[ Page 471 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

ICBC investment position. Mrs. Wallace — 472

Increase in B.C. schools' fire insurance deductible. Mr. Gibson  — 472

Thompson River task force report. Mr. Lea — 472

Status of Newell Morrison. Mr. Macdonald — 473

Cutbacks in staff of Legal Services Commission. Mr. Wallace — 473

Information on ICBC deposits. Mr. Lauk — 474

Joint consultation on Constitution. Mr. Gibson — 474

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 475

Change of Name Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 34) Second reading.

Ms. Brown — 478

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 479

Motor-vehicle Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 32) Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 480

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 481

Freedom of Information Act (Bill 33) Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 481

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 482

Point of order

Correctness of procedure. Mr. Gibson — 482

Mr. Speaker — 482

Mr. Gibson — 483

Mr. Speaker — 483

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 (Bill 3) . Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace — 483

Hon. Mr. Mair  — 483

Mrs. Dailly — 484

Mr. Lockstead — 486

Ms. Brown — 489

Mr. Hewitt — 495

Ms. Sanford — 497

Mr. Kempf — 499

Mr. Barnes — 500

Statement

Withdrawal of whip from consultations. Mr. King — 504

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 504

Mr. Speaker — 504

Speaker's ruling

Alleged pre-release of budget information. Mr. Speaker — 504

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome this afternoon a man who has served the community of British Columbia for many years. He was the first mayor of Langley and served in this House as an MLA for Langley for nine years and during the last parliament that he served he was government Whip. Please make welcome Mr. Hunter Vogel.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I trust the members of this House can identify just a little with my pride and pleasure in introducing my wife, my son Kenton Ted and my daughter Lisa Rae who are seated in the gallery this afternoon.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon at Government House His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor had the pleasure of awarding to 33 young British Columbia men the certificates for the Queen's Venture Award. The Venturers are senior scouts and the Queen's Award is the major award which can be given to them. In the gallery today we have Mr. Ted Hathaway, provincial executive director of the Boy Scouts of Canada for the British Columbia-Yukon provincial council, who came with the boys to Government House for this ceremony. There are also representative members of the Venturers here in the gallery and I would like the House to welcome them and, in particular, I would like them to welcome Mr. Alan Dudley, one of the Venturers who is a close personal friend of mine.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to introduce in the Speaker's gallery today two residents of Gold River in the constituency of Alberni, Mr. and Mrs. Sims as well as their daughter-in-law who is with them.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the members to welcome June Bernard from Kitimat, Gail Johnson from Terrace and Megan Wilson from Smithers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are Barbara Wiskin and a group of six associates from North Vancouver who come each spring to the Legislative Assembly to study the finer points of parliamentary practice, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to recognize the presence of a former member of this assembly, a former member for the constituency of Delta; then, following redistribution in 1966, a former member representing the constituency of Richmond, Mr. Ernie LeCours.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, with deference to the Attorney-General, I would ask that the House recognize everyone else in the gallery who has not been previously recognized.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of the member for Vancouver South, but I want to make another introduction if I may. It's of Professor Andres and a group of political science students who will be in the gallery at 3 o'clock from the Trinity Western College in the first capital of British Columbia, Fort Langley.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to be cheated of this opportunity, either, to introduce to the House...

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): You were premature.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ...a group of senior secondary students from the Howe Sound Senior Secondary School who are here with some of the parents and teachers in order to watch the way in which their member and all members of this assembly conduct themselves with dignity and decorum.

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the 1975 report for the British Columbia Medical Centre, together with the audited financial statement for 1975 which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the first annual report of the Emergency Health Services Commission, together with a statement of financial position as of March 31, 1975.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Family and Children's Law, the 8th, 9th, 11th and 12th reports of the commissioners and supplement in accordance

[ Page 472 ]

with the Public Inquiries Act.

Oral questions

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, may I ask you when you'll bring down a ruling on my motion on the question of privileges?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Hon. Member, I hope to have a ruling by this evening before we adjourn at 6 o'clock. I'm in the process of preparing it and hope to have it for you before we adjourn.

MR. MACDONALD: Or tomorrow morning, possibly. I may not be here, Mr. Speaker. I have my own constituency to think about...as long as it is by tomorrow morning.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right. Make no mistake about that.

ICBC INVESTMENT POSITION

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the Minister of Education. I would like to ask the hon. minister what was the total of ICBC term deposits and long-term investments as of March 30, 1976?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I'll take that question as notice and try and file the answer by 6 o'clock this evening. The cash position, however, of ICBC as of March 30, as the member asked last night, was $461,000, Mr. Speaker.

INCREASE IN B.C. SCHOOLS'
FIRE INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the same minister. Is the Minister of Education aware that as of March 1, schools in British Columbia previously having a $1,000 fire insurance deductible were unilaterally moved up to $1 million and not notified until a circular was sent out by his department dated March 25? Is this an example of consultation with school boards?

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary then, given that that is indeed an example of consultation with school boards, since the local taxpayer will have to suffer half the loss of any school that burns down up to $1 million, or else pay much higher premiums, is this part of the government's programme of shifting educational costs onto the local taxpayer?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it makes no difference at all to the local taxpayer. One way or another the people of British Columbia have to pay for all the school losses through fire.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the same issue. Has any discussion, in the light of this notification to the school boards, taken place with the chance of making it again optional for school boards to buy fire insurance where they please, or will you maintain the monopoly of ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

THOMPSON RIVER
TASK FORCE REPORT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question to the Minister of Environment. On Monday last, March 29, I asked the Minister of Environment two questions. One, has the Thompson River task force report been released, and, if so, on what date? Also, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question I asked was: had representatives of the city of Kamloops and/or representatives of Weyerhauser been given an opportunity to see a preview of that report in the month of January. I wonder whether the minister has that answer for me today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, yes. The report was released January 22.

I would prefer to take your second notice continuing, if I may, on notice until, I believe, tomorrow at question time when I'll have a complete report on that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No questions, I'm sorry. Next week I'll have your supplemental question or I can file it. It's fairly comprehensive.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that supplemental. The January 22 report that was released, was that the actual report or was that just a summary of the report?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, that was the

[ Page 473 ]

final report issued, a joint report from Environment Canada and the Department of the Environment of British Columbia.

STATUS OF NEWELL MORRISON

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier whether Mr. Newell Morrison, the former MLA of this House, has been assisting the government in any capacity either as a consultant or in a voluntary capacity.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding he's been voluntarily assisting the Minister of Finance.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary. My second question to the Premier is: has he been assisting in any way in connection with preparation of the late budget — the current budget?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier says: "to the best of his knowledge", and I've never known what that means. I don't know after all these years. Will you check on the thing and see whether or not in any respect he assisted in the preparation of the budget?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister will be back from Ottawa where he is presently attending a federal-provincial conference of Finance ministers and I will take the question then as notice for him to provide an answer on Monday.

CUTBACKS IN STAFF OF
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General a question with regard to cutbacks of staff and financing affecting the Legal Services Commission. Since it is reported that several of the staff members being laid off have not completed a term of contract, could the minister tell the House how many severance settlements are involved and what will be the amount of money involved in these settlements?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, my general information — and I'm using the word general — is that there is not any person under contract at the present time with the Legal Services Commission. As the member is aware, this is a commission that is autonomous and separate and apart from government.

MR. WALLACE: In view of the cutbacks and the severe impact in the reduced financing, is the minister planning to meet with representatives, for example, of the Vancouver Legal Aid Society, who are just presently preparing their budget and who have reportedly made the decision that legal aid will not be available to persons accused of summary offences. In other words, there will be selective legal aid depending on the offence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that question, Hon. Member, I would like to read to the House and for your information, the amounts of moneys that have been spent on legal aid since its inception in 1970. For that year, $221,000; 1971, $594,000; 1972, $858,000; 1973, $1,161,000; 1974, $1,850,000; and quite an increase into 1975 of $3.737 million. In 1976, as of March 15, the figure has been given me of $4.4 million, and the estimate that has been allocated from the Legal Services Commission to the Legal Aid Society for this fiscal period will be $5.1 million plus an anticipated $400,000 from the law foundation. There has been a 10 per cent increase.

Dealing with the second part of your question, Mr. Member, we have to determine our priorities in society and legal aid cannot be an open-ended fund. Some people are of the opinion that that would be the best type of priority, but assessing the budgetary restraints that we're facing in this government, the government was able to allocate in budget, on which you can question me during estimates, $7 million to the Legal Services Commission. They have determined from their budget that they are prepared to pay $5.1 million.

Now the question as to which offences...well, it was a complicated question. I think the hon. members.... If you don't wish me to answer I'm happy to sit down.

MR. WALLACE: No, go ahead, I want to hear.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the classification of offences, this again is something that will have to be determined by the Legal Aid Society, and also one that is under current negotiation between officials of this department and the federal government concerning the federal contract. Both the federal government and the Government of British Columbia have reached the conclusion that it will not be possible to offer the same kind of legal aid that was offered in the past. It may be that there will be a restriction, say, in the cases of impaired driving, in theft under $200 and in the drug-trafficking cases.

The greatest drain of all that is placed on this legal-aid fund is in the situation of narcotic trafficking conspiracy cases. Heretofore there has been one counsel appointed by Legal Aid for every

[ Page 474 ]

accused and, hon. members, I think we've just got to reach the decision that this is too rich for our blood.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, and I'll try to be very brief, although it is a big answer the minister gave. One of the implications is that a 10 per cent increase per year was too much, when most other things increased by much more than that.

Secondly, there was an implication in the answer by the use of the word "open-ended." Am I to understand the minister was implying that the increased cost has been the result of abuse of the system?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I wouldn't say it was abuse of the system, Mr. Member. But there is no question that legal aid has been exceptionally ready and exceptionally available, and it specifically has in some of these very, very harsh cases. Now I think we've got to make up our minds as a society as to whether or not it is going to be a No. I priority to assist maybe those kinds of people.

It is a very vexing question, and it is now under consideration, that specific topic, both by the Department of Justice in Ottawa and the officials of this department.

If the hon. member would like something more explicit at any time, if he would let me know, I will endeavor to find the information for him.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplemental on the same subject. Could the Attorney-General give us any assurances he's received from the Legal Services Commission that the community law offices programmes will not be in any way curtailed, and that its expansion as planned will continue?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, the hon. Attorney-General knows, it was his statute...the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) . I'm doing the same thing as the Speaker. It's force of habit — and you've got my suit on today, I may say (laughter) . But the assessment of the priority standing of the Legal Services Commission is one that it fixes, as you know, without any intervention of government, and I understand that funds are available for community law offices, some of the education and information programmes and the native court-worker programme.

I have not received specifics from the Legal Services Commission as yet as to how they have allocated their funds. My only information is via the press and the questions from the hon. members.

INFORMATION ON ICBC DEPOSITS

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A question to the Minister of Education. Earlier in the question period he was asked a question with respect to short-term and long-term deposits of ICBC. He took the question as notice, and my question is this. Did not the minister receive that very information either this morning, some time today or some time yesterday from Mr. Bortnick, and if he did receive that information, why did he take the question as notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Out of order, hon. member. The question was posed. It was taken as notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my question was this: did he receive that information from Mr. Bortnick?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The question was taken as notice. I don't think....

MR. LAUK: That was not the question that was taken as notice, Mr. Speaker. The question I asked is: did he receive the information from Mr. Bortnick?

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of order!

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

JOINT CONSULTATION ON CONSTITUTION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier. We were some time ago informed through the newspapers that the Premier of Quebec (Hon. M. Bourassa) had contacted the premiers of the various provinces with respect to certain constitutional developments with an eye to working out a joint provincial programme. I would ask our Premier how that matter stands right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was in contact with the Premier of Quebec concerning the Constitution, the partition of the Constitution, and the concern that the Prime Minister of Canada (Hon. Mr. Trudeau) had announced that he would unilaterally patriot the Constitution. We came out with the other provinces that Confederation demands consultation and cooperation between the provinces.

This subject will be in discussion at the Western Premier's Conference, April 28 and 29. It will be taken up, hopefully, at a first ministers' conference to follow sometime later this spring or early summer.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, the question period was terminated by that bell.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, on the speakers of the day list you will see that the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) is No. 3, and the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is

[ Page 475 ]

No. 4. I request your permission to reverse these. The member for Omineca will be No. 3; the member for Rossland-Trail will be fourth.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

Orders of the day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued)

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to your post as Speaker, and also the Deputy Speaker. I'd like to congratulate all members of the government who were elected in the election on December 11, and I would like to congratulate all members of the official opposition, the Liberal member and the Conservative member. Each of us has a very big job to do and it requires both a good government and a good opposition to do the job.

It was an honour for me to have been elected by the people of Yale-Lillooet to represent them in this Legislative Assembly, and it was indeed an honour to be selected by the Premier to serve in his cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, the objectives of this government were spelled out before the election, and I was elected to help fulfil these objectives. I was elected to help provide responsible, stable government, and to serve the people of this province...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...and this I will do.

As a newcomer to this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, my initial reaction, which may be shared by those who visit the gallery, especially the younger people, was is this the manner in which the affairs of British Columbia are managed?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm afraid so.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some of the things that take place in here, quite frankly, surprised me, and I wonder is this really necessary, all the nonsensical personal attacks, the needless repetition and the childlike antics of so many of our members.

I've heard some good speeches in the Legislature. A couple I'd like to mention: one was the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber); he had some very meaningful things to say to us and I think we should all, perhaps, pay a little more attention to what he did say.

Another excellent speech which, to me, had a great deal of real reason, outlining our problems, suggested solutions — to me the type of thing we really should be talking about here — was the speech of the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) . The minister was very specific and told us what our problems were, some of the things we could do about it. We should consider very seriously his remarks.

We as a government must listen to the people of British Columbia, and also listen to the opposition, for this is the essence of democracy. And they must listen to us, for anyone can say "no, " but if anyone does say "no" then they have the responsibility of providing workable alternatives.

It is easy to give destructive criticism, but this is not what we want from a good opposition, or a good government. It requires far more effort, more integrity and professional ethic to contribute criticism and viable ideas, and we do have to admit to being professional politicians. Let us conduct ourselves in a reasonable, businesslike manner, and let us never forget that our responsibility is to all of the people of this great province.

If, 15 months ago, anyone had suggested I would someday be a politician I would have been very amused. Webster's dictionary describes a politician as "a person actively engaged in government or politics", and of politics, Webster says "the art or science of government; the guiding or influencing of governmental policy, or winning or holding control of government."

Today, I am a politician and at times I'm reluctant to recognize this fact because of the general public impression of what a politician is — a Senator Foghorn. We have heard and seen too much of Senator Foghorn in these chambers, and I would like to play a part in making the term politician...

MR. WALLACE: He's talking to you, Don.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...a respected word and a goal worthy of achievement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: To do this, politicians must behave like responsible people, both here in the chamber and outside — like responsible people. We must be true to our political philosophy and we must listen to those of different ideologies. We must be honest with ourselves and honest and sincere when speaking to others. How many of us here can really say that we believe everything we say in these chambers sincerely? Let us make the term "politician" synonymous with the term "leader." Let's be proud of being politicians.

Mr. Speaker, as politicians we are stewards of a democratic governing system, entrusted with safeguarding the freedom, the health and the welfare of the people of this province.

The people pay a considerable portion of their

[ Page 476 ]

hard-earned incomes to maintain a government bureaucracy, and a government bureaucracy always functions efficiently if it has good political leadership and good, responsible, honest opposition.

Like any other leadership role, to be successful, the first requirement is to earn the respect of those who have to be led or motivated. I believe that this is not just a matter of the philosophy or the ideology of the legislative production of this House, but that it is equally a matter of our behavioral pattern and performance which must set an example to inspire those whom we lead and, through them, the confidence of all the people of British Columbia.

The last few years have seen a regrettable erosion take place of this very important respect and confidence people have towards their politicians. As a novice to the game I am, perhaps, naive enough to believe that this confidence can be restored by hard work and sincerity.

In Canada, and in British Columbia particularly, we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. We live in a province that has bountiful resources and which has the people, the technology and machinery to turn these resources into prosperity, and thereby ensure our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I have been aware of government in British Columbia only since about 1952, the year I graduated from high school. British Columbia and the world had just come through a serious depression, a world war and a period of post-war adjustment. We had problems with financial difficulties then, just as we have today. But we also had raw materials and people-resources, and we had a government that believed in individual enterprise, just as we have today. We had a government that knew transportation was the lifeline of industry, and that power was essential to development. The combination of individual enterprise and personal initiative was the catalyst which created a better way of life over the next 20 years.

For example, the gross value produced by the forest industry in British Columbia in 1952 was about $500 million. In 1973 it was $2.5 billion. The mining industry in 1952 had a gross value production of $171 million, and the same industry in 1973 had a gross value production of $1.1 billion. We had a government that initiated and embarked on the development of transportation and power systems, highways, railways, ferries and power dams such as the Peace River Dam, the Columbia River Dam and the Arrow Dams. We had a government, Mr. Speaker, which inspired and encouraged policy which led to development of our basic industries — forestry, mining, agriculture and tourism. These industries were developed by people who were willing to work and people who knew that we must all put a little more into society than we demand from it.

I hear much talk, much reference to the working people. It seems to be a very popular phrase. "You are doing something against the working people, " they say. But who are the working people? I think we are all working people. It matters not whether we drive a truck in an open-pit mine, or that we work in the forests or in offices, or whether we are businessmen — each of us depends on the other. We are all working people, and we are all working towards a better way of life in British Columbia. The entrepreneur could not survive without the man who is working with his hands; neither can the man who is working with his hands survive without the entrepreneur. So we are each dependent on each other.

As the economy of British Columbia grew so did our ability to expand our social programmes — social assistance, health, education, housing, recreational facilities. But these measures only came as we developed the ability to pay for them. The economy grew under proper guidance from the government of the day, and British Columbia and British Columbians became the envy of Canada. We had used our bountiful resources to create a better way of life for all British Columbians.

The government opposition, too, played an important role by urging the development of important programmes. The opposition is and always has been an important part of government. In 1972 a new government was elected in British Columbia, a government with such a huge, social and political obligation that they lost sight of the fact that government can only produce what society as a whole can afford.

Individual demands grew faster than the ability of society to satisfy them. The work ethic that built our society began to decline. The confidence of investors was lost as the political and economic climate of British Columbia began to deteriorate. The development of our resources stopped, and with it the broadening taxation base that is essential to provide the services to the people of British Columbia. Because our economy stagnated unemployment grew and welfarism then became a way of life for too many of our people.

Increased obligations of the government and decreasing revenue for the government has led to the situation we are faced with today. If government is to continue to provide the services which are demanded of it, it must either increase taxes or increase the tax base. At the present time we are forced to do the former. Hopefully, by creating the proper climate in British Columbia now, we can expand our tax base.

If we are able to continue to afford expansion of social services and benefits for people, the people who produce the wealth — the working people and the investors — must both share the fruits of their efforts. It is only with taxes taken from them that governments provide the services that people must

[ Page 477 ]

have.

The decline of mining in British Columbia was caused primarily because a short-sighted government took too much from an industry and expanded social measures faster than could be afforded. Jobs for working people and opportunity for investors were lost.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You don't believe that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this attitude was expressed by the then Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) on March 11, 1975. On a television interview he complained of the unfair treatment his government was receiving from the media. He said: "All we want to do is to tell the people how they can plug into the system."

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia do not want to plug into the system; they want an opportunity to become a part of the system. They want the chance to work and to help themselves. They do not begrudge help to those who cannot help themselves, but they do resent being forced to support people who are able to work but who refuse to contribute to our society.

There are too many who just want to plug into the system and live off the workers of British Columbia.

The Premier has given me the responsibility for the Mines and Petroleum Resources portfolio and for the forest industry portfolio. These three industries — mining, petroleum, natural gas and forestry —  create most of the job opportunities in British Columbia and most of the revenue for government. These industries must be encouraged, for if they die, so does the way of life we have come to expect in British Columbia.

This is why the Forest Service is reviewing policies and the enforcement of unrealistic rules and regulations that add substantially to the cost of forestry operations. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing legislation this session which will offer encouragement to the mining industry, and allow this industry to once again take its rightful place in our economy so it can provide jobs and opportunity to British Columbians — so that it can provide jobs and opportunities and increasing revenue for the Government of British Columbia.

Of course, government must obtain a fair share of the revenue generated by these industries. But if too much is taken by government, nothing will be left for wages for workers or for investors so they will continue to invest in British Columbia and to expand our economic base. These industries are not bottomless wells of tax revenue. If taxation or wage demands or any other single factor make them economically non-viable, then we will be the poorer for it.

British Columbia can be an extremely wealthy province. We have vast resources which can be developed for the benefit of all British Columbians. But unless they are developed, they will benefit no one. In 1973, the former Premier stated: "Unless we can get a better deal for what we are doing, we will leave the ore in the ground, and I mean it." He said: "...we will leave the ore in the ground." That's where the ore remained — in the ground. Today some of these resources are not economically viable, and British Columbians and British Columbia are the poorer for it.

When the ore remained in the ground, so did jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

The potential wealth of this province is such that we can and will, with the proper economic and political climate, be Canada's leading producer of minerals. We can, with the proper economic and political climate, develop secondary industry allied to our mineral production, and thereby expand our whole economic base, and thereby provide more jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it's all about. That's what it's all about.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The potential of proven coal resources in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is the envy of the free world. Now that we are once again a part of the free world, we can look forward to dramatic expansion in the development of this resource. As our coal resource is developed and expanded, we can and will encourage the establishment of secondary industry based on our coal resource, and thereby provide more jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We still have vast untapped petroleum and natural gas potential in British Columbia. By creating the proper economic and political climate we will continue to explore for and develop this essential resource to provide for the energy needs of our society.

Toward the end of its term in office the previous government recognized the fact that the petroleum industry must have a reasonable return if it was to continue to finance the development and exploration of this important resource — towards the last part of its administration.

AN HON, MEMBER: Death-bed repentance.

HON, MR. WATERLAND: Last year it admitted that taxes and royalty policies were too restrictive, and they made changes which offered some incentives to the oil companies. The result of these changes and subsequent return to an individual enterprise

[ Page 478 ]

government in British Columbia resulted in the fact that this year, now, we have 39 drill rigs working in the north, whereas last year, under the terms of that government which had established these terms two years before, we had six drill rigs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Shameful!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No confidence in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the present government will continue to encourage the development of our oil and gas potential, and so ensure a continuing energy supply for British Columbia and jobs and opportunities for British Columbians.

Hon. Mr. Waterland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, public bills in the hands of private members: second reading of Bill 3 1.

LEGISLATIVE INDEMNITIES
AND EXPENSES TRIBUNAL ACT

On behalf of Mr. Skelly, Mr. Lauk moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE
ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker. I notice that it is not printed and you may advise....

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Is it printed? Fine.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

M S. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill, even though this opportunity came to me as the result of a double-cross...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: ...on the part of that government over there. We sat in this House two nights ago and heard the Premier talk about the Whip system breaking down...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MS. BROWN: ...when this government chooses to see their Whip system break down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Will you please confine your remarks to the principle of Bill 34?

MS. BROWN: This is in support of Bill 34: we have had an opportunity to discuss it because we're seeing the Whip system breaking down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That is not in order to discuss the Whip system under Bill 34, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Bill 34 deals with an amendment to the Change of Name Act. As the Act is presently constituted, married women in this province cannot change their names as long as their husbands are alive — no matter what the circumstances may be, even with their husband's permission, their mother's permission, their father's permission or whatever.

This amendment is one which I have spoken on in this House a number of times. It's nothing new to this province, so much so that it was referred by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) when he was Attorney-General to the Berger Commission. The Berger Commission brought down a recommendation in their report No. 11, which I think was tabled in this House earlier today, recommending that this should be permitted — that married women in this province, as long as the changing of their surname did not in any way affect the position of their husband's surname, should be permitted to do so.

[ Page 479 ]

There are a large number of women in this province who do not realize that it is not necessary for them to take on their husband's surname when they get married. Some people know this now because, certainly, within the women's movement — through the Status of Women council and other groups — we are beginning to publicize this, but there are still a large number of women who do not know this. There are a large number of these women who would like to change back to their original names.

It really is disgraceful that it is possible for children to change their names in this province, provided they get permission. It is possible for men to change their surnames in this province, provided the necessary papers are signed and that they're not doing it for any illegal reason. But it is not permitted, as the Act very clearly states, during the lifetime of her husband.... I'm glad you're listening, Mr. Premier, because this is the kind of information you should find very useful when you're not double-crossing us anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MS. BROWN: I withdraw that statement. I withdraw that statement, because this is a very important matter which I am discussing and I'm certainly hoping to get cooperation from the government in this respect.

When the women presented their brief to you, Mr. Premier, you promised at that time that you would look very seriously at some of the recommendations in that brief. This was one of the recommendations in that brief. I'm sure by now you've had an opportunity to read that brief. You've given me the opportunity to speak, and I certainly appreciate your giving me that opportunity to speak. It would have helped, Mr. Premier, if I'd come by it some other kind of way, but that is another matter.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, the member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, if I can continue without any further interruptions from the government benches, I'm sure that there are a number of people over on the government benches who did not know, in fact, that there was legislation on the books of this province which prohibits married women — even those over the age of 21, who have reached maturity, as we say in this province — from changing their name if they wanted to.

The recommendation brought down by the Berger Commission is that this Act should be amended, that in fact this section of the bill should be withdrawn, that there's absolutely no justification for hurrying it on. I certainly hope that the government members are going to ensure that this recommendation of the Berger Commission is implemented as soon as possible.

There are a number of letters which I'll be very happy if the person responsible, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland).... This comes under vital statistics, Mr. Minister of Health; it's your department that is responsible for this. There are all kinds of materials that I could table for your benefit if you would like some kind of advice in this regard.

But certainly the work has been done on it. The recommendation is there and I hope the government will accept this amendment to that really innocuous little piece of legislation, because nobody has been able to come up with any justification or any reason why that legislation is on the books today.

It is one of the things that certainly not just this province asked for, but also through the declaration of human rights from the United Nations which declared that the next 10 years should be the decade of action for governments around the world to move towards the true equality of women under their jurisdiction.

I hope that that government over there...you particularly, Mr. Premier, because you did indicate that you were interested. Despite the things done by your government so far in terms of terminating funding to various women's programmes, you did indicate on March 22, when you were lobbied, that you would look at the recommendations embodied in that report and possibly consider implementing some of them.

Bill 34 is one of those recommendations, and I'm certainly hoping that you will work to see that it is implemented. Thank you very much.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I'd like to thank the first member for Vancouver-Burrard for her introduction of this bill. I'd like to tell her that there are instructions before the department to review this matter in connection with the Berger Commission recommendation, and that it's under active review at the present time.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope I'm not out of order, but as a lady member of this Legislature, I should just like to say that I'm deeply distressed that the most legitimate concerns of women in this province, so ably put by the member for

[ Page 480 ]

Vancouver-Burrard should be...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...so distorted by personal vindictiveness and personal....

MS. BROWN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been accused of personal vindictiveness. Would the member like to clarify precisely what act of personal vindictiveness I have involved myself in?

MR. SPEAKER: Now hon. member, you are out of order. I already moved the member for North Okanagan out of order in rising in her place to try to discuss a matter which will come under debate whenever the bill is called again.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since we've talked a lot about the Whip system not working and since we had no notice that these bills would be debated — I was out of the House about five minutes — I would ask leave to revert to Bills 32 and 33.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): I was just about to ask leave of the House if we could now, while the hon. member for Oak Bay is in his seat, refer to the second reading of Bill 33.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me. Before I put the motion, is this a point of order?

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I wish to make a statement pertaining to the same matter which the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I am sorry but leave has been asked for and granted for the member for Oak Bay to proceed on Bill 33. I think I have to recognize the bill.

MR. WALLACE: I happen to be sponsoring both 32 and 33, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't matter to me which one we do first.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Hon. Member, it is proper to call them in order, so that's what I'll do.

MR. WALLACE: It's getting a little difficult to know just what is proper around here, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second reading of the Motor-Vehicle Act Amendment Act, 1976. I appreciate the opportunity to talk just very briefly on the second reading of Bill 32 which I am sure all members of the House have individually considered. The principle is the very important one of making the wearing of seat belts mandatory.

We have heard the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) talk about the activity of a committee in his area which wants to take the car out of carnage. I think that, in one word, exemplifies the principle of this bill: namely, that statistics from all around the world have shown that while seat belts are no complete answer to the traffic accident carnage, at least they have been shown to reduce not only the incidence of death — fatal injuries — but also the diminution of those injuries which people survive.

The one area in the principle of this bill which I am sure concerns all of us is an element of interference with the right of the individual in being compelled to wear a seat belt. I am sure we all know of the gentleman in Ontario who was recently convicted and chose to spend four days in jail rather than pay a fine. The element of interference with the rights of an individual has to be equated with the rights of society, the cost not only in human lives and injuries in automobile accidents but the actual economic and dollar costs. I am sure the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), above all others perhaps, is aware of the number of people who are severely injured and spend weeks or months in an acute-care hospital and incur a very substantial cost to the taxpayer. One could raise many other peripheral issues in this debate but the central one is that the statistics have shown in almost all countries where proper studies have been done that seat belts diminish the incidence of death and serious injury.

The only other argument that leaves me in any kind of doubt at all is the interference with the right of the individual to choose. But in this case it seems to me we're becoming such a mobile society with more and more vehicles of all kinds on the highways that the interests of society override in this instance the loss of choice which would be incurred by the individual in being compelled to wear a seat belt or otherwise be penalized.

I move second reading of this bill.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made some very valid points in his remarks in the introduction of Bill 32. The bill that he has presented to the House is very, if not completely, similar to the legislation that has been introduced in Ontario. His interest is the same as the government's and I think every member of the House. That's traffic safety and as much protection for the individual in motor vehicles as possible. It is a proposal that is under consideration and study by the

[ Page 481 ]

government. There is some question, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not the bill in its form is in order, because it's a possible impost against the Crown. But I am not going to raise that today and I will move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

MR. GARDOM: Will you consider an adjournment until the other member is back?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second reading of the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Speaker, we've entitled this bill Freedom of Information Act but under section I we state that this Act may be cited as the "Macdonald-Gardom Sunshine, Act, 1976." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: We always have a little frivolity, Mr. Speaker, when we discuss the subject in the House. I well remember the now Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) typical humorous approach in introducing second reading of a very similar bill on more than one occasion. And the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) who, unfortunately, isn't in the House at the moment, had also introduced a bill.

Again, one could talk at great length, but, very simply, it really amounts to the fact that we all recognize the ever-burgeoning size of governments at all levels and the distance that is being placed between the individual citizens and various levels of authority. We're also living in a very bureaucratic age where rules and regulations seem to proliferate and the paper work that gets between the individual and various levels of authority is mountainous; otherwise we wouldn't have to buy shredders.

So there is a real anxiety on the part of many, many people in our province and in our country that not only is the individual losing his or her realistic access to the people who wield power over their individual lives, but when that individual has suspicion to think that perhaps these various levels of authority are acting either without authority, or are acting on information which may well be incorrect, that individual has more and more trouble getting access to that very pertinent information. We've already had legislation, in other jurisdictions as well as our own; regarding the whole question of the granting of credit and the difficulty that some individuals have in finding out why they have been refused credit.

So the main thrust of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to try and ensure that in that whole area of government and various boards and tribunals — whether it be school boards or parks boards or any other kind of board or tribunal which has authority over the individual — in order to exercise that authority over the individual — in order to exercise that authority fairly and legally there must be complete, free access of the individual to that authority in order to provide him or her with all the information that is being acted up on.

One of the interesting elements we've tried to put in the bill refers to the commitment by this government that there will be an ombudsman created in the province. It would seem to us that where the individual makes an attempt to find out about personal information at any level of government, and where that person is refused the information, this would be a very useful role for the ombudsman to fill by investigating the complaint, and either justifying the withholding of the information or ordering its release.

I know that the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was quoted recently about the unhappy tendency of certain municipal councils to hold more and more meetings in camera. I couldn't agree more since I've had some experience in this area, municipally, myself. I couldn't agree more that his awareness of the danger of this progressive secrecy in government is very great.

While it may seem a small step at a time, if we ever lose sight of the fact in this House that freedom is something that has to be protected incessantly day by day, if not minute by minute, that each little step which this House permits to be taken which will restrict the freedom of the individual, then indeed we are losing sight of our main responsibility in this chamber.

I think that this kind of bill, which I know has the whole-hearted support of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom).... Many of the ideas in this bill are exactly those ideas which he had previously outlined in legislation, because I read his bill very carefully in preparing this one.

It is a very important issue: not just the freedom of the individual, but the freedom of the individual to protect his interests. The individual has great difficulty protecting his interests if he cannot have access to the information being used to either influence his privacy or his credit capacity, or any other fact that impinges upon his private or public life.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House will likely wholeheartedly, without any thought of obstruction whatsoever, give the greatest support to this bill. I move second reading.

[ Page 482 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his most generous remarks. I indeed hope the type of legislation that is proposed by this bill will become a reality in this province, and we won't have to see it introduced at some later stage in life as the Macdonald-Gardom-Wallace Sunshine Act.

But I wish to say that I'm certainly all for fiat lux in all of its forms, that the practicality and the operation of this measure that has been suggested by the hon. member is one that must have greatly distressed and caused considerable concern to the former government, because they did not see fit to introduce any legislation whatsoever along the lines elucidated within the bill and as articulated by my friend, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . But improved accountability, Mr. Speaker, is the clear direction of this government. We're instituting, as the hon. members well know, eventually the office of an ombudsman to help the citizen wade through the bureaucratic snarls of red tape and also to help the citizens in the case of administrative wrongs and, furthermore, an auditor-general to watchdog the finances of the province.

The bill as it stand, Mr. Speaker, is clearly an impost upon the Crown and, as such, it is not possible to be introduced by a private member. It's up to you, Your Honour, as to what steps you wish to take in that, but I would be quite pleased to move second reading now.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading, hon. member?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, adjournment.

You've got to make a few mistakes at the beginning now and then, Mr. Member. You know that. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General moves adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could I just say that while we're being very negative about procedures in the House, this particular little session this afternoon represents a big step forward inasmuch as private members have been allowed, at least in a few words, to outline a bill and not be quickly interrupted and told it's out of order so that you can't even introduce it. I think that while that may seem a very small step forward, it might encourage a sense of optimism about the future affairs in which this House will operate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that, Mr. Member, it has to be noted by the House that private members' day was not called once in the last session.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I would like to respond on behalf of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

MR. COCKE: No. You allowed a statement regarding this private members' day, and I'd like to make a statement regarding private members' day.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. COCKE: The government found themselves in an embarrassing position today having broken a deal, and then they had to move into private members' day because we wouldn't allow them the permission to go any other way. What a bunch of nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will give notice that there will be private members' days recognized in the future in this House by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we proceed to second reading of Bill 3.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and seeking your guidance, I'm very, very puzzled about the procedure we've gone through this afternoon. Once debate was adjourned on Committee of Supply, which was first off on the orders of the day after oral questions, we should have — except by leave — gone on to first of all petitions — and I presume there are none today — presenting reports from standing or special committees, and there are none today. We should then have gone on to motions and adjourned debates on motions, which has precedence, certainly on Wednesdays and Thursdays, according to the provisions of standing order 27. I would ask Your Honour to rule that while the procedure we have followed up to now might be somewhat irregular, we can at least regularize it — before moving on to public bills — by going back to motions and adjourned debates on motions in order that we may follow our rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, while the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is quite correct as to

[ Page 483 ]

the position of certain motions on the order paper, it's not for the Speaker to determine particularly the order in which they will be taken. It's not unusual for the House Leader, either by leave or by putting a motion, to move from one order of business to another. In this particular case, the House Leader moved a motion that we call public bills in the hands of private members. At that time I put the motion and no objection was taken by any member of the House, so I have to assume that at that point there was no objection by any member of the House to move into that stage of the proceedings of the House for this day. If an hon. member had raised a point of order at that particular moment I would have dealt with the point of order then.

Interjection

MR. SPEAKER: No, you didn't raise a point of order when we moved into the matters of public bills in the hands of private members. We called that order of business and you, on behalf of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), moved adjournment.

Then, by leave of the House, when the hon. member returned to his seat, we went back to debate the bills which ordinarily would not have come up again until such time as that order of business was again called. Objection having not been taken at the time when it would have been proper to take it, I assumed that this was the will of the House.

Now it could perhaps be argued; how does the Speaker determine what is the will of the House? The only thing that I can offer to you, sir, in reply is that when the hon. Provincial Secretary moved a motion to proceed to that order of business I put the motion and the question was affirmed by the House and passed. That's where we were at in terms of order of business for today.

MR. GIBSON: I'd just like to say one thing on that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just as a matter of practice in the House, it would seem to me only proper that whenever leave is required, leave should be asked for specifically and not assumed, because hon. members often will not appreciate that they have the opportunity of giving or denying it.

MR. SPEAKER: There are two ways. One is by leave and the other is to move a motion that we proceed to a certain order of business. Obviously when it's passed that is the will of the House.

MR. GIBSON: If I could understand where we are now — we now have a motion before us that we move to public bills and orders, if I understand it correctly, said motion being....

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 3.

MR. GIBSON: The motion, I believe, to move to public bills and orders is a debatable motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment.

I draw the attention of the hon. member to page 4 of orders of the day. We have proceeded so far to public bills in the hands of private members, being private members' day. We have dealt with that order of business. We are now onto the next order of business, which is public bills and orders. Under that order of business the hon. Provincial Secretary has called for second reading of Bill 3.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT
REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976
(continued)

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that I had only one minute left so I took time to prepare a very short summery.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 3 proves that the members opposite are still fighting the last election. Instead of governing this province, they have spent the past three months looking under every stone to find every possible way to create the largest possible operating deficit they could for 1975-76.

Now they have their backs to the wall, Mr. Speaker, and they are asking the opposition to bail them out by giving immediate assent to Bill 3. We are unalterably opposed to Bill 3 over on this side of the House and we demand our rights to set forth our position under the provisions of the rules of this House. We demand the time that is set out in those rules to state what our position is.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest and admiration to the remarks of my colleague, the Minister of Mines, and while I perhaps will not be able to live up to all of the injunctions he gave the House, I certainly will try to be brief.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am distressed that the only remaining member for Vancouver East is not here today, because I think that out of all of the statements I have heard from the other side of the House, something that he said is the only thing that made any sense. He advised the House that matters over $200 within his household were handled by his wife. I have but one word of advice to Mrs. Macdonald, whom I have never had the pleasure of meeting, and that is that on the record of the opposition, she is extending far too much credit to her husband.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some interesting theories of finance from the opposition during the last number of days, and it seems to me that they boil down simply to this, that what this government ought to do in their submission is to finance last year's

[ Page 484 ]

expenses out of this year's revenue.

Mr. Speaker, that will work under one set of circumstances: It will work the last year of the universe when you don't have next year to face. I am an optimist and I think we're going to have next year to face. Under those circumstances, to follow the opposition's suggestions would be, at the very best, to postpone the agony, and, at the worst, to perpetuate the type of muddle-headed, magic-fairy, money-tree, socialistic fiscal policies which have got us into this jam in the first place.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR:  The worst of the advice from our friends opposite is that they knew all this was going to happen. They knew the trouble we were in before the ink on Hansard in last year's budget debate had even dried. They knew what was going to happen to stumpage in this province. If they didn't, then they are deserving of more blame than I am presently giving them, because it was obvious to everybody else in the province.

They knew, Mr. Speaker, that mining royalties to the government had to be down — everybody told them that. Everybody in the province from the prospector up told them that, but they went on, hoping that something good would happen. They knew that their expenses were up. What they thought was simply this: maybe if we delay it we'll either win an election or something will come along to get us out of our difficulty; in any event, let's not face it until we finally have to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waiting for a miracle.

HON. MR. MAIR: Waiting for a miracle is right; waiting for a miracle and waiting for somebody to blame. I said the other day, and I say it again now: we have the people who ran up the bills blaming the bill collector — it's as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be brief and I shall be brief, but I must comment, if I may, upon the remarks made by the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) last night when she came to the defence of Robert Bonner, chairman of the board of B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Bonner's service to this province is in itself eloquent enough answer to the charges which were leveled against him. He deserves the defence of this House, but he doesn't need it. I know that I am new in this House; however, God willing, time will take care of that. But if at any time, in order to make out an argument, I must stoop to resurrecting events which are 15 or 20 years old, if I must hurt people who have more than paid for their transgressions and are now living quietly in private life, I will conclude that my argument is totally without merit. I conclude, therefore, that the argument of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was without merit and ought to be rejected and held in shame by this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill calling for money, not personalities; it is calling for present action, not past retribution. This bill is deserving of the approbation of this House.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I thought that for the benefit of all the people in the galleries who perhaps were not here through the last two days I would just run over briefly — and maybe for the refreshment of the members of the House — exactly what bill we're debating, because I know when you say "Bill 3", to many people that means very little.

I believe that, basically, the intent is written in front of the preamble to the bill: "The purpose of this Bill is to authorize the Minister of Finance to borrow up to $400 million to make good the anticipated deficit in the 1975/76 fiscal year." That is the purpose of the bill. Of course, we in the opposition completely reject this bill on a number of points. Before I elaborate on some, and hope that I will not be too repetitious, I would like to refer to the remark made by the hon. minister who just took his seat, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair).

He had a rather interesting line there, a slogan, I gather, which he hoped would be picked up: That we shouldn't be blaming the government, they are simply the bill collectors and paying the NDP bill. I would like to reply, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, that this is the whole basic point at issue in this debate, that this is a Social Credit bill which should never be served on the people of British Columbia. There is no reason for this bill to be served — that is the point of issue in this debate.

We reject this bill. This has been elaborated on, I think, very well and lucidly by a number of my colleagues on a number of grounds, so I certainly won't go into those details again. But, basically, we consider this bill a straight revenge, political bill. It is the old bookkeeping Social Credit type of thinking which is behind this bill.

I found it very interesting last night to hear from one of the ministers, whom we have not had much opportunity to hear, and who sits in his seat barely smiling — I hope that somewhere before the end of the session he will join the rest of us in showing some sense of humour — the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) .

Last night he made the point of referring to when the Social Credit first came in 1952, pointing out that when they came in, how well they did, et cetera, et cetera. He failed to mention that in 1952 we had

[ Page 485 ]

the first sign of the fiscal bookkeeping cover-up type of financial, I consider, irresponsibility on behalf of any Social Credit government that we have seen in this province.

They set the tone which is now being followed by the Social Credit government of 1976, because in 1952 — I'm sure we all remember that when the Social Credit took over from the coalition — one of their very first steps was to take $40 million out of the sinking fund to apply to direct debt. And why did they do this? Straight ulterior motive of again attempting to try to discredit the former government which at that time, of course, was the coalition.

So here again we have this same attempt to discredit the New Democratic Party government. You know, it sometimes makes you wonder that if the NDP did not exist, I'm sure the Social Credit would have had to invent us so they could find some party on which to blame the fiscal situation of this province, which they are trying to convince the public of British Columbia is desperate.

We know, in looking across Canada at the situation in every other province, that British Columbia actually did exceptionally well during the last three years, economically, in comparison to other provinces in Canada.

Now aside from the straight political vendetta, which is inherent in Bill 3, the bill is basically really fiscally irresponsible, yet this is the government that came rolling in on a sizable majority strictly by convincing the public that they alone could handle the finances of this province. Yet some of their first major policy steps which they have taken have shown complete fiscal irresponsibility. To borrow money at a time in this province when it is not needed and will deliberately affect the borrowing power of other agencies in this province, such as the municipalities, is highly irresponsible. To create an impression across Canada and the world that B.C. Is in terrible, dire, financial straits is certainly doing nothing to increase the economic growth of the province of British Columbia.

So I therefore accuse this government of being financially irresponsible, very financially irresponsible, Mr. Minister of Consumer Services. I think, when we are all out on the platform, that people will judge after a number of years that our words were correct.

Again, we know that they have said that they're going to produce quarterly statements, but I notice that, ultra-conservative, one of the editors of the Vancouver Province, even questions at times whether this government perhaps may be moving and embarking on the old building up of surpluses. He doesn't like to criticize this government, but he does show concern that this is what may be behind this.

So we have the old bookkeeping game. It's not only the game; it's unfortunate that this government is, I think, basically a very ultra-conservative government. No question about it. And their ultra-conservative financial policy at this particular time, when we're facing recession to some degree and inflation, will do nothing but further depress the economy of the province.

For example, we even have a comment from the Employers Council of British Columbia — William Hamilton's statement on the budget. Certainly there are some positive statements; we couldn't expect anything else. He has very positive statements. But on the other hand, he makes some serious statements re the — as has been suggested by one of our press writers — perhaps rather pre-Cambrian economic philosophy of the Social Credit government when it comes to this grave concern over paying as you go and the whole matter of how you deal with capital and operating.

If I may quote from someone in the gallery, Frances Russell, I thought, wrote an excellent article on this whole matter of staying with pre-Cambrian economics, which the New Democratic Party, to some degree, stayed with. But I do also wish to point out that we were making definite moves to get in line with the other provinces of Canada. Yet this government has shown absolutely no signs of moving into line with some of the more up-to-date, necessary economic policies for 1976 and the coming years.

Certainly the federal government.... At no time am I suggesting moving into line with them in their economic policies; I'm talking about them in the matter of capital and operating....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) does not see the point that in deficit financing today, if you look across Canada and notice the federal government which has gone into deficit financing, I agree...but the point I'm making is: are your policies and are the policies of the federal government going to improve that position, or are they going to create even worse areas of deficit? My contention. Is that your policies, and the federal government's, are not going to make any improvement.

First of all, referring to the federal and this present provincial government, both have been moving in on tax increases in a time when we know that recession has cut into revenues, but inflation keeps expenditures growing in spite of efforts to cut back. So therefore tax rates are pushed up to keep deficits under control.

All right, now what are the immediate effects of tax increases? The immediate effects of tax increases are to add to inflation, as well as putting the brakes on economic growth. In the longer run slower growth may mean less inflation, but it is a painful way to get

[ Page 486 ]

there.

So the point I am making is that to move in on tax increases is not going to improve the economy of this province. There are many, many other ways in which the economy of this province can be improved without imposing these tax increases, which have been shown by economists to simply depress the situation and not improve the economy.

When we come to the matter of capital and operating expenditure, I think we should realize, and to quote from the article by Frances Russell:

"Current capital expenditures are those that result in acquiring fixed assets, such as ships, buses, power dams, et cetera and government buildings, anything that is purchased for a price and is used and presumably retains a market value.

"Current expenditures are those that provide various government services, such as health care, Pharmacare, the cost of the civil service, education costs, expenditures generally that do not result in an visible or tangible assets."

Now other provinces in Canada, and Ottawa, normally borrow for capital expenditures. Now I don't know if the Minister of Labor, through you, Mr. Speaker, considers that a bad thing to do. We do know that, although he is now in the Social Credit, he was a former Liberal member, and at no time did I hear him complain about that particular aspect of the Liberal government's financial policies.

Other provinces do normally borrow for capital expenditures. They amortize the cost over a period of years and they levy taxes for current expenditures. Some provinces, notably Ontario, choose to run deficits even on current accounts as a matter of fiscal policy.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: It's quite obvious that you do not, Mr. Member. You are the government; we are not! It is a technique known as pump-priming, a period of borrowing for current expenditures to leave more money in the hands of the public during a recession. Surely, to the hon. Minister of Labour, again through you, Mr. Speaker, your objectives should be to get to the pump and prime the economy and leave more money in the hands of our citizens. But instead you have decided to become a member of a government which believes in exactly the opposite. They are going to depress the economy, not stimulate it, with their fiscal policies.

Now in B.C. the picture is quite different.

AN HON. MEMBER: You depress everyone.

MRS. DAILLY: Not only must most normal capital costs be financed out of general revenue; this government has completely rejected, as fiscal policy, ever undertaking deficit financing. So therefore a stringent economic policy is followed, and government soft-ware, the so-called non-productive side of government spending, such as health, education and welfare must bear the brunt of fiscal belt-tightening, and that is exactly what we see in this province.

The areas of health, education, the social services, that are so badly in need, are going to bear the brunt of this government's very irresponsible fiscal planning and policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ban the belt!

MRS. DAILLY: We also find in the whole area of refusing — as this government seems to be very blind about it — to move from their operating into capital, we have the result of their basic arguments when they stand up and try to defend Bill 3.

We can just briefly run through it again. They insisted on the repayment of loans: BCR, $35 million; B.C. Harbors Board, $25 million; B.C. Cellulose, $16 million; Ocean Falls $4 million, et cetera. Even Clarkson, Gordon stated that if a Crown corporation requires cash it may borrow from commercial lenders and will not affect the provincial surplus. Or it may decide to give the corporation a grant or advance, which, of course, will affect the surplus.

Then they go on to say — the point they didn't say, but a point our members make and we think is vital to this whole discussion — that the decision of this government to present this bill before is basically a political decision. That is backed up by the Clarkson, Gordon report.

So, on behalf of all my other colleagues here, we simply reject this bill because of the fact that it is going to harm the citizens and the economy of this province. We're dealing with the government.... It is obviously blinded, and it's blinded unfortunately by malice and revenge.

It has obviously, through these days of debate, been deaf to any rational examination of the true picture of our province's finances. In fact, in only three months this government, Mr. Speaker, has shown that it is unfit to manage the affairs of the province.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Before I start into my speech I will ask the hon. members to excuse my voice as I have had some severe dental work done this morning.

Anyway, I am pleased to take my place in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but before I do, before I proceed with my address, I, too, would like to congratulate yourself on your election as Speaker of this assembly, and to the member for Chilliwack as

[ Page 487 ]

Deputy Speaker. I have always found him to be a gentleman in the chair and out of the chair.

I would as well like to extend my congratulations to all the new members in the House and all members who were re-elected, and all members who were elevated to the cabinet. My sincere congratulations to all of you.

For the first time, Mr. Speaker, in many, many years, this new old government and possibly inept government, because they are already proving themselves to be reasonably inept in financial matters — an area where they claim to be expert — is asking us to pass a bill that could, for the first time in the history of this province, put us into a $400 million debt.

This is a very serious matter, and not to be dealt with lightly, Mr. Speaker, particularly when, in my judgment, this particular bill is not warranted. It is, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, just more Social Credit flim-flam.

You know, this government is kicking the slats out of the working people with its policies — the elderly, the young and the poor. These people won't forget, Mr. Speaker. They will not forget.

I would like to quote the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, March 3, 1976, Mr. Speaker, in part. They say:

"Bennett, with a great deal of gravity, talks about times of hard sacrifice ahead. 'This is not a time to make demands. This is a time for sacrifice and service, a time for each of us to think of the common good. We must rededicate ourselves to the future not by leaving a record of angry conflict, but by establishing a tradition of self-sacrifice and cooperation with others....'"

And on it goes.

The first impression any British Columbian would get from Bennett's impressive figures and Churchillian words is that the New Democrats were wastrels with the public purse and liars to boot.

Indeed, the new Premier now proclaims that if the election had been held any later, the NDP would not have won a seat. What garbage! Over 40 per cent, Mr. Speaker, of the people of this province voted for this side of the House. Now I'll tell you that next time it'll probably be about 60 per cent.

To continue my quote — "As in most other things political, the truth is not exactly as it seems." Oho! Remember, this is the Montreal Gazette, not one of the provincial papers.

"The figures used in the Clarkson, Gordon report were supplied by Social Credit ministers and officials and obviously were aimed at producing the worst possible financial picture, and more than half the total deficit envisaged by the firm of chartered accountants comes from financial decisions made by the Social Credit government. For weeks defeated NDP cabinet ministers have been saying privately that the new government was spending like crazy to increase the deficit."

Oho! Special warrants? Have we received all the answers to those special warrants, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR.LOCKSTEAD:

"They may not be exactly true, but it has certainly made some very political decisions to get the debt back to $500 million."

AN HON. MEMBER: Political decisions? Hmmmm.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

"The most substantial of these, of course, was to pay off the $175 million accumulated deficit of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia in one fell swoop. This money is being taken away from the general treasury even though the insurance corporation is expected soon to have $500 million cash on hand, including $300 million from the increased 1976 premiums. On top of this, the government has agreed to cover B.C. Hydro's deficit for the year now ending, even though, in the past, this Crown corporation has carried deficits on its own books until wiped out by surpluses.

"The Clarkson, Gordon report, which is not an audit, as first announced by the Premier, shows that the defeated Barrett government kept within its spending estimates and that the gap has been created by Social Credit spending. Where Barrett fell down was in an estimated revenue of more than $300 million higher than has now come into Victoria."

We're all aware, Mr. Speaker, that the decline of the forest industry, the dislocation of the forest industry, particularly this summer, had a severe effect on revenues to the province for the last fiscal year.

"Premier Bennett says that the NDP leader did this deliberately to cover the poor economic state of the province, and try to save the skin of the former government going into a year which only the NDP knew would bring an election. That may well be true, but the Clarkson, Gordon report, based on Social Credit figures, also reveals how clever the new government is in trying to manipulate public opinion.

"Every apprehensive British Columbian, trying to sort through the evidence of the province's financial...should remember that the first accountant appointed to do the study

[ Page 488 ]

had to withdraw in embarrassment after it has been revealed he was also a Social Credit bagman."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, how did the Social Credit government arrive at its figures?

On February 20 the Premier claimed the province would face a $541 million deficit this year. This is $500 million higher than the financial prediction made by the New Democratic government before leaving office in December.

So how did they arrive at this figure? Well, let's see. One: by underestimating sales tax and forest revenue by $80 million. Two: by considering as grants loans to Crown corporations that should have been paid back to the province, $82 million. Three: by rejecting the federal-provincial rail agreement, $30 million. Four: by not transferring to the province cash earned by the B.C. Petroleum Corp., $27 million. Five: by making totally unnecessary grants to ICBC, $181 million. Actually, I had $175 million; I only knew yesterday that they'd evened up that figure to $181 million that they didn't need. Six: by making totally unnecessary grants to B.C. Hydro, and the transit bureau, which have adequate borrowing authority to meet their needs, $ 59 million. Seven: by refusing to use the housing corporation to finance capital expenditures on housing, $62 million. Eight: by calling a recoverable loan to the B.C. Credit Union a grant, $2.5 million, for a total of $518.5 million.

The Premier, or the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), proposes to borrow $400 million to meet this so-called deficit. We will have to pay interest on this money, Mr. Speaker — I think someone said approximately $40 million a year; I'm not quite sure of that figure. With $ 181 million the Premier plans to give ICBC — or has given ICBC — plus the 1976 vehicle premiums and investment income, ICBC should have approximately $712 million available, plus its existing line of bank credit.

The Minister of Finance could get this $400 million loan from ICBC and still leave the corporation with enough cash to meet all of its obligations on a long-term basis, in my opinion.

If we in the New Democratic Party when we were in government had used the same line of reasoning we could have claimed they needed to borrow $1 billion — they being the former Social Credit government prior to us becoming government — to borrow $1.045 billion to meet deficits left by the former Social Credit government.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I should spend some time in this address on "where does British Columbia really stand?" and "how did the Social Credit government arrive at their figures?"

The Premier predicts revenues will be more than $300 million lower than the original budget estimate, a short-fall of 10 per cent.

In December, 1975, the former Premier and the former Minister of Finance predicted a shortfall of $160 million, 5 per cent from the original revenue estimate. The New Democratic Party estimate of budgetary revenue: $2.980 billion for the last fiscal year. Clarkson, Gordon estimates: $2.900 billion. That is an $80 million difference, accounted for by the present Premier's estimate that sales tax and forestry revenues will not be recovered, and loans and advances to Crown corporations amounting to $60 million will be repaid — BCR, $35 million; B.C. Harbours Board, $25 million.

The Premier said that the BCR loan was a grant. BCR minutes contradict this statement, Mr. Speaker. The decision not to recover this amount of $60 million was a Social Credit government one — that is, a political one. This costs us $60 million.

Repayment of loans and advances from Crown corporations: B.C. Cellulose, $16 million; Ocean Falls, $4.5 million; Panco Poultry, $1.5 million. Again, Panco, a political decision not to recover this, another $21.5 million dollars, Mr. Speaker. This costs us $21.5 million. The signing of the rail agreement with the federal government would have meant a payment of $30 million to B.C. In this fiscal year alone. The agreement has been rejected by Bennett, supposedly because it is a bad agreement. After years of negotiation by government officials the recommended agreement has been rejected without even a study. Another political decision and this costs us $30 million.

Additional cash earned but not transferred: B.C. Petroleum Corp. It was the NDP policy to transfer all BCPC revenues to government accounts. The Social Credit government will not make this transfer. This costs us another $27 million.

On the expenditure side, the Premier predicts the budget expenditures will amount to $3.44 billion.

In December the former Premier and the former Minister of Finance predicted that with belt-tightening the budgetary expenditures would be pared to $3.6 million from the original estimates of $3.22 billion. Now how is this government going to spend its $3.4 billion dollars?

The Premier has publicly admitted this case will not be needed right away. $181 million to ICBC, Mr. Speaker — money that they don't need.

Grants to the transit bureau, totally unnecessary. This Crown corporation has $50 million borrowing authority, which. could be used for capital expenditures. This costs us another $26 million.

The grant to B.C. Hydro — Clarkson, Gordon states: "We have been advised, that this grant will be made prior to March 31, 1976, and it is included, therefore, in the current year's expenditures." Another $32.6 million, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 489 ]

The Housing Corporation transfer. Under the NDP, capital expenditures, under the Department of Housing, would have been handled through a housing corporation. Legislation had been prepared. This has been rejected by the new government and this costs us another $63 million.

Well, all in all, I guess I could go on and on these figures. But what I'm really saying, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is that I will not be supporting this bill, because the money is not needed, and with proper administration by this government the necessity of this province going into a deficit position at this time is not warranted. I can tell you, from the report issued by the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development in February of this year....

What are the facts for 1975 according to the minister's figures? The hon. member for South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips) as minister has issued his annual summary of economic activity for B.C. In 1975. What does it show? It shows that the government had an outstanding year last year in direct contrast to what the new Premier has been telling the public. A few of the highlights of that report, Mr. Speaker, are as follows:

"The British Columbia economy withstood the shocks of world recession and major work stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well. Personal income growth, estimated at 16 per cent, was the major factor contributing to the anticipated 10 per cent normal growth in the gross provincial product.

"Attesting to the relative strength of the provincial economy is the fact that employment increased by approximately 3 per cent with the net addition of 29,000 jobs over the previous year. This compares to a gain of 2 per cent for the nation as a whole.

"Average weekly industrial wages increased an estimated 15.2 per cent in 1975. Personal income on a per capita basis is estimated at $6 billion compared to the $5 billion, approximately, in 1974. Wage and price controls instituted in October could result in moderation of both price and wage increases in the coming year.

"In 1975 the level of capital and repair spending in British Columbia was estimated at $5.7 billion, or 9 per cent over 1974. The value of construction projects accounted for $3.4 billion with machinery and equipment purchased amounting to $2.3 billion. The average capital and repair expenditure per person in the province was $2.36 billion compared with the national average of $2.56 billion."

Well, it goes into facts and figures here for some length, Mr. Speaker, but I guess what I am saying is that your own government department — the Department of Economic Development — states that this province is in a fine and healthy financial condition.

I really can't understand why this government feels they need the money at this time to go into deficit financing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this government, this province, is in better shape than most other governments within Canada — most other jurisdictions in Canada at this time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is an insult to the people of British Columbia. I think it's sheerly political and there is just no way I can support this bill. I will be voting against it; I think it's totally unnecessary. Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, we were told that this piece of legislation had to get through by midnight on March 31. We said that we did not believe that, that it was not necessary. March 31 has come and gone and it is not through. It has been proven that this is an unnecessary bill.

Also, I think that this government goes into unnecessary debt, and that it is not necessary either on March 31 or April 1, or whenever, for this bill to go through. It would be irresponsible for us to permit the government to plunge this province into $400 million worth of debt that they don't have to go into. We cannot support this; we cannot support this piece of legislation.

By simply asking for this amount of borrowing power and by simply introducing this bill at this time, this government has again bared and shown itself as a monument of poor accounting practices — that's what it is.

They talk about being good business people, Mr. Speaker, and about balancing the books and cleaning up the mess that's left behind them. In fact, all that they're doing and all that they've done since they have become government is one burnble after another, one inept thing after another. It is the job of this opposition to see that they don't destroy this province totally for the very short time that they are going to be in government.

We were told, Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced that we have to pay as we go to ensure that our children do not inherit our debts. Now it seems to me that there is one thing that they haven't learned yet and that is that debts are not always financial. Debts are not always measured in terms of dollars and cents. Sometimes in order to pretend to balance an account, we could plunge ourselves into a cost that is more expensive in terms of its social significance or its educational, health, or moral significance to us as a community. Aside from the fact of the question able accounting principles involved in submitting this bill at this time, there is a moral one as well.

[ Page 490 ]

Let us look, for example, if I might, Mr. Speaker, at some of the debt that has been laid on this province by that government when it was in previously. In order to build up enormous surpluses, in order to say that its books balanced, this province was deprived of good educational facilities; it was deprived of good health facilities, and its poor people and its old people had to go without — in order to show year after year what great business people they were and what large surpluses they could build up for themselves. What they are saying to us is: "Let us go into debt. Let us borrow a lot of money so that when it is all over we can show we've got this massive surplus." At the same time, the Premier is saying to us that we have to show restraint and, if I can quote him, he says: "I don't want anyone in this province to misunderstand the type of restraint that I'm talking about. When I say 'restraint,' it's going to be more than restraint." That's the exact quotation of the Premier.

This book, Mr. Speaker, tells us something about the kind of debt that we can run up in this province when we try so hard to balance books only in terms of finances and economics. The story about the children in British Columbia and the kinds of nutritional damage that has been done to them, the lack of decent educational facilities, the lack of child-care facilities — that's the kind of thing that we should be looking at, Mr. Speaker, instead of encouraging this government and supporting this government to plunge us into unnecessary debt in order to play all kinds of bookkeeping games with themselves. We will not do it. We will not do it!

AN HON. MEMBER: You had three years to look at it.

MS. BROWN: This is a ridiculous bill, Mr. Speaker, which I am hoping the Premier, because he has indicated that he is willing to listen, will have heard us say over and over again is unnecessary and he will convince the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to withdraw it before it actually has to go to a vote. It is not necessary. It is not necessary — and this is not just said by the members of the opposition alone — that we have to pay as we go always in terms of dollars and cents.

Let me quote from the Employers Council of B.C. It's been quoted once before and it is worthy of being repeated. It's certainly not a group that I am in the habit of quoting from, Mr. Speaker, but it seems that they, too, agree with this opposition about the kind of financial irresponsibility that that government has embarked on since it took office in December, 1975. It says:

"We have serious reservations about the government's policy of funding all of its own capital expenditures from current revenue. We believe there is a place for borrowed money to pay for major capital expenditures which spread their cost over the period that people benefit from them instead of loading them all onto the taxpayer in one year."

That's what that government over there is trying to do. It's bad. It's poor bookkeeping.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) last night told us about kitchen-table bookkeeping. He obviously knows absolutely nothing about kitchen-table bookkeeping, Mr. Speaker, because anybody who has ever had to run a family and balance books knows that you don't go out and borrow money to put in the bank just to say that you've got a surplus. That's irresponsible. That is irresponsible, and this opposition is not going to condone that kind of irresponsibility on your part.

I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, from somebody who, I can assure you, is not a member of the New Democratic Party of B.C. She is a member of the press and, as far as I know, they are not allowed to join political parties. There was an article in The Vancouver Sun on March 8, 1976, written by Frances Russell, and it seems that she also shares the opinion that the kind of programme that this government has embarked on in terms of getting the taxpayers of today to carry the burdens of the programmes of tomorrow is an irresponsible one. She says:

"There are good and logical reasons for borrowing from capital expenditures. Fixed assets are usually productive over a period of time so it is a rational economic move" — a rational economic move — "to pay for them over a period of time instead of penalizing the taxpayer in one year."

And who gets penalized? Who usually gets penalized when governments decide to go into debt and in order to pay off the debt increase things like the sales tax? It's the people who can least afford to pay. Those are the people who get penalized, Mr. Speaker, not the affluent. As we heard in this House before — I think it was the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) — it's certainly not the corporations, because they just pass on these increases to the consumer.

It's the people who can least afford to pay who end up paying the bills for an irresponsible decision, like borrowing money when we don't need it, in order to show a surplus at the end of the fiscal year. We've been given all kinds of reasons why this money is needed at this time; but none of the economic arguments, none of the figures that have been presented, have been able to convince us that at this time the province needs $400 million.

Again I quote from Frances Russell:

"The kind of debt which is shown in the Clarkson, Gordon report, and in your own reports, as justification for borrowing this

[ Page 491 ]

money at this time...it is not necessary for the province to place any of this debt in its current budget."

It is not necessary. You're embarking on unnecessary budgetary footwork, unnecessary budgetary footwork, in order to bring in an irresponsible piece of legislation allowing you to do an irresponsible thing — borrow money when you don't need it — in order to play political games with the voters, and we're not going to let you do it, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker.

"It is a rather frightening prospect for British Columbia, if this kind of accounting procedure goes on, because it indicates a fundamental attitude to government that is hardly in keeping with the demands on the modern state. It 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."

It is our responsibility, as opposition, to see that you are the best possible government that it is possible for you to be, and by refusing to endorse this bill we are taking a major step in that direction, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Now the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), in speaking against this bill, introduced, at that time, an idea under which we would support the bill. He said that the opposition — and he was speaking for all of us when he said that — would support this bill if it was legislation that was needed to help the government adopt a fiscal policy that would deal with unemployment.

That's the government over there that made all those promises about lowering the unemployment in the province, Mr. Speaker. They were going to create jobs. They were going to do all kinds of good things. For those people who couldn't work, they were each going to be given a shovel by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .

Now this piece of legislation comes down, and it does not in any way indicate how it is going to deal with the recession that this province is in at this time. This would not have been unusual if there had been a preamble accompanying this bill, showing us the ways in which it was going to be used to deal with unemployment and to stimulate the economy of this province. On other occasions in other legislatures this has been done, and it has been acceptable. But this bill before us today does not do that. It is a limited bill and an unnecessary bill and a useless bill. For those reasons we cannot support it.

But this could have been a useful bill. It could have included the kind of preamble that would have said to us, for example, that it was going to ensure the extension of some really vitally needed services in this province. It's the kind of bill that would have said to those day-care workers who were demonstrating in front of the court house two days ago that "additional funds are going to be made available, so that you can make a decent wage, that it is not necessary for you to have to subsist on an income of $475 a month," as some of them are doing.

It is the kind of bill that could have said to the hospitals in this province, to VGH and to Riverview and Crease Clinic, that you don't have to cut back so drastically on your services, you don't have to lay off all of your part-time workers, some of whom have been working part-time for 18 and 20 years, and depend on that kind of income. You don't have to cut back on your food services; you don't have to run into problems in keeping the standard and quality of health care in this province at least at the level that it is, and not allowing it to slide, as is beginning to happen.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

It could also have said, this bill, something about the ways in which needed services like transition houses are going to be funded. The Minister of Human Resources has admitted that he has finally come to the realization that, indeed in this province, there is a need for the kind of service which transition houses offer. This bill could have carried a preamble that showed that some of this money — or some money — was going to be spent in this way. But no such thing happened.

In fact this government could borrow money to expand and maintain services, it could borrow money to improve the quality of health care, it could borrow money for education, for the day-care centres, for the transition houses, without this bill. That is what I mean when I say that this is an unnecessary bill.

The kind of legislation that we could have supported would have hastened the expansion of these services and the maintaining of them. But not this kind of legislation, because this is pure politics; it has no bearing on reality; it has no bearing on the needs of this province. It's a retrograde piece of legislation and is not worthy of our attention, much less our endorsement.

It has been referred to by a number of other members as political revenge, and I think that's a very accurate way of dealing with it. But certainly it's revenge on the province rather than revenge on the New Democratic Party. There has been no proven case for the need of this money, and we will not be willing to support it.

But, in fact, what would happen if this bill were passed? Where is this money going? In an attempt to find out what sort of plans this government would have for the money, I rifled through some of the back speeches made by the Premier during and after the

[ Page 492 ]

election campaign.

In The Vancouver Sun on February 25 of this year, I came across an interesting statement of his: "I remember when we were the Texans of Canada. We used to go around and there was no place bigger or better, or had more opportunities available than in B.C. That's the type of climate we're going to create again." That was the Premier's statement.

Having read that, Mr. Speaker, I got really curious about Texas and decided to do some research on the province this government is trying to emulate and design for us. I want to start out by saying I have absolutely nothing against Americans from the south. I love them, quite frankly; I married one, so I don't want my comments to be taken as being in any way critical of Americans from the south.

I came across a special issue of the Atlantic Monthly which was dedicated to Texas. I learned that in many ways Texas is, indeed, like British Columbia. Texas is No. 1 in gas production, in cattle, No. 1 in cotton, in mohair, pecans, citrus fruits, wheat, sorghum, soybeans, spinach, lumber, sulphur, et cetera, et cetera. Texas ranks top, or near the top, in nearly every form of natural resources. It is a state that boasts of its natural, as well as its man-made, wealth.

I found out some other interesting things about Texas, too. In almost no area of social service does the State of Texas come anywhere near the national average. It is one of the 17 states that does not supplement aid to the aged, the blind, or the disabled. It is 37th out of 50 in its expenditure on education.

Now this is the state that we are emulating. This is the state that the Premier....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm referring to Bill 3, because this government is asking us for permission to pass Bill 3, and I'm saying: what are you going to do with this money? I've found that we're going to try to be like Texas.

In 1969 Texas was No. 1 in infectious syphilis in the United States. But what is even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, is that Texas is a state that is rife with poor people. Nineteen per cent of its people live below the poverty line — and Texas balances its budget every year; if has no deficit budget; it balances its budget every year — and the national average for the United States is 13 per cent. But there are other ways, Mr. Speaker, in which I am concerned about this attempt to emulate Texas.

The Texas Legislature, for example, we are told consists of 181 people who meet once every two years. Is this a statement of future policy? Is this what we have to look forward to, Mr. Speaker, in this House — that we are going to be cut down to meeting once every two years? That's not as unusual as it sounds, because one of the other ways in which we are very much like Texas is, as it says here in this article, that the chief reason for this is because the Texas legislators are underpaid. There are no full-time Texas legislators.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have just reviewed the bill again, and I'm trying to relate your remarks, ma'am, to the principle of the bill, and it fails me. Could you please explain to me how you...?

MS. BROWN: Okay, Mr. Speaker. What I am trying to show....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No. Yes, it's quite fair. Bill 3, Mr. Texas.... (Laughter.) I withdraw that statement.

Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, is asking us to allow this government to borrow $400 million, and one of the rhetorical questions I asked was: why? What for? In my search I came across a statement of the Premier's comparing us to Texas and saying that's what we're going to create again.

Out of a sense of curiosity to see what kind of a province we are emulating, I did some research. I did not have the benefit of Mr. Weeks, but I have still managed to do some research on Texas. This is how Texas came into this, Mr. Speaker. It has everything to do with our decision about whether we should support Bill 3 or not, and allow this government to borrow $400 million.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. Member. I'll be listening closely to make sure that it's relevant.

MS, BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Texas balanced its budget, and that's the.... You know, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically compare this kind of legislation to some of the interesting pieces of legislation that were passed by the House in Texas.

Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971 that House passed a resolution honouring Albert de Salvo, the Boston Strangler, for his efforts in the field of population control. That was as irresponsible a piece of legislation as this government is now asking us to pass here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that that House also...the representatives got permission to get through that House a bill which allowed retailers to sell bread by the half-loaf? As irresponsible as Bill 3, which this government is asking us to pass now, although to their credit they

[ Page 493 ]

failed to pass legislation allowing them to sell chicken by the piece.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no. Mr. Speaker, this is the state that we are emulating.

HON. MR. McGEER: But you've got another 49 states to go.

MS. BROWN: No, the only one we've been compared to, Mr. Member, is Texas. I think it is only fair that we should know something about the state to which we have been compared.

Texas, Mr. Speaker, also has some problems similar to the ones we are having with environment control. I'm really glad that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is here because I am hoping that he does not support his Premier's position on trying to create a Texas here in British Columbia.

Texas, of course, has an asbestos plant, and they are having problems with asbestos fibre. But the elected representative for that state said: "I think we are all willing to have a little bit of crud in our lungs and a full stomach rather than have a whole lot of clean air and nothing to eat. I don't want a bunch of environmentalists telling me what's good for me and for my family."

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is the State of Texas to which we are being compared, and we are being told that the Premier is trying to create that kind of climate in this province.

But the Legislature has its priorities. In introducing Bill 3 at the beginning of the session, this Legislature has demonstrated its priorities; that is the link, Mr. Speaker, between Bill 3 and what I am now about to tell you about Texas in terms of its priorities.

In a state that has no corporate tax, no income tax, no corporate profit tax, no natural resource severance tax — well-head taxes on natural gas and oil fall far below the national average — and a large corporate franchise tax, where does the largest chunk of Texas money come from? Question: where does the largest chunk of Texas money come from? It comes, Mr. Speaker, from a regressive sales tax introduced in that state when more money was needed for revenue. No corporation tax, no natural gas, no oil — you remember them all, Mr. Speaker. Again, another way in which we are like Texas. The Legislature's first thought when it needed more money was to extend that tax to food and drugs — to extend the sales tax to cover food and drugs.

What are we to think about a government that says that is the type of climate that we are going to create again here in British Columbia? We cannot endorse that kind of position; we cannot endorse this bill.

This is the province which the Premier has committed to turning into Texas. Stephen Leacock said, in speaking about it after a visit — true, that was a long time ago — but he said: "If I had know what British Columbia was like, I wouldn't have been content with a mere visit; I would have been born there."

The responsibility is on us, Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition to see to it that the Premier's dream of turning this province into the State of Texas never is realized. Our refusal to endorse this bill is a first step in that direction.

But after all the economic arguments have been heard and after all the financial reasons have been given, there still has to be some reason as to why we will not and cannot support this destructive piece of legislation, and that is because we really are different on basic philosophical grounds. It's not just that we sit across the aisle from you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker; we really are different. I think in order to understand why we are not supporting this bill you should know a little, bit about our differences.

We have a different philosophy toward the community in which we live than the government over there, Mr. Speaker. In order to understand that philosophy you have to know who we are and why we cannot support a fiscal policy that will bid up surpluses on a black-sheet, whatever it is, bank account by denying services or by permitting unnecessary borrowing of money in order to score fine political points.

In 1972 when we became the government in this province we inherited a province that had been starved for educational facilities, deprived of health facilities and was not meeting its needs neither to the children of the province, the old, the poor nor the handicapped. It was a great place to live if you believed in exploiting the land, resources or people. But it was a sad place to live if you were unemployed, over the age of 50, a single parent, a student needing the use of libraries or a gym, the parent of a child needing special assistance in school, an old person needing drugs or the use of an ambulance to get to a hospital in a hurry, or just an ordinary person needing public transportation. It was a terrible place to live when we became the government in 1972.

Once again it has become a terrible place to live. Major cuts in ambulance services....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, it made no difference where you looked. It made no difference where you looked — services to people had been neglected and ignored. We were told — yes, we were told — that we were in great financial shape; not only were the books balanced, but there was a surplus. That's what we were told.

[ Page 494 ]

Yes, it is true, Mr. Speaker, that in those three years of government we spent money. We spent money to ensure that everyone in this province over the age of 60 was guaranteed a decent income on which to live. We spent large sums of money to build and improve schools and libraries; large sums of money to improve health, to develop a public transportation system and to introduce the kind of ambulance service which you have now decided you are going to cut back.

We were determined that the people of this province were going to share to some extent in its resources as well as in its riches. This all has to do with Bill 3; I'm giving the reasons why we can't support Bill 3.

I want to go back, Mr. Speaker, as I said, to talk about some of the reasons why we are different philosophically. My decision to do that was because there are so many new members in this House — not just new to this House, but new to the Social Credit Party — who themselves don't even understand why they are Social Crediters. But I think they should understand why we are NDPers, and they should understand why we cannot support this bill.

This party grew out of a group of working people who came together — mostly miners who mined in and around Nanaimo and the Wellington area — working people who were being exploited at that period. They came together in 1886 and formed the Working Man's Party of British Columbia. That's our roots, Mr. Speaker. They are very firmly embedded among the working people of this province. That's one of the reasons why we certainly cannot support the kind of legislation which would plunge this province into unnecessary borrowing of large sums of money that they will have to pay back.

This party came out of those roots of 1886, and out of the Depression in 1933 — born in the Depression and of the Depression, concerned with the plight of people caught up in the turmoil of decision, dedicated to the balancing of books at the expense of people, caught up and exploited and then discarded by a system that cared not one whit for humanity, but only for profit and dollars and surpluses.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: This legislation, Mr. Minister of Environment....

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Garbage!

MS. BROWN: I am sure that to you it is garbage.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's his job.

MS. BROWN: Yes. As the member says, that is your job; you have to deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, out of these roots and out of this commitment we developed as a party which, in 1972, became the government of this province, and developed programmes committed to serving, to the service of people, to the protection of the environment, and to the acceptance of our social responsibility to each other and to the rest of the world as a cornerstone of our endeavours.

Our policies and our programmes, Mr. Speaker, which were developed and introduced during the three years that we were government, are part and parcel of the kind of reason why we cannot support Bill 3. We cannot support a piece of legislation which will now allow this government to plunge us into chaos and put a debt on this province — a financial debt that is going to be paid for in terms of the very services that we worked so hard to introduce in this province. I don't need to list the programmes because I know that you have heard them. You know the kinds of things we did in terms of increased child-care facilities, in terms of ambulance services, in terms of not penalizing young people just because they are young, and that is the reason why. It is because of our relationship with people and our commitment to people that we cannot condone the financial actions of that government and support this piece of legislation.

Again I want to quote from Nick Hill who, I can assure you, is not a member of the New Democratic Party. He said, in talking about the financial behaviour of that government: "It has certainly made very political decisions in order to get its debt over the $500 million." Political decisions — and this Bill 3 is another indication of those political decisions. He again says, in referring to the Clarkson, Gordon report: "It reveals how clever the new government is in trying to manipulate public opinion." We cannot stand by, Mr. Speaker, and permit that to happen. To do that would be to allow this government to continue as it has started in terms of its relationship to people.

I want to talk a little about the record of the new government because Bill 3 fits very much into the record of the new government. It was during the dying days of the election campaign that the Social Credit leader, Mr. Bennett, before he became the Premier, ran an ad in the Victoria newspapers, under his own signature, assuring all civil servants that they had nothing to fear; that their jobs would be secured and they would not be fired, et cetera, et cetera, yet one of the first acts of the new government, as you remember, consisted of a ruthless and systematic purge of the civil service. The employees who believed that they were indeed secure found that, in fact, they were not.

Some of these firings, we were told, were motivated by an attempt to make the civil service

[ Page 495 ]

politically pure. Nobody suspected of political affiliation or working for another political party was acceptable to the new bosses now in control. That one single act of purging, Mr. Speaker, cast doubt on the reliability of promises made by politicians, including leaders of political parties. But most of all it heralded the return of fear, intimidation and paranoia to the ranks of the civil service in Victoria. No civil servant, Mr. Speaker, not even the so-called ones at the top, could ever again publicly admit to being a member of a political party or consider her or his political affiliation as being a personal matter — never.

This government has made the political affiliations of an individual a matter of interest to the state and one which could decide a person's employment future. That's the kind of record that Bill 3 fits into and one of the reasons why I cannot support it, and why this opposition cannot support Bill 3, Mr. Speaker. It's a threat to political liberty.

MR. LAUK: Three-dollar Bill.

MS. BROWN: Having intimidated the civil service, this government moved on to the other group in the community which they identified as being most vulnerable — the women. One hundred years of work and endeavor and struggle went down the drain as a result of a series of decisions on the part of three ministers — the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) .

When the Provincial Secretary closed the office of the provincial co-ordinator on the status of women and fired all of its resources in the Provincial Archives, she effectively closed the door through which women had access to this government. It was not a perfect door, Mr. Speaker; it was not a perfect door. It was not even the best of all possible doors, but it was a door where no door had existed before. It was access to information, to advice and to money. It was help to women in the battle of dealing with our exploitation and our oppression. It is within the context of this, Mr. Speaker, why we find we are at this point philosophically unable to support Bill 3.

Sorry, I have two minutes left, and that's too bad because I have so many more things that I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion I want to say that the basic difference between those people over there, Mr. Speaker, and us, has got to be in our attitude toward economic issues. It is the area in which we have taken the most criticism from them, and it — is the area in which our position must never be compromised.

Our party, Mr. Speaker, does not take the abstract position that what is good for the economy is necessarily good for people. We do not believe that when the GNP is rising and everyone is making lots of money and business is booming, that everyone is living happily ever after. We look around us, and we see the impact of that escalating GNP on people with fixed incomes, on people of low income and on people of no income at all, and we see what a terrible hardship it works on that segment of the population, that segment of the population that is not sharing in the windfall, and we recognize the unfairness of this system and recognize even more the unfairness of adding to those people the debt for $400 million which is not needed at this time, which is totally irresponsible in being called for through this bill, Mr. Speaker, on top of the 40 per cent increase that they have just suffered through that sales tax which hits that segment of the community much harder than it does anyone else.

In closing, I want to say that I am not going to pretend that the NDP, as it exists, or as we were government, is perfect, Mr. Premier. I am not going to pretend that. Indeed there is a gap between the party....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please!

Is the member aware that her time has expired?

MS. BROWN: Oh! Can I have a last word?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a conclusive statement and that is all.

MS. BROWN: A conclusive statement, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to pretend that there did not exist a gap between the party that we strove to be and the government that we were. In our role as Official Opposition we are going to see to it that the people of this province are not penalized unduly by that government over there and we are never going to support any legislation which continues to exploit them in the way that Bill 3 is trying to do. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the member for Boundary-Similkameen and just before he begins his talk may I suggest to the hon. members that we could avoid the dilemma that was expressed by the speaker who has just taken her chair, we could avoid the dilemma of having run out of time before we have covered our material, by keeping your material more closely related to the principle of the bill. Thank you.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, we've spent a number of hours now sitting here very patiently waiting for the opposition to exhaust themselves. We have heard the member for Cowichan-Malahat read us the news last night. We have heard the North Vancouver-Capilano actor comment on how we debate adjournment at 11:05

[ Page 496 ]

when it really means 11 p.m. We have heard the member for Prince Rupert bringing up a very irrelevant subject, something from the past. We have heard....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are on Bill 3.

MR. HEWITT: Yes, we are on Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, I want to relate the reasons why we are debating Bill 3 today.

Finally we hear from the member for Alberni who mentions that we are being plunged into debt. I wonder if any of them have ever read Bill 3, because I think they have not really read the intent of Bill 3 which says the purpose in effect is enabling legislation to authorize the Minister of Finance to borrow. To authorize. It is permissive legislation. It doesn't say he shall. It says he may when the need arises.

Why are we borrowing? Basically the irresponsibility of the previous government caused us to face this dilemma, to place this bill before this House.

Let them give us the examples that they haven't really brought up to date.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you still believe that?

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Very much so. The ICBC loss, you don't agree with that. You haven't mentioned it. You talk around it, but you don't mention the fact that the Clarkson, Gordon report...and when the final audited statement comes down — and the audited statement will come down before this House I believe within 60 days, former minister, after the year-end — then you will see the loss and then maybe you'll just agree with it.

In the summer of 1974, Mr. Speaker, plan Z — they were aware of the loss then. They were aware of the loss last year. They are aware of the loss now, and they want to debate, debate, debate, go through an exercise because they're ashamed of what they've caused this province to suffer.

I'm talking about Bill 3. Let's talk again about the reasons, the cause and effect — why Bill 3. The taxation policies of the former government are one of the reasons we're faced with this. The Mineral Royalties Act is something that's made the mining community suffer drastically and it is a cause.... And the world price market; I will concede that point.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), I will concede that point, but you will have to concede the point that your Mineral Royalties Act stopped development in this province.

Mr. Speaker, again dealing with Bill 3; government spending. We can talk and we can concede points with regard to revenues dropping, but in the light of revenues dropping because of economic conditions in this country, how can we concede the fact that they allowed their expenses to grow, and to grow, and to grow to where they have over expended to an extent that we suffer the loss. The government is the trustee of people's money, and those trustees did a shabby job of it in the last year.

Very bluntly, I believe that that government when it was in power set their expenses, set their programmes, and then finagled the revenue figures to say they had a balanced budget when they knew full well they couldn't meet their commitments on the revenues that were coming into this province's coffers.

I would like to comment really — again dealing with Bill 3 and the fact that this government had to deal with a serious problem — in three months. We've been berated for the last two days on what we have done as government in three months.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't done anything.

MR. HEWITT: Three months! And they had three and a half years to do it and they did it well. They caused this bill to come before this House. Their election was poorly timed — politically timed, because that government when it was in power was afraid to face the fact of placing this budget before the people.

Mr. Speaker, again dealing with Bill 3, the previous government knew they had the problem. This administration had to search out those problems and solve them, and that is one of the reasons why this bill is before you today.

I'd just like to finish, Mr. Speaker, because I don't want to belabour this. The loss was theirs. They had to deal with it. They didn't deal with it; they left it for this government. In light of the loss, the shortfall of revenues, the excess spending, the ICBC loss, the Clarkson, Gordon report — and I don't think they should really question the integrity of an auditing firm of the reputation....

MR. LAUK: You didn't do an audit.

MR. HEWITT: You're quite correct; they didn't do an audit. They did a review. I don't know how many of you are businessmen over there, but when an audit is done, you'll get a worse figure because the auditor is very closely checking the facts and figures.

Interjections

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

[ Page 497 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Mr. Member, we can avoid that kind of a confrontation if you will continue to address the Chair.

MR, HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to keep my comments to Bill 3.

MR. LAUK: Why don't you sit down?

MR. HEWITT: I will do that shortly. I don't intend to stand here for 40 minutes.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the opposition must concede the financial state of this province with all those facts placed before them — the report, the losses, the overspending, the lessening of revenues. They must concede that there was a deficit. I think some of them actually have; if you read Hansard you will find that a number of them have conceded the deficit. They don't recognize, I really don't think, that this is enabling legislation which gives the minister the opportunity, if required, to obtain the funds to make sure this province can meet its commitments. Yet they really don't understand that. I really don't think they've read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the only comment I'd like to make really in closing....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against it.

MR. HEWITT: I'd like to paraphrase Hamlet and say: "Methinks the opposition doth complain too much."

MR. LAUK: "Protest."

MR. HEWITT: Yes, well I don't think you're protesting; you're just complaining.

Mr. Speaker, it's rather a shame for new members in this House to watch the exercises these people have put us through in the last two days, and I hope they recognize what the bill says and, in the end, they will support it, not by exhaustion but by recognizing the problem and dealing with it.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) has suggested that we are speaking on this debate because we are ashamed of the financial situation of the province as of December 11, 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this bill, and we are speaking on this bill, because we are ashamed of the sham that this bill represents. It's a sham. We are ashamed of the way the people of this province are being treated by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be ashamed. You should be!

MS. SANFORD: We are also ashamed that the people are being asked to pay through the nose for their gains over there.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating here a bill which is part of the Social Credit game plan, and that game plan is falling apart. It's falling apart at the seams and the people of this province are beginning to realize it.

MR. J.R. CHABOT' (Columbia River): Wrong again!

MS. SANFORD: The minister responsible for the bill has stated that the bill is unnecessary. The Premier, on the other hand, states that the bill had to be through by Wednesday midnight.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was last night.

MS. SANFORD: That's right — last night. Now isn't that interesting? In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) said that the bill was unnecessary, the Premier then turns around and says it must be through by Wednesday midnight, March 31. Then he goes on to hint that people shouldn't cash any cheques in this province because he's trying to tell the people of this province that it's bankrupt. Nonsense!

Mr. Speaker, we are debating this bill, and the bill is here because it is part of the financial game plan of the Socred government and the party.

For months before the last election we saw the now Premier and the now Provincial Secretary, racing around the province setting up what the game plan was. It was to try to paint the financial picture of this province as bleak as it possibly could. The whole case that they were presenting to the voters of the province at that time was based on finances.

They were successful, to a large extent, because they are here today as government. But now, Mr. Speaker, they have to "prove", and I use that in quotes, they have to "prove" that the campaign statements were correct. They have been trying desperately, for over three months, since they were elected, to convince the public that those pre-election statements were correct.

Every move that they have made has tried to play out that game. You know, following Dave Barrett's and Dave Stupich's press conference after the election was over, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) then decided that he would call on Clarkson, Gordon in order to present another picture. He wasn't happy with the statements based on Comptroller-General J. Minty's figures; he wanted to have new figures that he

[ Page 498 ]

could present to Clarkson, Gordon and have Clarkson, Gordon present the viewpoint that the government wanted presented. And that's part of the game plan, Mr. Speaker. They are trying to gain public credibility at this time, and, Mr. Speaker, they are failing.

At that time Dave Stupich indicated that there would probably be $40 million less in revenue....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. SANFORD: Yes?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I interrupt you just long enough to remind you that it is not generally accepted to refer to a member of the House by his name?

MS. SANFORD: Right — I'm sorry. All right, I accept that, and appreciate the correction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was true that the previous government expected that we would not have the revenues that were anticipated when the budget was originally drawn up. This is not unusual, because everywhere governments are experiencing this year some shortfall in revenue. The province of Alberta is expecting a deficit of $75 to $100 million. Are they bankrupt? Are the government members in Alberta going around suggesting that the province is bankrupt? Or course not.

What about Ontario? In 1974 Ontario had a net debt of $2,901,508,846. In 1975 that went up, Mr. Speaker, and I think this is important in this debate. It went up to $3,448,069,583. In 1976 they expect an estimated — this year — deficit of $1.5 billion. That'll make their total debt about $5 billion in Ontario. Tory Ontario — are they bankrupt? Is everybody there worried about cashing their cheques? Are they transferring payments and putting the government into a position where they have NSF cheques? Not on your life!

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got borrowing power.

MS. SANFORD: Right, I guess. They have here too. You know, the government then started its fancy financial footwork after these statements made by the former Premier and the former Minister of Finance.

They sent along the figures to Clarkson, Gordon, and of course, Clarkson, Gordon did not do an audit — that's been made clear very many times in this House.

What kinds of things did they decide to do? They decided not to sign that rail agreement so that they could show an extra $30 million in deficit, because that's what it cost us. The federal government was prepared to advance $30 million.

They decided to advance to Hydro, which normally carries its own deficit, $32.6 million. Clarkson, Gordon made it quite clear that that sum was a political decision. I am quoting from the report: "We have been advised that this grant will be made prior to March 31, 1976. It is included, therefore, in the current year's expenditures." Advised by whom? By the people playing out their political game.

They underestimated income, and that has since been revealed through the latest figures that are available. They advanced the $26 million to the transit authority, who have their own authority to borrow.

Remember the surprise that was expressed by the municipalities when all of a sudden they got all this money from the provincial government that had been complaining about what a terrible financial state we were in — Kelowna, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Prince George? The councils were really surprised to suddenly find all of this largesse forthcoming all at once from the provincial government before March 31. That, of course, is so that that could be included in this year's deficit, Mr. Speaker. The list goes on and on,

The new government has a desperate need to try and establish some credibility out there. They have tried to tell the people of this province that we're on the verge of bankruptcy. That's patently untrue. It's a sad day when governments stoop to statements like that in order to try to make a political point and to gain some credibility out there in the public. To mislead the public to that extent is inexcusable, Mr. Speaker, no matter how desperate they are to make credible their campaign statements and to fight the last election all over again. It's inexcusable; it's a, sham, a hoax and a farce.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in leading off the debate for the official opposition on this bill has explained very clearly for the members of this House why the Clarkson, Gordon report is a document which is no more than a compilation of figures given to them by the new government in order to fit in with its deemed plan.

But the extent of their desperation — they're desperate to establish credibility out there — was revealed yesterday when the order-in-council was signed transferring $181 million to ICBC when ICBC doesn't need it. That's shocking. Mr. Speaker, the people of the province are beginning to catch on.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Catching on to you.

MS. SANFORD: What about all these special warrants of questionable urgency? There's a lot more to hear about them. But the same political need has

[ Page 499 ]

also been revealed in the budget speech, which is the most blatantly political document this province has ever seen. They're supposed to be business experts over there and what they are doing is playing cheap political games.

The budget socks it to the people of the province. Part of the reason for those increases in taxes, Mr. Speaker, is that they are being asked to pay the $40 million interest next year on this loan. Part of the money that is raised through the 2 cent increase in social service tax, the increase in personal income tax, will go to pay for the interest on the loan.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed out during his remarks on the budget speech that about a quarter of the population are on low or fixed incomes. They cannot afford to pay for the political games that are being played over there.

Every income dollar of that group of people is very carefully budgeted. They have virtually no financial flexibility so the increase in Medicare premiums, in sales tax, in hospital rates, in personal income tax, are going to leave that sector of the public financially crippled. To ask them to pay for the political games which are being played over there and to serve their desperate need is callous and heartless, Mr. Speaker.

There was an article in the Victoria Times, March 30, in which Al Forest of the Times staff indicated how much more the people are going to have to pay for their Social Credit government. In Victoria, an average family is going to have to pay $550 more just to stand still. That was before the changes in insurance for schools were announced today, and we have yet to hear about what's going to happen to the ferry fares.

In Victoria, the cost of living, though, does not compare with the cost of living in the northern part of the province and in the northern part of Vancouver Island.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Don't you worry about the north.

MS. SANFORD: The people in the northern parts are going to pay far more than that $550 just to stand still. What about those northern members? Where's the member for Omineca and Fort George (Mr. Kempf) speaking on behalf of his people, his constituents, saying: "Stop, they can't afford it. These political games we don't want our constituents to pay for"?

We know that the money is not needed now. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has told us that. We know that every conceivable means has been employed to increase the deficit to the maximum level. Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to play political games and to try to gain credibility in the eyes of the public, and to put the NDP in the worst possible light, but when they ask the people of the province to pay for this game, it becomes totally and completely unacceptable — totally!

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I can support this bill. It is unnecessary and in my view, completely irresponsible.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In speaking in support of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, I'm distressed and disappointed — not only as a legislator, but as a citizen of one of the richest provinces in this great nation — to find it is necessary, not only necessary to debate, but it is necessary to introduce in this House a bill of this nature.

But as you know, Mr. Speaker, from the evidence given in this House and from the evidence given in the Clarkson, Gordon report, borrow we must and borrow we will on behalf of the people of this province. Borrow we must to pay for the extravagance and the mismanagement of the previous administration. Borrow we shall to pay off those debts incurred by that administration, and put this province back on the road to recovery, for the benefit of all the people of this province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to speak on this bill. I have never been a believer in the borrowing of money...

MR. LAUK: Did you run for a resource board?

MR. KEMPF: .... unless, Mr. Speaker, that money could be put to a benefiting use. Pay as you go, Mr. Speaker, is the only method which I believe to be good and fair and good enough for the people of the province of British Columbia.

It is very well for the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to say when speaking of capital costs: "Borrow for these costs rather than levy a 2 per cent sales tax. Borrow for these costs." This is all very well, but who, Mr. Speaker, will pay the 10 per cent interest on the borrowed money? The taxpayers of the province of British Columbia — they will pay the 2 per cent.

But to borrow for the payment of back debts, Mr. Speaker, is like having to pay for a horse that has already passed away. We must penalize the people of this province, Mr. Member, by having to pay on their behalf for the millions of dollars, $40 million in interest on that money borrowed — $40 million a year, because of the misuse of the mandate given to those people over there when they were in government.

You say $40 million isn't very much in a budget of $3.6 billion. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a very large amount of money to the people of my constituency of Omineca.

It would build 120 bridges of the type and size of the one needed in Fort St. James. It would build 40

[ Page 500 ]

hospitals of the type and size needed in Fraser Lake. Mr. Speaker, it would lay down 400 times the amount of asphalt needed for the Yellowhead 16 through the village of Burns Lake. It would be more than enough money to give the whole of my constituency a level of road maintenance they say it so justly deserves.

You see, Mr. Speaker, this $40 million per year which must be paid out of the provincial treasury as interest on borrowed money is no small thing to me. It's no small thing to the people of Omineca. It's a disgrace to me. It's a disgrace to my colleagues. It's a disgrace to the people of British Columbia. But we all know where the onus lies for this fiasco. We all know, We all know the circumstances that have led this administration to the need for borrowing for the first time in this province since 1952 — for the first time, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, since 1952. The onus lies there. There, Mr. Speaker, with the people who for three years professed to be doing things for the people of this province when all of the time, hon. member in the corner over there, they were doing things to the people of this province. I would hope and pray that in order for them to save some face in this province during the course of this debate we will hear some of their members rise and speak in favour of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: True!

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I rise once again, this time to participate in the debate on the bill that is before us referred to as Bill 3. I must say that it is going to be difficult to put the case any better than some of my colleagues before me who have, I think, been very descriptive in describing the perpetrated programme that the government has attempted to wage against the former administration.

In fact, the British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, as it is called, is a political device with really but one primary objective: that is to get rid of the socialists. It's a culmination of the last election and it is an attempt to put the capper on a propaganda campaign that perhaps was conceived by those in the Social Credit back rooms during the campaign as a way of ensuring that the socialist government would never be returned again. I think that was the primary motivation behind the thought that the British Columbia government was subject to charges of having mismanaged the public funds.

I am really alarmed though, Mr. Speaker, at the audacity of the government because, while they're politicians and I think we would expect them to try and trip up the opposition, they have been very determined to convince the public that they have a programme that is better than the one that the NDP attempted to bring to them. They are doing this by suggesting that the fundamental thing that every government needs is an economic base that will live regardless of what happens to those who are making it live.

For instance, the government has said that it has no money of its own. It has said that governments are here to serve the people, that the most important thing is for government, business and the individual to work together to assure that the economy remains healthy, and that those people to whom the responsibility for managing is charged will receive an opportunity to compete democratically and justly within a given economic situation.

You know, because of the culture we live in, the kind of conditioning we have had to subject ourselves to in society, almost any bill of goods can be sold. In fact, I think people are only now beginning to realize, after the election, that there has been a very cleverly contrived game played upon them, one that convinced them that management of public funds, of the public purse, was the primary and most important thing that government had to do.

But the thing is that the government wasn't talking about how it was going to generate alternative ways of providing a means whereby those same people could function other than through the sweat of their own backs. Little did they realize that when this government, this present government, when it was in opposition, stood before this House, this Legislature, and complained about the New Democratic Party's programmes of resource taxation — particularly the measures that were passed under Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act — we were attempting at that time to get the public's just dues on returns from our natural resources which belong to all of us. We found the government said that you can't do that and you shouldn't do that because we have to have incentives for those who would exploit and develop those resources that were for all the people of the province.

Then a strange thing, a very strange thing, Mr. Speaker....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Tell us. What?

MR. BARNES: The government of today actually campaigned on a promise that, should they be returned to government, they would ensure that all taxation — in their view, oppressive and disincentive measures — the former government had brought in would be repealed, and that they were going to allow industry to run free and set its own level, and to ensure that this province has money coming back into the province, and not going out.

But you know what has happened since they brought this new budget down. What has happened? Let's take a look at the programmes the government has suggested it would use in raising the necessary revenues for its $3.6 billion budget. Let's take a look

[ Page 501 ]

at who they are expecting to pay.

Mr. Speaker, we've had an appeal from the federal government suggesting that we all tighten our belts. This government has suggested in their budget speech that we tighten our belts. But, you know, it's really an incredible problem that we have because the people who are going to pay are the ones, who have been asked to tighten up. On the one hand we are telling them that they should exercise restraint and not make unreasonable demands when it comes to settlement of wages — not to mention the problem, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), that you certainly will have to deal with respecting the teachers of this province. All the working people.

It's incredible! First of all they try to say they were going to raise the social insurance tax by only 2 per cent when we all knew that it was 40 per cent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who made it necessary? You did!

MR. BARNES: They think only in multiple terms. Not to mention the other "only" 2 per cent raise they are going to make on corporate taxation, corporate income tax, which really is about 15 per cent, and which will, of course, be turned over again to the consumer, the ordinary working person.

So by the time you add all of the increases, such as automobile insurance, the new ferry rates — the new ferry rates that you intend to bring in, which probably will be trebled — and the other clauses....

Now you are attempting to defer to the trustees of the various school districts and to the homeowners, who before the NDP came in 1972 were faced with referendums when it came to questions of new capital expenditures for schools. You're trying to slip that back to them; again it is another indirect tax.

I don't know what the actual calculation would look like, but I suggest that you have contributed successfully to inflation while deflating the net dollars working people will be taking home. I think this is only the beginning.

While you have been out campaigning, and obviously to some success in convincing the public that they should get rid of the previous government because of their mismanagement, you were really just playing politics, and had no intention of providing the services that people have a right to. And you are very anxious to balance your budget. I am afraid that unless the people stand up and start really demanding that you back down, you will balance it. You certainly will balance it.

Just listen, Mr. Speaker, to a very astute observation by a columnist in the Victoria Times of a very recent date, March 30: "There is a certain satisfaction in knowing the provincial government is going to be able to balance its budget this year, but Mr. and Mrs. Victoria must be wondering how they are going to balance theirs."

Now this probably is representative of other areas, but in all fairness I suppose we should say that this is just for Victorians. In certain other areas it may be even less — like Point Grey and Shaughnessy and some other places that the hon. members may recognize.

I can tell you that it's shocking when you look at the hypothetical example that is being offered for our edification this afternoon. The average family of four will have to come up with, say, an additional $550 this year as a result of increases brought in since January by the Social Credit government. And there are more price hikes to come, including higher ferry fares and increases for alcohol products. Well, you're doing that for cigarettes too — mind you, that doesn't hurt me personally, but I guess you have to create a market out there by getting people to do all kinds of things and then tax them for it, even hospitalization.

About the increases: so far this year the two heaviest burdens were ICBC rates and the increases in the sales tax to 7 per cent.

Assuming Mr. Victoria is a mill worker, and Mrs. Victoria works part-time for a department store, their budget would break down as follows:

ICBC insurance costs about $200 more this year — for him the rates are up about $120, and for her small car, an increase of about $80. At that they are lucky compared to Mr. and Mrs. Vancouver who are paying $300 more this year.

The extra two points on the sales tax will cost Mr. and Mrs. Victoria $70 more, and that's just for the nickel-and-dime change. The big-ticket items like refrigerators and new cars will cost an average of $70 per year. Let's assume the couple buys at least one major appliance per year and one new car every five years. The sales tax on a $5,000 car, for example, has gone to $350.

Income tax will take the third highest bite. Mr. Victoria can expect to pay $40 more than his wife who will pay an extra $25.

The personal income tax, provincial, has risen to 32.5 per cent. This means that for every $1,000 of tax paid to Ottawa, an additional $330 is paid to provincial coffers.

Medicare payments are up $39.44 a year. Mr. Victoria is fortunate if he is employed and his company is picking up half the tab; otherwise the increased costs would have to be $78.88.

If Mr. Victoria is a two-pack-a-day smoker, and nobody else in the family smokes, the increased costs will be $29.20 a year. Mind you, I don't feel sorry for him. Maybe if you raise that up high enough we could save a few lives. That's the only good thing in your budget so far. Oppressive taxation, I guess, does have its advantages. Anyway, that 4 cents a pack has a way of adding up in a hurry.

[ Page 502 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hospital costs will rise to $4 per day, from $1, effective June 1. Assuming that an average family of four spends a total of eight days in a hospital — operations, maternity, child illnesses — the increased cost will be $24. School taxes will be going up this year. As a result of restraint in provincial government cost-sharing, Mr. and Mrs. Victoria can expect to pay an additional $24.

Most Victorians in newer homes will find they have no increase in the homeowner grant this year — or if there is it will be a minimal increase, as the rate has been frozen at $280.

At the direction of the provincial government, B.C. Hydro increased its power rates — this will cost an additional $20.

This comes to $542.60, not counting sales tax in connection with entertainment. If the family dines out once a month the total increased cost, as a result of sales tax on restaurant meals, will bring them over the $550 mark.

If they eat out more often and if they buy more than one high-cost appliance this year, their increased costs could be over $600. This assumes no one in the family will require extended care in a hospital. It was $1 a day, but on June 1 it is going to $7 a day. This is a new rate of $2,554 for 12 months, up from $365. Just an example of how you intend to balance the budget.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, these are all facts that are very alarming. While I feel like getting very excited and yelling and screaming, I think it's a shame for you to take care to assume some of the responsibilities that you said you would assume in the campaign. You said that people mattered; you said that they were your most important resource. You indicated a concern for ensuring that people had an opportunity to live in dignity. You said that you respected these things, yet you put them in a tighter squeeze than they were before.

You tried to convince the people that there was a calamity and a crisis situation, financially, for the province. But in so doing, you tried to convince the people that you would hire a firm of absolute integrity, and one in which people could confide and respect for its reputation and expertise in the field of accounting and auditing. So what did you do? You tried to pull a fast one. You tried to get the name, but got the friend. So you brought in someone and the people said: "No, no, make sure you get someone who is in no way connected with the party, and who can be totally objective." So the Clarkson, Gordon firm provided a satisfactory supervisor of the study. Perhaps it was Mr. Clarkson himself — I'm not sure.

But I'm impressed with their attitude and their attempt to be honest. I just want to read to you a statement by representatives of Clarkson, Gordon.

This was on February 21 in The Vancouver Sun. It's a few notes on how they responded to questions that were put to them by the press. There are certain little things that I have underlined that might indicate that you are attempting to use an honourable firm to play your political games. I don't mean to cast any aspersions on this organization because, certainly, I think that they have done what they have been asked to do and they have done it correctly.

But we talked a long time — until finally you were stopped — about audits when there was no audit: that we've settled. But still the game goes on, a very sick game, really. I think most people by now have familiarized themselves with the facts and they have read very carefully the reports that were given by the outgoing government. They have taken a look at it and they can understand that there is a game going on, one that has long exceeded its purpose, because the election was over December 11. Here we are on April 1 and the game goes on. This is why Bill 3 does stick out as a bill aimed at squaring up the last act of a political game that started during the fall election.

But the $175 million that was granted to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — as was mentioned by Clarkson, Gordon — stood out as one of the things on which it was instructed and would be happening. The grant to B.C. Hydro of $32.6 million was mentioned and pointed out that that would be paid in full — these are instructions that they received. But there was no inclusion of the $55 million that the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) indicated would be due the government at the end of the fiscal year from the B.C. Railway and the Harbours Board. No mention of the $38 million, Mr. Stupich said would be coming from the federal government as a result of the anticipated signing of the northern rail expansion agreement between Victoria and Ottawa. Mr. Clarkson made it clear that they did not do the audit, although Mr. Bennett had referred to their work as being an audit, but he stated that what they were doing was co-ordinating the production of certain unaudited financial information. Their report contains a number of warnings that it should not be taken as an overall picture of the Province's financial affairs. It should not be taken as a true picture of the province's overall financial affairs.

It says: "Government's decision on transferring amounts to special funds and Crown agencies, together with the timing of such transfers, give different results to the provincial surplus or deficit."

The report details other ways in which arbitrary decisions alter calculations. How can we tell whether the surplus or deficit shown by the province is correct or false? And they go on to say that the answer, quite simply, is that there is no single number hidden away in that mountain of figures which will measure how well or how ill the province has performed

[ Page 503 ]

financially.

In a given year it only shows that only a skilful careful investigation using imaginative or innovative techniques could determine.... Now I think by those kind of remarks we don't have any qualm with the integrity of the firm that was asked to do the study. But I do have qualm with the government for trying to twist a report which is no more than an overview in such a way as to convince the public that the province is, in fact, "in financial trouble" when there are no facts. You can't take a generality and turn it into a specific. Now we all know that. Unless, of course, you're playing games, and you assume that most of the people you're listening to, although not perhaps trained in that particular field, can't eventually start to think for themselves.

What is happening is the people are slowly beginning to catch up with the government. Now, Mr. Speaker, there could have been ways in which the government's proposed anticipated budget deficit could have been supported by the opposition, had they followed through with some of the programmes that they said they were going to bring in. Some of the ones that were mentioned already by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), when she outlined some of the difficulties that many of your constituents and mine are faced with, due to the economic restraint that is being imposed upon them both federally and provincially. But no, Mr. Speaker, no such thing. In fact, my notes indicate that the government has cut back on the kind of programmes that they said they were going to support, that they said they were in favour of. All those people programmes have been cut back, not increased.

I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Premier very successfully relates to people who are standing in the hallways and demonstrating and demanding attention so they can talk about their problems, and he is able to lure them from the caucus room to his office and have them all feeling that the Premier really does have a heart and really does care, if in fact he intends to follow through on the charm that he obviously has in dealing with people face to face. Because I see no evidence of the government's intention in trying to improve the lot of ordinary people in this province in terms of their equality and their just rights and just dues.

He certainly can't take much credit for the present legislation on the books respecting human rights, the Human Rights Code, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I suggest that you return to the principle of Bill 3, please.

MR. BARNES: Okay, Mr. Speaker. What I'm suggesting is that this bill indicates an anticipated financial loss, and that the government is asking that the opposition members recognize this prospect and support its desire to authorize the borrowing of certain funds to cover these losses. But the problem is that there should be no losses and there cannot be, in my view, Mr. Speaker, any cause for loss.

Let me give you an example. If we had programmes, Mr. Speaker, that encouraged people to participate as good citizens in this province instead of making them feel that they are less than second, third or fourth class by the oppressive measures and irresponsible behaviour of the government, disenfranchising them when they're on boards, on duly elected public boards like the community resource boards.... They've been disenfranchising them and you say that you will recognize boards, but you disenfranchise them.

Then you impose upon them, without any opportunity to give you their views, a new tax, an almost 50 per cent increase. You have other subtle ways of depriving them of an opportunity to have anything to say whatever in their future, and you tell them, look, we want you to practise restraint.

You know, you have women's groups coming over and trying to explain to the government the importance of their having affirmative action to demonstrate your intentions, to show that you will, by good will, take a step in the direction that will show an example for other people in this province, that this government stands first in matters of human equality and human respect, the kind of respect to individuals that you claim is so important. But no, you're not doing that. You're talking about it and campaigning on it, but there's no evidence that you're doing it, when you tell these people that they have to live in a certain area of the province and you're calling them names, saying this is a transient and we have no room for transients.

You tell me, Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . These are the kind of programmes I feel that Bill 3 should be attempting to bring into the province, to try to give people some inspiration, to give them some purpose for wanting to support the government. But no, that's not the case.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill has not pointed out in any way what it intends to do with these moneys. It says that it anticipated a deficit. Well, we always anticipate things, but let's get down to specifics. You have gone to great pains to create a deficit. You had hoped to be able to get the money by March 31 so you could say "Well here it is on this side of the table." But now I wonder how you're going to deal with it, That's going to be interesting.

I would like to move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McGeer files answers to question re ICBC

[ Page 504 ]

cash position. (See appendix.)

MR. CHABOT: I beg leave to present a petition. The petition is from the Vancouver Stock Exchange praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Vancouver Stock Exchange be received.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that, in light of today's earlier proceedings concerning the order of business in this House, which was sprung by surprise on the opposition, after the Whip for the Official Opposition believed that an agreement on the order of business had been arrived at between him and the government Whip, we find, apparently, that the government is overriding their own Whip. Until such time as we have a commitment from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that the government is indeed prepared to honour the agreement which has been developed between the government Whip and the opposition Whip, I must say that we will have to withdraw our Whip from any consultation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjections.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the other night, earlier this week, we had to speak on this floor when I had to bring up that an agreement had been broken with our Whip. I said at that time we had an adjournment in the House to see if the Whips could meet and effect an agreement on Bill 3.

No agreement was made that night and we asked for a subsequent meeting the following morning, and I stated quite clearly that night — and I state again — that there would be no Whips' agreement after the experience we'd had with that opposition if agreement couldn't be reached. Agreement wasn't reached and there has been no formal Whips' agreement in this House since that time. It didn't start today; it started when they broke the agreement earlier this week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. members, we have heard a statement by the Leader of the Opposition and a statement by the Premier concerning a breakdown in communications between Whips. I think that that's something that the Whips themselves can get together to determine.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is not prepared to entertain a debate on the matter. A statement was made by....

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll recognize you in a moment, hon. member. Hon. members, a statement was made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition which the House listened to. Out of courtesy to the Premier, he was allowed to make a statement on behalf of the government side of the House, which I think is traditional. I would hope that that ends the matter for the time being because we cannot enter into a debate on the matter at this particular time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: I put forward an appeal to the Premier to give some undertaking regarding the Whip system. He got up in this House the other night and made a....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have listened to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition. I've listened to a reply from the hon. Premier of the province. There will not be a debate on the matter at this time. At this particular time, that ends the matter for the moment. If there's something to be taken up outside of the House between the party leaders or the Whips, that's the business of the government and the opposition, but not the business of the House at this particular time.

Hon. member, are you on a point of order?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Yes, I wish to raise a point of order. I think it is a point of order to announce in light of the information received that our Whip has withdrawn from any consultation with the government under those circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: That ends the matter as far as the House is concerned at this particular time.

Interjections.

MR. KING: You're a petulant child!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, I advised the House yesterday.... Order! Hon. members, I

[ Page 505 ]

advised the House yesterday that I would consider the motion proposed to be put without notice by the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) which motion is in the form of an instruction to the committee of selection appointed March 17 last. The proposed instruction is to name a committee of privileges to inquire into allegations contained in a petition presented to the House by the hon. member on Tuesday last.

There has been a report in the House that the petitions contained irregularities pursuant to standing order 73(6) . The hon. member cited certain authorities from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, Beauchesne, 4th edition, together with House of Commons Debates, Ottawa, all of which have been considered together with additional authorities.

Our standing order 26 provides that whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately. It is proper, and indeed expected, that if the matter raised constitutes a question of privilege, it is followed by a motion which may be moved without notice.

The duty of the Speaker is first to determine whether or not a prima facie breach of privilege has been established. It is not the Speaker's duty to rule on the substantive question. In order to determine whether a prima facie case of breach of privilege exists, it is obvious that I must first determine whether or not the subject matter in fact involves a matter of privilege at all. I refer, hon. members, to the Journals of this House, 1972, at page 191, wherein my predecessor dealt exhaustively with the question of what matters constitute privilege. Mr. Speaker Dowding quoted the 17th edition of May which describes parliamentary privilege as:

"The sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of parliament and by the members of each House individually without which they could not discharge their functions. The privileges of parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. When any of these immunities, both of the members individually and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of 'privileges' are disregarded or attacked, by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the laws of parliament."

In the same edition of May the privileges which attach to members of parliament individually are enumerated as follows: "1. Privileges of freedom of speech. 2. Privilege of freedom from arrest or molestation. 3. Privilege of access to the Crown."

I cannot perceive how the matter raised, which seeks to have a committee constituted by whatever name to inquire into allegations of unauthorized access to and knowledge of budgetary information, falls within the ambit of privilege as previously set forth.

On the subject of the motion that an inquiry be launched to investigate how certain information leaked out, if it was a fact that information had actually been conveyed, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled, and I quote from the House of Commons Journals, Ottawa, page 1011:

"I fail to see how this can be a matter of privilege. There are a number of precedents indicated to hon. members that this type of situation can not be treated as a question of privilege."

I have again examined the text by M.N. Kaul and S.L.S. Shakdher entitled Practice and Procedure of Parliament, 2nd edition, 1972, at page 601. The ruling referred to, the ruling of Speaker Dillon, is based on the practice of the Mother of Parliaments to which we look for cases not provided for pursuant to our own standing order 1. I quote from that ruling:

"So far as I can gather, only two cases occurred in which the House of Commons in the United Kingdom took notice of the leakage of the budget proposals. In neither of these was the leakage treated as a breach of privilege of the House; nor were the cases sent to the committee of privileges for inquiry. The prevailing view is that until the financial proposals are placed before the House they are an official secret. A reference of present leakage to the committee of privilege does not, therefore, arise."

I must rule, therefore, that the motion such as that proposed clearly cannot be treated as one of privilege.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a motion before the House which is not debatable. Are you on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: The point of order is this: surely, Mr. Speaker, it is within your realm not to recognize the House Leader for an adjournment after Your Honour has delivered a very important statement to this House, in your opinion, of privilege.

[ Page 506 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There's no debate.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no debate on the statement, hon. member. It will be available....

MR. LAUK: It's not a question of debate on that statement, Mr. Speaker. There are certain rights of this side of the House, and of every member of this House, that should take place before that motion is put.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's non-debatable.

MR. LAUK: I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that you have made a decision....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Speaker of the House has an obligation to bring in a decision as quickly as it is possible to do so. That I have done and delivered. I will repeat the decision: "I must rule, therefore, that the motion such as that proposed clearly cannot be treated as one of privilege." The motion is....

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! There is a motion before the House and the motion is that the House do now adjourn.

Interjections,

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

APPENDIX

19 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

1. Have any borrowings been made by ICBC since December 11, 1975?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, to the latest date available, what were (a) the amounts and dates of each loan and (b) the interest rates paid?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a):

"2. (b) 9.75 per cent per annum."