the disaster from protracted labour disputes, and it relates on page 6 of the budget that the time lost due to strikes and lockouts was 1.8 million man-days — the second worst in our history.

I wouldn't presume to know the average wage of the persons who accumulated that number of days on strike or lockout, but if you just take ballpark figures of an eight-hour day and an average wage of $4 an hour, which is certainly not high, this represents $60 million of earned income which, again, would have resulted, had it been earned, in income tax being paid, sales tax being paid, consumer goods purchased and employment enhanced. This, Mr. Speaker, really brings home, I think, the tremendous cost not just in the strike itself and in the hardship to the strikers but, indeed, to the economy as a whole.

I quoted from a federal study on our economic recovery in British Columbia the other day which pointed out that in the manufacturing industry in British Columbia the average hourly earnings are 30 per cent above the national average. This would certainly make competition difficult. That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the lack of any well-defined strategy in the budget speech either to rekindle the economy, as the phrase was stated in the throne speech, or to diversify the economy. The main emphasis still seems to be very clearly placed on our primary resources, and they are, indeed, important. But certainly in the past year or two — and the past year in relation to lumber and the past few years in relation to copper — show us just how vulnerable our economy is when we have sagging world demand for these primary resources.

So it's surprising that there is not more in the budget either to find incentives or to propose incentives whereby our primary industries might be

[ Page 307 ]

enhanced or, even more importantly, how we can diversify the economy by perhaps taking initiatives in the area of secondary industry.

Since this government took over, we have heard a lot of critical comments about some of the efforts made by the former government to get into other areas of employment. They have been harshly criticized for their attempts to create an oil refinery, and I am still not certain that this criticism has been justified. But there's absolutely no mention in the throne speech or the budget speech of such projects as smelters, steel mill, oil refinery, secondary industry. I wonder if the government has some definite plans.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) when he speaks in this debate, after he has that bridge fixed on the BCR, as to what the strategy of the government is, to diversify our economy and try to have British Columbia less dependent on two or three very basic primary resources which when the world demand decreases, we're in deep trouble. Again I quote the $100 million drop in revenue in lumber products in one year.

I have mentioned the whole question of productivity and incentives to the work force to increase its productivity. I think the whole question of profit-sharing in industry...to try and encourage not only the reinvestment of capital but to give incentives to employees through profit-sharing so that strikes and disputes of one kind or another will be somewhat reduced.

Now I am not suggesting that there is some fairy tale answer to all this. I know very well that profit-sharing isn't as simple as, it sounds either, but I am saying that it has been made to work in certain corporations. I would also agree with Stephen Roman, who wrote a very interesting pamphlet on the subject, that it is really not likely to succeed unless we have federal cooperation to make it attractive, from an income tax point of view, to both capital and labour.

One of the other surprises in the budget is the absence of any programme, or the mention of any programme, to assist the mining industry. The election campaign dealt at great length with the commitment by the Social Credit party to help the mining industry recover and to make its tax situation more attractive so investment in the mining industry would flourish. I would have to assume in this budget, because taxes have to be raised to bring in new revenue, that the loss of $25 million that was derived from mineral royalties is more than the government's prepared to stomach at the moment. But nobody on that side of the House has yet commented and I am assuming that the government is still committed to changing the formula for taxation on the mining industry. But, as I say, I would have expected a speech as important as the budget speech to outline some of the specific ideas by government.

There are several other aspects that I would wish to touch upon, Mr. Speaker, but it is almost 6 o'clock and I really don't feel that something as important as health and education should be crammed into the last three minutes. I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

MR. KING: I wonder Mr. Speaker, if....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I did not recognize you because I didn't see anyone on their feet when the minister moved a motion that the House now adjourn. I can ask the hon. House Leader and Provincial Secretary to withdraw the motion long enough to allow you to rise on a point of order, or something of that nature, if you so desire. Hon. Provincial Secretary, do you withdraw the motion until such time that I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will do so, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Provincial Secretary's cooperation. I just wanted to put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not you have reached a conclusion in terms of advice on the point of order raised by the hon. Liberal leader, pertaining to the budget speech matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Not as yet. It is under consideration, hon. member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: It is the petition of the British Columbia Association of Colleges praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Incorporate the British Columbia Association for Colleges.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Okanagan presents a petition.

MRS. JORDAN: I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the British Columbia

[ Page 308 ]

Association of Colleges be received.

Motion approved.

MR. KING: We are just waiting for that one resolution; may I speak on it?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, what matter is it which you wish to speak on? The Provincial Secretary moved that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 8 this evening. That was accepted by the House and voted on.

MR. COCKE: I'd just like to say that obviously the Whip system that the government was suggesting should be supported in this House is something that is breaking down already. There was no hint of this, Mr. Speaker. I was talking to the government Whip just a few minutes ago — not a hint at all. There are human beings over on this side who like to make plans, Mr. Speaker. It's just an outrageous kind of behaviour in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. COCKE: I have no speakers lined up and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) knows that. What kind of behaviour is this?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. COCKE: It's just ridiculous and you people know it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member knows that the motion to adjourn the debate on the budget was moved by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), that he has the floor when we go back into debate on that subject. I'd suggest that you do contact the government Whip concerning arrangements for this evening. I have no idea....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.