[ Page 703 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Bikeways Development Act (Bill 36) Mr. Barber

Introduction and first reading — 704

Oral questions

Administration of secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 704

B.C. Steamship Co. negotiations. Mr. Wallace — 704

March retail food price drop. Hon. Mr. Mair answers — 704

Ladysmith harbour authority. Mrs. Wallace — 705

Federal Mincome increase. Mr. Levi — 705

Capilano College Principal severance pay inquiry. Mr. Wallace — 705

Shrum report on downtown Vancouver project. Mr. Lauk — 705

Details of Thompson River system report. Mr. Lea — 705

Possible legal action against Eddie Hagmore. Mr. Macdonald — 706

Status of Islands Trust senior planner. Mr. Barber — 706

March retail food price drop. Hon. Mr. Mair answers — 706

Status of Vietnamese aid committee. Mr. Wallace — 706

Problems of vegetable growers. Mr. Stupich — 706

Advertisement for Islands Trust senior planner. Mr. Barber — 706

Prince Rupert-Edmonton pipeline. Mr. Lea — 707

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 707

Mr. Macdonald — 712

Mr. Kempf — 717

Mr. Lea — 720

Mr. Rogers — 721

Mrs. Dailly — 724

Mr. Bawtree — 730

Mr.Loewen — 732

Royal assent to Bill 10 — 735

Motion

Extension of budget debate. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 735

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. members of this House would very much like to extend a warm welcome to a gentleman who has served his country for a long time in this Legislature and formerly in the Legislature of Alberta, in the latter instance as the Minister of Agriculture and then from 1953 to 1972 as the member of this Legislature representing Victoria and from 1955 to 1972 as the Minister of Public Works for the Province of British Columbia. I am speaking, of course, of Mr. William Chant.

I know the members of the House will also extend a warm welcome to my wife, Mamie, and her mother, Mrs. June Wadsworth from New York.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, on their annual visit from New Westminster to Victoria, just testing out whether or not they should have the capital moved back to where it belongs, are 55 people from the former capital city, the Royal City, New Westminster. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them on their visit here today.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this week British Columbia has been honoured by the honour conferred upon one of its greatest British Columbians. I speak of the Order of Canada award that was presented in Ottawa by the Governor-General to a former member of this House and a former great premier of this province, and the father of our present Premier, the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. I would ask the House to join me in a tribute to the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett who has been awarded, and deservedly so, the Order of Canada.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery today is a former member, a distinguished member. I ask the House to welcome the former member for North Vancouver–Seymour, Colin Gabelmann.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I would just like to register for the official opposition our congratulations to the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and our good wishes for his distinction which he has gained in Ottawa and to recognize the many years of dedicated service he made to the province of British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add also my congratulations to the father of our Premier. While it's well known that we didn't always see eye-to-eye, he's a man I respect greatly. I would be the first to agree that he has made a tremendous contribution to British Columbia.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure this afternoon to introduce to this House the former member for Boundary-Similkameen, who served a long time in this House. Elected in '53, he was re-elected subsequently in 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966 and 1969. He was a member who was the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Agriculture.

MR. KING: Also 1972.

MR. HEWITT: Also 1972, that's quite correct. I would like this House to welcome once again Mr. Frank Richter.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I believe this is the first group of students from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands to observe our deliberations in this session. I would like the House to welcome some 32 students from Spectrum Senior Secondary, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Zmuda.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House today to recognize the constituency secretary for the great riding of Vancouver South, Mrs. Barbara Duggan.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are two very good friends, Gus and Charlotte Bychowsky. Mr. Bychowsky is the president of the chamber of commerce in my constituency of Coquitlam and the co-chairman of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the gallery today is Mr. Lloyd W. Manuel, FCA. He's the executive vice-president of the British Columbia Hotels Association, and I would ask this House to make him welcome.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have six distinguished visitors from Kitwanga in the galleries today: Richard Morgan, chief councillor; Norman Johnson, a councillor; Guy Morgan, another councillor and chairman of the education committee; Clifford Morgan, band manager; and Sam Derrick, co-chairman of the education committee and Larry Moore, trustee. I know the members would want to give them a real welcome here this afternoon, but I would like to point out that their people welcomed

[ Page 704 ]

my dad up the Skeena River in 1908.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope I'm not going to contribute to introductions by exhaustion, but I would like to draw to the attention of the House that we have a gentleman in the gallery who is a frequent observer and who has a long history of service to education in British Columbia, Mr. Stan Evans, the assistant general secretary of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. In that welcome I wonder if they would also include a former MLA of this House with whom we didn't always agree but who is in the gallery. He represented North Vancouver–Seymour — Colin Gabelmann.

Introduction of bills.

BIKEWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill 36, Bikeways Development Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ADMINISTRATION OF SECRECY
OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Provincial Secretary whether or not she is in a position to respond to my very simple question of the other day as to whether or not one Mr. Dave Brown has been sworn to the oath of secrecy and, if so, on what date and by whom.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): I'm not ready, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

B.C. STEAMSHIP CO. NEGOTIATIONS

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications a question with regard to the Princess Marguerite and the statements that have been made regarding the negotiations between the unions and the B.C. Steamship Company. Can the minister tell the House if the report that the negotiated agreement has been nullified by cabinet order is so? If this is the case, why was there a lapse of six weeks before the decision was taken?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this situation is still under review.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: since the government is on record as not favouring government intervention in the affairs of Crown corporations, has the minister given any commitment that, since the agreement exceeds the federal guidelines, the two parties might be afforded the opportunity to take their figures to the Anti-Inflation Board?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, no agreement was finally concluded between management and the unions.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in light of the fact that the Princess Marguerite has a deadline to be ready and trim for sailing, could the minister say when the next meeting will take place and how soon we might expect some step forward, since sailing date, I believe, is only about a month away?

HON. MR. DAVIS: In view of the fact that the Princess Marguerite must be ready to sail by May 18, I trust that the meetings will be resumed very shortly.

MARCH RETAIL FOOD PRICE DROP

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked me if figures obtained by my department's food price monitoring verified statistics recently published in Ottawa which gave a 1.3 per cent drop in the cost of food in March from February. Unfortunately, the figures used by the Food Prices Review Board are based on an index, or a historical point, of January 1974, and simply cannot be compared as a statistic to the statistics we keep. My department, as I'm sure the hon. member knows, commenced a monitoring system recently and we simply have no comparable index to compare with the figures that the hon. member gave me.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I'm wondering if the Minister of Consumer Services could advise the House what results the particular indexing that you're using to monitor food prices in the province has revealed.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, we do what we call a market-basket survey and it showed Vancouver prices up 0.9 per cent in March from February.

MS. SANFORD: A further supplementary: could you indicate whether this is the trend throughout the province? Is it up about 0.9 per cent throughout the province, or is it higher in other areas?

[ Page 705 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

LADYSMITH HARBOUR AUTHORITY

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the Minister of Environment. As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Minister, there has been done a very extensive study on the Ladysmith harbour. One of the recommendations contained within that study is the appointment of a harbour authority. I wonder if you could tell me, Mr. Minister: have any steps been taken towards the appointment of such an authority?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): I'll have to take the hon. member's question as notice and I will provide her with that information very soon.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, as a supplemental: while the minister is looking for an answer to that question, would he also consider looking for the answer to this question? I understand that there has been a move afoot on behalf of some of the leaseholders of foreshore rights around the perimeters of the harbour, particularly the CPR which has extensive logging concerns there, to consolidate their foreshore leases. I would ask the minister to investigate whether or not there has been any move to grant any further leases there, in view of the fact that the harbour authority may be coming.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll accept that as notice as well and combine that with the answer I provide to you.

FEDERAL MINCOME INCREASE
FOR B.C. RESIDENTS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Human Resources: today in the Colonist the minister is quoted as saying that the federal increase in Mincome will be "passed on to B.C. residents in the normal way." The normal way is for the increase to be given to all persons over the age of 60 and to the handicapped. Can the minister confirm that this will happen?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can only go by memory of what I've seen thus far within the department. It appears that the pattern which was developed over the past four years was not necessarily any one way. There were times when it was passed on to all and once or twice, perhaps, when it wasn't. I'll take the question as notice and obtain a full answer.

CAPILANO COLLEGE PRINCIPAL
SEVERANCE PAY INQUIRY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Education, inasmuch as he was reported as being shocked and astonished by the severance pay of $41,700 to the principal of Capilano College, and inasmuch as the minister ordered an inquiry: has the minister received any report, and is he in a position to inform the House as to the results of that inquiry?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): To the member, Mr. Speaker: I'll table the report in the House as soon as I receive it, and I haven't received it yet.

SHRUM REPORT ON
DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER PROJECT

MR. LAUK: The question is to the Minister of Public Works. Is Dr. Shrum's report on block 51061-71, the downtown centre in Vancouver project, completed, and, if so, when will it be released?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, to the member for Vancouver Centre, there is an interim report only received at this present time.

MR. LAUK: Will the minister release that report?

HON. MR. FRASER: Not at this time, no.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary question to the minister: with respect to Mr. Shrum's rate, is the rate publicized — $225 a day, per diem — the correct one? Is that what he's receiving?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, the rate paid Dr. Shrum is $225 per day for days worked.

DETAILS OF THOMPSON
RIVER SYSTEM REPORT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question to the Minister of Environment, and I would first like to preface it by thanking him for the promptness with which he brought back other answers for me, and ask him when I could expect answers to the two supplementary questions I asked on Monday last.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I had hoped to have those for you today, but I'm afraid other activities kept me away from my deputy. I should have them for you very, very quickly — those two supplementary questions.

[ Page 706 ]

POSSIBLE LEGAL ACTION
AGAINST EDDIE HAYMORE

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact of the return to British Columbia of one Eddie Haymore, who was alleged to have committed a crime on Canadian soil, namely the premises of the Canadian embassy in Beirut, who is a Canadian citizen and returning here — and the people who were alleged to have been held up at gunpoint were Canadians — whether he will therefore consider prosecution within this province for that offence.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Member.

STATUS OF ISLANDS
TRUST SENIOR PLANNER

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. As the House is aware, the minister has stated on several occasions that he anticipates no change in policy towards the Islands Trust. As the minister is also aware, the senior planner for the Islands Trust has recently seen her contract terminated. It terminated in the natural course of events. My first question is this: does the minister anticipate that the position of senior planner in the Islands Trust will be refilled?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, that's a matter of policy.

MR. BARBER: Would you permit a supplementary, please?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the question which was asked does relate to policy and it would be out of order, You can't ask a supplemental question on a question that originally was out of order. I'll have to go to someone else. If it's another question, yes.

MARCH RETAIL FOOD PRICE DROP

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, it just occurred to me that I didn't want there to be any misunderstanding on the part of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) in the answer I gave to her on an earlier question. While there is a difference between the figures presented by the federal government and those that we have, they may, in fact, reflect the same situation, because the two criteria are so different that there's no way you can actually compare them. I didn't want there to be any misunderstanding on that score.

STATUS OF VIETNAMESE AID COMMITTEE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a little guidance as to which minister should answer this question since it relates to a committee of the House which disappeared, or went out of existence, after the election. I'm talking about the committee that was set up to disburse $2 million to the children of Vietnam.

The former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) was the chairman of that committee and perhaps I could, for starters, ask the new Minister of Health: has he been taking any initiative to reconstitute that committee of the Legislature which was chaired by the former Minister of Health, and which had carried out substantial studies as to the method of allocating the money through established agencies in Vietnam?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): It's a question of policy.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's $2 million to be disbursed, and presumably there has to be a mechanism.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): It's before the government now.

PROBLEMS OF VEGETABLE GROWERS

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture: since the time for signing contracts with the vegetable growers is upon us, I wonder if his department is working on any proposals to deal with the problems faced by those growers.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I appreciate the member's concern. Yes, there are negotiations and meetings being carried on. I hope to have something finalized in the very near future.

ADVERTISEMENT FOR ISLANDS
TRUST SENIOR PLANNER

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, learning the ropes, as I'm trying to do, I have another question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I hope this one will be accepted. Has the now-vacant position of senior planner in the Islands Trust been advertised?

HON. MR. CURTIS: While I would like to be of help to the hon. member — and I'm also learning the ropes; I haven't been here that long — I will have to take the question as notice.

[ Page 707 ]

PRINCE RUPERT-EDMONTON PIPELINE

MR. LEA: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Transport. I did speak briefly in the hall with the minister the other day, talking about proposed plans for a pipeline from Prince Rupert to Edmonton. I understand that you were to have a meeting in the early part of this month with the people representing the principals of the consortium on that pipeline. Have you had the meeting and are you satisfied with the results of that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a meeting with the principals behind this proposal for a large-diameter oil pipeline from Prince Rupert to Edmonton. A number of questions were raised; many of them remain to be answered.

MR. LEA: A supplementary: I wonder if the minister had considered getting in touch with Mr. Joe Scott in Prince Rupert, the chairman of the Harbours Advisory Board there and who, I think, would be of great benefit to your office.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be in touch with a great many individuals, especially those in responsible positions, before any decision is made on this project.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am very proud to be able to stand in this Legislature today and take part in the great budget which was tabled in this House by this new government. I also want to say that I am indeed very proud to be a member of a government that is so positive in its approach to solving the problems that beset the province of British Columbia, problems that were here and were real on December 11, 1975, but problems that will be solved by working with the people of British Columbia — a people strong of will, a people of great courage and a people of great determination. Together we will move forward to make a better British Columbia and a better place for those people to live and work in.

This is a province where people love freedom, but also a province where those people realize that there is an equation between freedom and responsibility. Together we look to the future with great confidence.

Mr. Speaker, this government will serve the people of British Columbia, not rule over them. This government will serve by setting an example, an example of hard work, an example of strong leadership and an example of fiscal responsibility. This government is prepared to take less and give more, and has already set an example by taking a salary reduction. This government will not lead by idle words but will lead by example.

There has been a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, about this government, but I want to tell you — and we have already set an example — that this is a government that cares for people, a government that will and wants to help those in need. But now all British Columbians will proudly share that responsibility — the responsibility of assisting those less fortunate than us in our society. Mr. Speaker, they will be helped; they will be helped not with idle words, but with sound positive programmes for people — an example, another example, of action and not words.

All departments of government have moved forward together since December 22. After assessing the situation we started moving forward on the road to recovery, the road to stability and the road to good, sound common-sense government. My colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), has established the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia as a business for the first time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The Department of Human Resources has moved forward with sound policies to help people, people in need. This government is moving forward in its fight against inflation on all fronts. We are moving forward with programmes to develop the economy of this province, to preserve the jobs of our working force. This government is moving forward, Mr. Speaker, to provide houses for the people of British Columbia.

Our programmes to develop the economic climate of British Columbia will be not without due care to our environment, and that is one of the reasons we have established a single Department of the Environment of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for just a few moments this afternoon and share with the House some thoughts that this government has with regard to the agricultural industry. I want to say at the outset that this government looks at the agricultural industry — really the production-of-food industry — as the most important industry in British Columbia. This government realizes that as goes the agricultural industry, so goes the economy of British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, this government also recognizes that the industry is made up of a strong group of independent businessmen who do not want the government to pass out subsidies, but they want the freedom to make their successes and failures on their own without government interference. This government also recognizes that the agricultural industry faces many problems, problems not of their

[ Page 708 ]

own making, problems over which they have no control, problems, Mr. Speaker, which are created not purposely, but problems which are created by other sections of society and problems faced by economic realities of the day.

Many of the problems that beset the agricultural industry are problems that the industry is not equipped to handle, battles that they cannot fight because of the diversification of the industry. British Columbia probably has the most diversified agricultural industry of any province in Canada or, indeed, of any state of the union.

In British Columbia we produce practically every one of the staple food products that we eat. That means the industry is greatly diversified with no one section being a massive portion of the food-production industry. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you this afternoon some of those areas that place British Columbia agriculture at a distinct disadvantage, not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada. The industry is placed at a disadvantage by trying to compete with lesser-priced imports. This is indeed a fact of life.

Most segments of the industry are not protected by the same tariffs that other industries are protected by. I realize that some of the segments of our agricultural industry have more protection than others but, generally, the agricultural industry has to compete on an open market with lesser-priced imports from other countries. You might say, Mr. Speaker: "Well, for the protection of the consumer, why should they not have to compete on an open market?" I want to tell you plainly and simply why. It is because the cost of producing food in British Columbia is much higher than it is in practically any other province in Canada, any state in the union and, indeed, most other places in the world.

Farmland in British Columbia is 43 per cent more expensive than it is in the state of Washington.

Farm labour, Mr. Speaker, is 25 per cent more expensive in British Columbia than it is in the state of Washington. Farm equipment is anywhere from 10 to 20 per cent higher in the province of British Columbia than it is in the state of Washington.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to preserve agriculture in British Columbia we must be prepared to pay either in the grocery store or through tax dollars — not by way of subsidies, but incentives to all our agricultural industry. If we are going to preserve agriculture for tomorrow, we must be prepared to pay for it today.

There is one other alternative, and I think the people of British Columbia must be told of the costs. But there is one other alternative, Mr. Speaker, and we have heard a lot of talk about marketing boards. Marketing boards have been condemned as the vehicle which increases the price of food in British Columbia.

I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, are marketing boards the saviour or the demon? I want to tell you that we are going to have to determine that. But I want to tell you, that although marketing boards do increase the price and the cost of food to the consumer, it is not by and stretch of the imagination one of the larger costs.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some marketing boards in British Columbia are better than others. I also want to remind you that marketing boards are made up and elected by the producers in that commodity group. They are only human beings and, like any other elected body, be they civic government or indeed this government, they must at all times be open to scrutiny.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you going to preserve farmland?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia and, indeed, this Legislature must address themselves to what the situation would be if indeed there were no marketing boards in British Columbia. We have them. I feel that an abrupt change would be disastrous to the food industry in British Columbia, but I also want to tell you that governments are always willing to look at legislation — that is our duty — to see if they are performing the function that the legislation was originally set out for them to do.

MR. LAUK: Are you threatening marketing boards?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that I'm not threatening anybody, but I am laying out in clear, hard terms the facts of agriculture in this province, something that you didn't do.

We have to ask ourselves that very hard question: would food be cheaper in British Columbia without marketing boards? I want to tell you that the answer....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What's the answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I do not have the answer, and I do not think the opposition has the answer, but these are questions that we must address ourselves to.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do feel marketing boards must be more concerned with the marketing of farm products. The other alternative...and this is a decision that British Columbians will have to make, and I tell you again that if we are to preserve agriculture in this province for the future, we are going to have to be prepared to pay for it today.

You can do away with marketing boards, but there is one other alternative, and that is to give the farmer

[ Page 709 ]

back a say over his land. Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should turn back the clock, but I think that at all times we must honestly and sincerely assess the situation and determine the cost.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not afraid to assess the situation. We will always take a look and help British Columbians help us determine what path they wish to take.

I am tired and sick of hearing politicians, consumers, people in other industries use the farmer as a whipping-boy. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of this province are one of the most devoted, hard-working, conscientious groups in all of our society.

I want to tell you that they do not have high-priced specialists, high-priced effective specialists to fight their battle for them, to fight their case. All they want to do, Mr. Speaker, in a free society is to do their thing, be able to make a profit, be able to go broke — and feed British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment about economic development. Solid plans are being formed by the Department of Economic Development which will have a great impact on the future of British Columbia. This afternoon I cannot divulge some of the planning that is going on to this Legislature, but I do want you to know that there is a great deal of thought being put into the economic policies of this province, policies that will build a solid, strong economy and protect the workers of this province and restore confidence in this province so that we will not witness again the disaster that we have seen in this province in the last three and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you one thing that's very important. This government — all departments of this government — are for the first time in three and a half years working together as a co-ordinated team.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense! Balderdash!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this House about the significance of the Clarkson, Gordon report as relative to Bill 3 and to the budget which we are debating this afternoon. I want to refresh the memories of the hon. members. In the first instance, the Clarkson, Gordon report was commissioned so that the new government could get an objective analysis of where the province stood. Remember, it was not our party that called a mid-winter election. Mr. Speaker, it was not our party which created a situation where a new government would have less than three months to untangle the mess on the treasury room floor that that party had been making for more than three and a half years — less than three months to compile the information needed to present to the people of this province the first honest set of figures in three budgets.

The work, Mr. Speaker, of the Clarkson, Gordon report has been invaluable to the people of British Columbia and to the government in overcoming an obstacle created by that group over there who, in a state of sheer panic, had to call a mid-winter election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Panic, absolute panic.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Absolute panic.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sheer terror.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a little bit more about some of the obstacles this government has had to overcome in compiling not only the budget, but in assembling the facts which are necessary for the government to conduct its day-to-day business — its day-to-day affairs.

Let me talk briefly about what happened in the Department of Economic Development in the period between December 11, 1975, and December 22, 1975 — and particularly on December 16, that historic day in the Department of Economic Development. In recent days, Mr. Speaker, in this House, there has been much talk about bills the government has had: should they be paid, when should they be paid, when were they contracted for, who contracted them, why were they contracted, where, indeed, were they contracted? I want to tell this House that I have bills in my office amounting to tens of thousands of dollars which I could find no authority for — no authority that they should be paid...

MR. LAUK: Then don't pay them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and for which I cannot find even any remote evidence as to the background or reason that the government owes this money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell this House today, Mr. Speaker, why this problem exists. At the conclusion of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I intend to table in this House voucher no. 488299 in the amount of $44.70 payable to Host Rent-A-Car for the rental of a panel truck on December 16, 1975. I have been advised that this truck travelled from the parliament buildings...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...to 3860 13th Avenue in Vancouver. I understand, Mr. Speaker, from information in your office, that this is the residence of one Gary Vernon Lauk....

[ Page 710 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the member, Mr. Speaker, who held the position of Minister of Economic Development.

MR. LEA: So what?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let me outline to you briefly what the contents of that truck were, Mr. Speaker; let me outline briefly what the contents of that panel truck were in its tax-financed mission to Vancouver.

The ministerial files, Mr. Speaker, of the former Minister of Economic Development were contained in three cabinets. Each cabinet contains three drawers. The files included all correspondence between the minister and other government departments...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...other government agencies and boards.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The files contained correspondence between that minister and the British Columbia Development Corporation, of which that minister was a director.

The files contained all correspondence with the British Columbia Railway, for which that minister was a director.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those files also contained, Mr. Speaker, ministerial correspondence relative to the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources from the time of the demotion of the former Mines minister, Mr. Leo Nimsick.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Also included in those files were the files of the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr. King, relative to his responsibilities as a director of the British Columbia Railway Corp. from 1972 to the time of his demotion.

I have been advised that with respect to the files I have just outlined, they included general memoranda, general correspondence, reports, agendas of meetings, minutes of meetings, matters relative to the Mineral Royalties Act, Treasury Board decisions and related material, and other matters of a general nature dealt with by the Minister of the day in the discharge of his responsibilities to the executive council, the government and, most of all, to the people of British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in the simplest terms, I have no record of what went on in the office that I now occupy from the period of September, 1972, to December 11, 1975.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those files, Mr. Speaker, were stolen from the office...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...by the ex-minister.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go!

MR. LAUK: I have not interrupted the hon. minister so far, Mr. Speaker, but he has used the word "stolen." I categorically deny it and ask the hon. minister to withdraw that word as it imputes an improper motive on my part.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Minister withdraw the word "stolen"?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to give an improper motive to the minister's actions, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker: is he going to write his memoirs and tell how Bob Williams actually ruled him?

But, Mr. Speaker, the most devastating part of this...

MR. LAUK: Take all the rope you need.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...tale is that instructions were issued to public servants in the minister's office, by a minister of the Crown...

MR. LAUK: Take all the rope you need.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...to rent a van and remove those files to his home in Vancouver.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): And charge it to the government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The quantity of files removed was hardly insignificant, nor hardly could they be characterized as those matters of a personal nature by the minister.

[ Page 711 ]

MR. LAUK: False.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those matters of a personal nature by the Minister totalled approximately 22 boxes. If those were personal files, Mr. Speaker, 22 boxes of correspondence seems to me like a tremendous amount of personal correspondence.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that these were not small boxes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They were approximately two to three feet by one foot in size and were filled and loaded in the van at the instruction of the Minister.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LEA: Did it happen at midnight, Don?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, but at the instruction of the minister the office was closed on a normal day's business to remove the files. The office was closed from a normal day's business, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Cover-up!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Moreover, the desire to remove all files by that former government was so great that not only did the Minister of Economic Develop (Mr. Lauk) issue instructions to dedicated public servants to participate in this exercise, but instructions were issued from the former Premier of this province (Mr. Barrett) .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When there was some discussion as to whether the project should be undertaken, the Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) of the day saw fit to call a public servant into his office and advise that public servant that these files should be removed.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion in this House in the past few days about who is telling the truth...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...those retroactive instant experts or this government.... (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I suggest when calls come into ministerial offices asking why a follow-up has not been made on this or that, or why this or that bill has not been paid, or why this or that grant has not been made...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...grants, promises by the former government — the record will show that I virtually have no record in my office of what was going on for three and a half years.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I didn't have a record of what had happened in 20 years when I took over.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With or without, Mr. Speaker, any records of what went on in government over the past three and a half years, this government intends to do the job it was elected to do.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We intend to re-establish honesty and openness in government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, the statement, "We intend to re-establish honesty and openness in government"....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am sorry — I meant to say "establish."

MR. COCKE: When are you going to start?

MR. SPEAKER: To say otherwise would assume....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know me better than that, Mr. Speaker. We intend to present....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk to you later, Mr. Member. Just don't get excited. You'll have your day in court.

We intend to present straightforward budgeting based on sound financial and fiscal politics, not based on kitchen-table arithmetic done by candlelight on the back of a cornflakes box. We intend to restore confidence in this province and in its government so that the investment dollar we need to create jobs and provide a stable base for government-funded social programmes will be re-established.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of what I mean when I say restoration of confidence is the No. 1 priority of my department. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want to quote from an article on April 2, 1976 in the Victoria Times:

"New companies are starting up or expanding in British Columbia in record numbers since the Social Credit government came to power, according to the office of the

[ Page 712 ]

registrar of companies. In the first three months of this year the number of companies formed was up 35-per cent from the same period last year. The number of companies expanding into British Columbia is up 26 per cent."

As usual that bunch over there do not want to hear the cold, hard facts, but I'll give you more cold, hard facts. This is just the beginning of what this great government is going to do to re-establish industry and protect the jobs of all British Columbians. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what I have outlined here today is just the tip of the iceberg. We will establish — again, Mr. Speaker, I will say re-establish — a firm, solid, economic base for this province of British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the province of British Columbia today. Another example just occurred recently on the British Columbia Railway. Mr. Speaker, I announced by way of a statement in this House on Monday, March 29, 1976, that a bridge on the British Columbia Railway just south of Lillooet was burned out, halting service on that line. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the bridge was replaced and back in operation three days later on April 1, 1976.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote briefly from a Canadian Press wire story describing the situation just 10 miles south of Lillooet: "Strike-hit B.C. Rail operations returned to normal late Thursday after work crews completed the installation of a new bridge 10 miles south of Lillooet."

Now, Mr. Speaker, pay attention to this — I mean I'd like the House to pay particular attention to this.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The Speaker is awake!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: "Work crews operating around the clock replaced the burned-out structure with a prefabricated 113-foot-long concrete bridge."

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this type of devotion and determination on behalf of those workers who replaced that bridge is typical of what is happening in British Columbia today. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those workers worked in weather that was a lot less than that experienced by some people in Honolulu. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the weather was not all that great but those workers did not give up in their determination to get that railway operating again.

These two items are not bottom-line, black-line, hard economics. This is what is happening in British Columbia today. People again have faith in their province. People again have courage, and confidence will once again be restored to this great province which we are so proud to represent in this Legislature.

MR. LAUK: To correct statements made by the hon. Minister of Economic Development, copies of letters and relevant documents were available and are available to the hon. minister, each and every one, not only those required for the continuity of government but all correspondence on a chronological file, either within his office or the deputy minister's. Each Crown corporation has all copies of my memoranda to them and their replies to me, all available to the new minister.

The boxes that were sent to my home contained personal files, memoranda. There were not 22 boxes, and they were not of the size described by the minister and they contained personal papers, files and mementos and other belongings as well as executive assistants' memoranda and files and political materials pertaining to the New Democratic Party.

I paid for the portion of that bill and you can check the portion that I paid with respect to the political material. I'm very careful, Mr. Minister.

With respect to his claim that they were needed for continuity, he just didn't get in touch with his officials in his department in time. If he wants any ideas about how to run the department, I'm available any time to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. members of the House accept this statement by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Centre.

Interjections.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to rise and speak on the budget, and it's a double pleasure to follow my friend the Minister of Agriculture, although I regret that he indulged in wild charges in the course of his speech. Ministers do take many boxes of material out of their offices. I did the same. They included not only personal material but copies of governmental reports of which there were duplicates within the department, duplicates in the Energy Commission and things of that kind, and they're freely available. I still get things sent down to me now that are of no use in the office, and there are extra copies there and I still get them. So I think honestly that the hon. minister was engaging in wild charges, which he shouldn't do, because we always enjoy your harangue-overs, Mr. Minister, but try to keep them.... I still remember, and I thought you'd talk a little bit about, the Land Commission Act, when that hon. member, who could tell you everything he knows in 10 minutes, spoke for 34 hours against the Land Commission Act as it now sits on the statute books of this province — 34 hours. He took off his shoes, stood there in his stockinged feet.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You wouldn't let me go to

[ Page 713 ]

the bathroom either.

MR. MACDONALD: It was enough for the Minister of Health to report the matter to the Attorney-General. (Laughter.) Now he's like a mouse. He knows that this was NDP legislation that was solidly based and will not be repealed. They're afraid to touch it, eh? You spoke for 34 hours against that. Oh, I've got to get back to the budget.

But let me say again to the hon. minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, when he talked about the company registrations being up 35 per cent, look at the record over the last three years when we were government. They went up every year. Sometimes — I don't know the figures — but every year those registrations went up, and British Columbia, under the NDP government, had very successful economic years.

But I'm supposed to be discussing the budget and supposed to be keeping an amiable frame of mind, not to let that member or any others get me too excited. I'm going to discuss the budget for a few minutes. I think I'll use the edition for family use. I don't know how many editions of this budget are coming out, Mr. Speaker, but for a while I thought the best thing, perhaps, would be not to read it at all, but wait to see the film. (Laughter.)

This one that I have in my hands now, this isn't... "I Am Curious, Blue, " I hope. Which one is this? This one, though, does have some statements in it, Mr. Speaker, about the condition of British Columbia which are very unfortunate. For example, it says on page 5 of this budget that "the NDP government had frightened investment capital away from the province." That's what it says, and yet the facts are revealed on page 8 of the same budget where it is recorded, and we're talking about capital investment here that "capital and repair investment in British Columbia increased by 8.9 per cent in 1975 to an estimated $5.7 billion dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MR. MACDONALD: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there you have two inconsistent statements in a budget which is really a work of pure fiction and which is designed...and I see in another clipping that I have here — and this does get me a little exercised, I must admit.... I see here where the hon. Minister of Education has gone out and told the teachers the very same thing, that we have frightened investment capital away from the province of B.C., when the record — even though 1975 was not a good year anywhere in Canada — for capital investment growth in this province surpassed that of any other province in Canada in that year. And yet, what do we hear?

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) goes out and tells the teachers the same kind of a story, and his speech left the teachers cold. Fibber McGeer and folly is what we've been treated to in this House. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, if you were quoting from a press release when you said "Fibber McGeer", that was one thing, but if that was a direct quotation of your own, I'd ask you to withdraw that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll say that I'm not implying any unfair motive in making that remark, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in the budget — I don't want to dwell too long on the economic facts of the thing — it says on page 6 of my particular edition of this budget that the gross provincial product in the province of British Columbia increased in the year 1975 by 10 per cent, and you deduct from that, to get real growth, 9 per cent, as stated in the budget, leaving real growth in this province in the year 1975 — and nobody pretends it was an easy year because of the slump in lumber markets and industrial trouble in the lumber industry — but our increase in real growth of 1 per cent in the year 1975 surpassed the Canada real growth which was zero throughout Canada for the year 1975. Once again, the record of the NDP government in economic development and promotion in B.C. was better than all the rest of Canada in that year. They were zero and we were 1 per cent real growth. We were an infinite percentage better.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): By their own figures.

MR. MACDONALD: These are the same figures in this budget, which is a work of fiction. If the Minister of Education goes to the teachers of this province and gives the kind of speech he gave — it's a quicky speech, as they said — no wonder it left them cold. The Minister of Education was engaging in a flight of fancy and pure fiction when he said that we had frightened investment capital away from this province, and was doing no good service to the province of B.C. in making that kind of statement...

Interjections.

MR.MACDONALD: ...in the face of the facts.

Let me give you one example of what was happening in the mining industry — and I admit this is a dramatic example, but it is the biggest single example that's been happening in the province of B.C. In 1975, one international company, Kaiser Resources Ltd., made profits of $71.2 million net after taxes, an increase from their previous tax yield

[ Page 714 ]

— their net free profits for 1974 — which were down to $24 million.

That company had an increase of almost 300 per cent in its net profit for mining and strip mining and yarding the good coal of the province of British Columbia onto the international markets, and yet we have the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) who says he will not consider adjusting that royalty to recapture any of those excessive profits for the people of the province of B.C. That's what he has said.

I say that is an exorbitant profit, and the price of coal is now up to about $50 for metallurgical coal per ton. For a government to be affecting the livelihoods of the ordinary people of the province, as this government has done in a period of inflation, and leave untapped the exploitation and exorbitant profits, in many cases, of our natural resources, it is a government that is not faithful to the public trust that it ought to be holding up to.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, let me just give, very briefly, some of the examples of the way this government has been pouring gasoline onto the raging fires of inflation.

I had a little brush with the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) when he said that we didn't try and twist the arm of the Hon. "Thumper" Macdonald to get B.C. exempted from the anti-inflation guidelines, but we are exempt, aren't we?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): No.

MR. MACDONALD: Because all of these increases that you have been making, that have been adding to the cost of living in a period of inflation — ICBC, 200 or 300 per cent; sales tax, 40 per cent; hospitalization, 50 per cent, including Medicare — and all of these imposts on the ordinary people of the province of British Columbia have been exempted from the anti-inflation guidelines even though in Ontario they signed an agreement a long time ago, didn't they?

HON. MR. MAIR: Read the Act.

MR. MACDONALD: You deliberately prevented Jean-Luc Plumptre and Beryl Pepin (laughter) from having a look at what you were doing to the ordinary people of the province right out here in terms of pouring gasoline onto the fires of inflation and increasing the living costs for the ordinary people of this province.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's not so. Read the anti-inflation Act. Have you ever read it?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Read the budget!

HON. MR. MAIR: Read the Act!

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the paper!

MR. MACDONALD: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this government, at, a time when wage-earners are under the anti-inflation guidelines, has been, in all of the essential areas of the cost-of-living, increasing that cost for the ordinary people of the province. This budget is dong the same thing. It's leaving untapped the vast wealth...

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Right on.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and it's putting the burden on the people. It is a budget of the car dealers by the turncoats for the millionaires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Let me take as a little example the PNE in Vancouver East, which serves the whole province of British Columbia. This was a petty case of indiscriminate loading up an additional burden on the ordinary people of the province. The PNE increased its gate charges for adults from $1.50 to $1.75. Not very much; low in percentage. But the Pacific National Exhibition made, in that previous year, more than $1 million in profit; in 1974 it made over $1 million in profit. Yet this government comes in, cancels the lease arrangements that have been made with the city of Vancouver, puts a new board of directors in there, and immediately their first step is to increase the charges to the ordinary people of the province — just 25 cents. But they also wiped out, with this new board of directors, the very favourable arrangement that had been made for leasing from the city of Vancouver, whereby $500,000 per year would be paid by the province for the benefit of Vancouver east of Main Street and west of Boundary Road. The city of Vancouver had agreed to put up a matching amount every year for 10 years.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: when we embark, as we shortly will, and as we should have a long time ago, on the by-election in Vancouver East, the people of Vancouver East should be told that the more deprived areas of the city of Vancouver will lose under this government, under this new board, $1 million per year for the next 10 years in development of their parks, facilities and their livable community centres in that great part of the city.

[ Page 715 ]

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to what I think is a case of serious human injustice and discrimination. I want to begin by praising the Minister of Health of the NDP government (Mr. Cocke) for the progress he made in extending dental services, particularly through the paradental personnel, to all the people of the province.

But I would point out that dental services are still denied, particularly in our hinterland areas. And where they are available, the cost is excessive. Yet, we have here one of our new Canadians, Dr. Bruhn Mou, who comes from Denmark. She has graduated from the University of Copenhagen; she comes to the province of British Columbia, and she is denied the right by the College of Dental Surgeons to even write the exam to qualify her to practise dentistry in the province of B.C.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, she's qualified. She is able to practice in Manitoba. As a result of that federal exam she is able to work for the federal government, if she could get a job for the federal government as a dentist here in B.C. But she has been denied. She went to court but the court could not help her.

We have passed, as a Legislature, section 22 of the Dentistry Act which requires the college to allow anyone to write the examination who produces a certificate evidencing his degree in dentistry from a university approved by the council. Those universities can be in Canada, in the British Commonwealth, in the United States and in any other country considered by the council to have equivalent dental educational standards. Yet, as the judge said, he was not able to help her because she could not establish a legal right to force them either to allow her to write the exam or to require them to look at the University of Copenhagen and its credentials, as they should do under legislative mandate.

Here's what Mr. Justice Toy said about that, pursuant to the section I have read: "To date, no universities in other countries have been approved. Bearing in mind that the power to approve foreign universities, or universities from other countries, has existed since the Dentistry Act was amended in 1951, I found this statement startling, to say the least." This is Mr. Justice Toy.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): What was the date of that?

MR. MACDONALD: This judgment was on April 8 of this year.

To give you the sequence of events — because I'm glad that the ministers are listening to what I am saying — she applied under the Human Rights Code because she applied under section 9, which said that no person shall be denied opportunity of employment, including professional work, by reason of race, colour, creed or place of origin. She applied in May, after this court decision, and she was granted a hearing.

An inquiry officer by the human rights branch....

HON. MR. McGEER: Was that tabled in 1975?

MR. MACDONALD: 1975.

HON. MR. McGEER: Why didn't you do something about it when you were Attorney-General?

MR. MACDONALD: I'm just telling you what we did.

She applied in May under the Human Rights Code. The hearing officer was appointed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). That was Sheila Day. She gave her report back, approving the validity of the claim of Dr. Bruhn-Mou to practise dentistry in the province of B.C. It then went to the director of the human rights branch, Kathleen Ruff, and was approved, and it was approved by the present Leader of the Opposition before the last election as a case where an inquiry board should be set up.

Yet the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has been stonewalling that inquiry now for the past two or three months. He is reported as saying that he was blocked by the court decision.

Now I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that what I'm talking about is a case where we're not giving fair and equal opportunity to a new Canadian, to a woman dentist, and I'm saying.... I made a note, because when I consider the areas of this province that go without dental service, the places where people get on a plane at great expense to their families to fly somewhere to try to find a dentist, the cases where dental offices are overloaded and people go with their teeth untreated....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: We have this, the Human Rights Code, and it should be implemented in favour of this woman; and I'm demanding that the inquiry proceed under the Human Rights Code, which was passed, by the NDP government.

Interjection.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there is a vast denial of dental services throughout the province of B.C. In the Vancouver region 49 per cent of the

[ Page 716 ]

children who were studied by the latest dental survey had no caries. But in the Kootenays it's down to 35 per cent; in the north, 22 per cent. Only 22 per cent of the children examined were found free from dental caries. In greater Victoria, where there are ample dentists, 48 per cent; Vancouver Island, only 16 per cent, because that includes, of course, the northern regions and the remote regions of Vancouver Island.

The ratio of dentists to population, while it is ample in the greater Vancouver region — one dentist to 1,400 people — in the northern areas of the province it's one dentist to 4,043 people.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, when you have a new Canadian who comes to this country and comes with qualifications from a university like Copenhagen, which has been approved by the International Federation of Dentists as having the highest standards — and they are affiliated to the World Health Organization — which is recognized automatically in the United Kingdom as having good dental education, which is accepted everywhere in the world, then the College of Dental Physicians should look at that university and look at it quickly and say that it's qualified.

I say that under section 22 of the Act that they have a mandate. They were released powers of self-government by the Legislature in their favour and they should make sure that the public interest is being properly served and that this case, which is a case of discrimination, should be speedily resolved either within the dental college...

MR. WALLACE: The cabinet has quit. The cabinet has quit.

MR. MACDONALD: ...or under the Human Rights Code.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to close with a few words about — and I don't know how much time I've taken — just a few words on the question of...

MR. WALLACE: You've seared the cabinet out of the House anyway!

MR. MACDONALD: ...justice services. Well, I hope that hon. member will support me in this case. I think he knows something about it.

I just want to say something about justice resources. The amount made available for justice has not been generous in this budget, and yet we have major problems in the field of bringing equal justice to all of the people of the province.

I was kind of disturbed to read a speech — and I was unable to go myself because I was in another part of the province — by the federal Minister of Justice, Hon. Mr. Basford, who said in effect that the idea that there was not equality of rich and poor before the law in British Columbia was not justified. But, Mr. Speaker, there cannot be equality before the law unless legal services are made available to people.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, he's not a lawyer. Do you have a ticket? Well, let me address myself to him (laughter) — and to your backbenchers back there that are much neglected and have had to go through a pretty tough two or three weeks in this Legislature.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Listening to you!

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you know, listening to how the government was in such straitened circumstances that they made out a cheque for $181 million, and sent it off to the ICBC that didn't need the money. I'm not worried about the cheque bouncing in that case. I'm worried maybe the bank will bounce. It's a pretty big cheque. I wonder if they've cashed it yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Point Grey.

MR. MACDONALD: Listening to how they gave the universities $7.5 million: the universities thought it was manna from heaven dropping down on the council table — they were so surprised to see that suddenly come when they hadn't even requested it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You are now discussing matters which are before the House in a bill.

MR. MACDONALD: I would like to address a few remarks to the people in the back benches, Mr. Speaker, but always through you. We've done quite a lot in the province of B.C. to try and give equal opportunity before the law so rich and poor alike will have equal access to a meaningful legal remedy. But unless we proceed with the kind of services and reforms that the NDP government was engaged in, then those services will not be available and we will once again have in this province "cash register justice." There will not be equality as between rich and poor, because the rich man, for one thing, if he is up on bail he could easily post the bail, but for the poor person it is quite another matter. If a fine is awarded in the courts against a rich person, it may be a flea bite. But to a person of ordinary means, it may mean family distress and deprivation.

We have extended these legal services, through the Indian court-worker programme, into many of the remote areas of the province where that kind of a programme was beginning to give equal justice.

Now I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker — and I am just speaking to you and the backbenchers — that I have managed to drive all of the cabinet of the province of

[ Page 717 ]

B.C. out of the room. I could not have done it better if I had shouted "Fire!" (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, let me close, because I am coming to the end of what I wanted to say at this time, by saying that you have the Attorney-General's estimates before you, and if they are not amply supported in terms of resources behind justice, you will have what is now a jam-up in many of the courts of the province. It will get worse and people will be deprived of access to legal aid and advice.

I hope that some of the programmes we set in motion, and particularly the community law offices which are in 13 communities in the province of British Columbia at the present time, and which afford legal aid without cost to the people of the province, many of whom were afraid or don't have the money to go into a lawyer's office.... They are integrated, and should be increasingly integrated, with consumer services offices, with social welfare offices and other offices of government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I take my seat, having reluctantly concluded that I cannot support the third edition of this budget, and that's the only one I have; I must be on the wrong mailing list.

I see throughout this budget you have imposed savage increases on the cost of living of the ordinary people of the province. I won't repeat them, but when in a period of inflation you increase that sales tax by 40 per cent, you're striking $200 million right at the people who are now controlled under those anti-inflation guidelines. You're taking from the labour force of this province, who signed collective agreements in good faith, $200 or $300 during the course of each year of that collective agreement — right out of their pockets.

You are not in those ways fighting inflation. You are not promoting industrial stability. You have produced a budget of which it could be said, as it was said by the disciple Matthew in the Good Book: "To him that hath shall be given, and to him that hath not, even that little that he hath shall be taken away."

I do not think for one minute that this is a people's budget or a fair budget. The cries that have gone up that this province is broke, that this is a mess and that this is a mess, have not been justified in any way. I intend, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct an incorrect series of statements that the former minister made in his speech. He referred to a foreign doctor, a Danish doctor, whom he said....

MR. MACDONALD: Not foreign.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A foreign-licensed doctor, a dentist. I would just like to inform the member that the dentist can practise in British Columbia if she passes the federal examination for which she has now applied and will be taking in May and June of this year. She could always have practised in this province if she had taken that federal examination. She could have taken it a year ago; she chose not to. She has now decided that she will take that examination, and she will be practising if she passes it — licensed by the College of Dental Surgeons. Don't shake your head, because that's correct.

MR. MACDONALD: No, it isn't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the president of the college is in my office right now. I....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister makes a statement of correction which will be accepted by the hon. members of this House.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to speak in favour of this budget in this budget debate — this 1976-77 budget. I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance in his budget speech for showing some consideration for the long-suffering majority that have been forced to subsidize a whole crop of deficit companies and projects in the last three years. It would appear by this 1976-77 budget that these Crown corporations and operations are going to have to stand on their own two feet.

Before I get into the meat of the budget, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to relate to the remarks made by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in regard to the previous Socred government spending on highways in this province during election years. I am very surprised, indeed, that this member, the former Minister of Highways, was not aware of these figures. These are Department of Highways summary expenditure figures for capital and maintenance costs from 1961 to 1971.

First, I make comparisons in my own riding of Omineca. In 1963, an election year in the province of British Columbia...

MR. LEA: Take '62.

MR. KEMPF: ...expenditures in Omineca — $1,612,676.46. The year later — one year later, the year after the election, hon. members — the expenditure in Omineca was $2,445,676.67.

MR. LEA: That's Cyril's driveway.

[ Page 718 ]

MR. KEMPF: The year 1966, an election year in the province of British Columbia: expenditures in Omineca in Highways — $2,589,372.87. One year later, hon members, through you, Mr. Speaker, in the year 1967, the expenditures in Omineca — $2,978,667.50. An election year, 1969....

MR. LEA: What year were those contracts let?

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

MR. LEA: The year of the election they were let.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, that year was an election year — the expenditure in Omineca for Highways — $2,883,874.50. One year later, a year after the election, expenditures in Omineca — $3,765,328.63. And you didn't know that, hon. member?

MR. LEA: Yes, I knew that.

MR. KEMPF: Now I relate to your riding, the riding of Skeena. In the election year 1963 there was $169,518.68 spent on highways in your riding of Skeena, Mr. Member. In 1964 there was $569,486.95 spent in that riding. In 1966, hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: That's not his riding, Jack.

MR. LEA: That's not my riding.

MR. KEMPF: Pardon me, in the riding of Prince Rupert — I got carried away. I've finally got the right riding, and these are the right figures, hon. member. In the year 1966 — an election year in the province of British Columbia — $1,175,127.11 spent in the riding of Prince Rupert. In the year 1967, one year after that election date — $3,256,918.83 spent in that riding, your riding, Mr. Member.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): The best is coming.

MR. KEMPF: The best is coming. Right — the best is coming! In the year 1969, an election year in the province of British Columbia, there was $2,704,373.91 spent in the riding of Prince Rupert. One year later — one year later, in the year 1970 — there was $8,822,504.98 spent in that riding. I am surprised and appalled, Mr. Member, that you didn't know these figures as the former Minister of Highways.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: I would hope — and there was no mention of this in the budget speech — that the hon. ministers will do the same thing, will get the ferry systems and the transit systems of this province to stand on their own two feet, because it is my feeling, and that of my constituents of Omineca, that we have subsidized long enough these systems that primarily serve the people of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

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

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in my mind this budget is a people-oriented budget. Expenditure in Human Resources up 22.3 per cent; in Health, up 20.5 per cent; in education, up 10.9 per cent. An increase in the area of consumer services. An increase in the housing-growth grant to municipalities, which will benefit people.

These municipalities, under the municipal incentive grant programme, will now receive $1,500 per new unit constructed in that municipality. This will not only be an incentive for the provision of the badly needed housing accommodation in this province, but also, Mr. Speaker, these dollars will be used locally to provide services for people.

I see in this budget $16 million earmarked to supplement the home acquisition grant fund, additional assistance for purchases of homes under the assisted homeownership programme, and it goes on and on.

An increase of 34.8 per cent for the Department of Labour. Surely that is an area in which all of the people of British Columbia will benefit — if increased labour harmony is obtained in this province.

A 44 per cent increase is provided the Department of Economic Development in order to develop employment opportunities for our people. Truly a people-oriented budget, hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: Those people over there stated that there is nothing in this budget for the people of this province, and they tried to put it down by building up budgets of their administration. Well, we have seen those budgets. I would like to quote the previous Premier of this province when presenting, on February 28, 1975, the 1975-76 budget for this province: "This budget will stimulate various sectors of provincial economy." It sure did! It sure did, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, it sure did. Mines closed down. The forest industry was on the rocks, though emphasis was put on tourism. No job security. Not a job-security budget, but instead a budget that did not only harm this province's economy, but it lost for the people of this province

[ Page 719 ]

$541 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shocking!

MR. KEMPF: A $541 million deficit for the people of this province to make good, and they say "shocking" when referring to this new budget.

MR. LAUK: Do you still believe that?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, yes, we remember their budget. We'll never forget them. I say that never again in the province of British Columbia will we have to put up with a Barrett-Williams government. Never again!

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: A $541 million loss, Mr. Speaker. We have to borrow for the first time, as the Hon. Premier has stated, for the first time in this province since 1952.

MR. LEA: Your budget puts the province in debt.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a budget of restraint. We must hold the line, curb the disaster course on which the previous administration had placed this province. We must begin once more to manage the affairs of British Columbians, as we were entrusted to do on December 11, 1975.

That trust this administration holds high — very high and very dear. No one here in this House can say that more sincerely than I. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, proud to be here, proud to be entrusted by my constituents of Omineca with their most important affairs, those affairs of their government.

I am proud of those constituents for I've had many letters and many phone calls, and they don't like it any more than anybody else that we must pay 2 per cent more in sales tax, that personal income tax must be raised, or that we must try and bring some measure of reality to the area of rising hospital costs. These people of the north don't like it any better than anybody else.

But what these people say to me, and what those people are saying to me in letters and phone calls that I receive daily.... "Okay, if this must be done in order to clean up the mess, then let's get on with it. Let's do what we have to do to get this province back on the track — the track that will once more give us the prosperity, give us the security that we once had in this province. Get on with the job that will enable you to ensure us of our fair share." I am proud of them, Mr. Speaker — proud to be one of them, proud to be their representative. They know what we have had in this province since 1972, and they want to return to reality.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the present budget is a budget of restraint, but in relating to the budget and to the people of the province of British Columbia, I would say it is up to them — it is up to all British Columbians — to have pride in their province and pride in their work. Whether the people of this province realize it or not, it is they and they alone that can make any system work, Mr. Speaker. I call on the people of Omineca and I call to all British Columbians to get behind this new administration and to be fair. I call on all these British Columbians to be truthful, to put aside their greed and to return some measure of patriotism to this province. We have the highest standard of living in the world. We have some of the finest working conditions in the world. What's wrong with being proud of that, Mr. Speaker? What's wrong with giving all that we have for the good of our province?

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

A lot of people in our province don't realize it, Mr. Speaker, but they, and they alone, can give this province the stability we so badly need. They alone can make it happen.

We have heard since the budget speech about the terrible plot against the teachers of this province. Well, Mr. Speaker, I had, before leaving my constituency three weeks ago, a very serious conversation with the chairman of one of the local school boards in my constituency. This chairman, an individual who has served the people of that area for many years in this position, on this school board, told me that he would be dismayed and in fact disappointed if the budget submitted by his school board for the 1976-1977 year was not cut by 30 per cent. He further told me that this cut would not — and I repeat would not — result in the layoff of teachers or in a cutback of basic education to students, and I would suggest that this is the situation that exists in practically every school district in this province. Accountability and productivity are the keys to ultimate success in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we see in the budget that we in the province of British Columbia have 94,000 people unemployed. We may have 94,000 people on unemployment insurance benefits, but we do not have 94,000 people looking for jobs in the province of British Columbia, and I'll prove that statement.

On December 1, 1975, a firm in my constituency started looking for 130 men and women to add a second shift to their operation. These 130 people, Mr. Speaker, did not have to be experienced. This firm was willing to train the individuals for the jobs that they would acquire. Thirty days later, on January 1,1976, after having advertised and sent public relations people all over this province — a province of 94,000

[ Page 720 ]

unemployed — they could not find the 130 people to fill these slots. They still, to this day, have not found the complete crew; in fact, Mr. Speaker, they are operating very shorthanded in order to make do with 110 people, of which there is a turnover of 50 per cent per month.

This firm interviewed and actually hired over 400 men and women in order to get that 100. This plant is one of the most modern in North America, Mr. Speaker, and the minimum wage is over $6 an hour.

MR. LEA: You're saying the people of B.C. are lazy. Is that it?

MR. KEMPF: Each prospective employee, through the cooperation of Canada Manpower, the company and the British Columbia Department of Human Resources, was given transportation costs to and from the area, money for food, lodging, et cetera, and spending money, and $150 was offered in the form of a relocation allowance for him or her and their family. They were offered company-backed loans to buy new furniture or whatever in the first month. Accountability, Mr. Speaker; pride in ourselves and in our province.

Mr. Speaker, in relating to the budget, I relate to the British Columbia Railroad — our railroad. It is a railroad that belongs to the people of British Columbia, a railroad of which every British Columbian should be proud, a railroad which must be the key to the development of the mineral- and timber-rich northern half of this province. I take a little heart from what my colleague said in the House today, Mr. Speaker.

But what has this railroad, which must be our greatest asset, become? It is a liability, an albatross around our necks, going further and further in the hole. It is a railroad that my people in Omineca say we should shut down, rather than continuing to operate at the present rate. We should sell it. We should even, if nothing else, Mr. Speaker, throw the lock, stock and railroad track into the Fraser River.

It is the most unreliable method of transportation in North America. Its productivity, when it runs, is practically nil. It does nothing but cost the taxpayer of this province millions of dollars and it does nothing but lose people and industry millions of dollars through lost time. Our people in the north won't even ship a refrigerator over this railroad. No, they would rather pay more and ship by truck and be sure of receiving it. I say to all British Columbians, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is truly a railroad to be proud of. Accountability and productivity, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I make a plea to the people of this province. I say we have the highest standard of living in the world, but if we intend to retain that standard of living, we must make this budget work. We must develop our resources. We must manufacture and sell our goods to the Third World countries where the real need lies and at a price they can afford. We must ensure the transportation of these goods to these world markets. We must ensure that these goods reach their destination. In order to do this, we must return productivity to this province. In order to make this and any other budget brought down in this House work, Mr. Speaker, we must return to the province of British Columbia the pride in being British Columbians.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. members of the opposition, that if you practise what you preach and if you really are concerned for British Columbians, support this budget and support this government in their attempt to return sound economy to this province. If you believe, and I think most of you do, in the cooperation of which many of you have spoken in the last few days, now is the time to show it. Due to many circumstances, there are none of us that really like this budget, but it's one that we have to have, that was necessary in the province of British Columbia at this time. I call on you, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to support this budget for the good of all British Columbians.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on rule 42(1) in the standing orders, and I'd like to read that to you so that we have a clear understanding and I can get a ruling from you.

"No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation."

I would like to take advantage of that rule now. I think when I spoke I was misunderstood by the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and I'd like to clear that point up by speaking twice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All is in order. There is no reason why, under the provision of 42(1), you should not be able to give a brief explanation of a misquote.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say it was misquoted; it was misunderstood. That is covered, too, in the section. I feel that the member misunderstood what I said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The same provision.

MR. LEA: Yes. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Omineca misunderstood when I mentioned Highways budgets of the previous years and how the former Social Credit government had spent money during those election years. The reason I

[ Page 721 ]

believe he misunderstood is because the contracts are let one year and the work is done and paid for the next year. So the contracts are let for political advantage during one year — during election year — and then done in the next year and paid for in the next year. The member actually proved my point, by reading the figures that he did, that the big expenditures were in the following year after the election of the Social Credit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for Vancouver South.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of order, I wonder, for clarification, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) would advise whether the NDP internal Whip system has also broken down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. The point of order for the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I suppose it's just a matter of clarification, Mr. Speaker. I did have my podium here — I was moving to my feet. I just wondered how the decision is made on who the next speaker is. Perhaps you did see the other speaker first — I don't know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair does not have any notification of which speakers are next. The Whip system is not operating; therefore we have to work it on the basis of the member standing first. On that basis I recognized the member for Vancouver South.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I rise at this time to make my maiden address in this House. I am deeply honoured and greatly humbled by the privilege of representing the riding of Vancouver South in this Legislature. I share this representation with my good friend and colleague, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman), who I am now told shall remain nameless, as the rules apply.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey my greetings also and my congratulations to our Premier and his cabinet in this, the 31st parliament. The executive branch of government bring to their office high standards, ability and dedication.

Secondly, I wish to greet especially all new hon. members, regardless of their party. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I serve in this House today as a new member myself. Viewing the roster of this parliament I am therefore conscious of the many others with whom I share this time of learning and responsibility. I wish each of them well in the months and years of commitment that lie ahead.

With the large numbers of new members serving in this House, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce them to Vancouver South and reacquaint those members who are returning for a second or third term with our large and diverse constituency. In Vancouver South you will find a large number of new Canadians, people who have chosen this country to be their home because it promises them a better way of life. As the government of this great province, let us not disappoint them.

I have the honour of representing a riding where one will find a large number of homes for the aged. Those of our senior citizens who have already made their valuable contribution to our society can now live in dignity and comfort in the many retirement homes provided by service organizations and religious groups of every kind. Vancouver South is a better and more balanced place because of it.

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver South is truly a collage of life. People, cultures, philosophies, interests and occupations range over the broadest spectrum of social and economic backgrounds. Vancouver South is indeed a condensed and amazingly accurate image of our entire province. The boundaries of our constituency are not important; it's what's inside that counts. In Vancouver South we have a healthy mix: single-family homes; apartments; hotels; hospitals; business; industry, from the small family-operated stores to light manufacturing and the largest sawmills of MacMillan Bloedel and Canadian Forest Products. The head offices of Ocean Cement and Wilkinson Steel lie within the boundaries of Vancouver South.

We, Mr. Speaker, have four courses for that royal and ancient game, which affords many of our citizens recreation within the constituency. We are also gifted with one of the strange anomalies of a large metropolitan area. In Vancouver South one will discover some 90 acres of land preserved for the use of equestrians. This foresight by the citizens of Vancouver South has offered generations of city people the pleasure of year-round horseback riding. I am pleased to report that we have some 500 horses living within our constituency. None of them are voters but we are happy to have them nonetheless.

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver South is not without its share of problems. As a large urban area we are greatly in need of light rapid transit. At one time Vancouver South benefited from such a service. As a young boy growing up in the riding, I often rode on the Interurban. With the passing of time this service has disappeared. Fortunately the rail lines and the right of way still exist. My constituents have asked me to inform you that they are most anxious that we undertake to rejuvenate this long-neglected system. While the wrangling drones on over the ways and means for massive rapid transit, Vancouver South already possesses the vital foundations to transport

[ Page 722 ]

local people — and there are thousands of them — to their homes and their places of employment.

Mr. Speaker, we are not without our share of senseless tragedy, either. Right now today, we face a truly unfortunate stalemate. I refer to the Huntting-Merritt dispute. This firm, located within our constituency, has been strikebound since the summer of 1972. This four-year tragedy has taken its toll of personal hardships. Many Vancouver South families have been affected. The facts are simple and the facts are these: the men want to return to their work and their employers want to have them back, but the strange state of our labour legislation actually prevents these two parties from settling their dispute.

Mr. Speaker, this incredible paradox leaves many of us wondering where our true values lie, to say nothing of our common sense. A recent event has struck still another blow to the Huntting-Merritt strike dispute. It is with great sorrow that I must report to this House the untimely death of Mr. Gomer Thomas, the man who represented the rank and file on strike in this dispute in their continuing efforts to reach a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that I call your attention to our educational community of Vancouver South. As a strong family-oriented riding, we have a full range of primary and secondary schools, and a number of very large high schools. We also have Vancouver City College, a two-year school of post-secondary education, of which I am proud to be a graduate.

At this time I would further address my remarks to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). With the recent reading of this government's budget, much confession seems to have arisen with regard to school financing. In conversation with parents, teachers and municipal officials, it appears that an effective first step towards the communities' understanding of school budgeting would be an agreement to restructure the schools' fiscal year to match up with the teaching year. That is from September to August, rather than the present January to December.

Mr. Speaker, within our constituency and within the mighty Fraser River we find every type of maritime craft, from ocean-going tugs and ships, fishing vessels to the smallest of pleasure craft. They all contend with a common problem and they have asked me to draw this problem to the attention of this House. The floating debris that persists on the Fraser must be removed. Logs and driftwood, industrial wastes and scrap garbage have reached endemic proportions. An informed, concerted effort to eradicate this problem is long overdue.

The Fraser River is the lifeline within this province, and the responsibility for its health and safety must be shouldered by a specific ministry. Investigation reveals that at the present time several governmental departments are involved, mired in jurisdictional red tape and old-fashioned buck-passing. None of them are taking action in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Vancouver South are particularly concerned with the rising incidence of alcohol-related automobile accidents. In this regard they have asked me to inform this House that they believe a severe penalty is in order for those persons convicted of impaired driving, both in terms of monetary fine and the suspension of driving privileges. It is also the view of many of my constituents that the entire mystique and mystery of alcohol is better exposed to our youth around the family dining-room table, rather than in a darkened alley in the back seat of a parked car. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the hon. Attorney-General that beer and wine be considered as foodstuffs and appropriately offered for sale in grocery stores.

Over the years, Mr. Speaker, much has been said of the beauty and grandeur of this province. Our Department of Travel Industry has advertised the benefits of British Columbia around the world, and every year we are visited by thousands of people from outside the province. Many visitors come to British Columbia in their fully self-contained vehicles or vessels, and while they enjoy our province we enjoy very little of their cash to maintain and expand our tourist facilities. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the tourist we want to encourage is the one who arrives by air. For it is this tourist who rides in taxis, stays in hotels, rents cars, eats in restaurants, charters boats and planes, and generally leaves our province a richer and a better place.

It is my recommendation, therefore, that we concentrate our tourist efforts in new areas, specifically in Japan. Having travelled extensively in that country, and knowing something of her people, I can tell you that British Columbia offers — has to offer — what they want. We need only merchandise it correctly.

In the area of recreational priorities, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the rapid increase in the sport of skiing. It has reached such proportions in the Pacific northwest that most major mountains in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington have already achieved their maximum development. We in British Columbia still have a relatively untapped wealth of potential ski areas. It is my recommendation that this government give serious consideration to developing large new ski areas. Skiers are people who damage nothing — they shoot no game; they catch no fish. In exchange for the privilege of trampling down some of our snow, the skiers spend money. Like the overseas tourists, skiers spend money on the spot, at the location where the given activity takes place. The jobs and dollars

[ Page 723 ]

generated by support services to skiers are varied and, in my view, very well worth considering.

It is worthwhile to note the interrelationships that are effective in our resource-based economy. The crippling blow of the mineral royalty tax showed its direct effects in many rural ridings. Many thought the shockwaves ended there. Indeed, they do not. Our supply, manufacturing and transportation industries suffered at the uninformed neglect of the previous administration. It is to be hoped that these interconnected problems will not persist much longer.

Our province faces many problems today, but one of those most frequently mentioned is that of housing. Our declining birthrate if effectively offset by the steady influx of new residents, particularly into the already overcrowded urban ridings. It is with great satisfaction, therefore, that the people of a riding like Vancouver South learned of the government's intention to address itself effectively to the problem of housing. In this regard, I would direct a suggestion to the hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that a closer look be taken at rejuvenating our existing stock of housing. Expertise and imagination in this field is growing daily, and I am confident that we may find part of our solution in recycling older structures.

Viewing the complexities of our housing problems, it is particularly pertinent at this time to draw attention to the global problem. On May 27, the City of Vancouver will play host to over 20,000 visitors. They come on a single mission: they come to attend Habitat. The delegates from Habitat will be here to address themselves to the problems of sheltering the people of the world. In the comparative affluence of Vancouver, the representatives of the have and have-not nations will exchange ideas and viewpoints on the community of man. The eyes and ears of the Third World press will be sharply focused on Habitat and on our province for those two weeks in June. I therefore urge all departments of government to prepare now to offer their fullest cooperation to Habitat, to offer an example of concern and awareness to the visitors and to contribute a fair share of effort towards the success of this global event.

Before concluding my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I feel it's my duty to speak forthrightly to all members of this House. Since the December election I have spent a great deal of time within our riding, and again I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Vancouver South is, in my view, virtually a mirror image of our entire province. I must tell you that I find the people in Vancouver South in a serious mood these days. They have made it clear to me that they want all members of this House to get on with the job. People are weary of the spectacle of mutual recriminations being hurled across the floor of this House.

While the Vancouver International Airport is not an integral part of our constituency, it does play a rather important part in the environment in which we live. The subject was broached the other day to the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis), and I feel it's my position to rise as the member for Vancouver South and continue to expand upon the situation.

The federal Ministry of Transport, which is responsible for the international airports, wants to construct an airport at Vancouver of the same size and physical magnitude as the airport at London's Heathrow airport. Now that airport is the busiest airport — or the second-busiest airport — in the world, and those same experts in the Ministry of Transport in Ottawa that brought you those white elephants like Mirabel, who built an airport for the city of Edmonton on the outskirts of Calgary, they're the experts that have told us that we now need to expand the Vancouver International Airport. They have drawn up a great, very heavy brochure, with beautiful pictures of the needs and the projected growth of the aviation industry in Canada. This brochure was drawn up at a time when a barrel of oil cost $3, and I would therefore suggest that the whole thing is totally invalid and that a very serious look be taken at the international airport in Vancouver.

The problem as it exists today is one of an unhealthy mix of aircraft types. We have a situation where the main runway in Vancouver is 11,000 feet long and it services airplanes from as little as 1,000 pounds to as much as 720,000 pounds. This rather large gap between the small and the big airplanes is really noticeable. As a pilot who's been flying out of Vancouver International since 1959, I can tell you that this unhealthy mix has persisted with the benevolence of the Ministry of Transport who want to do everything in their power to discourage general aviation in Canada.

The solution to the international airport problem is a simple one of constructing a small, parallel runway which will alleviate the present pressure which, in fact, is not an even a pressure in relation to other major airports around the world.

Those Ministry of Transport experts have said: "Well, Vancouver is the last major airport in the world with only one runway." I would point out to them that we have two. I would also point out that the airport that serves the city of Glasgow, where out of thrift they only built one runway because that's all they needed....

MR. WALLACE: They know how to look after the pennies. (Laughter.)

MR. ROGERS: In Hong Kong they only have one runway as well, and they have a much larger population base to serve than we do.

It is empire-building of the worst case by the federal government, and I would urge all members of

[ Page 724 ]

this House to give it a second look.

Mr. Speaker, tradition has it that during a maiden speech a new member quotes from some famous Canadians. In concluding my remarks today I offer two personal favourites. The first is from Stephen Leacock who said, after a visit to the west coast: "If I had known what it was like, I wouldn't have been content with a mere visit; I would have been born here." Mr. Speaker, I took Mr. Leacock at his word, and I was — as were my mother and my father — and I'm immensely proud of that fact.

The second quotation comes from that esteemed Canadian, Paul St. Pierre. When he was describing politics in Canada he said this: "In the Maritimes it's a disease; in Quebec it's a religion; in Ontario it's a business; on the Prairies it's a cause; in British Columbia it's an adventure."

Mr. Speaker, in closing let me say that I'm honoured to be included in this company of lady and gentleman adventurers and I'm enjoying it immensely. Thank you.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'm very pleased to be taking my place again, representing the riding of Burnaby North.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a tough battle.

MRS. DAILLY: Tough battle as it was, I'm here.

MR. WALLACE: They're all tough battles.

MRS. DAILLY: That's right, they are — to the hon. Member for Oak Bay.

I was listening to the Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and I must say there was one statement he made with which I did agree — when he said that the citizens of B.C. are indeed...I can't remember the actual phraseology but he referred to them as strong: strong people, strong citizens and responsible citizens. I think that was about the only statement in his whole speech I could agree with.

But I would like to go further and say that I believe the mood of the citizens of British Columbia today is, and has been, one of being ready to cooperate and sacrifice during this period of high inflation and some recession. I sincerely believe that. But I find that the tragedy of this Social Credit budget is that this government has hit the average citizen far too heavily and drastically than was necessary in their attempt, as they thought, I suppose, to fight inflation and recession. I wish to prove as I go through my speech that I feel their whole policy is working against this.

What concerns me is that because they've hit the average citizen so heavily they have created, and are creating, a divided people in our province, just as they created — the Social Credit Party — a very bitter polarization during the provincial election. We can already see the seeds of an increased polarization because of the policies which have been enunciated in this budget.

Now I would first like to talk generally about the effects of the government's fiscal policy of balancing the budget in one year. Later I want to just talk about and analyze some of the specific and serious effects of this policy on certain sectors of our society.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the ultra-conservative, doctrinaire — and it is doctrinaire — fiscal policy which underfeeds this budget does not make economic sense. There is no argument, I believe, anywhere that a certain wind-down in government spending was necessary.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Now I notice some chuckles, and I want to go on and prove to you that the New Democratic Party government in office had already taken certain steps towards this wind-down. When I was Minister of Education I had already announced a 15 per cent ceiling in post-secondary education. I had, almost two years prior to the election, informed the school boards of this province that we were facing times of fiscal restraint and that would have to follow that. So the New Democratic Party government was aware of this.

But the point I'm making today is that we, as New Democrats and along with other jurisdictions in Canada, and, may I say, along with United States, believe that this wind-down has to be done gradually. The Social Credit budget has shown a heavy, drastic wind-down. It's not even a wind-down. It's a complete drop.

These jurisdictions in other countries have been most concerned about how fast they move on this downward spiral. But this government, unfortunately for all its citizens and for the whole economy of this province, has shown no such concern to make sure that the wind-down is gradual. The tragedy is that the results of this lack of concern of the Social Credit government are going to be highly detrimental to the people and the economy of this province.

Mr. Speaker, in a time of recession the economy needs a boost, not a depression, and I found it really interesting to hear the Social Credit backbenchers thumping, I believe, almost 80 times throughout the budget speech delivery. I don't know what they were applauding, because actually when they go back to their home ridings I don't think they are going to receive much applause from their constituents on the effects of this budget.

Now what has this government done? These sometime silences are created by being absolutely stunned at the lack of understanding of how to

[ Page 725 ]

govern a province. But what has this government done? They have hit the average wage-earner in a multitude of areas and this has been explained by a number of my colleagues who have spoken for me in the debate. But I think it's necessary, particularly for the government backbenchers, to go over this again because I am trying to assist you when you go back to your home ridings so that you will be able at least to speak with some knowledge of the effects of this drastic budget.

I found it interesting that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), when he talked about this great people's budget...and let's see now, about this people's budget. It has done things to people, Mr. Speaker, and not for them. Let's examine what has happened to the average wage-earner in this province because of this budget. What are they going to face? When you go back to your constituencies I wonder how you are going to explain this to your constituents. ICBC increases — and one member over there just said: "We'll blame it on the NDP." I want to assure you that the people will not accept that because the people voted for you because you said that you were going to be fiscally responsible and create a better life for them. Unfortunately, this budget is going to do the opposite.

ICBC increases — we've been through that debate so I won't elaborate on it. But we all know that the rate of those increases is unnecessarily high and it's been well documented before. So you have taken more purchasing power, unnecessarily, out of the hands of the average wage-earner because of unnecessary big increases in rates.

The sales tax — an extra 2 cents. We've already pointed out how inequitable the sales tax is. It is the person who makes the lower income who suffers from this increased tax. Big items such as refrigerators and cars will now cost an average of $70 more. That's not counting the everyday nickel-and-dime charges when you go shopping. Now the sales tax is scheduled, along with the fuel tax, to bring in during the coming year approximately $948 million.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: And yet — I'm going to come to the wages in a moment — the collections were expected without that increase to rise at least by 16.9 per cent, without the rate boost. We accept the fact that last year the sales tax drew only 9.2 per cent increase and this was understandable in a year in which the whole nation's economic growth showed its worst performance in 21 years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it makes you wonder. Why is this government so nervous? Why is it bringing in these unnecessary increases? This is the government which ran on a political campaign of restoring and improving the economic growth in B.C. Are they now preparing the citizens of British Columbia for a very bad first year under their leadership? Is this why you are facing our citizens with increased taxes? We thought that you had the answers. Apparently the public did. Where are your great policies, then, in this budget speech to spur economic growth?

We listened to the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) speak today and I think we all sat rather stunned because, not only when he spoke on agriculture, but also when he spoke on economic development, there was no policy given to this House. The budget speech is notoriously silent on any positive policies of this government to spur economic growth. But it is certainly not silent about what it is going to do to people. I can assure you the people of this province are not going to remain silent long in the face of this government's empty promises made during the campaign.

Let's look at income tax. Personal income tax has now risen to 32.5 per cent. This means — and I am coming to that — for every $1,000 of tax paid to Ottawa, an additional $330 is paid into provincial coffers — another impost on the average wage-earner.

Someone said: 'What about the other provinces?' Yesterday I believe it was the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) who pointed out that on page 33 of your budget it says Saskatchewan and Manitoba have the highest rates of income tax. But interestingly enough, that speaker failed to point out — I don't know why he forgot to mention it — that on the same page in the budget it shows that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have no premiums at all for Medicare and hospital insurance. It is paid out of their increased income tax, which is a far more equitable way to handle Medicare and hospital insurance.

So I think that when you talk about the increase you have to accept the fact that the return is being made in services to people. But what are the people of British Columbia getting from your increases?

Hospital costs — acute care is going to rise from $1 to $4. There's another impost on the people of this province. This Social Credit budget shows a "tax the sick" policy by increasing the cost of those services in B.C. — services which should be paid out of income tax.

Property taxes are also going to affect the average person in this province seriously. They're going to be going up. Local school boards will probably have to raise in the neighborhood perhaps of $95 million or cut services.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doom and gloom!

MRS. DAILLY: This could mean an increase of 10 per cent in school taxes. It also means, according to the budget, that many citizens will not even receive

[ Page 726 ]

an increase in their homeowner grant.

So there we are: hospitals, sales tax, property taxes. It will be gloom and doom, unfortunately, for this government eventually.

B.C. Hydro rates will cost an extra $20, and other essential services are being allowed to go up under this government's policies.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the accumulated effect of the increased taxes and the cost of these vital services means — and now I'm coming to the wage-earner and salaries — that many wage-earners in our province will find themselves in the position where their net income is going to be less than the year before, and this before they've even been faced with the natural inflationary increases in the private sector. That is to come.

I found it interesting, going back for a moment to the property tax, that we've heard the backbenchers speak up and defend the great moneys for education. We even had the Omineca member (Mr. Kempf) stating that one of his school trustees said he hoped their school budget could be cut by 30 per cent. Is that trustee suggesting that they had inflated their budget well over 30 per cent, and that he was a member of a board that allowed that to happen?

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Irresponsibility!

MRS. DAILLY: Completely irresponsible by a trustee who can suggest in this day of inflation that....

AN HON. MEMBER: He was the chairman.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, if he was chairman, and if he could get away with cutting 30 per cent, I think that that chairman has much to explain to the taxpayers in his district.

The accumulated effect, then, means that our wave-earners' net incomes are going to fall behind, and this because of the Social Credit budget. As a matter of fact, the Social Credit budget is really undermining the federal wage-and-price guidelines. This was also pointed out by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and specifically to the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), who I don't think understood the point that was being made.

You have a budget — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister — which is depriving the average wage-earner through your taxes in many areas, and because you've unleashed extra costs on them it's quite obvious that their net income is going to be dropping. Yet, on the other hand, they're asked to follow the federal wage-and-price guidelines, and yet you are putting them in a position where they're going to say: 'Well, we follow them, but we have a government that is making us fall behind every year.' That's what's going to happen.

A number of us have outlined for the benefit of this House all the areas where the average wage-earner is going to be affected.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Nonsense!

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Labour can say it's nonsense, but I think if he goes and speaks to the average citizen within a year, and questions him on what his financial position is after this budget has its effect on him, compared to his increases under the wage guidelines, he's going to find that that wage-earner has fallen behind.

Mr. Speaker, there is in the Financial Post an excellent article which is entitled: 'Go-ahead Goals Are Needed to Lick Economy's Problems.' It is referring to the conference board in Canada, and to remarks made by the president. Now this is a research and advisory organization heavily supported, may I say, by business. One of the first statements the new president has made is — and I think this is very important — you cannot link deficit spending with inflation.

It's a very blunt message which is certainly going to make business leaders stop and think. They will have to let go of one of their favourite inflation culprits: that sea of government red ink.

Further, one of the senior economists at that board backs up this statement, because they do not agree with those who push for a reduction in the deficit as a means of stilling inflationary forces. They conclude — they're advising business — that if taxes are raised to cover deficits that have been created by the recession, a further serious impediment to recovery will have been put in its place. This is what the Social Credit budget is doing. It is placing a further serious impediment in the way of economic growth in this province because of their doctrinaire, ultra-conservative fiscal policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: A non-recovery budget.

MRS. DAILLY: A non-recovery budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: A revenge budget.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, the tragedy is that even if they weren't vengeful, their philosophy — the whole make-up of the Social Credit government — would have followed this theme anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to turn to some of the major concerns which I have regarding the effect of this budget on specific groups of people in our province and sectors of our society. In the field of education the effects of a 9.4 per cent increase in the public school budget will be most detrimental to the

[ Page 727 ]

students of our public school system. We'll forget about discussing everything related to the teachers; let's talk about what's going to happen to the students.

That member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), I think, suggested that as minister I didn't have too much feeling for the concerns of students. I'm wondering what he is going to do when he goes back to Esquimalt, faces his school board in the coming year and finds out just what his government's budget has done to the quality of education in his school district and how he's going to cope with that.

The school boards are indeed faced by this government with one of the most difficult tasks they've ever had: deciding whether to put an exorbitant increase on the local taxpayer or to make major cutbacks in services. I want to quote Mike Berg, who is president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, and who obviously does not agree with the chairman whom the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was quoting. "It seems obvious" — this is a quote directly from Mike Berg, president of the BCSTA — "that the government is going to make the local taxpayer the scapegoat." This is from the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

Mr. Speaker, the school boards of this province in recent years have been responsible and moderate. Many of the major increases they've been faced with have been associated with inflation. And yes, they did face an increase from the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio, which I am very proud as minister to have initiated. I know that it will have definite educational benefit to the students of this province.

Now inflation has sharply increased the cost of school maintenance, heating, learning materials, et cetera. Grants should have been forthcoming to cover these inflationary costs. But when we look over the budgets which are being given and are going to be given to the school boards.... We won't know until April 20 what the basic levy is going to be. All signs point to it as going to be up, which means that the local taxpayer is going to face under the Social Credit government a far greater local share than the province is putting in — far greater than when the NDP was government.

Again, when you go back to your ridings or constituencies, how are you going to explain that under your government the local taxpayer is going to have to pay more for education than the provincial government? It is dropping the provincial government's share under this budget — dropping further than under the NDP.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I beg your pardon? Is that not worrying you? It doesn't worry you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't worry you that the local taxpayers, on top of everything else that I have outlined, are also going to have an enormous increase in their local cost. Well, it doesn't bother the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) . I don't know how his constituents will feel when they know it doesn't concern him.

Under the present grants given by the Department of Education, the school boards are really going to be faced with a mammoth decision: do they put this burden on the taxpayer or do they cut services? Under the New Democratic Party government, as I have pointed out, we accepted the fact that there had to be a wind-down in all costs. But the way you have gone about this and your government has gone about it in Education is unbelievable, the effect that it's going to have.

You have picked education as a scapegoat completely.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If you would continue to address the Chair, perhaps we won't arouse the member across the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was quoted at the B.C. Teachers Federation as saying: "It has become something of a tradition for the Minister of Education to make some important new policy announcements in the course of his annual address to the BCTF convention." Then he went on to say: "I hope there won't be disappointment because it's still too early for me to make announcements."

Now I think it's very interesting that he made that statement because, you know, the hon. Minister of Education failed to mention that a major educational policy announcement, Mr. Speaker, had already been made by his government. It was in the budget speech. The 9.4 per cent increase for public school education, which does not even meet their costs incurred in inflation, does signal a major change in educational policy in B.C. and it comes through loud and clear: the Social Credit government, Mr. Speaker, has no commitment to quality public school education in this province,

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear! They never had had.

MRS. DAILLY: We're going back again to the old days: pick education and, in doing so, drop and hold back on educational funds. Then what happens, Mr. Speaker? The quality of education will deteriorate. After three and a half years of an NDP government

[ Page 728 ]

which worked very hard to improve the quality of education, I find this personally very tragic. As one teacher said: "Three and a half months under Social Credit, and education has gone back to where it was three and a half years ago."

AN HON. MEMBER: Author, author!

MRS. DAILLY: The Social Credit government, then, has no commitment obviously to quality education or they would never have brought in a 9.4 per cent increase for the public school system. It's very interesting to note that the budget speech actually implies that the public school sector was getting the largest share. Yet we have just discovered — and I know, Mr. Speaker, I mustn't go on to Bill 3 — but we have discovered that the universities did not just get an 8 per cent increase, but they actually got a 13 per cent increase because of the $7.5 million. An attempt was made and was done to put it under the last fiscal budget, but we know it belongs in this year's fiscal budget. So if you add $7.5 million onto what they have already, the universities are getting almost a 13 per cent increase. I'm not here to quarrel on that amount, but what does annoy me is the suggestion in the budget that the public schools were getting the best share of the educational budget.

Now what can happen — and I know that the educational estimates are coming up — what can happen because of this very, very drastic cutback in educational funding? I know, as I said just a moment ago, that we'll have a chance to go through this, and I can assure you we will during the educational estimates. I just want to briefly throw out some of my concerns which I'll elaborate on in the estimates.

Some examples of these increased class sizes: children with learning disabilities will not be able to be identified early. Here again we have such a short-sighted policy of the Social Credit government, because the long-term consequences of not identifying a child with serious problems in early years means increased cost to society in the future, increased juvenile delinquency. I think what bothers me most is that we see this same short-sighted policy not only in education, but in other areas of human services.

Special education programmes for those with speech defects and learning difficulties, Mr. Speaker, will possibly have to be cancelled or reduced, and of course we are going to have large numbers of unemployed teachers if the school boards have to make this drastic decision which they are going to be faced with. Sock it to the taxpayer or cut services — vital services.

You know, not only are the school boards of this province being used as scapegoats through the budget, but we even have the Minister of Education moving without consultation in other areas which are affecting them very seriously in the financial scheme. The school fire insurance policy is one example. Under the NDP government, we took over, provincially, all costs of school fire insurance. Now we find that there's a new edict from the Department of Education, without any consultation with the BCSTA, that they're now going to have to pay part of the premium cost of $1 million deductible. Therefore, since that came out we know that the school boards, as pointed out by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), find themselves in a very invidious position, legally and otherwise, and that's why they are attempting — and maybe they've had it, and I hope so — to meet with the Minister of Education to point out to him their grave concerns over this edict. But why did he not meet with them before? Why didn't he give them an opportunity to give their input before?

Now there are many, many other areas where this government has been using the hatchet unnecessarily on many worthwhile programmes, programmes which, if continued, will benefit not only the individual in our province, but society as a whole.

You know, we have heard much from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) ever since he took office, that he is determined to get people off welfare. We heard this during the campaign over and over again. Yet, Mr. Speaker, their policies to date are going to put more people on welfare in this province, and they are going to increase unemployment.

MR. W.S. KING: (Leader of the Opposition): They've already done it.

MRS. DAILLY: It's already happened. May I give an example in my own riding of Burnaby North? I wish the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) were here.

In Burnaby North we have a very successful halfway house for women who suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It is called the Chalcott House Society. This programme was funded by the NDP government; it is a most successful programme. A number of women during the last two years have been rehabilitated through this fine programme. These women, as I said earlier, suffered from the disease of alcoholism, and they have gone back to become useful, working members in our society. I was shocked to get word from the society that they are very concerned that their grant is not going to be continued.

I realize that when any government comes in, all the grant structures have to be looked at and weighed. I am aware of that. But I would hope that when they are weighing these grant structures they would look very carefully at the ones which are working to produce productive members of society,

[ Page 729 ]

and are working to keep people, as you want to do, off welfare, and are working to restore the human dignity of people. But it's very sad to see that a number of the programmes which have received a hatchet cut from the Social Credit government are those very programmes which, in the long run, will save many costs to society.

So if the Minister were here I would liked to have appealed to him to seriously look at this very worthwhile programme, and to give consideration to the continuation of the grants for it. I know that it has been successful and I would be glad to talk to him about it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In the whole area of health, we also, I know, have great concern out there about the cutting back on public health services. I know that the federal minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Lalonde) recently said at the conference at Harrison that he was willing to put money into preventive medicine and treatment.

Yet we find there is a letter I have received from the public health nurses in which they are expressing great concern over restrictions in public health programmes. They point out: "As you are aware, the public health programmes are designed mainly to prevent diseases and disabilities, and in the long run will save money for any government." They are pointing out that it is false economy to cut in these areas. So I am asking the Minister of Health to seriously look at these areas.

When there is a belt-tightening programme, we understand that you have to go through your budget carefully but, surely, you can look at it from the point of view of those areas which eventually will save money, and not just money, but also save people.

In the whole area of ambulance services we have cutbacks in that vital area. That is complete insensitivity. A programme brought in by the New Democratic Party, and which has been accepted — now, suddenly, we find cutbacks.

Also while I am on my feet talking, relatively speaking, about Burnaby North, I do want to put in to the minister in charge of transportation (Hon. Mr. Davis) that I do hope that great consideration is going to be given to a continued improvement of the transit system for Burnaby, which had started on the road to improvement. There is great concern by the Burnaby council that this transit improvement, started under the New Democratic Party government, will not continue. In Burnaby North, and the whole of the Burnaby riding, this is essential. I am sure the other two members for Burnaby would endorse this also.

I am also concerned that the whole area of housing has apparently come to a standstill. We brought up the point of MacInnes Place. I understand that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is talking to the Burnaby council about it, through his deputy. What bothers me is how long this talk will take place while people are lined up waiting to get into these places to rent. The co-op housing movement in North Burnaby has been very successful, and yet the co-op societies are very concerned because the Minister of Housing has said that his department is studying the whole matter of co-op housing in light, perhaps, of new policies, wanting to make sure that it does, indeed, help the low-income people.

Well, I can assure the Hon. Minister of Housing, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you just have to visit some of those co-op housings in North Burnaby, talk to the people and see how well it is arranged so that according to your income you pay. I cannot understand why there should be any question about the value of co-op housing. So I do hope the Minister of Housing will soon have his policy developed, because the people in North Burnaby are in suspense; they don't know what is happening.

What is going to happen in transit? What is going to happen in housing? What is going to happen in these grants?

Mr. Speaker, we've heard many speeches in this House, and some very good speeches. Naturally we don't agree with all the points made across on the other side, but sometimes we do hear some points made that are constructive and interesting from the backbenchers. But I must say that the speech which shocked me most of all, and I cannot let it go by without mentioning it, was the speech from the Minister — that lets you off, Jim; pardon me, Mr. Speaker — of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I found it unbelievable. If we can assume that he speaks for the government, all I can say is: heaven help the people of this province!

The minister quoted, actually quoted — and that's fine — from the 18th century. But the tragedy of his speech is that he carried on to enunciate a political and economic philosophy that belongs back in the 18th century. I found it unbelievable! But I should remember that I've heard him before — maybe not in the House, but elsewhere. I had hoped that when he came into the Legislature, perhaps, he would have a different image, a different understanding of what government is all about.

This minister actually referred to the turning back to the basic lifestyles of a century ago. He talked about how marvelous the lifestyles were, how we should be back to those old lifestyles. Does that minister actually believe that the economic and social conditions a century ago still exist in British Columbia in 1976? If he speaks for this government, there is, indeed, no hope.

This philosophy he expounded is frightening. It certainly gives the citizens of this province little hope

[ Page 730 ]

that this government is going to be able to cope with the problems we face in 1976 and the next few years. I hope sometime we'll hear from the Premier whether what that minister says is really the philosophy which he endorses economically and politically.

Mr. Speaker, these are challenging times, economically and politically.

Mr. Speaker, these are challenging times, economically and socially. Any government has difficulties in facing these times but, unfortunately, the budget which has been presented to us to approve does not show, or prove to us on this side of the House, that this government has really come to grips with the problems we do face in this province today. It has not come forward with positive, constructive policies. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the budget.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, before I get into my speech this afternoon, I would just like to say how much I enjoyed the speech given earlier on by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . It did my heart good.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Did you understand it? What did he say?

MR. BAWTREE: I think that if he were to give speeches like that a few more times, where he expounded on the virtues of agriculture, we might even begin to think we are as good as the car dealers. (Laughter.)

I'm happy to stand in this House today and take my place in this budget debate. The budget spells out in general terms the commitment of this government to provide services for people, particularly in health care where we have an increase of $148 million, or 20.5 per cent, over last year's estimates. There is a significant increase in the money allotted to the emergency health services to provide ambulance service. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we could get better value for our money and better service in the smaller communities if we had greater participation by local groups, such as service clubs, as we used to have many years ago.

If we go the route of complete provincial government funding, the costs in the smaller areas will become prohibitive. I would sooner be picked up after an accident fairly quickly by someone who knows the area, even if he hasn't had paramedical training, rather than wait for hours lying on the road or in the bush somewhere for a highly trained person to come from the big population centres.

I am happy to see a substantial increase over last year's budget for home-care programmes, as this is one area where we could make substantial savings in our hospital costs by either keeping people out of hospital or permitting a shorter stay than would be the case without those home-care programmes.

Another area which shows this government's concern is in the field of human resources, where we have an increase of over 22 per cent from last year. The minister has said that preference will be given to child and family programmes, crisis centres, services for youth, supportive services for the elderly and handicapped persons. I know that we are all happy to see these programmes given greater priority.

The budget provides a great deal more money for people in boarding homes and private hospitals as well as the homemaker services, and this also will help to reduce the costs in our acute hospitals. The increase in the day-care programme will allow many of the single-parent families to more easily become employed, and, Mr. Speaker, most of the people in my riding want to become self-supporting. They do not want to be on social assistance, and this sort of programme will help them to become usefully employed.

Another programme which will be of great help to the Shuswap constituency, as it will be to the whole province, will be the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, which will be extended to qualifying persons in the 55-59 age group, and, just as important, this aid is available to single-parent families.

When talking about the problems of single-parent families, I'm very glad that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will endeavour to find ways to make the errant husbands live up to the orders of the courts with regard to maintenance for those children.

Another aspect of the budget which I'm especially glad to see, Mr. Speaker, is the increase in the Sewage Facilities Assistance Act. I spent several years as a director on the Okanagan Basin Water Board, and was privileged to be present when the federal-provincial agreement was signed. The large sums of money to support the efforts of the Okanagan communities in pollution control are essential, and this House knows there has been recognition of this need in this budget.

The programmes for people are most welcome, Mr. Speaker, but in order for those programmes to continue we must have a sound economy, and we must have a balanced budget to indicate to the whole province that we intend to bring in fiscal responsibility and sound fiscal management. I regret, and I'm sure the people of this province regret, one aspect of this budget, and that is the need to pay out for interest alone $40 million this year and for every year, until we can pay off the debts of the previous government. I regret that we will have to increase taxes because of the waste and mismanagement of the previous government.

The opposition has indicated that the deficit position of this province has been artificially inflated for political purposes. The opposition has charged

[ Page 731 ]

that grants made by this government to some municipalities were made prematurely. I would like to quote from the mayor of one of those municipalities that was supposed to have received money prematurely. Mr. Speaker, this is the article in which the mayor of Kelowna, Mr. Jim Stuart, is speaking. He said: "The NDP promised to grant financial compensation for amalgamation costs two and three years ago."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAWTREE: "We expected to get them from the NDP government, " he said. "We're only just starting to get them." He said: "If the payments were made in order to show on the NDP budget year, it is only proper since the commitment was made by that NDP government."

I would like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about my constituency and some of the problems that need our most serious consideration.

My constituency has a great deal of good cattle country, but because grazing overlaps other uses, such as forestry and wildlife and recreation, there is need for co-ordinated planning. We have a very good example in the state of Oregon of how to go about multiple-use planning. This multiple-use has been practised for many years in this area, and it is well documented that wildlife can be enhanced by the responsible use of cattle. The elk herds, the deer and even the wild geese in the Wenaha and Bridge Creek wildlife management areas of Oregon have greatly increased in numbers, and I would recommend that if any of the hon. members of this House would like to study ways to improve wildlife and their habitat, there are probably no better examples that the ones I have mentioned.

The ranchers in my area, Mr. Speaker, need greater security of tenure on their range and access to the Crown grazing resource if they are to stay in business. They also require greater consideration when highways are rescheduled or built through ranching areas so that the cost of protecting the travelling public are not borne solely by the ranchers.

Mr. Speaker, the forest industry, which is the backbone of this province and also in the Shuswap constituency, is facing some very, very serious problems. As the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has mentioned in this House when talking about his riding, and in which I concur, there is a very great oversupply of chips and raw material for producing a great deal more. Greater plant capacity to use this material is urgently needed or, alternatively, better utilization of the saw-logs into lumber and veneer rather than into chips. This latter policy would allow the mills in my riding and in all the interior to make better use of the material that is now being wasted.

I do not wish to go into any details, Mr. Speaker, about the tourist industry in my riding except to say that we are continuing to lose more and more recreational land. I will just give you one example, Mr. Speaker. Very shortly now the beautiful Echo Lodge, which has been serving the tourist industry for 50 years, providing many facilities including camping, horseback-riding, boating and all the other things we normally associate with our great outdoors, will be bulldozed down. This is after a fivefold increase in taxes and the construction of a government campsite in the vicinity.

You may be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that last year B.C. residents travelling south for one or more nights went up to 1.5 million persons and the number of U.S. visitors decreased to 0.5 million, or one-third of the number of the British Columbians travelling the other way. Also, for the first time in Canada's history, according to Statistics Canada, there was a travel-trade deficit with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, wherever you go in this province and talk to any of the people engaged in our most basic industries, there is one underlying theme: our costs and prices are too high. We are no longer competitive with the rest of the world. Instead of solving this basic problem, we are demanding more and more handouts from the government to stay alive. The provincial dairy industry has experienced a decrease in per-capita consumption of milk during the last year because of consumer resistance to higher and higher prices and the fact that some people are going across the border to buy food.

Small fruits such as strawberries are in trouble because other countries such as Mexico can put fruit into our market cheaper than we can produce it here, largely because of the high labour cost. The tree fruits in the Okanagan have had a burnper crop which they are having to sell at much less than the cost of production. The beef industry is selling beef at far less than the cost of production and is staying in existence by government funds, hoping that prices will pick up.

The tourist industry is in serious trouble because of high costs such as labour and taxes. The forest industry is in serious trouble for the same reason.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is time we recognized where the problem lies. It is not necessarily true that our industries are not getting a high enough price. It is just as true to say that our costs are way out of line and we are unprofitable for this reason and not because our prices are too low. Rather than continually demanding higher and higher prices and wages, which are turning this province and this country into an island that can't do business with any other part of the world, we should be cutting back on our demands, for we cannot expect to get more and more out of our society than we put in.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note what other

[ Page 732 ]

countries are doing to solve their problems and bring inflation in line. West Germany is planning a $26 billion public spending cut over the next three years. Britain is having to cut her social programmes by an even greater amount. The Netherlands, Denmark and other countries are having to bring their government expenditures in line with the ability of the country to afford.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget because it is a responsible budget. It has kept overall increase to a modest 5.4 per cent. With greater encouragement to our basic industries, such as mining and forestry, I know that this province will once again be able to provide the jobs and fulfill the expectations of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget and the government which brought it in because once again the citizens of this province will be able to hold their heads high. They will be able to be gainfully employed. They will know they are fulfilling their responsibilities to their fellow men and they will say with pride: "I am a British Columbian."

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and make my first budget speech.

Much has been said — in fact, most of what is really important has been said already. In fact, much which has been said, in fact possibly too much which has been said, has truly been unimportant and I will try to add a little bit to that.

In this classification would be the story so eloquently told by the Hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who unfortunately isn't here this afternoon — his story about Chicken Little and the sky is falling. However, that story reminds me of a story of two little kittens.

A very happy free-enterprise Social Credit little pussycat was walking down the street just before Christmas one year, singing: "All I want for Christmas is two little kittens." A big giveaway socialist tom cat strutted along merrily behind her singing proudly: "Here comes Santa Claus." (Laughter.)

I say to you, we have had enough of Chicken Little and pussycat Santa Claus programmes. The public is begging to get back to a pragmatic, realistic approach to life and living.

We cannot any longer afford to live with both careless giveaways and inflation. I respect the present administration's efforts at (a) conserving the tax dollar for the real needy. It is time we get back to the old-fashioned traditional work ethic. (b) Even with the tremendous shortage of money, keeping the increase in the budget to only 5.4 per cent.

I must speak a little bit about the federal government Liberal policies. I would like to remind the people of British Columbia that though the federal government talks of restraint and has tried to blame business and labour for inflation, their expenditures for the current year will still be increasing at a rate of 16 per cent.

I say this is totally irresponsible. This kind of careless spending is political of the worst sort. It is self-serving. I challenge the British Columbia government to insist that if the Liberals in Ottawa want our cooperation in their belated anti-inflationary programme, they show accountability, good faith and limit their own irresponsible spending.

Frankly, there is little we, as a province of British Columbia, can accomplish in respect to the most serious problems facing our society — namely inflation — without honest leadership from the federal government.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give a short quote from Mr. J.P.R. Wageworth, the chairman and chief executive-officer of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, from his address in Toronto to many of the leading business people in Canada, on January 19, 1976:

"Where does the ultimate responsibility lie for our present degree of inflation? The Prime Minister clearly implies that the responsibility rests upon big business and big unions for the rapid inflation rates we have been experiencing. This is not correct. It is the federal government and not business or labour that sets economic policy. It is the federal government through its deficits and excessive expansion of the money supply..."

And I'll add this to this that the average increase in the money supply (and I'm saying this for the record because very few people are aware of this) the average increase in the money supply federally between 1971 and '75 was 16.6 per cent annually. Back to my quote:
"...that has largely been responsible for recent and current high rates of inflation."

It has been an easy way for the government to finance its rapidly growing expenditure programme. I say that we, as a provincial government, must exert every influence on the federal Liberals to move this policy backwards, because neither our province nor our federal government, and ultimately the people, can afford to pay this type of tax.

There are those who honestly, however naively, hold business and free enterprise responsible for many of the problems in our society. These people make one very basic fundamental error in their thinking. They believe business and free enterprise is motivated only by greed. They do not realize that there is a much greater and more motivating factor called pride. I say it again: pride. It is this strong, self-motivating force called pride that is very misunderstood, particularly by those who naively, however proudly, call themselves socialists. God help

[ Page 733 ]

us in British Columbia if we were to go far in removing pride and self-respect from our way of life; our economy and our tax base would rapidly begin to wind down. We certainly had that grim reminder in the 1975-76 fiscal year.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to point out clearly to the House that in two ways this self-respect is under attack, both directly and indirectly. First, we have those who naively suggest that profits are of no concern, and in fact suggest, for some strange reason, that profits are either wrong, simple, selfish or undesirable.

Secondly, we also have a demand for taxes by all levels of government that, together with inflation, have run completely out of control.

Let me point out what has happened to the wage-earner, and let me remind us all that whether we are politicians, laborers, secretaries, presidents or presidents of corporations, we are all wage-earners.

Let me use as an example an individual who is married with two children under 16 years. First, it isn't that many years ago that $6,000 was a fairly healthy wage. Using this $6,000 figure, a person making $6,000 today would pay $83 provincial income tax and $72 federal income tax, with a sum grand total of $155. Today, however, with a more average wage of $12,000, what happened? Unfortunately, there are those people who are well aware of what happens, with inflation being what it is, and the percentage of wages going to income tax. However, provincially, on a $12,000 wage, with one provider in a family and two children under 16, the provincial amount of $472 and the federal amount is $1,347, for a grand total of $1,819, which is approximately 15 per cent in taxes.

Now let's go on from there. Somebody earning $25,000 — and there are quite a few people like that today — today pays $1,565 provincially. Federally he pays $4,720, for a grand tax total of $6,285. Most of us like to bury our heads in the sand when it comes to paying taxes. We like to talk about "take-home pay"; we like to, at the same time, go back to the well and make sure we are not losing anything, which keeps on driving inflation up higher and higher, and our demand on the public. And $6,285 is about 25 per cent in taxes.

Now let's go on to $50,000. Somebody making $50,000 today will pay provincial taxes of $4,300; federally he will pay $14,900, for a grand total of $19,200. This is 40 per cent in taxes.

What are we doing to the incentive, fellow members? What are we doing to the incentive in our society, particularly when the private sector is reminded again and again of the waste, both provincially and federally. Politicians glibly spending the taxpayers' money. Why? For election purposes. Building a second runway when we just need one runway — like we've just heard.

Now for those who do not understand, and those who would advocate that all corporations, all businesses, be publicly owned: let me remind these people, those individuals....

Oh, I'm sorry that Lady Bountiful isn't here this afternoon, because I heard her speech on television at the federal convention where she advocated that all corporations be owned by the government — by the so-called people. Let me remind the people here — the fellow members — that an individual....

Interjection.

MR. LOEWEN: Let me remind the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LOEWEN: I have lived in New Westminster; I know New Westminster; I'll tell you about New Westminster in a moment. Just wait — I have another 15 minutes and 30 seconds, hon. member.

Now back to the individual who makes $150,000 in his corporation by working his knuckles to the bone and working day and night — $150,000. That individual would pay taxes, if he took all that money into his personal earnings.... Let's remember, as an officer of the company he is only an employee of the company — a lot of these people here don't understand that. Let's say that if he would take $150,000, hon. member for New Westminster, into his personal earnings, he would be paying $82,000 in taxes. That's his contribution on $150,000 to the public revenue.

The different levels of government cannot continue to ask those who are paying taxes on an increasingly heavy percentage, whether corporate or individual, to keep on doing so without being accountable themselves; secondly, to point out to those who do not understand where much of our taxes are actually coming from; thirdly, to try to put the business community into a better perspective. There is a little joke that goes around in the health club in New Westminster, of which I am a director, and the YMCA in New Westminster, together with your wife.

The saying is this: We very proudly compete, we very proudly compare notes of the different corporate involvements that we are in. However when all is said and done, we have to admit that we are really only employees and that we are really working for the people and making our fair share to the public coffers along with everybody else.

I say it is the responsibility of government to assist those contributing to the tax base — not insult it or regulate it or tax it out of existence as some would suggest. No one really minds paying taxes if the money is spent responsibly.

[ Page 734 ]

Mr. Speaker, the people in my constituency are particularly pleased about certain items mentioned in the budget speech. We are particularly pleased about the mention of independent schools. It is high time that the independent schools received fair recognition, having been in many homes myself where the lady of the house with two, three or four children was out working subsidizing my children going to school as well as paying for her own children going to school.

Secondly, the people in my constituency are most happy about our plans concerning housing. It is obvious that as a result of the former administration the cost of housing went up dramatically. The concern for consumer services, the concern which is so well expressed in the Health budget with a 20.5 per cent increase in the Health budget, with a 22.3 per cent increase in Human Resources, the 10.9 per cent increase in Education.

I have a feeling that we as free-enterprisers and the Social Credit side of the government have simply found it a little difficult...maybe we took it for granted that the people would understand in previous years that we had a concern for people. However, the former administration, all they did was talk about it. They didn't have the resources, as well-intentioned as their motivation might have been, to follow through with their many promises.

These increases have been budgeted and still — I am particularly proud of this — the total budget is only up 5.4 per cent from the previous year. This is very commendable.

However, I would like to go on record as making two recommendations: first, that the 7 per cent sales tax be reduced to 5 per cent as soon as we are able to improve the financial position of British Columbia. In fact, I would recommend that we tell the people of British Columbia that we, in fact, are planning to do so. Secondly, that much more careful attention be given to the wage settlements, particularly in the public work force.

I am pleased to report to this House and to my own constituency, through you, Mr. Speaker, certain things that have happened through the cabinet of our government and through some of my own involvement — interestingly enough, again, my riding, Burnaby-Edmonds, and the neighbour riding, New Westminster, of which I have a real concern.

As I was saying, I was coming to New Westminster, having lived in New Westminster until just recently.... Most of my social involvements are in New Westminster. There had been very little going on in New Westminster and Burnaby-Edmonds in the past 10 to 15 years — precious little. There has been much in promises, promises, promises, but very little — very little, hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — that has taken place.

MR. COCKE: Look at the Royal Columbia Hospital.

Interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: First of all, I am very pleased to report, hon. members, that in a meeting with the hon. Minister of Highways, (Hon. Mr. Fraser) I was informed that the 4.3 miles of Marine Way that the opposition promised and promised would be constructed is now under active consideration by the Minister of Highways. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEA: What about the Stormont interchange?

MR. LOEWEN: Those are the two promises we will deliver in the next couple of years. Secondly, hon. member for New Westminster, this will interest you because there has been much talk from yourself about this matter; that is that I have had considerable meetings with a court house committee in New Westminster and the chairman of that committee met with myself and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and the hon. minister has ordered his department to proceed immediately with studies in respect to the construction of a new facility in the Royal City as soon as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Studies? The studies have all been done.

MR. LOEWEN: Thirdly, New Westminster is most interested in co-operating with the provincial government in respect to the responsible development of the large ICBC site in New Westminster. I have been assured that an announcement should be made in respect to that site this year. Now it might interest you, and I must tell you — I enjoy telling you this — that I was at a chamber of commerce dinner at the Royal Towers in New Westminster and the hon. member for New Westminster was addressing the business community, largely in New Westminster. I enjoyed listening to him make all these campaign promises, and I remember particularly that he apologized that the ICBC sign had as yet, unfortunately, not been erected on the ICBC centre. In fact, it had come late and he apologized profusely. I walked home with my companion, up the street to my business about 100 yards and I said: "I am sure there'll be an election called within two days." Well, I was short. It was only 24 hours. Amazing!

Interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: Promises, promises!

[ Page 735 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must interrupt you just for a moment, please, to ask a question of the hon. House Leader as to the time of ordinary daily adjournment today.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, 11 p.m. this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Proceed, hon. member.

MR. LOEWEN: Finally, another key issue, hon. members, that is receiving very serious consideration by our government already, after only a few months in office, is the Brunette Highway overpass in New Westminster. I am very proud of what this government is intending to do and what they are already doing...

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LOEWEN: ...in Burnaby-Edmonds and in New Westminster, which have had precious little attention during the past administration and the many administrations before that. Mr. Speaker, this government's concern for people, together with careful planning, has come forward loud and clear. In fact, I humbly suggest we are leaders in Canada in our accountability.

MR. LEA: How much money are you going to get for CTC?

MR. LOEWEN: I am particularly proud of those in our cabinet who, though in business — businesses directly affected negatively — made the tough decisions....

Interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: I would really appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members of the opposition would listen to this point, because I think it is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

MR. LOEWEN: Hon. members, I am particularly proud, once more, of those in our cabinet who, though in businesses directly and negatively affected by their decisions in respect to this budget had the courage, the determination and the selfishness to go through with the budget even though they were negatively affected in their own businesses. They put the affairs of the people of this province ahead of themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, His Honour the Administrator is about to enter the chamber. Please rise.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance Bill 10, intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1976.

CLERK: In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have leave to move a motion that Standing Order 45(a)(3), dealing with time limits on the budget debate, be amended for this session only be deleting the words: "On the tenth of the said days," and substituting the words: "On April 5, 1976."

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the 102nd report of the vital statistics branch of the Department of Health for 1973, which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.