[ Page 595 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Appointment of David Brown. Mr. King — 595

Explanation of special warrants. Hon. Mr. Wolfe answers — 595

Abridged budget. Mr. Wallace — 596

Money for vocational training recoverable. Mrs. Dailly — 596

$1 million deductible school fire insurance. Mr. Gibson — 596

Status of Mr. Newell Morrison. Mr. Macdonald — 597

Autoplan instalment accounts receivable. Mr. Stupich — 597

Pay cuts for Crown corporation senior executives. Mr. Wallace — 597

Insurance coverage of B.C. car owners. Mr. Barnes — 598

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 598

Mr. Nicolson — 599

Mr. Lloyd — 604

Mr. Lea — 610

Mr. Hewitt — 617

Mr. Haddad — 621

Mr. Veitch — 625

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the legislative buildings today, and in the gallery, is a group of mayors and aldermen representing northern communities who have been discussing serious problems affecting their communities with the government. I would like this assembly to welcome Mayor Fraser of Williams Lake, Mayor Tingley of Quesnel, Mayor Stewart of Squamish, Mayor Underhill of Pemberton, Mayor Adams of Clinton, Mayor Hoy of Fort St. James, Mayor Richard of Lillooet, Mayor Dahlen of Dawson Creek, Alderman Galbraith of Fort St. John, Mayor Moffat of Prince George, Mayor Marks of 100 Mile House and Mayor Lassor of Chetwynd.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are friends from North Vancouver, Maurice and Vi Rodin. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral questions.

APPOINTMENT OF DAVID BROWN

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. Can the Provincial Secretary tell me whether or not David Brown, who was appointed special adviser to the government by order-in-council No. 215 has taken the oath subscribed to by persons appointed to the public service?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary and if the Provincial Secretary would also take as notice: if, indeed, it's the case that he has taken the oath, could the Provincial Secretary provide the time such oath was taken and by whom?

EXPLANATION OF SPECIAL WARRANTS

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like an opportunity to reply to questions asked recently of myself regarding certain special warrants.

The first one I would like to reply to is to the member for North Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly) She asked for the explanation for special warrant No. 703, dated March 2, 1976, which was supplementing vote 46 for post-secondary education and training in the amount of $3,855,000.

Mr. Speaker, this warrant is required due to an over-expenditure on post-secondary education. for vocational training which exceeded the original budget by 10 per cent. The Department of Education received Treasury Board approval on July 15, 1975, for an additional $3.8 million for vocational training programmes, about 10 per cent of the original budget. The additional costs arose from two factors: first, additional costs arising from higher per diem costs and smaller classes. These were escalated as a direct result of the vocational instructors collective agreement settlement. Secondly, the Department of Labour increased the number of apprentice ship referrals to provincial institutions, A substantial share of the additional expenditures is recoverable from the federal government.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the former government really did fail to anticipate these changes in their original budget.

The second question I would like to reply to today came from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) regarding special warrant No. 705, dated March 2, 1976. It was a supplementary to vote 146, the scaling fund, in the amount of $887,000 and originated, of course, from the Minister of Forests.

This warrant was specifically due to overexpenditures in the scaling fund as the direct result of retaining regular employees with more than two years service seniority, and who are not subject to layoff. You should refer to article 13, layoff and recall, in the BCGEU master agreement which, in effect, created the situation.

This vote should have been a zero balance, as you have indicated earlier, Mr. Member. Mr. Williams, the former Minister of Forests, was aware of this situation in November of 1975, as was the former Minister of Finance, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who asked the question. In effect, they failed to act at that time when they still had responsibility to do so, which left it for our government to face this expenditure by special warrant. This special warrant was obviously urgently required, as indicated by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, a third question originated from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) It was regarding special warrant 709, dated March 2, having to do with the Department of Public Works, in the amount of $595,000. I don't think he identified the nature of the warrant, but what it covered was matters urgently required to cover over expenditures under vote 236, safety inspection division, in the amount of $325,000, and vote 237, Glendale laundry operation, in the amount of $270,000, for a total of $595,000. They were straight over expenditures on the original estimates for the year.

The last one I would like to reply to today, Mr.

[ Page 596 ]

Speaker, originated from the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), regarding special warrant 708, dated March 2, 1976, in the amount of $2,860,000, originating from the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). This warrant covered over expenditures on a series of votes within her department, listed as follows: vote 193, postal branch, additional requirement $200,000. The original re-estimate was made at the time the constituency mailing policy for MLAs was instituted, and the decision to mail out the magazine Land was made; these are the matters which created the over expenditure.

Vote 202 was $350,000 required for the Workers' Compensation Board. This was an assessment on class 13 of the Workers' Compensation Act and was created largely due to two fatal accidents, a higher cost of settling claims, added coverage and increased pensions due to the cost-of-living adjustments.

Thirdly, vote 203 had to do with unemployment insurance expense. The original estimate was too low as we did not anticipate salary adjustments and cost-of-living costs due to a negotiated agreement. In addition, the federal government increased the premiums and the maximum contribution, effective January 1, 1976.

Vote 219, an overexpenditure of $160,000 for the Public Service Gratuities account. These gratuities are paid out on the death of a public servant. Our forecast was based on prior costs. If the incidence of death is higher, we simply do not have sufficient funds. So there was an underestimate of the incidence of deaths accruing to that account.

Lastly, vote 227, Public Service Medical Plan, $250,000. This was to cover the added provincial employer's share, as a result of the province increasing its payment from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the premium, effective January 1, 1976. I think that should cover the answers to those four questions, Mr. Speaker.

ABRIDGED BUDGET

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance with regard to the matter of the concluding paragraphs on the budget speech, which have been edited in regard to the version being sent outside of British Columbia. I would like to ask the minister: since the budget was presented to the House, has the Minister of Finance, or any official in his department, been in contact by telephone, telegram or letter with Mr. MacEachen, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or any member of his department?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Oak Bay, not to my knowledge.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Under these circumstances, and because of the controversy that has been created, has any decision been made by the Minister of Finance to initiate, even as a courtesy, contact with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at least to put B.C.'s position to him privately?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't view this as being a necessary action for this province to take.

MR. WALLACE: Not even as a courtesy?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MONEY FOR VOCATIONAL
TRAINING RECOVERABLE

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for his reply on the warrants, and therefore my question is to do with one of your replies re the post-secondary warrant for vocational training. Is it not true, to the hon. minister, that that money is recoverable from federal Manpower?

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, he did say that. How do you list it then? Do you still list it at this time as an over expenditure in the Department of Education? In the Clarkson, Gordon report it's still listed as an over expenditure, although the money is recoverable. I just want to have that made clear.

MR. GIBSON: If the minister wanted to answer, I would be....

MR. SPEAKER: Would you defer to the minister, hon. member?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Just in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for North Burnaby, the answer is yes.

$1 MILLION DEDUCTIBLE
SCHOOL FIRE INSURANCE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Education: with respect to the minister's unilateral decision to make school fire insurance $1 million deductible, is the minister aware that the B.C. School Trustees Association has received a legal opinion indicating that in the absence of special regulation, this action places school trustees retroactively in contravention of section 178 of the

[ Page 597 ]

Public Schools Act and puts a personal legal liability on the trustees in the event of fire?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, that opinion is not shared by the legal advice to the government, and we will be meeting with the school trustees on this question tomorrow.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary: I would wonder why he didn't meet with the trustees before taking this action, but is he prepared to assure this House that he will guarantee them again such legal liability caused by the government's action?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we give that guarantee, and at the meeting with the school trustees we will be discussing this and other questions, Mr. Member.

STATUS OF MR. NEWELL MORRISON

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance whether Newell Morrison assisted his department, and, if he did, during what period and what did he do? Did he help with the budget?

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that that question was asked before.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier said he referred it to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: It was taken as notice by the Premier on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In reply to the member, Mr. Speaker, I had in mind to reply to that today, as a matter of fact. I just overlooked it when I was on my feet earlier.

The question asked of the Premier which has been referred to me from last Thursday, I believe, was whether Mr. Newell Morrison, a former MLA of this House, has been assisting the government in any capacity, either as a consultant or in a voluntary capacity. The answer to that question is that he has been assisting me in a voluntary capacity, I believe for a total of about three days.

The second question was: has he been assisting in any way in connection with the preparation of the current budget? The answer is no, definitely no, not at all.

AUTOPLAN INSTALMENT
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): To the Minister of Education: does he know the amount outstanding in installment accounts receivable for ICBC Autoplan as at February 28 or March 31, or whatever — installment accounts receivable on premiums?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the plan initiated by the NDP two years ago, there is still approximately $1.5 million in bad debts from that programme still unresolved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: So far, with our programme, there are no bad debts. I'll endeavour to get for the member the number of people who are on the instalment plan, but I want to say that it's a matter of some distress to the corporation to have had these bad debts left over from the NDP days.

PAY CUTS FOR CROWN
CORPORATION SENIOR EXECUTIVES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of his reported statement that there's a great deal of sensitivity to higher salary levels in Crown corporations, and since we've already had the budget statement that there will be pay cuts for ministers and MI-As: have any senior executives in Crown corporations been asked to take a pay cut, or have they volunteered to do so?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob Bonner.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We'll take that question as notice, Mr. Member. To my knowledge there's been no request made.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a quick supplementary, perhaps to the Minister of Transport responsible for Hydro: has the Minister of Transport taken any initiatives to set up meetings between the government and senior executives of B.C. Hydro to discuss the issue of either freezing or reducing their salaries?

MR. SPEAKER: Might I suggest, before the minister answers, that that was not a supplemental question. That's another question directed to another minister.

MR. WALLACE: The minister responsible for a Crown corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In fairness to other people who want to ask questions, I must try to recognize members who have been trying to get into the debate.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and

[ Page 598 ]

Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay to his last supplementary question is no.

INSURANCE COVERAGE OF B.C. CAR OWNERS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): This is to the Minister of Education. Recent reports indicate automobile traffic throughout the province is down considerably from what has been experienced in the past. My question to the minister is: could he tell the House the number of registered car owners in the province of British Columbia, and now that motorists are required to carry only public liability and property damage, what number of registered owners are now covered?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. minister take the question as notice?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we have any hard evidence that the traffic is down. We do have hard evidence that the accidents are down, which is the good effect of our new policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed further this afternoon I'd just like to draw to your attention a couple of things with respect to the question period. One of them is the type of question that is asked and which would be more properly put on the order paper because you are soliciting or asking for information that is difficult, I'm sure, for a minister to reply to immediately, and that results in the question being taken as notice.

The other is that there's a tendency, both by the questioner and by hon. ministers answering questions, to editorialize a little bit more than I think should be done in the question period. I'd ask you, in fairness to all of the members who wish to participate, to make your questions a little briefer in the future and more to the point. Thank you.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): And what about the answers?

MR. SPEAKER: The same applies to the answers. If they are long, they should be filed as a return to the House, or on leave to make a statement.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, hon. members, since this is my maiden address I hope that I too may be spared as much of the heckling as possible. I realize it's perhaps difficult at times. Although I attempted to refrain from it myself as often as I could, very often it was difficult when listening to some of the rhetoric that has taken place in the House over the last several weeks.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, one of my greatest disappointments since taking my seat in the House has been the obvious waste of time through a lot of unnecessary filibustering. When you consider all that must be done to this great province, and when you are a doer, your patience tends to wear a little thin. Waste is waste, and it's the one thing we have had lots of and could well do without.

Perhaps too many legislators underestimate the intelligence of the citizens. The majority basically know what has to be done and it's up to us to do these things and do them well. In the final analysis the results will speak for themselves.

I have, of course, been especially disappointed with the debate from the opposition, not so much because of what was said or what was not said, but because of the many inconsistencies and contradictions that I've heard.

I recall that during the ICBC debate a great deal was said by the opposition regarding the sacredness of the automobile, that subsidizing fenders over people was really all right. Yet the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will well remember the Scott Road kerfuffle in my constituency when his former department would not province the bus bays in the redesigned road, reasoning that it was better to stop the bus in the middle of the road and let the cars pile up behind as this would create such lengthy delays and a nuisance to people that they would leave their cars at home and take the bus. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's what they used to say.

I recall the Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) saying, while speaking to Bill 3, that government is not like people. My question is: if government is comprised of people, or if government is people, how can it be not like people? The same member admitted that this bill was a culmination of, mismanagement of British Columbia's financial affairs. He admitted he was not opposed to the bill. He acknowledged the mess; he accepted the remedy as being proper. Yet at the very same time this same member charged that the bill was a deliberate punishment to the voters of British Columbia, especially the low-income people.

If ever the poor and unfortunate suffered, it was during the years of the previous administration. While the ministers' offices were being lavishly refurbished with expensive furniture, the Woodlands School for the mentally retarded saw only three gallons of paint in 1975.

[ Page 599 ]

While ministerial staff were being highly awarded in large numbers and while many local supporters of the previous administration rallied around the cause and were given large grants, the staff at Woodlands School, Tranquille and Glendale saw drastic cuts.

While executives were being hired at top-level pay with fantastic half-secret pension plans, the welfare recipients had not received an increase for almost two years.

Day care had been practically ignored for two years and the people providing the services to the needy had their pleas for increased rates ignored and were having an impossible time in attempting to collect the moneys payable to them.

This budget does mean higher taxes. The people are being forced to burden the results of financial mismanagement but they are a better pill now than the cost of a funeral later. No one likes higher taxes. No one likes to pay. No one likes to tighten his belt.

But British Columbians are proud people and will sacrifice a little in order to return their province to prosperity and progress. A well-intentioned province cannot provide for its needy unless it has the resources, and the resources are only of real value when they are producing for the people.

This budget clearly sets out government priorities. It provides more money for people services than any other budget in B.C.'s history. No other budget has ever placed such obvious emphasis on people needs, but this government knows that people are British Columbia's greatest resource and that this resource is at its best when well fed, clothed, educated and enjoying a high standard of health.

I represent the most populated area of British Columbia's largest municipality, Surrey. This municipality has long suffered from burgeoning urban pressures, Taxes have been generally higher than elsewhere, and the needs of the community are so many that it was impossible for a municipal council alone to resolve them. The municipality needs more thriving industry, not only because industry provides a better tax base but also because jobs must be provided close by if we are to stem off, at least for a time, a total transportation disaster because of inadequate river crossings, poor highways and a yet incomplete transportation system. I trust that during this year, in cooperation with my colleagues, many of these pressing problems may and will receive attention.

I am pleased that this budget provides considerable assistance to municipalities at their time of greatest need. It provides an additional 50 per cent revenue from the natural gas tax, added grants to municipalities for new housing development, interest-free loans to builders for construction of low-rental units, an increased second mortgage allotment, and added homeowner tax relief for senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased also that this government so quickly and efficiently approved Surrey's $33 million water and sewer programme, the greatest step yet taken towards alleviating the housing shortage.

British Columbia is once again moving ahead and the beneficiaries are the people.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and take my place in this debate on the budget on behalf of the people of Nelson-Creston.

During my absence in the introductions someone recognized Mr. and Mrs. Hyssop from Nelson-Creston and might have introduced them, but they are here in the gallery and I would ask the members to make them welcome.

This budget is a punitive, vengeful budget. The previous speaker alluded to some of the positive parts in the budget — to some of the initiatives taken in housing. I don't quarrel with incentives taken in housing. I don't quarrel with incentives given to municipalities in terms of grants for housing starts. Although there were municipalities that responded to the need for housing — municipalities like Burnaby, which over the past couple of years moved ahead, cooperated with the provincial government and recognized their responsibility — there were other municipalities...and it just so happens, by some coincidence, that the previous speaker was the mayor of one of the municipalities in which we saw a drop, year by year, in the number of units under construction.

He has just announced that some plans have been approved for expenditures on sewer and water programmes, but, you know, during the time that I was Minister of Housing we tried to do something positive about the Bridgeview problem. I wonder if that expenditure includes the Bridgeview problem. Is it going to mean that the people who have had to put up with septic tank seepage above the ground level over the past years...is that problem going to be rectified by that? Under the previous government I was successful in getting a multimillion dollar programme approved which would have provided for an innovative type of pumping which would have enabled sewage programmes to go in for those residential units. But then Surrey bet up the ante.

No, they didn't want about a $2.5 million programme; they want a $5.6 million programme, one that would serve the industrial community. We were trying to help people, and that council, led by that former mayor and now minister of the Crown, tried to up the ante.

You know, it reminds me of a game that I sometimes play when my wife is trying to get me to do something. The one thing you can do if you want to procrastinate is enlarge upon the project until it becomes so impossible a task that it.... I notice the

[ Page 600 ]

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) smiling; I think he's perhaps used this technique, this ruse, himself. But a bookshelf becomes the renovation of an entire room, with the necessity to knock out a wall, and by the....

I see no acknowledgment from the minister whether or not Bridgeview is included in that expansion. He doesn't nod his head.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's a municipal decision.

MR. NICOLSON: It's a municipal decision, Bridgeview. Well, I would hope that at least this new government would stand by what we had approved through Treasury and through inter-departmental committee, both at the ministerial level and at the departmental level for Bridgeview, because we felt that the people in Bridgeview and Surrey were most important. We felt that they had a problem not of their own making, and that they deserved some special kind of assistance.

The budget contains punitive taxes. While there might be some positive incentives in the field of housing, at the same time we've seen that they aren't really adding a programme; they are substituting a programme.

We've seen that the government is intending to sell housing units that are badly needed as rental housing units. Again, it becomes part of the so-called "manufactured" deficit. Part of the plans of the previous government would have eliminated some $60 million to $70 million from the manufactured deficit which was directed in the Clarkson, Gordon report.

We would have created a Crown corporation, and certain long-term mortgages could be held in the name of that corporation because they are assets. In fact, they are quite convertible assets, as the government is proving.

We built the 216 units on Government Road. We had many other projects underway. Several units are under construction in Simon Fraser Hills — I don't know the exact figure, but at least 100 or 200 — and all over the province. It brings into question: what is the fate, for instance, of the programme which we had to encourage the private sector to build small housing units suitable for families, and which the federal and provincial government partnership could take over as family rental housing?

What is the fate in Vancouver of the Granger project at West 13th Avenue and Laurel Street? Those 14 units — they were completed in December, 1975 — are they to be sold? Are the people to be given a one-year lease and then, perhaps, a choice of coming up with a down payment? Are they to be sold?

In Richmond, what about the remainder of that project that hasn't been filled? In Matsqui, the Cedarhurst project on the McCallum Road in Abbotsford, 53 units — are they to be rented or are they to be sold? Or a combination?

Mission, Abbotsford, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Campbell River, Prince Rupert: in Prince Rupert there are three projects underway; also in Princeton, Vanderhoof and Castlegar. Furthermore, there are other projects being done entirely by Dunhill Development or the provincial government.

There is a project which was initiated in the city of North Vancouver, almost on the insistence of the city of North Vancouver. In fact, there was quite a debate in here about units, which Dunhill Development had built for profit, called Ashby House. Some of the members who now sit on those government benches made quite a to-do about it, about Ashby House. Then it was being sold as a strata unit. We made a promise to the city of North Vancouver that we would build rental housing in response to the need which they demonstrated, especially for single-parent families and for others who needed rental housing. In response to that we went ahead and we built a project which was called McNeil Place in honour of Grant McNeil. I've asked the minister questions about the fate of that project; he's taken it as notice and he hasn't answered.

I notice in the paper that Pemco Holdings, which was a shell company — the assets of which had all been disposed of, the one asset being the Marigold Housing project lands, which were turned over to the Department of Housing, and the other asset being a piece of land up here which is now under construction for the Department of Public Works for needed office space.... But the shell of that company which was acquired by the Department of Housing is now going to be used as a corporation set up as a means for getting federal government loans for housing.

I don't oppose that move, Mr. Speaker, but I can only imagine what would have happened had we decided to use Pemco Holdings. Oh, what a future there would have been. They would have said that I had promised that if we were going to have a full-fledged housing corporation there would be legislation governing it. We would bring it in before doing such a thing, and that's what we intended to do.

Now, of course, this instrument — Pemco Holdings — could be used for many things. It could be used to generate profits; it could be used to take the capital dollars which were spent in the Department of Housing last year and, with the sale of these units, which are worth well in excess of their cost value...for instance, the units in Burnaby could be easily sold for $70,000 a unit, and their cost is about $44,000 per unit. These things could be used to generate profits which will help to create a surplus

[ Page 601 ]

position in the next year.

So while the government can maybe lay claim to a few positive programmes, such as including single-parent families under the provisions of the new, abridged Mincome programme, which is a partial step in the right direction, there are many aspects that give us no cause for joy.

There is a 40 per cent increase in sales tax, and yet there is no intention by this government to modernize the Social Services Tax Act as it applies to agriculture. What are you doing about such obsolete exemptions which are now contained within the Act? Mr. Speaker, if a farmer goes out to buy milk cans.... Farmers don't use milk cans today. They have modern, mechanized, automated dairy operations, so they're in rather limited demand. But if he's going to buy a scythe or a sickle, that is sales tax exempt.

I hope the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) listens to this, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is listening.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What did you do in three and a half years, Mississippi Mouth?

MR. NICOLSON: Sickles and scythes.... Well, you're in government now, Mr. Minister — you oppressive, intimidating minister, you. (Laughter.)

But if you're going to buy something like auxiliary generating equipment — and often there are power failures in these rural areas which are served by Hydro or West Kootenay Power. If you're going to buy dairy detergents to protect against diseases in the dairy industry, if you're going to buy fence posts or greenhouse equipment, growth inhibitors or regulators, or heating fuel for greenhouse...that's once again a fairly flourishing industry, the greenhouse industry. And I see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has left the House. If you're going to buy salt blocks — now that's something that is still used. If you're going to buy these things, or peat pots or planting bands or sanitizers or steel pipe cattle guards or tank cleaners or veterinary drugs, these items are not exempt from sales tax.

We certainly did make some moves when we were government in terms of used clothing and certain textbooks — technical books and so on, We did make some moves. In fact, I introduced a motion which requested the consideration of such anomalies in the sales tax Act, and I'm going to continue to fight against the anomalies in the social services tax. I'm not going to be intimidated by that Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mississippi Mouth!

MR. NICOLSON: I know he's been here more years than I have. I know that the volume of his voice is almost deafening, but I won't be shouted down by that minister when it comes to defending the farmers from this ridiculous anachronism, this holdover in the social services tax.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I hope that minister would meet more frequently with the various commodity groups, particularly the ones under farm income assurance. Is that minister aware that because of recent freight rate increases and such granted to the CPR, there's about a 50 cent freight rate differential between British Columbia to Ontario bound apples and Washington to Ontario bound apples? There is a 50 cent differential, from what I've been informed. What does the minister intend to do about that? Is he interested in the fruit farmers? Is he interested in the dairy farmers and the other commodity groups under farm income assurance? What does he intend to do to bring this up?

There is nothing encouraging in this budget for the agricultural industry. You know, the farm income assurance is just a constant figure, $27 million, so that isn't much encouragement.

Of course, agriculture is one of the major industries in my riding, and particularly in the Creston Valley — Swan Valley Foods Limited, of course. Some of the initiatives of the previous government were in creating jobs and also encouraging agricultural diversification and a more competitive type of an industry.

One of the other major parts in my riding, of course, is Notre Dame University.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there are so many things in a rural riding, Mr. Member. I have mines in my riding — I have a mine that reopened while we were government, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, we had one close down back in early 1972 when Social Credit was government, in fact, and another one that was being wound down. I think that while we were government we had one open and one close.

Mr. Speaker, I know they don't want to hear about Notre Dame University and I know that the Minister of Education is once again out of his seat and probably on Scare West winging his way back to Vancouver and his security blanket.

Mr. Speaker, Notre Dame University has been under some rather constant attack from this

[ Page 602 ]

government, and yet they try to claim that isn't the case. You know, it goes back to an article which came from the Province Victoria bureau on Thursday, February 19, 1976. It says: "Government Won't Interfere if NDU Closed."

"The provincial government will not interfere if the universities council decides Notre Dame University in Nelson must be closed down, Education minister Pat McGeer said Tuesday.

"McGeer emphasized the decision will be that of the council, not the government, but he refused to answer questions about whether the government will provide extra funds to the council so it can fund the small interior university."

Now that created a little bit of alarm — I should say more than just a little. Other things came out, and people were trying to get in touch with the Minister. The Minister took the point of view that everything had to come from the universities council. In spite of the fact that it wasn't in the terms of reference of the universities council under the Act, he tried to hide behind the universities council.

So we became rather concerned when the universities council started to talk about what it might do, having kept in mind that the Minister of Education had said that if the universities council decides to close down Notre Dame he wouldn't object, it would be okay with him. He said that on Friday, March 19, in an article in the Ubyssey arising from an interview with Dr. William Armstrong of the universities council:

"Notre Dame University will offer degrees from the three coast universities in two years, universities council chairman William Armstrong said Thursday.

"Armstrong said the coast degrees would be offered to correspondence courses, tutorials, the media, through radio and television, and some face-to-face lectures where there are large enough audiences.

"No specific programme has been designed for the correspondence degrees yet, Armstrong said, but he said Education minister McGeer would soon set up a task force to examine the possibility of the programme."

Further on it was said:

"If the NDU board does not accept the recommendations, Armstrong said, it is unlikely that the provincial government will provide any funds for the upcoming year."

Slightly later, on March 22 of 1976, there was an article: "$7 Million for UBC, 30 Days for NDU."

"Deputy Education minister Walter Hardwick said: 'The fiscal year ends March 31, and I would be in a hurry to settle if I were in their position.'"

He was referring to Notre Dame University.

However, he denied the government has issued a 30-day ultimatum. He denied it! But in another article the NDU president, Dr. Val George, substantiated the ultimatum. Just following upon that, the article says the deputy minister of Education, Walter Hardwick, is wrong in telling the press that NDU has not received a 30-day ultimatum.

"Said acting NDU president, Val George: 'We have today, Monday, received a letter from Dr. William Armstrong, which has the ultimatum in writing. The letter says in part: "The deputy minister has advised the Universities Council of B.C. that funds intended for NDU will not be held beyond the deadline announced. These funds will be reallocated elsewhere in the post-secondary system, should curtailment proceedings not actually be initiated by April 15, 1976."'"

So we have the minister saying that the decision will be made by the universities council, and then I must acknowledge that the minister tabled that very letter with this House in which that direct threat exists. He said that he wouldn't interfere with the decision of the universities council, but then he said, on March 24, in a news release from his office on Notre Dame, release 33, 1976:

"Education minister Pat McGeer said today that funding will be available for the continuation of programmes at Notre Dame University in Nelson. He emphasized also that the interior university has not been presented with a deadline to respond to a proposal from the Universities Council of B.C. for the continuation of programmes."

I don't see how the minister could possibly table that letter, unless he hadn't read it. How could he table that letter and put out something like that? You know, what is going on with the minister? Who has an axe to grind? I'm quite concerned. I think somebody is being set up. Somebody is being set up, and I don't think that it's the minister who's being set up.

Either the deputy minister is being set up, and he's being told to direct the president of the universities council, and the president of the universities council and the council are being the willing servants of the government, and they are making recommendations which they think are the pleasure of the government, only to be cut off, to have denials issued by the minister. But Dr. Armstrong sends a letter, and in the letter he says that the deputy minister has advised the Universities Council of B.C. that funds intended for NDU will not be held beyond the deadline announced. These funds will be reallocated elsewhere in the post-secondary system, should curtailment proceedings not actually be initiated by April 15, 1976.

If that isn't a 30-day ultimatum, I don't know

[ Page 603 ]

what is. Is the minister trying to set up Dr. Armstrong for dismissal? Is he trying to sabotage the universities council? Is he trying to use Notre Dame as a pawn in his plan to wreck the universities council and, perhaps, also Notre Dame in the process? Or might Dr. Hardwick become the victim? Dr. Hardwick worked on the Macdonald report. The Macdonald report....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Never mind straying away....

MR. NICOLSON: Perhaps I've listened to you too often, my friend. Dr. Hardwick worked on the Macdonald report. His specific task was, I believe, on the demographic data and information. The decision to go ahead and build Selkirk College in the Kootenay area was predicated upon population statistics of about 100,000 people anticipated by the time that the college was to be constructed. There was some shortfall there, in fact, a shortfall of about 40,000 people. I only say this inside this House because it is being said outside this House, that Dr. Hardwick has an axe to grind. He has to justify and ensure the success of Selkirk College, which is doing pretty good but has some problems of its own. In that it's felt that when ultimatums are given, people are threatened.

When a minister gives a statement conflicting with the word of the president of the universities council, then people start to wonder. I say this for Dr. Hardwick's protection, because I look to Dr. Hardwick as one who might be able to help solve the problem of NDU. He has already spent a great deal of time on NDU while we were government, and he could have played a very important role.

So who is the messenger — Dr. Armstrong, Dr. Hardwick? Or is the minister deliberately setting up something to the detriment of one or the other, or perhaps both of these esteemed gentlemen in education? I only mention a deputy minister, Mr. Speaker, because outside of the House people who feel threatened will lash out and attack even the civil servants when only one person can be taking the responsibility for this. It is not the mandate of the universities council to set government policy about Notre Dame University. There is only one person, and that is the minister, the minister who I understand, in the first couple of months of his office, spent only one and a half days on education matters and the rest of the time on other matters.

What this province needs is a full-time Minister of Education. If you want to extend those cabinet benches, if you want to take some of this raw talent that you have in the back benches, you couldn't do worse than to split up the duties of the Minister of Education.

MR. R.L. Loewen (Burnaby-Edmonds): What this province needs is a good opposition. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Also tabled by the Minister of Education that day, and I thank him for that, was a report prepared by the Universities Council of British Columbia. In its summary, one of the things it says is: "minimal future capital expenditures". Well, it points out the problem there.

Recommendation No. 3:

"Per-student costs for several programmes at Notre Dame University are well beyond the ability of the province to support," it says. "Two programmes, for example, cost over $15,000 and $21,000 per student respectively. Coastal university costs for similar offerings run at approximately one-fifth to one-seventh of such figures."

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would get some information, for instance, from Simon Fraser University or from UBC or from the University of Victoria.

One of the things that they flail away at in the report are the physical sciences, chemistry and mathematics. Now I'm informed that there were some, I believe, six students enrolled in either the honours or majors programmes in physics at Simon Fraser University last year and there were, I believe, some 25 faculty. Those figures I'm quoting you are from memory, but I can substantiate them, or at least I could correct them, but it certainly is in that order of magnitude. What this report has done, what the report of the Universities Council of British Columbia on Notre Dame, prepared by the council staff, has done, is to zero in on the number of people seeking graduation in certain programmes and try to 'work out the expense of educating those persons,

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that it neglects to look at is the fact that faculty don't just teach people in third and fourth year; faculty teach people in first and second-year programmes, and programmes for entry into many, many professional fields. I would submit that this is in very grave error, and I think that the universities council should apply the very same criteria to the third- and fourth-year programmes at Simon Fraser University in chemistry and physics. Being a physics graduate from the University of British Columbia, I was alarmed to note, and I couldn't really believe the figures myself, that the number of physics graduates combined in majors and honours is down to about 25, but the faculty is well in excess of that amount. There are more faculty than there are people graduating in physics.

But, Mr. Speaker, people on the physics faculty teach undergraduates, they teach people going into engineering, they teach people going into education and other fields. They even, indeed, teach people in faculties such as engineering, but for them to point

[ Page 604 ]

out that comparable programmes at UBC are one-fifth to one-seventh this value is absolutely misleading and absolutely erroneous. It's his responsibility to get involved. He has to spend more than one and a half days per two months on education.

Also, in the field of fine arts they came up with horrendous costs, not realizing that there are two different programmes being taught in the same classes, that the fine arts programme instruction at Notre Dame University goes on in cooperation with the Kootenay School of Fine Arts. While there might be two or three pupils from Notre Dame enrolled in such a programme, the total class enrolment in those senior years is well in excess of that. In fact, the Kootenay School of Fine Arts is so well subscribed that they had to turn away as many as 100 applicants.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the report makes some good recommendations, as well as having some poorly warmed-over misinformation in it.

One of the ironic things in it, though — and which I must say before I be positive about it — is that they say that only about 15 per cent of the students attending university from the Kootenays go to Notre Dame University — that is, of all the students going to coast universities and so on. They say that this is some reason to call the viability of the institution into question. They also say that only 21 per cent of the students there are from the Kootenay area, and therefore it isn't really serving its purpose.

You know, it would be rather interesting to take the very fine programmes which are offered in the vocational school up in Dawson Creek.... Take the farrier programme: now I wonder what percentage of the people who want to become skilled in looking after the hooves of horses become farriers. People who want to take up that trade — and there's a great demand for that trade; good money to be made in it, Mr. Speaker, should we ever fall on hard times — but I would wonder what percentage of those people come from the Peace River area. Does it then follow that the programme should be shut down, should be moved down to Chilliwack or somewhere else in the lower mainland because a small percentage of the people who take that farrier programme come from the Peace River area? I know that people from Nelson have gone up there to take the programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd know it has already been moved.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it shouldn't have been moved, Mr. Member, and you shouldn't have let it happen. You should have fought for those people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It was your Minister of Education who moved it.

MR. NICOLSON: If you'd only come and spoken to me. If you'd only spoken to me I could have helped you. I could have helped you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It was a logical move.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't think it's a logical move, Mr. Member. I think it's about time that some of the people got out of the lower mainland, got out of the southern end of Vancouver Island, and saw the rest of this province.

I would like to point out one of the major reasons for keeping the option of at least one small interior university.

I see my two minutes are starting, Mr. Speaker. In summing up: this is an undergraduate programme, and if we can encourage people to even leave Vancouver or even leave Victoria, where they do have university facilities, or leave Burnaby, and go to the interior, maybe get some taste of what life in the interior can be, then perhaps if they graduate in the arts or science then they come down here and if they take law or if they take medicine, or some other professional programme, dentistry, then perhaps these people will feel motivated to once again move up into the interior where they are so badly needed.

It isn't so much that we have a shortage of professionals; it is the distribution of professionals in this province that's inequitable. It isn't as hard to get a dental appointment here in Victoria where the climate and everything else has attracted people, but it's very difficult to get a dental appointment in the north, So if we can continue this type of an institution, if we can look beyond some of these figures, and if the minister would make a positive, encouraging statement that Notre Dame is going to continue not just next year, not just the year after, but the year after that and the year after that and the year after that, and as long as he's minister and as long as he has breath in his body, then Notre Dame will flourish, students will go there, and the people of Nelson-Creston and the Kootenays will rest assured.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I'm making my maiden speech in this House. I feel that quite a point of topical interest is the delegation that was introduced by our Premier, and which is down on a matter of grave concern to all the mayors of the cities along the BCR, and I'll be dealing with that directly in my speech today. So I think it's quite topical.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent the great riding of Fort George, which was one of the ridings recommended for two MLAs in the redistribution study the previous government commissioned but did not utilize. The reasons that Fort George was recommended for increased representation was because of the tremendous growth

[ Page 605 ]

our area has sustained — growth in industrial output, forest industry expansion but, most important, a tremendous growth in population.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue with my speech in support of the first budget presented by this Social Credit administration, I would like to add my congratulations to the others on the appointment of the Member for North Peace (Hon. Mr. Smith) as Speaker of the House. I feel his impartiality and sense of fair play will sustain him very well during his term of office. My congratulations also to yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Schroeder). I am sure your sense of humour and your appreciation of high moral standards will assist you a great deal in your role as Deputy Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our Premier on his choice of cabinet members. I feel the legislative experience and the expertise in their respective fields which the cabinet members possess will be of tremendous benefit to our government in the difficult tasks of restoring our province's battered economy.

The challenge is not only to restore financial stability to our province — the greater challenge in B.C. may be to restore the sense of pride in accomplishment as well as the concern for one's fellow citizens. During the last three years the previous government created an attitude of distrust, suspicion and antagonism among different segments of our society. The legislative powers that were indiscriminately given to cabinet ministers — the power to embark on spending sprees with public moneys without scrutiny or debate by the Legislature — these are powers that will be rescinded, our Premier has assured this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, because of much of the future that has been caused by Bill 3, the B.C. Deficit Repayment Act, the charges and counter-charges of juggling of provincial deficits, I feel it's very timely and because of these ongoing political ramifications I am very relieved that our Premier has pledged an auditor-general will be established and quarterly financial reports will be available to the public as soon as practical.

I would readily concur with many of my fellow MLAs' previous statements that this House should get on with the business we were elected to carry out. I would welcome an indication that the hon. opposition members, many of whom have espoused this same sentiment, are seriously prepared to allow the province's affairs to be dealt with in a rational manner. I am sure my constituents would not appreciate the waste of taxpayers' money that has been involved in these time-consuming, politically motivated, constant delaying tactics.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to impress upon this House what I feel the constituents from that dynamic riding of Fort George really expect in legislative guidance and financial responsibility from this government.

First, however, I should like to familiarize this assembly with some pertinent facts regarding the fastest growing riding in our province, the newly amalgamated City of Prince George covering some 79,180 acres and having a population fast approaching 70,000 people. I say "fast approaching" because a few years ago Prince George's birth rate, on a per capita basis, almost surpassed that of Calcutta's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh? (Laughter).

MR. LLOYD: While Prince George is our major population centre, it is only one of the dynamic communities in. my riding. Going south-east of Prince George 120 miles, we have the village of McBride situated in a beautiful mountain setting. While lumbering is important in McBride's economy, the fertile farmland of the Fraser Valley supports survival farming and a dairying industry. Still further to the cast, another 60 miles, Valemount sits also in an alpine setting and, again, though lumbering is most important, the potential tourist and recreational industry is only beginning to be capitalized on. Helicopters are utilized to whisk skiers to some of the best powder-skiing slopes in British Columbia. Fishing and hunting lure tourists to practically a virgin area of our province at Valemount, Tete Jaime Cache and McBride in the summer season.

Other pioneer sawmill communities located on the Fraser on the CNR mainline, also east of Prince George, are Lamming Mills, Dome Creek, Penny, Sinclair Mills, Upper Fraser, Aleza Lake, Giscome, Willow River and Shelley. Of these only Upper Fraser and Shelley are still operating sawmills. Both these are owned by Northwood Pulp and Timber together with their pulp mill and sawmills located in Prince George.

Besides extending east for over 180 miles, the Fort George riding extends west some 40 miles to Bednesti and east some 30 miles past Stoner. To the north our riding goes 120 miles to the instant town of Mackenzie on Williston lake. Mackenzie is almost totally dependent on the forest industry, having two pulp mills and three major sawmill complexes operating. Mackenzie has experienced many growing pains but with a young, energetic population of over 6,000 people and a dedicated, capable council, they can look forward to a bright future.

They have rail facilities, at times, and they have built themselves an air strip that they pioneered themselves and they have a very good access road to

[ Page 606 ]

the out-dated Hart Highway linking them to Prince George. Mr. Speaker, I say out-dated Hart Highway. Perhaps I should add out-lived. The Hart Highway, 90 miles north from Prince George towards Mackenzie, was completed some 22 years ago with a 24-foot paved service, the narrowest paved major highway in British Columbia. The alignment is poor and the shoulders are non-existent on most sections, earning this highway the title of suicide road.

Only just recently, I have been informed, a man, retired for only two weeks after a lifetime of work...this man and his wife were both killed in a collision with a freight truck, due largely to the poor conditions of the Hart Highway. They were the latest in an ever-increasing toll.

In the last several weeks, due directly to the B.C. Rail strike situation, this road is also being pounded and cut to pieces. The old blacktop is crumbling due to the heavy freight traffic when the road should rightfully be limited to partial loading.

It is only due to the compassion for the forest industries and their employees at Mackenzie and Bear Lake, which is 42 miles from Prince George, that the road weight restrictions have not been imposed.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House: how much longer are we going to stand by and let the selfish demands of a small segment of our labour force dictate to the detriment of their fellow workers and the rest of the public, depending on the services of an efficient rail transportation system? Mackenzie will suffer a death blow if industry is again forced to close. Finlay Forest Industries, I understand, have lost some 40 per cent of the working days in the last two years due to labour strife.

Mackenzie has not recovered from last year's disastrous pulp mill strike. Mackenzie's forest industry relies on the BCR for economical, viable transportation of her forest products and supplies. This they have not enjoyed for the last three years in particular.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the budget speech that the public is being asked to show restraint and sacrifice. Industry and labour alike are facing tax increases to re-establish our province's financial credibility. An ever-increasing portion of the budget has been allocated for health care, welfare and education, very commendable areas of concern which I support fully. However, our highways budget has been decreased in spite of the already small highways programme of the last several years.

Still, Mr. Speaker, I can agree with the budget priorities, so we may plan an extensive highway rebuilding programme next year and in the future when the provincial economy can sustain a realistic programme.

However, I repeat: how can we as MLAs, as responsible representatives of our constituents, let any segment of our society inflict such havoc on our economy, when everyone else is sacrificing and enduring hardship to build a brighter future? We are faced with the paradox. Do we sensibly impose weight restrictions to salvage a worn-out highway that we cannot afford to replace and thereby create untold hardship for the communities and industries depending on the movement of their supplies and produce, or, Mr. Speaker, is it our duty to restore leadership and concern for the majority of our citizens and follow the recommendations strongly urged on us by the mayors and the councils of the communities affected? Should we declare the BCR system an essential service and legislate a settlement?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to strongly state I am not anti-union. I believe in any person's right to belong to, or not to belong to, any responsible union of their choice and to withhold their services when they feel they must to gain recognition of their plight. I also believe a union member has certain moral responsibilities to his fellow workers, his employer and to his country.

The last government, under the guidance of the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King), the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, created labour legislation and a powerful labour board, which was supposed to be the ultimate in labour legislation, to ensure fair treatment of union members and peaceful, harmonious labour negotiations.

AN HON. MEMBER: It didn't work.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, the BCR is only one situation. Why did the former government have to implement legislation ordering unions back to work if this advanced labour legislation was supposed to work so well?

Mr. Speaker, when I mention the damage to the Hart Highway, I was not indicating that this was the most serious issue resulting from the latest strike situation on the BCR. I should also mention Fort Nelson in your own riding where industry, strictly dependent on the BCR services, has been forced to close down, losing valuable key personnel and adding to our already serious unemployment crisis.

I could also mention Taku Lake where forest companies are losing production and cannot ship log supplies to the mills in Prince George, or the pulp mills in Prince George who have to curtail production due to the supply and product shipment problems.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I could mention any town or industry located on BCR track that has suffered irreconcilable losses due to this stoppage. There's millions of dollars of wasted chip piles accumulated on the pulp strike last summer. This current BCR work stoppage has added to the waste in chips to anyone not able to ship by truck.

[ Page 607 ]

Our provincial budget outlines the critical financial position of our province. Are we so rich or ignorant that we think we can afford to continue wasting valuable resources or loss of employment in industrial production? My constituents cannot afford higher freight rates, so they're not urging the BCR to buy the unions off at any cost. But their patience and resources are diminishing rapidly.

The mayors delegation was very pleased with the Labour Minister's explanations of ongoing negotiations in this very delicate period during this last strike to try to correct the present difficulties. Again, their patience is limited.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. members to give consideration to the ramifications arising as a result of the present labour strife and the increased costs suffered by the public as a direct result of prolonged and unnecessary strikes. I would suggest that an economic survey of the entire service and government labour sector versus the primary industries' labour wage scale is long overdue. Our province is pricing our products off the world market while productivity is steadily decreasing, especially in the service and government labour sector. Unless the service industries and the government corporations are prepared to scale their wage demands in line with what our prime resource industries — forestry, mining, agriculture and the tourist industry — can afford to pay then B.C.'s bubble of prosperity will burst, taking with it years of planning, co-ordination, hard work and sacrifice.

I would now like to give due credit to that most industrious and record-breaking city which forms the nucleus of my riding, namely Prince George. Prince George is geographically located in the centre of our great province, and it's B.C.'s largest city north of New Westminster. It serves as a cultural and recreation centre as well as the major distribution centre and trading area for the entire central and northern area of our province.

Our city has been fortunate in the leadership it has received in the past, and today's council, under mayor Harold Moffat's capable guidance, deserves commendation for the forward planning and prudent direction they give to the city.

Prince George's future is assured with a growth potential unsurpassed by any city in British Columbia. Major power transmission lines from the Bennett Dam to the south and west of the province go through our city. Hydro power is redistributed from the Williston substation located in Prince George. We have two chemical plants to supplement our related industries. Is it any wonder that industrial expansion has exploded in Prince George with power, gas and oil all available, with major highways intersecting there, with CNR and BCR freight service both serving our city?

Prince George has long been known as the white spruce capital of the world, shipping more spruce lumber than any other centre. More recently, with five pulp mills in the Fort George riding producing some one million tons in total of unbleached kraft pulp, bleached kraft and round wood pulp, we must also be the pulp capital.

The Prince George forest district, the largest in the province, has a cut of over 3.5 million cunits, which sustains some of the most modern, innovative sawmills in North America, and two plywood plants plus a veneer mill.

Prince George is also centrally located in relation to the major coal and mineral deposits which will be developed under an independent-enterprise government.

The fabrication of modern sawmill and logging equipment is another major industry in our area. Home construction has recently been expanded by the establishment of plants manufacturing pre-built homes. In connection with home construction, Prince George's land-assembly programme, started by Ray Williston in cooperation with the city administration, has provided the lowest-cost fully serviced lots for homeowners in our province. I would expect to see this land-assembly programme initiated in other areas of our province, under the capable direction of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

Another service our residents enjoy is a good fresh supply of clean Nechako water, which is chlorinated and fluoridated. Our dentists state emphatically that if all the municipal supplies in B.C. were fluoridated, tooth decay would be drastically reduced, and, of course, also the related costs.

Prince George is also the headquarters for regional offices of most federal and provincial departments, which imposes a burden on local taxpayers somewhat similar to Victoria's government buildings due to tax relief granted to senior levels of government. This is a situation that I would also like to see adjusted.

Prince George serves as a major cultural and convention centre. We have 16 hotels and 27 motels. Plans are underway at the present time for a major cultural convention centre to provide our residents and the other northern residents with comparable amenities to their neighbours in the south.

Unfortunately, this tremendous expansion in growth has been accompanied by growing pains. Of particular concern to Prince George taxpayers is the cost of servicing with proper water supplies and sewage service the new area amalgamated January 1, 1975. Since the city assumed the province's obligations for servicing these areas and will in some four years hence also assume the road maintenance and policing costs, council is rightly concerned that all the obligations under the amalgamation agreement are lived up to by the province.

This situation also applies to our transit system.

[ Page 608 ]

Prince George is a good example of what Municipal Affairs minister Hugh Curtis described to the House when the former minister, Mr. Lorimer, pledged oral commitments that he could not deliver.

Whether the Prince George transit system is subsidized by B.C. Hydro transit or the B.C. Transit Authority, our city is expecting equal treatment with the lower mainland residents.

Mr. Speaker, Prince George has similar concerns in regard to assisting with education costs, since our city serves as a regional base in college enrolment and accommodates some 21,600 students in our school district, as of 1975.

Similarly, the health and hospital services are provided on a regional basis. Although we have a modern 282-bed hospital, with some 70 doctors, we are desperately in need of extended-care facilities to accommodate the senior citizens and others in less expensive beds. Our district health unit is in dire need of increased staff, particularly in the smaller centres of Valemount, McKenzie and McBride, but also in regard to maintaining an adequate home-care service in Prince George.

I am therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the provincial budget reflect our government's concern in both the health and education fields. I would again like to express the importance of our government showing leadership in resolving the impasse our province is facing in regard to the continual labour-management strife which is stifling the general public and the small, independent businessmen.

Most especially, we cannot afford to continue disruption in the operation of our province's railway. The BCR, formerly known as the PGE, has been a political football, off and on, since it was first conceived. The original charter was granted on February 27, 1912. The railway operated between Squamish and Quesnel by 1921, but it wasn't until 1948 that work again started to build the Quesnel-Prince George link of some 80 miles. Mr. Speaker, it was during this period when the coalition government of the Liberals and Conservatives fell apart, and on August 1, 1952, the people of our province elected a grass roots party, Social Credit, under Premier William A.C. Bennett.

After consolidating his party's strength in a second election, called on June 9, 1953, Premier Bennett began the reorganization and revitalizing of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. The first official train arrived in Prince George on November 1, 1951 — some 40 years late, but finally recognizing the original goal of connecting the PGE with the CNR. It also served a far more important goal by linking the resources-rich Fort George area and the northern area directly to the lower mainland, and thereby opening a two-way trade by means of rail service controlled within and by our own province.

Mr. Speaker, to make the PGE fully functional and truly a viable route between the interior and the lower mainland, it was necessary to connect the rails between Squamish and Vancouver, and then extend the rails north from Prince George to the Peace River. The Premier, William A.C. Bennett, stated in March of 1954:

"Of all the interests I have in public life, none is a greater challenge. No money in this province could pay me for the satisfaction I would feel if this railway were changed from a — joke and put on a sound financial basis."

He said that his government hoped to tap not only British Columbia's Peace River district, but Alberta's too, and the whole vast Mackenzie River basin, because the PGE offered then, as now, the shortest route to the coast.

Mr. Speaker, in 1956 the Squamish-Vancouver link was opened, and in October, 1958, the 193-mile link between Prince George and Fort St. John, with a line of 62 miles to Dawson Creek, was completed. From Kennedy, which is 100 miles north of Prince George, 23 miles of spur line were constructed to open the resources-rich instant town of MacKenzie in August of 1966.

By 1968 a 75-mile line from Summit Lake to Fort St. James was opened. The line was also further extended 250 miles beyond Fort St. John to Fort Nelson by September 10, 1971, providing some 1,000 miles of mainline track to the coast.

The line is under construction between Fort St. James to Dease Lake, some 420 miles, with freight moving on the Takla section — whenever the railway is operating. A further link is overdue, and this is the link from Clinton to join with the CNR.

Probably just as praiseworthy as the fantastic track-laying record of the PGE in the 18 years between 1952 — when steel first reached Prince George — and 1968, some 700 miles of rail construction later, was the operating efficiency and the morale of the PGE. It was North America's first railway to utilize microwave telephone and teletype communications, a major advance for safety, traffic control and efficiency.

Another equally important factor was the financial picture. Economic development was booming. Natural resources, principally forest products, were being developed at a record pace. This particular facet, being able to co-ordinate and accommodate economic development, is probably the strongest argument against considering turning the BCR over to a national line, be it CNR or CPR.

Mr. Speaker, while the Bennett Dam was dedicated to W.A.C. Bennett, I personally believe, and I'm sure the hon. members will concur with me, that the real monument or achievement that stands out above even the province's tremendous hydro-electric development, or the assembling of an efficient ferry service, or the major blacktop highway system

[ Page 609 ]

criss-crossing our province.... Yes, hon. members, the achievement I refer to is the fulfilment of the challenge that the province's greatest Premier took upon himself — to rebuild and revitalize the PGE from obscurity to the modern, efficient operation renamed the British Columbia Railway, the key to our province's economic development and the prosperity of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the blacktop highways I mentioned have not been properly maintained or updated or rebuilt during the past three years. Our ferry system is operating sluggishly and with a huge deficit. B.C. Hydro has become inefficient and we are fast approaching a power shortage. Our province has a huge deficit due to the last government's financial mismanagement.

The last government's performance record is terrible in many critical areas, but in the management and operation of the British Columbia Railway they destroyed in three short years the morale, the reliability, the efficiency and even the credibility of the province's greatest asset. As Churchill stated, "I do not blame the socialists for the weather," nor do I blame the NDP entirely for the province's troubles. What else could anyone realistically expect from a party where a cabinet minister can misplace $100 million?

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, what I do take offence at is why the NDP refuses to cooperate to restore our province's economy. They finally realized the financial mess they got the province into when they called the election, hoping, I believe, that the voters would replace them and someone else would be responsible to straighten out the mess. Well, they got that wish and the Social Credit party is prepared to reorganize and revitalize our province's affairs.

I believe the budget presented by the hon. Minister of Finance is a realistic forecast of what can be expected in revenue if we get our economy rolling. I also believe the hon. Minister of Finance has established the spending priorities in a logical, fair manner.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat: To restore our resource economy we must first restore the B.C. Railway to an efficient, reliable and economical transportation system. We must have a comprehensive review of the entire operation: the management, the scheduling, the freight tariffs, the maintenance and the development programmes, the wage structure between different workers, the benefits and restrictive clauses, the productivity of labour and management, the possibility of a single bargaining unit, and the possible necessity of declaring the BCR an essential service.

To carry out this comprehensive review we don't need a royal commission, we don't need standing committees or special study groups, but we do require a top-notch executive with proven administrative experience. I immediately think of one individual, and I must say I was particularly excited to see a news release suggesting he might be available. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is reported as saying he would object to the appointment because this individual had been a past director of the BCR when the NDP alleged there had been accounting irregularities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the public to judge and compare the operation of the BCR over the last three years versus the expansion and operation during the previous administration's term of office. I would also ask the public to remember the dedication and the ability with which the former Minister of Lands and Forests in the previous Socred administration, the Hon. Ray Williston, MLA for Fort George, served his constituents and the province. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if Ray Williston was available for the position he could, and would, restore the BCR to the enviable reputation it formerly held in our province.

As I mentioned, Ray Williston served as the MLA for Fort George, the riding I now have the honour to represent. He was responsible in large part for the growth of our area, realized by establishing the basis for full utilization in the forest industry and attracting the pulp industry to our area. As I've already mentioned, he also instigated the land-assembly programme for residential home sites, reflecting his concern for individuals as well as industry. Mr. Speaker, I only hope I may be able to represent my riding with the concern and the dedication exemplified by my former high school principal, Ray Willison.

While mentioning leading citizens of my riding, I would also ask the members to join me in paying tribute to a pioneer resident of Prince George, Mr. Robert Carter, who passed away on November 25, 1975. Mr. Carter served in Canada's armed forces in World War I, was a life member of the Canadian Legion, and served on Prince George's town planning commission for many, many years. Mr. Carter was noted for his good humour, his honesty and his dedication to serving his community. He worked for 40 years as the chief clerk of the B.C. Forest Service in Prince George and offered his assistance and advice to any operators experiencing problems. It was a pleasure to have known him, and I join with his family in mourning his loss.

My final remarks, Mr. Speaker, relate to the community spirit and the involvement of the media in Prince George. As well as sponsoring such zany

[ Page 610 ]

events as snow golf — golfing in the snow — or sand-blasting — skiing on sand cut-banks in the summer — the radio stations CJCI and CKPG radio and TV join with the Prince George Citizen newspaper and the Prospect to actively promote and advertise the "Take the Car out of Carnage" programme. Their enthusiasm and drive is reflected in the success of this programme and it involves the cooperation and dedication of other concerned committee members such as the RCMP, the Prince George Medical Society, the ICBC, the Department of Highways, the BCAA, the motor vehicle branch, the student services of the College of New Caledonia, the justice council, the Prince George Ambulance, and many others. There are over 50 organizations participating in the "Take the Car out of Carnage" committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this committee truly exemplifies the spirit and concern for others that is typical of Fort George constituents in the many worthy community projects that they participate in so generously and enthusiastically. I am pleased to see this provincial budget lay the groundwork for a return to an individual-enterprise way of life, which should allow freedom of choice in lifestyle and more gainful employment to our great province's citizens.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort George in his speech stated that the NDP — and I assume that was the previous administration — alleged certain accounting practices were incorrect on the BCR. I wish to correct that in the member's speech; the auditors, Buttar and Chiene, resigned and were suspended by the Chartered Accountants' Institute, and it was found by the new auditors, and reported, that the accounting practices were not acceptable. It was not the NDP; it was the new auditors and the Chartered Accountants' Institute.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reply to that if I can.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, it's customary in debate perhaps, if there's a disagreement of opinion between the person who has occupied the floor and some other member, that then the other member rises in their place at the conclusion of your speech to make a correction. If you're on a point of order, you're in order. But you're not in order to just make a reply.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this budget debate. I'm speaking on budget edition No. 2, soft cover.

There's been quite a bit of debate in this House and outside the House on the actual document itself, No. 1 and No. 2. On Friday, I received in my mail this copy, which is the second abridged version of the budget speech, and at that time made it known to our leader, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that I had received it, and also talked to some members of the media at that time, as did the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan over the weekend.

At that time I heard on the air that the Minister of Finance didn't know any changes had been made, and it was the Minister of Finance speaking on a voice clip. Since then he has said yes, he didn't know, but he takes full responsibility; it was a government decision.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the people of this province can have faith in a Minister of Finance who isn't even consulted by the remainder of the cabinet on a government decision to change a speech that was delivered in this House by the Minister of Finance, and that was the budget speech. It seems rather strange to me that not only didn't they consult him, but they didn't even inform him that there had been changes.

The question remains, of course, as to who authorized the changes. Who authorized them? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that looking at the statement of the Minister of Finance, the government probably didn't authorize any changes to this speech at all. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it was someone else, and that this Legislature and the province has the right to know who authorized the changes, who authorized the editing of the budget speech.

Nothing hangs together when you start examining the statements. The Minister of Finance, further to his original statement, went on yesterday to say that: "Well, I take responsibility for this, but it's only going to be distributed outside of the province and not within the province." Well, Mr. Speaker, I live within the province. It was distributed to me in the mail. Some got it, some didn't.

As a matter of fact, my secretary went down to the Minister of Finance, his office, on Monday last and asked for a copy of the budget. She received the old one, not the new one. But some people in B.C. are getting the abridged version. I assume that some are getting the original version, and no one really knows. Some people will probably get two. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what kind of expense it incurs when you have to print two budget speeches for political purposes. Obviously when the hon. members from this side of the House showed the government that they indeed were in error, that they were jeopardizing the economy of this province by making political speeches such as they made in the budget speech, that they should withdraw it, somebody, probably not government, realized that we were making sense and did it. What we would like to know is who ordered it and if it was indeed authorized by any member of the government benches, I think we have a right to know that.

[ Page 611 ]

This budget is for the wealthy and against the poor.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Rubbish! Rubbish!

MR. LEA: It's for the elitists and against the working people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again.

MR. LEA: It's for the millionaire club and against the small businessman. That's who this budget is for. When we start to examine this budget, Mr. Speaker, it's apparent in so many ways, If you'll recall the budget booklet itself in the last few years, at least there were one or two pictures of people in it — people taking part in the life of British Columbia. This year, one picture, a picture of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Then you look at the opening page, not even the opening address; it says British Columbia budget, the Hon. Evan Wolfe, delivered in the Legislative Assembly March 26, 1976, which, of course, it wasn't.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Was it? It wasn't delivered in this House, as this booklet says the contents were. It wasn't.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. LEA: The hon. member for Columbia River says rubbish. Well, it's obvious to me that this isn't the same budget that was delivered in the House by the hon. Minister of Finance, and if you haven't received your copy, Hon. Member, possibly you can come over to our caucus and we'll show it to you. We are not asking you to cross the floor, because too many of our constituents would be a little angry at that. But we are asking you to come over and see the revised edition of the budget. That's the first thing. It says it was delivered in the Legislative Assembly on Friday, March 26, 1976. Not true. Not true. So there's an untruth on the first page of the budget.

Then let's look at the thrust. Let's look at the thrust. It says: "This budget is a start on the road back, a recovery budget, moving in a positive direction to restore confidence in British Columbia as a good place to invest, to work and to live." I agree that it should be a province which is a good place to invest in, a good place to work in and a good place to live in. But I suggest to you that if you didn't have an unfeeling government, probably they would priorize that just a little differently. They would say that British Columbia should be a good place to live in, to work in and to invest in. I think that statement pretty well sums up the kind of government that we have today — a place to invest in, to work in, to live in instead of to live in, to work in and to invest in. I think if you really think about that and if British Columbians really think about that, as I suspect they are these days, having to face new taxes — new taxes on the working people of this province, but, really, no taxes on the corporate wealthy....

We start looking at the kind of taxes being imposed on the people of British Columbia today. We see a sales tax increased 2 per cent, from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. Who does that hit? That hits the average person. They say: well, sure it does, but it also hits the wealthy. They have to buy things. They have to pay sales tax. But if you take the ratio of spending, if you take a person who is making $10,000 a year, and for a hypothetical figure say he spends $3,000 of that on the essentials that he would have to pay sales tax on...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: ...then what percentage of that 5 per cent on $3,000 would be the ratio of his earnings? But then you take a look at the wealthy person, the person who is making $100,000 a year who only needs to spend that same amount of money for the essentials. Now we are not talking about the frills and those non-essentials. The essentials of every human being in this province should be the same, the essentials. If we are saying that some people should live in mansions and some should live in hovels. then, of course, the government's direction is a sound one. But I don't think that most people in this province feel that way or, indeed, most people in this House.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: So what we are doing is we are saying that this budget is one of restraint; in other words, saying to the working poor, "Your children shall have no apples this year," and to the wealthy, "One less trip to Hawaii this year." They'll show restraint by not taking that extra trip to Hawaii, and the working people will have to cut down on certain foodstuffs and other things like clothing because there's 5 per cent on that. That's the way the budget is. That's what it's all about.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Let's take a look...oh.

MR. LAUK: What's going on over there?

MR. LEA: ...page 3; there's a mistake there, too — just a little clerical error. It says the conclusion is

[ Page 612 ]

on page 34, but after the document was doctored it ended up on page 35. I think conclusive proof is that they forgot to change the table of contents. They forgot that. They were in such a hurry to get out a political document, they even forgot to change the table of contents to coincide with the page that the conclusion is actually on.

On the other side of the House they say: "We made a little clerical error in the budget." A little clerical error.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Which one did we make, Mr. Member?

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Try $100 million!

MR. LEA: The $100 million — I thought you'd bring that up. I just thought maybe you'd bring that up.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether any of the government backbenchers.... By the way, just before we get to that, speaker after speaker I've heard from the government back benches say "we in the government." You know, one thing I think they should have learned in their amount of time here is that the government is the cabinet, the executive council. You only happen to belong to the same political party that the government is formed from. You are not part of government. I just thought we'd get that straight and on the record before more of you make that same mistake in your speeches.

MR. CHABOT: Stop lecturing the back bench.

MR. LEA: Well, somebody has to, Mr. Member. Stop lecturing the back bench!

Let's take a look at the hon. member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Now in the old days when the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, was here, at least he had come up the hard way and he could tell the fibre of a person. He could tell whether they could stand it. In those days he had his choice: he could put the now present hon. Minister of Finance into his cabinet or the hon. member for Columbia River. He chose the hon. member for Columbia River to go in his cabinet. The present Premier chose, of course, the present hon. Minister of Finance.

I can only say, Mr. Member, that I'm sorry. But I'm not the only one. I'm sure the Premier isn't that happy about it either now.

It's been rather enlightening in the last few days to sit on this side of the House and watch cabinet ministers who haven't even been in this Legislature before, who don't know the rules and what really goes on here, to watch their mouths drop, their chin right on their chests, when all of a sudden they see that there is a procedure in this House whereby the opposition can question ministers.

Yesterday, on committee stage of Bill 3, when actually this side of the House could ask questions of that minister, he didn't answer all of them. As a matter of fact, he was so nervous I noticed he couldn't even write them all down. He couldn't even write them down! He was breaking the lead in his pencil, and trying to scratch, and was all nervous. But he wasn't as nervous as some of those new cabinet ministers who were observing that there is a system in this democratic House where the opposition does have their day and they can make government accountable for the kind of actions that they're taking or the kind of actions that they're not taking. I can see a little bit of surprise on those new minister's faces, but looking at the back bench, Mr. Speaker, I looked around and they said: "Holy standing orders!" They said: "I don't think our side is doing that well. I thought they were our leaders. I thought they were just going to crush those socialists under their iron heel and do away with them forever."

Did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that they're looking a little nervous these days? They don't really think they're doing that well now because the democratic system does provide for the opposition to question the actions of government, something I think they didn't know before coming to this House, or at least the majority of them.

Now getting back to the $100 million overrun that the government backbenchers are so fond of yelling out during debate. Do you, hon. backbenchers, believe that this was the first overrun within that department? Oh! I assume from the looks on their faces, Mr. Speaker, that they do. I went to the library the other day and dug out all of the estimates and all of the public accounts since 1960.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): That's probably the first time you've ever been in the library!

MR. LEA: That's the first time, the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) says, I was in the library. That's right, because I'm a walking library. But this is the first time, Mr. Minister, I had to go and actually get some records.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know where it is? It's right out in the hall.

MR. LEA: Now I want the hon. members in the back bench.... You know, Mr. Speaker, because you were here. You know that that department that they're talking about, that had a $100 million overrun, they say, they think it was the first time. In 1971, the estimates of that department were

[ Page 613 ]

$108,113, 045. In public accounts, the actual spending for that year was $147,074, 025.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. LEA: Now I believe if the hon. members would take their mathematics and their pencils and start to figure out the percentage of overrun in that year against the percentage of overrun which they are always talking about, they might come up with some interesting statistics.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. LEA: 1971.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which department?

MR. LEA: That was the Department of Human Resources but, going back, the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, the Department of Social Welfare. Did you know that, hon. members?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: You did know that? Yet you've been yelling that across the floor. Well, I'm ashamed of you! You knew all along. You were doing a little politicking, were you? Was that it?

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Now do you want me to read the rest?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair?

MR, LEA: You were surprised too, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure you weren't because, hon. Speaker, you knew all along that that was the situation. I think that's the reason you didn't speak in this debate, because you knew. But you can go back, right to 1961, and there has been an overturn in that department every year.

Now let's take the Department of Highways during the previous administration. Any overruns there, do you suppose, Mr. Speaker? Oh, a few, and they coincide very closely with the election years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: I wonder what that was all about. Was that sound fiscal responsible management, hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford)? You were here.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, you agree with it? Spend it, eh? Spend it during the election year.

So that's why, Mr. Speaker, we take a look at this year's budget and we see in absolute dollars the money for capital expenditures in the Highways department is down. The number of absolute dollars is down, even in this time of inflationary climbing. So what's going to happen? Are they going to hold back a little in the Department of Highways and then, as in the past, we see those big yellow machines out around election time? Is that what they're doing? Or didn't the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) have the clout in cabinet to get the kind of money that the people in this province deserve to get in terms of road building? Was that it? Or did he try and did the Treasury Board say: "No, we'll just hang back until election time. Don't worry, Mr. Minister, there's lots of time. It worked for my pop, and I think it'll work for me"? But is that really what we want? Do we want peak-and-valley spending in the Highways department — peak spending at election time and valley spending in those times in between? Well, I don't think we want it.

In 1973, in the spring session, the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, said that we had better use caution over the next three or four years because, he said, there's going to be a downturn, maybe, in the economy. So we should proceed with caution over the next three or four years. He went into the money exchanges of the world and he looked at international markets. I think that the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, gave a very worthwhile talk, and I think a worthwhile lecture, to this House, Dave Barrett was the Premier at that time, and agreed with Mr. Bennett, and said: "Yes, that is the way we have to go."

But lo and behold, we have this new government saying: "It was all the dirty, rotten NDP. They brought all this down on us." Yet W.A.C. Bennett in this House said: "It doesn't matter what government's in; you'd better look for this possible economic downturn because of the world situation." It's in Hansard, and I suggest that those new members who haven't read it do so, because it's worth reading because that former Premier laid out the reasons that there could probably be a downturn in the economy. It happened; he was right. I respect a lot of the judgment that Mr. W.A.C. Bennett has when it comes to fiscal matters and world situations in terms of dollars and cents and markets. He said it would happen; it has happened. But the present Premier says: "Oh, no, never mind what my father told you — I'm right; it was those dirty, rotten NDPers."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, you are inferring that someone in this House used the

[ Page 614 ]

phrase "dirty rotten NDPers" in debate. I don't recall that sort of remark being made by any hon. member of this House and I hope you wouldn't infer that anyone had said that in debate, and I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. LEA: No, Mr. Speaker, no member in this House has said that, at least not while they're in this House that I know of.

Now we start looking at the kind of taxes they put on. A new social services tax, up to 7 per cent from 5, as I said, hurts the small person, but the corporation tax is supposed to be the one that says to the people out there: "You see, we haven't been bought and paid for; we're going to tax the little people and we're going to tax the corporations." But, Mr. Speaker, the government — that group over there — said for years every time we talked about taxing corporations: "Why bother doing that? They'll just pass it along to the consumer anyway." That's what they said all these years. So now they've gone and done it. They're going to tax the corporations a little more and — according to their own philosophy, and, I believe, a true one — the corporations are going to pass on that extra cost to them to the consumers. So the consumer's going to get it again: higher costs because the corporation tax has gone up; higher costs because the 5 per cent social service tax is going to 7. Income tax: as everyone knows, the graduated scale of income tax doesn't work the way it should. The corporations, by hiring smart accountants and taking advantage of everything available to them, could end up paying a smaller share on their taxable income than the average working person who has none of those smart accountants and none of the loopholes open to him. Again, working people, and I include every working person — not just the ones who work in the pulp mill but every person who works in this province for money on a T4 slip without any of the benefits that the elitists hold for themselves, like stock options and little trips to Europe, a little house paid for by the company, and all those things....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This budget gets the working person in this province every time and makes no attempt to try and tax the people in the wealthy segment of our society. Obviously this government is paying off their debts from the last election by taxing the poor and letting the wealthy go with paying no more. It's obvious.

Now part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, that this government says they have to bring in this kind of budget of restraint is because they have to make up for the bad management of the previous government. Well, let's take a look at that question, Mr. Speaker, and see whether indeed...because this has to tie back to Bill 3. You can't talk about the budget without talking about what they call "the debt" that the previous administration left for them to clean up. So let's really take a look at that. I have nine questions that I'd like to pose to the two government members in the House — the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). You could take this back to cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Oh, it's not going to be bad. Don't prejudge, like you did the people.

Now question No. 1. Do we need this money? Do we have to borrow money and then jeopardizes this coming year's budget? Why did the government approve a grant of $26 million out of current revenues for the 1975-76 fiscal year when the legislation was approved by this House and has provided for $50 million authorization for capital transit operations? Twenty-six million dollars — legislation there not needed.

Why did the government not receive back from B.C. Railway in the 1975-76 fiscal year a $20 million payment when BCR minutes clearly show the intention to repay the government? Another $20 million.

Why did the government make a $32.6 million grant to B.C. Hydro in the 1975-76 fiscal year? If the grant was related to the operating transit losses, why is the grant not in this year's estimates? Are there going to be no losses next year? — $32.6 million when again a Crown corporation has authorization under legislation to do that.

The ICBC one is the greatest one of all, of course. I think that's been thoroughly canvassed, Mr. Speaker — that the government wrote out a rubber cheque to ICBC which they're not going to cash but when they do cash it they're going to lend it back to the government and the government's going to pay them interest on it. Everyone knows that story — $181 million when obviously the money is not needed in this fiscal year. That could be done the way the NDP proposed to do it — by transferring money when that money was available from gasoline tax.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: We didn't have to do it, Hon. Minister. The time hasn't come yet, and it's been admitted by the Minister of Education (Hon, Mr. McGeer) in this House.

Question No. 6. Why did the province not receive back in consolidated revenue for 1975-76 the $25 million advance provided to the B.C. Harbours Board? Why not? Mr. Speaker, there's documentary proof that that was the intention.

Interjection.

[ Page 615 ]

MR. LEA: Okay. A minister across the way yells, "no money."

Let me read you a memorandum of September 29, 1975, from the Deputy Minister of Finance to Mr. Marc Eliesen, planning adviser to cabinet, regarding British Columbia Harbours Board advances in the province.

"It is planned in the very near future to borrow funds in the market for B.C. Harbours Board. The borrowing would be in the form of debentures, probably 20-year maturity with interest paid semi-annually. Any such funds would be used by the B.C. Harbours Board to pay back to the Crown advances received from the Crown. Before proceeding further with this matter, could you ensure that the Harbours Board directors would be in agreement with this procedure, as I would caution that once a debenture is issued interest must be paid promptly every six months for the life of the bond."

It was the policy of the previous government to do just that. It makes sense; it isn't being done; that is another $25 million.

No. 7. Why did the government not receive back in consolidated revenue for 1975-76 the $20 million advances that had been provided for B.C. Cellulose and Ocean Falls? — $16 million to B.C. Cellulose, $14 million to Ocean Falls, totalling another $20 million. Why have these not been received back? Both B.C. Cellulose and Ocean Falls have the power to pay that back by borrowing in their own right.

No. 8. Why did the government not sign — and this is the one that is really of interest — the federal-provincial agreement on railway financing which would have brought $117 million to B.C. from the federal government, of which at least $30 million would have been received in the fiscal year 1975-76?

1 submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to be signed. All the government has said is: "Its a bad agreement." They won't say why it's a bad agreement. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because it's a good agreement. It took top, well-informed, competent civil servants from both the federal government and the provincial government two years to get this agreement, two years of hard work.

It's a good agreement for British Columbia, which that government is ready to let go down the drain, possibly because they want to have a deficit for 1975-1976. I think the people of British Columbia should know why that agreement's no good. It is good. The government has not said what they're intending to do. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the minute we're out of this session they'll sign that agreement the way it is and get $117 million from the federal government over the next two years, probably the greater portion in this next fiscal year. It will be a nice little cushion, because what they're doing is playing around with this year's budget, and they know all they have to do is sign and they've got this money coming in.

The House should know, the people of British Columbia....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Would you stake your seat on that, Graham?

MR. LEA: Would you stake yours on it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: Who?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That you are going to give us the reasons? You're going to sign it?

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't signed it.

MR. LEA: All we want to know, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. LEA: All we want to know is why it is a bad deal. If you say it's a bad deal, tell us why it's a bad deal. I don't think anybody is going to stand up and tell us it's a bad deal, because it's a good deal. It's a good deal for British Columbia.

The last point: why did the government change existing policy by not proceeding with the B.C. Housing Corp., which would have brought consolidated revenue of this province for 1975-1976 up by $63 million? That was in the works by the former government. Why not?

You total up those figures that I've read out, Mr. Speaker, and it comes to $423.6 million, money that would have come into consolidated revenue in 1975-1976 if that new government had followed the policies. When we question them on each specific they're hard put. The Minister of Finance sits there, either gets up and doesn't answer the question at all, or sits there and won't get up at all, and looks around and says: why am I not back at Wolfe Motors where it was safe? Men you add up these figures to $423.6 million, then you take the money that is in consolidated revenue of $143 million; it comes to $556.6 million. Subtract the amount away, that they say the deficit is, of $541 million, and you're left with $25.6 million in consolidated revenue at the end of the 1975-1976 fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, it could have been done. It would have been to the betterment of British Columbia if these policies had been carried out by this new government. There's only one reason, and one reason alone, Mr. Speaker, why they wouldn't consider any

[ Page 616 ]

of these measures. That's because, as other members have said, they had to fulfil the prophecy that they'd made on the campaign trail.

MR. LOEWEN: Why did he call the election?

MR. LEA: That's what they had to do. Now they talk about providing services to people. When the former Minister of Health, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), brought the Ambulance Service Act into this House it was endorsed by, I believe, all members, all Social Credit, all parties. As a matter of fact, during that debate the now Minister of Health, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland)....

AN HON. MEMBER: What date are you quoting?

MR. LEA: April 5, 1973, page 2299.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you quoting from?

MR. LEA: From Hansard.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation as well. There's one comment I want to make. I would ask the minister that when upgrading both the training of ambulance personnel and the equipment of ambulances that are being used, I hope the minister will take it into account that many communities are already up against the wall now with regard to financing ambulance services. Certainly the upgrading cannot come without some financial help.

I would hope that the minister is taking that into account, and will provide that extra financial help one way or another before ordering these kind of services. I agree with that. But what's the real situation now that that member is Minister of Health? Cutbacks. Now in my community of Prince Rupert it's a real problem. I'd like to read something into the record, because I think this would be of interest to all members in this House. It's from William Smith, city administrator, City of Prince Rupert, to Emergency Health Services Commission, 2840 Nanaimo Street, Victoria, British Columbia, attention Director of Ambulance Services:

"Dear Sir,

"The matter of ambulance service in the city of Prince Rupert has recently been the subject of much criticism by the public and Prince Rupert City Council.

"An incident last week, in which it took an ambulance 22 minutes to reach the scene of an accident in the downtown section of the city, has heightened council's concern. I am attaching a copy of the station record of that particular call.

"Our information is that the ambulance station manning policy is the reason for the poor response time of an ambulance. Apparently the station is manned by a driver only, and when a call is received for an ambulance the driver is required to proceed to the residence of the attendant and from there to the point of call.

"It is conceivable that while proceeding to the residence of the attendant, after receiving a call for service, the driver could come upon the scene of the call only to have to go on by and then return with the attendant. City council feels quite strongly that the commission should make immediate arrangements to increase its ambulance personnel in Prince Rupert to ensure that a full crew, driver and attendant, is available to the station to respond to emergency calls. Yours very truly, William Smith."

Now I don't think there's anyone in this House who can argue with the logic of what that city council is asking for. I met, just before the election, with the people who operate that ambulance centre and the ambulance calls, and from A to Z. I then took it up with the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) and had his words that that is one area of concern that we are definitely going to make sure does not go on any longer.

Now I agree that it's a new service; there were many kinks to be ironed out, and I cannot blame the government for making a great many mistakes with the ambulance service. All I'm saying is: that situation is intolerable. It did happen that an ambulance went right by the scene of an accident, came back to the scene of the accident. That's just not good enough for the city of Prince Rupert residents or for anybody in this province. So when you're talking about bringing in a restraint budget, Mr. Speaker, make sure that the restraint doesn't go on this kind of service, because it's something that our society cannot afford to have any restraint put on — health services.

I am not criticizing the present Minister of Health; I am only bringing it to this House's attention. It has already been brought to the Minister's attention, and
I would only hope that government would make a concerted effort, especially Treasury Board, to make sure that the money is available throughout this whole province to make sure that there's a driver and an attendant on duty 24 hours a day in every area of this province. I think that the people of this province can ask no less and should receive no less. I bring that up in this House because I think all hon. members are interested, regardless of party.

Two final items, Mr. Speaker; one is an editorial that I would like to enter into the records of today's House, from the Victoria Times, Tuesday, April 6. The editorial is entitled: "When in Doubt, Double Up."

[ Page 617 ]

"A government that issues one version of the budget for domestic consumption and another for financial markets is a government that speaks with a forked tongue. Omitted from the export edition of the provincial budget were all but the first three paragraphs of a vituperative attack on the former government, unique in the annals of B.C. history. The question of why two editions were necessary was not adequately answered by Finance Minister Evan Wolfe on Monday.

"The minister's flaccid explanation bears analysis. To say that previous budgets were not the same in their final printed versions as they appeared in Hansard misses the point. What we have here is two different printed versions. Naturally Hansard's version is always slightly different from the printed version because of asides in the House and oral expansions of certain points. It's hard to follow Wolfe's statements that basic financial and economic information remains the same in both editions. Yet the deletions involved highly political remarks, remarks that might make this government look bush league in more sophisticated jurisdictions with money to lend.

"When pressed by another reporter, Wolfe said the deletions were made in order not to complicate the document with local issues. Are the governments of Britain, New Zealand and Australia local issues? In part, it was references to socialist regimes in those countries that were deleted.

"And what about the matter of who ordered the editing? In Vancouver the minister said he knew nothing about the budget deletions. In his subsequent press conference here Monday he said he would take full responsibility for the deletions. Two budgets. Two explanations. But no answer as to who ordered the deletions.

"It was bound to come. First we had two oil prices in Canada. Now the government of B, C. has inaugurated a two-budget system. Whenever unpleasantness crops up, we can always make two of everything so the contents are palatable to everyone.

"It's an admirable system for fairy tales, but it doesn't work in governing. As the press conference heated up with more urgent questions, the minister said: 'I think that concludes the interview, gentlemen.' It was an arrogant performance from a novice minister. Evan Wolfe is the Minister of Finance and the government will spend more than $3.6 billion this year. He owes the public some answers, not the cute...."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, you are right — there is a word I don't know what it means.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you long enough to remind you that you're in your final two minutes?

MR. LEA: Okay, fine, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you reading from?

MR. LEA: From the Victoria Times, the editorial today: "When in Doubt, Double Up." I mentioned that.

I would like to sum up, Mr. Speaker, with a quotation from F. Scott Fitzgerald because I began my speech by saying that this was a budget for the millionaires, a budget for the elitists and a budget for those who have become millionaires, either through wealth inherited, or come up the hard way. F. Scott Fitzgerald says:

"Let me tell you about the very rich; they're different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early and it does something to them: it makes them soft where we are hard and cynical where we are trustful in a way that unless you were born rich, it's difficult to understand. They think deep in their hearts that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and the refuge of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."

Mr. Speaker, I think this budget proves this. I think it is a budget for the rich and one that hurts every working person in this province. Thank you very much.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this occasion to speak on the budget that has been presented to us. I found the hon. member for Prince Rupert's (Mr. Lea's) talk very entertaining; it is amazing how he can weave very little into 40 minutes. I would like to leave him with one question, though, before he leaves the assembly hall, and the question is really to him. If it wasn't as bad as we make it out to be, I ask him: why did the Premier call an election? Then I might answer that for him, because he may not understand: I don't think the Premier or that government dared wait until after the budget had to be brought down this spring. They coudn't afford to wait because they had overspent and they had to get that mandate before they could deal with their financial problems. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance stated that this is a budget of restraint — a budget to hold the line, to cope with inflation. It's very difficult to deal with the problem of inflation, to hold the line,

[ Page 618 ]

to hold services. It's very easy to add to, or to give away. It's very easy to provide services, more and more services. But this government has to take the stand that you have to be able to afford those services, those people services, those public services. You have to be able to afford them because in the end the taxpayers — all taxpayers, whether rich or whether poor, pensioners, working mothers — have to pay the costs of those services. I admire a Minister of Finance who can deal with the problem set the problem straight and say to the people: "This is a budget of restraint, and this government is going to make it work so we won't have to go through what we had to go through in the last three and a half months to pull the mess together."

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) called it political revenge. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) called it a political tirade. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) called it a very partisan document. The Vancouver Sun said that it was tough. I say it had to be tough because this new government had to face a loss of $541 million which included the $170-odd million for ICBC. But whether it was $541 million or whether it was $250 million, the trend was there. The trend was there; the over expenditure was there; the decreased revenues were there. And the former government knew the problem existed as far back as 1974, but they weren't prepared to deal with the problem so they called the election in the end to get that mandate so they could deal with it and have a further four years to go.

This problem sort of blew up because they didn't get the mandate — the people saw through it. So we had to deal with it and that's why the Minister of Finance has brought down this budget, but still bearing in mind that we have to consider the people of this province.

Let me quote Hansard of 1975 on the 1975-76 budget debate for the members of the opposite side of the House. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) called it a fantastic budget for the people of the province. The former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) with the greatest of humility: "I must say this: there is no better budget." The former Minister of Economic Development: "It seems to me the opposition party has failed to comprehend the thrust and dynamic nature of this budget."

With a year-end loss of $541 million, it certainly was a fantastic budget to the people of the province. Thrust and dynamic nature into disaster.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) spoke of a political pamphlet. There are 41 pages in this pamphlet, the political pamphlet, the budget for 1975-76.

MR. COCKE: A disgrace!

MR. HEWITT: You called it a political pamphlet.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. HEWITT: In 1975 we had 52 pages. In the 1975-76 budget your Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett) predicted a surplus of $500,000. Correct?

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: The actual loss was $541 million. The smiling figure? You talk about the picture in the front of this budget — how's that for a smiling political pamphlet? Coloured pictures, maps — you sure spent a lot of money on your political pamphlet, and you lost. I would suggest that maybe the former Premier could use this pamphlet in this by-election in Vancouver East. Maybe the people would understand, when they read that and compared it with the year-end figures that are through at the end of March, 1976, just how far off base that budget was.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has called it a recovery budget. The member for Nanaimo has made a play on words, and I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) repeated that play on words, where it says: "British Columbia is a good place to invest, to work and to live." I have a hard time finding where the problem is when you read a sentence in the English language.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: If this is what you're basing your argument on, then I'm sure you could pick half of Shakespeare's work apart, because really what it says....

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: It could well be. But, really, what it says is that it is a place to live, it is a place to work and it is a place to invest. It says that.

Mr. Speaker, we first have to deal with this $541 million deficit, a deficit that was created by reduced revenues and uncontrolled expenses. The former government cannot hide behind the fact that their loss was there when the year-end statement, March 31, 1976, was placed before them. Then, and just maybe then, they'll realize how far off track they really were.

Let's deal with the 1976 revenues, the 1976-77 revenues — 7 per cent sales tax: it is a bitter pill to swallow, I don't think anybody would deny that. But it is the first increase in sales tax in this province since 1954, when it went from 4 per cent to 5 per cent. It's equal to Ontario. Let me just give you some other figures, so possibly the people in the gallery might understand that it's not just B.C. faced with problems

[ Page 619 ]

in budgeting. It's equal to Ontario. Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are all at 8 per cent and Newfoundland is at 10 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: I'll come to that, my friend. I'm glad you asked that.

I refer you to the personal income taxes — 32.5 per cent effective July 1, so for this year it's 31.5 per cent. That is lower than Saskatchewan at 40 per cent. That is lower than Manitoba at 42.5 per cent. It's lower than Quebec at 34 per cent. As a matter of fact, the two highest ones for personal income tax are Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Which is the fair tax?

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Corporation tax — fine; I'm glad you asked the question. We talk about corporation taxes. In B.C. the large corporation is paying 15 per cent, and the small businesses have gone to 12 per cent. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba: Saskatchewan on their corporation tax is 12 per cent; in Manitoba it's 13 per cent. You didn't attack the corporations in those two administrations.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: We are looking to the corporations to pay a good portion of this extra tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't know, Mr. Member; they didn't know.

MR. HEWITT: This government, Mr. Speaker, considers the people, but because of the mess we've inherited, the people, young and old, the businesses large and small, must have to pay and cover the costs.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) talked about statistics, that $300 per man, woman and child would be the increase in costs through this budget in 1976. They are beautiful; statistics are beautiful. You can do anything with statistics, as I'm sure the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) can say, and I imagine the directors of ICBC. You can do anything with statistics you wish. But the corporation tax will raise $31 million. And the corporation tax rate, as you well know, for small businesses is 25 per cent, and for large businesses, corporations, it's 50 per cent. Those are fairly high, excessive taxes on corporations; they pay more than their fair share. They pay a tremendous amount and rightly so, because we don't want to tax the individuals; you tax the corporations.

The personal income tax will raise $23.5 million, and it's based on the more you earn, the more you will pay. I think that's fair ball, and I think everybody agrees with that.

The cigarettes we increased at 4 cents a pack, and I don't think anybody's going to argue with that point because we all shouldn't smoke anyway.

We raise $200 million from sales tax: $90 million from the business sector and $110 million from individuals. But the business sector is in there and the business sector is not a user of products, and they do pay sales tax.

The member, I think, the other day forgot to mention....

AN HON. MEMBER: They pass it on.

MR. HEWITT: Well, they pass it on. Any corporation is going to pass on their tax, but it doesn't come out of the end pocket, the end paycheque.

But let me say this in regard to the exemptions that were not mentioned, the exemptions on food and children's clothing, and on drugs, school supplies and reading material. The exemptions are there and they've been there for years, quite correct.

Interjection,

MR. HEWITT: They are there, but it is never mentioned on the basis that it isn't the staples that are being loaded. The food isn't being loaded, and in most cases you are getting taxes not on the essentials, but more the luxuries that you use.

The liquor licences are to yield $3 million, and I don't think anybody will complain about that. It is a luxury.

MR. LAUK: Oh, really?

MR. HEWITT: But the funds must be raised, and I compliment the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) for considering the people on fixed incomes in the budget. We look at people between age 55 and 59. The single-parent family is being considered. The over-65, the homeowner grant, those are considerations that were dealt with in this budget, in trying to assist people on fixed income and on low-income and working mothers.

Let's look at the expenditures, people services. Consumer Services: the budget for the Consumer Services department is up 44.8 per cent, $763,000. What is the purpose of that department? It is to protect the consumer. That is a people service.

[ Page 620 ]

Economic Development up 44.2 per cent, $1.8 million. What's the purpose of that department? It is to try to develop industry, try and improve our economy and produce jobs so that people can work and get off welfare.

MR. LAUK: You'd better tell that to the minister.

MR. HEWITT: Education. Education is up 10.9 per cent or $83 million. You hear sometimes the comments about what we're doing in education, and it's terrible and there are going to be cutbacks. But nobody seems to recognize that there's an increase of $83 million, not a decrease.

Health is up 20.5 per cent, $148 million in health services. Human Resources is up 22.3 per cent, $108 million. That's a people service.

This budget considers the services to people, but it also considers the need and it recognizes the need for restraint.

Mr. Speaker, last week during the throne debate, time did not permit me to cover a problem in my riding, and I would like to take the liberty to deal with it now as it relates to funds. It is with regard to the present rural electrification assistance programme which is administered by B.C. Hydro, and this programme, as good as it is, does discriminate against the people of my constituency who can only be served by West Kootenay Power. The purpose of the programme is to assist the power company in covering the cost of extending power lines in order that the benefits of electricity may be made available to rural, isolated farm communities.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) in his talk the other day did mention services that are people-oriented, and I think that this is a service that could be expanded to improve the situation in my riding.

It has been brought to my attention that the rural area in my constituency in the Green Mountain Road area, Farleigh Lake and a portion of the Penticton Indian reserve has attempted to obtain power through the services of West Kootenay Power. The power is available but at an excessive cost, as the rural electrification assistance programme is not available to the residents unless they are served by B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro could be brought into this area, but at a far greater cost than the service could be brought into the area by West Kootenay,

Mr. Speaker, an annual grant is paid by this government to the B.C. Hydro under the rural electrification programme to carry out this assistance for rural development. The electrification programme is a good one, but unfortunately is not available to those constituents in the Boundary-Similkameen who can only be served by West Kootenay.

I would ask the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) to consider making the programme available to West Kootenay Power so installations can be made in the rural areas of Boundary-Similkameen at a reasonable cost to the consumer.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): You pay the same rates as the rest of the province.

MR. HEWITT: I would imagine they pay a reasonable rate. West Kootenay supplies the area all the way through, including the city of Penticton.

Another subject, Mr. Speaker, that I didn't have an opportunity to deal with last week was the subject of housing, and one type of housing that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society is that of mobile-home living. This type of housing has come of age, but there are still problems to be resolved, and the report on mobile homes by the Audain Commission contains a number of recommendations which I feel are pertinent.

I would ask the members of this assembly if they would familiarize themselves with the recommendations in the Audain commission report so that they can be considered and legislation may be brought in to improve and protect the lifestyle of mobile-home owners.

There are problems in the mobile-home industry, as I am sure most of us are aware, when a mobile home is sold while it is located in a mobile-home park. The mobile-home park operator sometimes charges a sales commission for that sale. In some instances, the occupant of a park must purchase services that are made available through the mobile-home park operator, and, in some instances, there is an entrance fee that is usually not recorded but is put, you might say, under the table in order to get occupancy in the park.

Mr. Speaker, mobile-home living has come of age and I do not feel that the people who use mobile-home living, whether it's their first home or whether it is their retirement home, should be faced with the situation of commissions, whether it is for selling their property or whether it is an entry fee to get into the park.

One other item, Mr. Speaker, if I may, is that the city of Penticton has a problem that faces it today. It is one of sewage disposal. It has one of the best, I think, sewage treatment plants in western Canada; it has phosphorus removal up to 90 per cent. But it has a problem of growth, and our problem is this: we are limited by the Pollution Control Board to, I think it's 1.8 million gallons per day of effluent out of our sewage treatment plant, and an application is going in for some five million gallons per day from the sewage effluent plant for a long-term look at the future with the growth of the city.

I have here, of course, a report sent to the Pollution Control Board by the South Okanagan

[ Page 621 ]

board of health with petitions from the Indian band, from residents around the area, from people who live south of Penticton down the Okanagan River channel, stating that they are diametrically opposed to this expansion of the sewage treatment plant but not really considering what the alternatives might be. I would like situations like this to be looked at by the provincial government because I think possibly the problem rests with this government in trying to solve some of the problems of municipalities in regard to sewers and sewage treatment.

I know we have the arrangement, the treaty with the federal government, that we're working on. I know we have the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, from which we get assistance, but I think there may be a little more that we can do in trying to assist municipalities in dealing with the problem of sewage. In the years that I served as city councillor, there were three things that came home to roost. They were: where do we get our water, what do we do with our sewage and where do we put our garbage? I think those are responsibilities, I think those are problems that the provincial government has to assist municipalities in dealing with and resolving.

In closing, I would just like to say that I feel very strongly that this is a sound budget, a budget that asks restraint, a budget that means restraint. We are holding the line on provincial staff, the cabinet ministers and MLAs are faced with a salary reduction, and the income taxation to provide continuing programmes for people is there. It's tough to face an increase in taxation, but if we want to provide these continuing programmes for people then we must face the cost. But this budget does deal with people problems, and I would ask the opposition members to look at the percentage increases in the various people services — consumer services, education, health human resources — and I would ask them to look at the economic development budget and the fact it's up 44.2 per cent so that we can start to develop this province and get it moving and provide jobs for the people who want to work.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fair and a sound budget dealing with the serious problem left this government by the previous administration, and I would like to compliment the Finance minister for, I think, a job well done. I'm proud to be part of a government that believes in fiscal responsibility, good fiscal management, and a balanced budget.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, Premier Bennett and hon. members, I have the honour today of representing the constituency of Kootenay. I also have the honour of being the first elected Social Credit MLA in this constituency of Kootenay...

MR. LAUK: And the last.

MR.HADDAD: ...that is since the Social Credit Party first formed a government in 1952 — and I think this should be recognized as an achievement. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to congratulate Premier Bennett on his success of achieving office in two short years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HADDAD: I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and of course the Deputy Speaker, and all of the new MLAs in all parties. I would like also to wish all the ministers every success during their term of office.

MR. COCKE: They need all the help they can get. (Laughter.)

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, I waited to give my maiden speech during the throne debate; however, I am now able to give it on the budget debate.

Before I do, I would like to make my comments on the budget, as my speech covers the different communities in my constituency of the Kootenay. I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance on his first budget — or, you can say, his maiden budget. He is also one of the car dealers you hear so much about. I have every confidence that the Minister of Finance will do a good job for British Columbia.

I am pleased with the homeowner grant programme, as it will relieve the property tax on homeowners 65 years old and over. This will commence this year through integration of the school tax removal grant with the homeowner grant and a $50 increase in additional homeowner grants to the 65s and over. Property tax credit to this group will go up from $330 to $380 effective on the 1976 property tax year.

I am in accord with the reduction of 10 per cent on the salaries of all provincial ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly, including the Premier.

MR. LAUK: You should do it for nothing,

MR. HADDAD: I note in the budget that $57.6 million is allocated to the agricultural department. In the constituency of Kootenay some very fine results have been achieved in developing community pastures, irrigation and drainage projects under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act.

I am pleased that the Department of Economic Development has an increased budget and that this will help to develop investor confidence in British Columbia and create employment. This department intends to co-ordinate large scale resource development.

MR. LAUK: I'll see it when I believe it.

[ Page 622 ]

MR. HADDAD: I am happy about this. As you know, we have in our area two large coal developments, namely Kaiser coal and Fording coal, with prospects of two more companies starting coal development in this area.

I agree with the minister on a balanced budget. I could say more on this budget, and intend to later on.

Now I would like to tell you about the Kootenay country.

MR. LAUK: Stick with it, George.

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, since December 12, 1975, much has been said by the news media in regard to car dealers and used-car dealers.

MR. LAUK: Are you one of those, George? Are you new or used?

MR. HADDAD: It has been said that December 11 was the night of the car dealers. Since then there have been a lot of poor remarks made about used-car dealers. I would like to inform the news media, and anyone else that is interested or concerned, that I am one of these car dealers.

MR. LAUK: No — not you!

MR. HADDAD: I am a new-car dealer selling and servicing all lines of Chrysler products. In 1973, I was chosen by the British Columbia Motor Dealers Association to be their Time magazine quality dealer programme winner. There's the proof of it.

MR. LEA: What year was that, George?

MR. HADDAD: You see: that was 1973. Now, anyone else that has made Time magazine in here please raise their hands.

MS. BROWN: I did.

MR. HADDAD: I might mention at this time that our Minister of Finance received this award for 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the August 13, 1973, Canadian issue of Time magazine, as follows....

MR. LAUK: Did you ever roll back a speedometer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HADDAD: It says:

"Meet automobile dealer George W. Haddad, the Time magazine quality dealer award winner for British Columbia. George W. Haddad was chosen by the Motor Dealers Association of British Columbia as its winner in the Time magazine quality dealer award programme. President of Cranbrook Motors Ltd., and a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer, Mr. Haddad is one of 13 winners from across the country" — and that's in Canada — "who are being honoured for their outstanding performance both as good automobile dealers and valued citizens of their communities."

MR. LAUK: Is this for the Premier or for us?

MR. HADDAD: It goes on:

"Time is proud to give Mr. Haddad the recognition he has earned, and delighted to be working in such close association with the automotive industry. We look forward to continuing cooperation with the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations in furthering this important programme."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I would not be an elected MLA for Kootenay if the majority of the electorate did not have confidence in my integrity and I would say the same must be true of the other elected car dealers.

Mr. Speaker, now I would like to discuss my constituency, which in my opinion is the best part of British Columbia. I am sure you will agree after I've told you of all the good things that start in the Kootenay country and end up by creating a large revenue for the province of British Columbia.

My constituency covers a large area stretching from Yahk in the west to Kimberley and Fort Steele in the north and as far as Crowsnest Pass in the east and to the Montana border at Roosville in the south.

MR. LEA: That's one of Leo's old speeches. (Laughter.)

MR. HADDAD: This covers approximately 140 miles. So, Mr. Speaker, you can readily realize that I'm representing a large area of British Columbia.

I would like to tell you about the city of Kimberley, which is not only a mining community but is also a recreational community. It has one of the finest ski hills, accommodating the professional skiers as well as beginners, and it has become a wonderful family playground.

I would like to cover some of the highlights of this ski facility. It has a total of 29 main ski runs. Some of these runs are illuminated for night skiing. They have a total of five lifts, the fifth one being an Easter triple chairlift, and for the skiers there's always powder snow.

Kimberley also is the home of Labatt's Annual World Snowkite Championships. Fliers from all over the world travel to Kimberley to compete for cash prizes and awards. Last year's champion was Bob

[ Page 623 ]

Wills from California.

The businessmen of Kimberley are to be highly commended on their creation of the "Bavarian city of the Rockies." You see the transformation of a mining town to a replica of a Bavarian city and during the tourist season all of the business people dress in full Bavarian costumes. This has brought significant attention to the Kimberley area in the amount of additional tourists that visit Kimberley, not only to see the Bavarian city but the Cominco Gardens, which is very colourful every year and is one of the highlights to be enjoyed when visiting Kimberley.

The major industry is Cominco Ltd., which is the largest lead and zinc mine in the world. This company employs 1,300 people who not only live in Kimberley but some also live in Cranbrook.

Kimberley has a population of approximately 8,000 people. It is very well administered, and I am very proud of it being a member city of my constituency.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to mention that the revenue to the province of British Columbia from the operations of Cominco Ltd. is very significant. Cominco is a 95 per cent Canadian-owned company. I would like to quote the following from a brochure. This brochure has been prepared to give you some idea of what we are doing at Kimberley.

"Here at the Sullivan Mine — the largest lead-zinc-iron mine in the world — are the Sullivan concentrators and production facilities for chemical fertilizers.

"The Sullivan Mine was discovered in 1892. In 1909 Cominco acquired a lease — an option to purchase. The purchase was completed in 1917. The former owners had been unable to treat the complex lead-zinc-iron ore successfully.

"Cominco began operating the mine by hand, sorting ore pieces with high lead values. The search for a satisfactory method of separating the lead and zinc components ended in 1920. A differential flotation process was developed. The separation of the lead, zinc and iron minerals as high-grade concentrates became possible. Flotation had unlocked the huge Sullivan ore body and Cominco expanded rapidly in metal production at Trail, B.C.

"Iron sulphide concentrate from the concentrator is roasted to produce sulphur dioxide gas. The gas is converted to sulphuric acid, which is used as a basic raw material for fertilizer production.

"The Kimberley chemical fertilizer operation was started in 1953. Fertilizer facilities have undergone major expansion since start-up. Finely ground lead and zinc concentrates are shipped to Cominco's metallurgical plants at Trail where, in addition to lead and zinc, the by-product metals silver, bismuth, cadmium, indium, gold and antimony are extracted. Tin concentrate is also produced and shipped to market.

"Power for the operations is provided by an 86-mile 170,000-volt transmission line from the company's Kootenay river power plants. Since it started continuous operation in 1909, the Sullivan Mine has made an enormous contribution to Canada. More than 10 million tons of metal has been produced, direct and indirect jobs for about 9,000 Canadians and various other indirect benefits such as taxes and foreign exchange generated. The Sullivan has also been an important centre of technological advancement in the mining industry."

Mr. Speaker, eight miles north of Cranbrook on Highway 93-95 is Fort Steele, and a few years ago the Social Credit government of the day had this fort restored. It has become one of our area's greatest tourist attractions with thousands of people visiting it each year.

The Fort Steele area became famous in about 1864 or 1865 with a gold rush on the Wildhorse Creek. It has been stated that several million dollars in gold was taken out by the miners of that day. Visitors to Fort Steel can see the replica of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police barracks as it was in 1887 when this post was established by Superintendent Samuel B. Steele who led a detachment of Royal Northwest Mounted Police across the Rockies into British Columbia.

This was the only fort to be established in British Columbia by RNWMP. There were other forts but they were established by trading companies such as the Hudson Bay Trading Company.

I had the pleasure of welcoming to Cranbrook Horwood Steele, the son of Superintendent Sam Steele, who came out from England to attend Cranbrook's Sam Steele's Day Celebrations, which event now attracts 30,000 visitors on parade day every year, and it is an annual event. There are many interesting things to see and one is a replica of the theatre with live entertainment depicting shows of that day. Another is a small railway train which takes you on a good, old-fashioned ride. There are many attractions such as stores, doctors' offices, churches and hotels, all resembling the past.

Mr. Speaker, the next part of my constituency that I would like to tell you about is the city of Fernie. No doubt many of you people assembled here will remember Tom Uphill who served as a member of this Legislature for 40 years. Tom Uphill was a one-man government and, as I recollect, his party was known as the "Labour party." He was loved by all who knew him and particularly by his constituents who returned him to office election after election and, as I said, for 40 years. He has passed on now but

[ Page 624 ]

I feel his memory in this parliament should be remembered.

Fernie is nestled in the heart of the Canadian Rockies and is only about 40 miles from the Alberta border. Fernie, too, is equipped with a wonderful ski hill that is enjoyed by skiers from all over Alberta and British Columbia. Fernie today is the bedroom for many coal miners working for the Kaiser Coal development at Sparwood. Fernie is also the medical centre of the Crowsnest Pass area and has an excellent variety of shopping, restaurant, hotel accommodation and attracts the people from the rural areas as far away as the Montana border. Fernie is the largest city in the Elk Valley and in the early 1900s was the coal capital of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, located at Elco is Crowsnest Industries, one of the most modern wood-manufacturing and logging companies in our area employing several hundred men. We also have several smaller sawmills providing employment in this area. Also in the surrounding area are many cattle ranches which supply some of the finest beef on this continent.

In the community of Jaffray we have Galloway Lumber Co. owned and operated by Henry Nelson and his son, Bud Nelson. They not only log and manufacture some of the finest wood products, but supply thousands of telephone poles and electric line poles used all over Canada and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell about the district of Sparwood which is a new municipal district created in the last few years. Sparwood has replaced the older communities of Natal and Michel. The development created by Kaiser Coal has certainly brought prosperity to this old coal mining area. Sparwood is developing into a very modern city with an enclosed shopping mall which has an added interest to the business section. This development is in the Elk Valley of the Crowsnest region of south-eastern British Columbia, and is actually only about 20 miles east of Fernie. This Elk Valley contains a sleeping black giant that has become in great demand throughout the industrial nations of the world. That is coal.

Mr. James Danabassis recently completed the building of an ultra-modern motor hotel called The Black Nugget. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that with the potential development of the coal resources in this valley, the district of Sparwood will grow and grow into one of the largest cities in my constituency.

Again, Mr. Speaker, industries in my constituency produce millions of dollars of revenue for the province of British Columbia.

Following up the Elk Valley we have another new city which I will call the instant city of Elkford. It is the home of the Fording River mine. This mining development was created by Cominco Ltd. This development is also awakening a huge sleeping black giant — coal — that no doubt will be shipped to all parts of the world to add to the energy that is much needed for industrial development and, not to forget again, the tax revenue derived from any mining operation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the city in which I live, Cranbrook, which is the service centre of the Kootenay constituency, and the city of Cranbrook is enjoying benefits from all of the mining and lumbering activities of the Kootenays. Cranbrook is the queen city of the Kootenays. Cranbrook is the home of light- and heavy-duty industry covering all types — service industries, warehousing and general storage, also wholesale firms. Cranbrook today is a city over 15,000 population. It is a well-planned city and the reason for that is that I served as mayor for eight years.

But seriously, since its inception, every mayor and council has contributed towards the orderly development of this city. It is well laid out and has beautiful, wide streets which in itself says that our pioneers envisioned a large city of the future.

Cranbrook is a growing, lively city located on the western edge of the Rocky Mountain trench. Cranbrook is the junction of Highway 3 east and west, and Highways 93 and 95 north and south. Cranbrook is the junction of the roads leading to the Crowsnest Pass, the Columbia Valley to Banff National Park, to Montana and Idaho, to Creston and Nelson. Also the Canadian Pacific Railway maintains a terminal and repair shop in Cranbrook and the train crews handling the coal shipments from the Sparwood and Elkford areas originate from Cranbrook.

Due to these facts, Cranbrook is the principal service, administrative and financial core of the east Kootenay region. Distribution and tourism is a very important part of Cranbrook's economy.

I would like to mention a large sawmill operation which is Crestbrook Forest Industries. They are one of the largest manufacturers of wood products in the east Kootenays. They also own and operate the pulp mill located 30 miles north of Cranbrook. Crestbrook Forest Industries has today started a major modification on their bleach plant at their pulp mill in Skookumchuck. This will give an increased output of 10 per cent. It will employ more people in all phases of work such as logging, milling of lumber and pulp. Completion date will be late 1977. This pulp mill and lumber mill employs hundreds of our citizens and is an asset not only to the economy of the Kootenay area, but again, Mr. Speaker, to the economy of British Columbia.

Cranbrook averages in excess of 2,200 hours of sunshine annually, so it must mean that Cranbrook is truly one of the bright spots of the province.

The golfers find this an advantage as it allows them to use Cranbrook's 18-hole golf course more often.

[ Page 625 ]

The Cranbrook municipal airport services the entire East Kootenay for air travel. Pacific Western Airlines supplies jet service daily to the Okanagan, Vancouver and Calgary. Kootenay Air Services operate charter service trips, and they also have a pilot-training school. This service adds considerably to the benefit of the travelling public.

Mr. Speaker, I've tried, in my own way, to mention all of the industries in my constituency. The only other addition I can make is to invite you to come and see for yourself. Thank you.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: Are you going to reply to George?

MR. VEITCH: Yes, I think I will. Mr. Speaker, even though I moved the Speech from the Throne, I have not yet had the opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker, and also the Deputy Speaker. I am sure this House will be very well served by you.

So that everyone here today may more readily understand some of the background of the budget — and they do not seem to understand it by some of the speeches that have been made from the opposition benches — I should like to quote some excerpts from the Hansard record of the 1975 budget debate, and then carry on into some of the highlights of the present budget. On March 23, 1975, Bill Bennett, the then Leader of the Opposition, said in the House:

This budget ranks as one of the most politically expedient and most irresponsible and dangerous budgets which has ever been laid before the people of British Columbia in recent years. Examination would indicate that this may be the first deficit budget in many, many years in this province.

We have seen that come true.

One of our hon. members was quoting from Shakespeare, and I think it would be wise if some of the hon. members in the opposition would take these few lines from Shakespeare: "The fault, dear brothers, lies not with the stars, but with yourselves that you are underlings."

MR. LAUK: Wrong again, you're doing the same to Shakespeare as Wolfe did to the budget.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, that more simply stated, so he may more readily understand it, is that in three and a half years if they were not satisfied with the results you were obtaining, the people they needed to see were never far away from them.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: On February 29, 1975, the then Premier and Finance Minister, Mr. Dave Barrett....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. VEITCH: Davey boy, you remember him. He stated: "We are not here to play the political games in the old style; we are here to serve the people, and we are doing that very well."

Again, after referring to the budget as a job-security budget, Barrett said: "This budget will stimulate various sections of the provincial economy." And on the same day: "Autoplan is a success, and it is here to stay." What a success — $181 million later.

Had that government remained in office, Mr. Speaker, the management of ICBC predicted that the corporation would lose over $250 million in the fiscal year which we are now in. Some success story under that administration!

On March 4, 1975, again I repeat, Karen Sanford, the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Comox stated:

MR. LAUK: We just heard this.

MR. VEITCH: "A fantastic budget for the people of this province." Dennis Cocke, the then Minister of Health, and a director of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, stated: "With the greatest of humility I must say there is no better budget. I congratulate the Premier on his fine budget." Graham Lea said.... Now these are some of the hon. member's kitchen-table economics that he alluded to....

MR. LAUK: Did Dan Campbell write all your speeches and mass produce them?

MR. VEITCH: Most of them, my friend. Who writes yours?

"For the first time in my memory a budget has come into this House...here is the expected amount of revenue we are going to take in, and we're going to spend it, and they coincide. A balanced budget." Some balanced budget!

We stand here, Mr. Speaker, just a year and a month later, and find that we are over $541 million in the glue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Balderdash!

MR. VEITCH: Sure, they didn't believe this, Mr. Speaker.

On March 13, 1975, Bill King, the then Minister of Labour, in a speech to the House stated: "I think it's a very, very excellent budget...the kind of sound fiscal management that this government was elected

[ Page 626 ]

to bring to the province."

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, would you tell that member to keep quiet? I can't stand to have two fools speaking at the same time.

MR. LAUK: I didn't say anything.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we have a little more order, please?

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: On March 14, Gary Lauk, the then Minister of Economic Development, says: "It seems the opposition party has failed to comprehend the dynamic thrust of this budget." Some dynamic thrust! I think this was a dry hole, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to dwell too long on the misinformation of the past, but I sincerely believe that it's important — and in fact we campaigned vigorously on this very premise — that we would tell all the news, the good news and the bad news. Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker: on the 12th day of December, 1972, British Columbia had perpetual capital funds in the amount of $85 million; special capital funds in the amount of $126.2 million; cash or term deposits in the bank of $200 million; British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority had, in temporary deposits, $96.6 million; B.C. Railway had, in temporary deposits, $96.6 million; B.C. Railway had, in temporary deposits, $66 million — for a total liquid position of $574.6 million.

Square that, if you can, against a $541 million deficit just a few short years later. It's important to remember that well over $1 billion went down the drain during that period — $1 billion from that responsible administration.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: It's a billion.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Whatever you want to make it, hon. member.

The Social Credit government, prior to the New Democratic ascension to power in 1972, managed the medical plan so carefully that even after six months of socialist government, that plan had reserves of $64.9 million. Now it has zero.

With respect to the current budget, which is on everyone's mind, what is the truth, then, with respect to the financial affairs of this province? Here are the facts as of this budget year beginning April 1, 1976: the direct revenue surpluses of the province will all have to be used to cover last year's deficit. B.C. Hydro has no money left. B.C. Railway has no money left. The British Columbia Medical Plan has no money left. And to paint the picture even worse, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia requires an additional $175 million to cover the cost of claims already incurred. Those were last year's claims.

It could truly be said that the New Democratic Party's years were, in every sense of the word, years of financial demolition.

However, this present budget establishes a priority for people services. The Health Department, the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Education receive by far the greater portion of this budget. The Health budget will increase by 20.5 per cent alone. The percentage for Human Resources will increase by 22.3 per cent. The budget for Education, Mr. Speaker, will increase by 10.9 per cent, The big three were given absolute priority in this budget, as the overall budget went up by only 5.4 per cent.

The previous government predicted a surplus of $500,000. The deficit, in fact, Mr. Speaker, is $541 million, or an astonishing miscalculation of $1,080 per cent. This province will need to borrow for current expenses for the first time since February, 1952, and we may have to borrow up to $400 million, depending, of course on the provincial economic performance during the ensuing year.

So may we draw a simple analogy and have some of the hon. members here fully comprehend what the cost of this borrowing will mean to the citizens of British Columbia? Let's relate it to a person who has a $40,000 mortgage at a 10 per cent interest factor on his house. Now that person, if the mortgage is paid off in 20 years, would pay $120,000, or three times the principal amount. If the mortgage was paid off in 30 years, it would cost that homeowner $160,000, or four times the principal amount.

You can imagine what the cost of borrowing $400 million will be to this province.

In the three years of the NDP government, personal taxation, particularly income tax and sales tax, soared with inflation while resource revenues from industry weakened very, very badly. The new budget that the hon. Finance Minister brought into this House a few days ago seeks to take profits, because in the long run — if you don't know this, you should, Mr. ex-Minister of Economic Development — profitable corporations in British Columbia will send money to government. Your government didn't realize that.

The Social Credit Party, Mr. Speaker, has always believed that an industrial society can cause great problems with income disparity between groups...

Interjections.

[ Page 627 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has the floor.

MR. VEITCH: ...and that government should use its legislative power to distribute income to the less fortunate in this community and not spend it on ministers' offices.

This budget does that, in fact, for the 55 to 59 age group which in today's world faces extreme difficulty in obtaining employment. Similarly, single-parent families have great difficulty reaching a fair income standard because of family responsibilities, and they will be looked after along with the 55 to 59 age group. An increase of $50 in the homeowner's grant for persons aged 65 or over will effectively eliminate the school tax entirely from the property of those persons in a great majority of cases and, in many other cases, it will eliminate other local taxation as well, Therefore, British Columbia will once more lead Canada in making it possible for retired people to stay in their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, we must never allow any individual, group, corporation or firm to be in a position of extracting more from society than they are willing to put into it unless they are handicapped and unable to contribute.

MR. LAUK: Like Noranda?

MR. VEITCH: I believe that we, as government, are setting an example. What we are asking people to do is simply tighten their belts for a little while tighten their belts and look to the greater things in the future and work towards them.

Yes, our administration has set an example. Members of this assembly will be asked to take a $2,400-a-year decrease on their sessional allowance. The Premier has set an example in the budget by cutting his own salary by $5,200 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. VEITCH:...and cutting the salaries of his executive staff by $3,640 a year, and cabinet ministers as well. But, Mr. Speaker, there are those who state that we should borrow and that we should go into deficit financing and that we should not cut back in any way. We should be an expansive type of administration. I believe the reasoning behind this is that these individuals generally feel that this would affect them personally and they are not willing to take the lead.

On Thursday morning last I had a group of eight teachers in my office in the parliament buildings. These teachers were from the Burnaby school system. Now I have a tremendous respect for teachers and for the educational process as a whole. I will shortly have three teachers in my own family — my son-in-law, my daughter and my son. Some of these people expressed concern that they may only receive a 10 per cent increase this year and that the budget only provided a 10.9 per cent or $83 million increase for education.

I suggest to these individuals, as I suggest to this House with great respect, that the provincial government has gone through over $1 billion above that which they took in by way of revenues over the past few years and that while their overall budget for the ensuing year increased by only 5.4 per cent, the amount allowable for education was over twice this amount. I asked them what they felt was wrong with tightening their belts just a little bit, and I ask this honourable House the same question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: Millionaires pound their desks.

AN HON. MEMBER: All we need is a good opposition.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that everyone here realizes that governments have no money of their own, and if they do not they should realize that.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: All we need is a good opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

MR. VEITCH: We should never be willing to put more demands on the system than we are willing to take out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I really do want to congratulate the opposition.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Well, I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King).

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Which one — the left, the right or the centre?

MR. VEITCH: Oh, the one at the far end down there.

At the beginning of his speech he handed out awards. I don't wish to hand out any awards, but I would like to congratulate them, I should like to congratulate them on the New Democratic economic theory that they have expounded so far. Not all of the opposition, it appears....

[ Page 628 ]

MR. KING: It's just new to you because it's in the 20th century. (Laughter.)

MR. VEITCH: Is that right? Well, I'll tell you about that theory a little later on, Mr. Member. Not all of the opposition adhere to it. They are not all trained seals, but there are a couple of seals in training and perhaps they'll learn if you keep....

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: This economic theory leaves the Keynsian experience pale in comparison.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack!

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Member, it's not that I am unable to comprehend your theory; I understand it very well. The answer of the opposition to economic problems is not to do something to get results but to join something and vote for results. Another tenet of their philosophy which is understandable to me is that, in simple terms stated: when in doubt, spend. The theory, of course, is that the Government of British Columbia can somehow or other operate off the interest of its debts. I have never quite understood that one, but I....

MR. LAUK: How can you say the same thing 40,000 times?

MR. VEITCH: You taught me very well, Mr. Member.

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that our party theory may be a trifle orthodox, but I suggest to Your Honour that one should sometimes look at the wisdom of the ages in order to ascertain a proper path for the future.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) in his fine presentation stated that the Social Credit policy was a programme whereby we robbed the present to pay for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that the greatest asset that we have in the province of British Columbia today, as in any other day, is our youth. I would also respectfully suggest that the New Democratic Party's theory was to rob the citizens of tomorrow in order that they may pay for the mistakes that were committed yesterday.

Interjections.

MR, COCKE: Tell that to, the under-25 drivers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, true leaders — and there may not be any of them on the opposition benches — true leaders down through the ages have, from time to time.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, would you ask that jack-in-the-box to sit down, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. members please preserve order? The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has the floor.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, true leaders down through the ages from time to time during periods of duress have asked the citizens to tighten their belts and face the future with hope and expectation, after first having provided the example by their own actions.

MR. COCKE: Did you tighten your belt?

MR. VEITCH: It should be inconceivable that any person or group in this honourable House would willingly plunge future generations into a lake of debt in order to satisfy their own particular brand of political ideology and/or political expediency.

I noted on television a few nights ago that the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) stated a 2 per cent rise in the sales tax levy would produce a 2 per cent increase in the cost of living. I am sure this was a mis-statement.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: I have great respect for the Liberal leader, and I notice from time to time that he uses a pocket calculator. Now he must have bought his calculator from a different store than I did, because mine comes up with a different answer.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: My calculator tells me, through my own humble brand of mathematics, given an average spending pattern between taxable and non-taxable purchases, that in British Columbia the 2 per cent rise in the sales tax imposition would produce only approximately 0.25 per cent increase in the total provincial cost of living.

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I make that observation only...and I would suggest to the hon.

[ Page 629 ]

member for North Vancouver–Capilano to have his calculator checked. I'm only trying to be helpful.

Someone once told me about a fellow who suggested that he lost money on everything he sold, and this may apply to some of the hon. members of the opposition. My friend asked him: "if that's true, how do you survive?" He said: "I make it up on volume!" You may be interested to learn that that chap is no longer in business.

Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, governments of all stripes are just about the largest business that we have in any country, and in this province. We cannot afford, as government, to take the course of my long-belated friend.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it is widely known that socialist governments of all types have looked to the state rather than individual ownership of the industrial and commercial activity in any jurisdiction where they are in power. Perhaps it would be wise if we could for a moment examine the effectiveness of Crown corporations and Crown-controlled entities, which were loudly proclaimed by the previous government as being vehicles whereby profits would remain in British Columbia and thus be divided up among the people of this province. Here are but a few of these entities.

British Columbia Cellulose, past year's performance, profit, $1.6 million. British Columbia Hydro, loss, $34.6 million. British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year, loss, $47 million.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): How much was that?

MR. VEITCH: Forty-seven million dollars.

British Columbia Railway, additional three months, loss, $15 million. British Columbia Steamship Company, 1975, Ltd., loss, $8,000.

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Dunhill Development....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Continue, Hon. Member.

MR. VEITCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Dunhill Development Corp. Ltd., profits, $2.6 million. Insurance Corp of British Columbia Autoplan, loss, $171.569 million. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, general insurance programme, loss, $4.831 million. Pacific Northwest Co-op, loss, $2.4 million. Panco Poultry, profit, $343,000, and T.S. Holdings Ltd., loss, $800,000.

By my calculator, that provides a total loss for the aforementioned agencies and corporations of $271.665 million. In addition to that, the government holds between 28 and 40 per cent of the issued stocks in many smaller companies and undertakings. Of all these mentioned, only one company has a marginal profit, and the rest all have losses.

To the over $271 million loss we must also add some interesting interest factors.

MR. LAUK: Stick with it, Elwood.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Member, you may listen to this, because you might want to write some of your memoirs at some time. They would go in a very small book, but you may want to write that.

The interest owing by the government corporations and agencies which, had the government taken the money and invested it at a minimal amount of 10 per cent, would have produced a positive cash flow.... Due to the fact that these entities have not paid the government the interest owing but rather merely accumulated it, it has helped produce a deficit cash flow position for the people of this province.

British Columbia Cellulose holds interest in the amount of $1,400,000.

British Columbia Harbours Board, which was supposed to repay some grant or other, owes interest that they could not even pay in the amount of $2,830,000.

Ocean Falls has an estimated interest factor of $500,000.

Pacific Northwest Co-op has an estimated interest factor of $240,000.

Panco Poultry Ltd. has an interest unpaid factor of $150,000.

T.S. Holdings Ltd.: the entire loss had to be picked up by the government — $800,000.

Workers' Compensation reserve funds: $85.5 million.

Other private corporations, $450,000.

This comes to an astonishing figure of $91,871,000.

We may note here that British Columbia Development Corp. actually earned $395,000 during this last fiscal year, which would prove to me at least one thing, and that is that government would be better off to provide the impetus and funding so that the private sector of our economy could better get on with the job.

We cannot afford to gamble the resources of our province, which have been entrusted to us on the open market. It may also be noted here that no reserve for contingent liabilities on loans which the government has guaranteed for Crown corporations and others has been provided for. Some of these corporations are faring badly indeed, and the lending institutions, hon. members, will also almost certainly be turning to the government and asking th em to make good the guarantees which have been given to

[ Page 630 ]

them.

Without detailed examination it would appear to this individual that the prior government's general intervention into the marketplace cost the citizens of this Province a cash flow deficit, or loss, of approximately $300 million — over 55 per cent of the total projected deficit shown on the Clarkson, Gordon report. Government meddling. Mr. Speaker, I suggest with all humility that these funds would have been better spent in providing services for people rather than being squandered in the market place.

It is touted by the opposition that somehow the former administration increased the asset base of British Columbians. Let us examine for a moment the position held by the government in two corporations, namely British Columbia Telephone and Westcoast Transmission. We presently hold, according to the Finance minister, $11,772,971 worth of B.C. Telephone and $26,903,000 in Westcoast Transmission securities, the total amount being $38,676,000. What do you suppose would happen if the government decided to dispose of these securities? You don't have to ask me — you could phone any broker. If we were to flood the market with these securities, my friends, believe me, it would drive the share value downwards, right out of sight. Then, Mr. Speaker, the value would not be $38,676,000, but a great deal less. Assets, indeed.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe the New Democratic Party has an economic theory. I would best describe this as the candle method of practising economics. Have you ever heard of that, hon. members?

MR. LEA: Burn it at both ends. Right?

MR. VEITCH: Yes, simply stated:

I burn my candle at both ends,
It may not last the night,
But, oh, my foes, and oh, my friends,
It makes a lovely light.

Beautiful theory.

MR. WALLACE: Author?

MR. VEITCH: Gary Lauk.

Mr. Speaker, I support this government, and the Minister of Finance and his budget. I fully support the statement made, without reservation or equivocation, on page 1, wherein the Finance minister states: "This budget is a start on the road back, a recovery budget, moving in a positive direction to restore confidence in British Columbia." And, I paraphrase — a good place, a safe place in which to invest, and we need investment to create jobs so that we will be able to work and live in security.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House Leader would mind giving the House an indication of what the order of business will be tomorrow.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe we'll continue with the budget debate.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.