[ Page 825 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Williams — 825

Mr. Kerster — 829

Mr. Barber — 831

MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to take my place in this debate. It's the first opportunity I have had to engage in discussions in this House formally, Mr. Speaker. I would like to extend to you my congratulations on your election to the difficult and challenging position which you hold. I think that experiences to date will clearly indicate the wisdom of this House in selecting you for the post of Speaker, and I extend the same congratulations and accord the same respect to the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Schroeder).

This has been an interesting debate so far. I find myself indebted to the members of the press for the attention that they have paid to budgetary matters and to the affairs of the province. The reason that I am particularly indebted to them is that I find that if one reads the papers very carefully, one can know one or two days in advance precisely what the members of the opposition are going to say when they rise in their place in the debate. I think that the debate of the NDP has been distinctly improved since the press has become their speech writers. (Laughter.)

The obvious position being taken by the NDP is that somehow or other the fiscal actions which have had to be taken by this government as a result of the dereliction of duty on the part of the former administration were an attempt to chastise the people of this province for having dared to vote for the NDP in 1972. Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that this is not the case. This government is not in any way attempting to chastise the people of this province but rather to give them the opportunity to return to a control of their own destiny, which they were in danger of losing during the three years that the NDP were in government. I think it is also appropriate to recognize that this suggestion that somehow or other the public is being chastised by this government is only another attempt to cloak the actions of the NDP and to hide from the public the responsibility which is theirs for the fiscal position in which this province finds itself today.

I think it is of particular significance, as we engage in this debate, to consider the other debates that have gone on in tandem with the budget debate: the question as to whether this House would give the government the borrowing authority which it must have in order to overcome the difficulties created by the former government, and, in company with that, the clear indication from the official opposition that somehow or other the people of British Columbia should turn to techniques of deficit financing which have been foreign to this province for decades.

These are matters that should not go unnoticed, in particular because of the recent statements of other socialist Premiers and leaders of government. I was fortunate enough to obtain a copy of the remarks which were made by Prime Minister Callaghan of Great Britain upon becoming Prime Minister of that country. We all recognize the serious problems which that great country faces and has faced over the past years. I think it is interesting, and I commend to the official opposition the very careful reading of Mr. Callaghan's full address. But I would refer these specific remarks, Mr. Speaker, to you. Mr. Callaghan said, in a television broadcast to the people of Great Britain: "I therefore emphasize at the outset that the new government's aim will be to drive on with the vital job of bringing down the rate of inflation. I emphasize to you that if we fail to bring down inflation we shall never succeed in overcoming unemployment."

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Did he mention the cut in sales tax?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Member, for North Vancouver–Capilano, he did not mention the cut in sales tax. But he did go on to say something which should be of particular significance to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, in view of his concern about the resource industries in this province. I quote again: "We cannot have a prosperous industry in this country if we are unable to sell our goods overseas. No one owes Britain a living." And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we can substitute "British Columbia" for "Britain" in that sentence. No one owes British Columbia a living either, and the sooner we recognize it and the sooner that we in the province are prepared to live within our means and support the industries which make it possible for this province to prosper, the sooner we will achieve some equity for all people in this province.

Mr. Callaghan goes on to say: "Let me say to you, quite bluntly, that despite the measures of the last 12 months we are still not earning the standard of life we are enjoying." Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the problem which we face in British Columbia today because of the activities of the government over the previous three years. We are not earning the standard of living which we are today enjoying, and the people of British Columbia, with this budget, will recognize that this government will return to the standards of service of government to the people which we earn in this province, because it has been said by members on

[ Page 826 ]

this side and said by the Premier of this province during the recent campaign that government has no moneys of its own. Government can only spend that which the taxpayer is prepared to give. The standard of living which is ours is therefore the standard of living which we in this province can earn.

Mr. Callaghan went on to say, and I commend this specifically to the official opposition: "We are only keeping up our standards by borrowing, and this cannot go on indefinitely."

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen in British Columbia in its fiscal management over the past three years is a use, indeed an abuse, of the treasury of this province, putting us in the position that for the first time in over two decades this province must borrow in order to meet its current-account responsibilities.

As Mr. Callaghan said: "This cannot go on indefinitely for Great Britain." Mr. Speaker, it cannot go on at all for British Columbia.

Mr. Callaghan continued, and I say this to the official opposition: "There is no soft option. I don't promise you any real easement for some time to come. There can be no lasting improvement in your living standards until we can achieve it without going deeper and deeper into debt as a nation."

That's the message which Mr. Callaghan gave to the people of Great Britain upon succeeding Prime Minister Harold Wilson at the head of that nation. And we can learn from what Mr. Callaghan said. There can be no relief. There can be no achievement if it is our intention to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to provide the services which are the responsibility of government to provide.

I think it must be clear to all who have listened to the debates from the official opposition, recognizing that somehow or other they attend to the Galbraithian model so far as government economics is concerned — a model which would deny the function of the marketplace and which would inevitably deny the marketplace altogether, a model which ignores the responsibility and the role of government itself in matters of economics and the control of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, the obvious result of following the Galbraithian model is to bring the people of the province into greater and greater control of government, to increase their expectations from government in the way of service. Then, by destroying the marketplace, increase the dependency of those people on government for those services, until finally all of the control of all of the things which we must accomplish in this province are in the hands of government. Surely the official opposition will recognize that the end result of such an attempt must be to destroy the democratic part of what they call social democracy — when all matters eventually come into the control of government.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this budget, I say to the members of this House, to my constituents and the people of British Columbia: this government does not accept the Galbraithian model. We believe that the marketplace has its place. We believe that the rights of the individual to achieve his or her own destiny is a responsibility of government. Government is here to serve the individual, not to be its master.

In the budget presented by the Hon. Minister of Finance, through the restraints which were therein included and the demands — yes, the increasing demands placed upon the citizens by government in order to meet the obligations of the budget — we wish to make it certain to the people of British Columbia that this move is taken because it is not a soft option, but it is the one option that must be taken if we are to return to them the right to achieve their own destiny.

It must be clear to the members, as they look at the budget and at the estimate books which I made available to them, that in the major spending departments of government — Human Resources, Education and Health — the moneys which are made available to those departments are not within the control of government but within the control of agencies outside of government but which are responsible to government. The control which we exercise over those major expenditures is indeed limited and can only be brought into order if government places restraints and controls on the direction those other agencies must take.

All people, all public employers, all those in the public sector must pay attention to the fact that if we do not bring about control in the public sector the ability of government to manage its affairs and to provide services to the people is thereby diminished. Mr. Speaker, it is the intention, it is the commitment of this government to ensure that that does not occur.

Success will be achieved not this year, perhaps not next, but success will be achieved. Under these budgetary approaches with responsible attention to the financial affairs of this province, we will succeed in two things. One, we will return to the people that which is theirs, and we will provide them with a government capable, within the resources of this province, of making available those services upon which government is — entitled to be called to provide.

We have major responsibilities, growing responsibilities. We face obligations today which are not the making of this government. One may question, when we talk about restraints, when we talk about the responsibility of government, when we talk about its role in the inflationary process, why we are faced today with a budget that is greater than last year. It has increased, and if you look at the breakdown department by department you will see where those increases are being applied.

But, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that when we came to government we found that commitments had been

[ Page 827 ]

made by the former administration which we had to solve, commitments that we could not change. I can assure you that it is with some regret that the members of the government find each day new commitments not easily recognized in the course of one's examination, department by department. Those are commitments that were made by the previous government apparently in the belief that there was no end to the fund of money which the taxpayers of this province had made and could in the future make available to government to spend. Theirs was a spendthrift government, Mr. Speaker, ours will be a thrift-save government, one which will permit us to do a job but which will leave in the hands of the individual the maximum amount of what he or she earns, so that they can enjoy the standard of living which they wish to make for themselves.

It's a great budget, because it will restore a balance, an equilibrium which has been lost in this province in the past three years. I am happy to say that I support the motion which we are today considering.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to the members the brief, but telling, comments on page 24 of the budget address dealing with the increases of the budget in the Department of Labour and the reason why those additional expenditures are being made this year. I will have more to say about that specific matter and the responsibilities which are cast upon me with the Labour portfolio in other debates of this House during the course of the estimates.

I would like to address myself for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to that other obligation which this government has and which the hon. Premier was kind enough to place in my hands, and that is the resolution of those matters which affect the native Indian citizens of this province.

I think that there is a growing awareness in British Columbia if not, indeed, in all of Canada, that the several governments over the years have failed to give the attention to those problems which the native people are entitled to have, and which the problems themselves dictate.

In the province of British Columbia, as I study the course of history since this province joined Confederation, indeed before that time, there has been an obvious reluctance, if not in some case a complete refusal, on the part of British Columbia to address itself to its responsibilities to our Indian citizens — and they are citizens of this province; make no doubt about that. They are entitled to all the benefits that citizenship in British Columbia extends to us.

It is the stated position of this government that it will address itself to those problems and take every measure appropriate to the times to bring about the earliest resolution of those difficulties and to bring the Indians in our province into equal, full status in this province.

The problems of the native people are vast and diverse. They seem to fall into three main areas at the moment. One is the so-called land claims problems. It is easy to say "the land claims problem," but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the land claims problems. There has been no attempt on the part of anyone in government to understand the nature of such claims and the details which go into a land claim and therefore the matter in which they might be resolved.

On January 12, as has been reported before, this government met with the national government in New Aiyansh to sit with the Nishgas, and to start on that long, difficult road which must be travelled if the claims presented by the Nishgas are to reach resolution. Those meetings continue and they will continue, with this government at the table with the national government and the Nishgas, and playing its full role on behalf of those Indian citizens of the province.

Hopefully, from those discussions, exploratory as they may be at this stage, we will achieve the formula by which similar claims can be addressed by the other native bands in this province. Because while there have been attempts in other jurisdictions, with some more or less success, to resolve the land claims problem — in Alaska and Quebec and ongoing in some other provinces of Canada — it is not possible to take what Alaska did and to transplant it to British Columbia. It is not possible to take what was done in Quebec and translate it directly into British Columbia. Indeed, when resolution of the Nishga claim is reached, it may be impossible to take that resolution and transplant it into the solution for other native bands within this very province. But this government will continue its efforts to find a means whereby this problem will be resolved for all time, for the benefit of our native citizens and, indeed, for the benefit of this province, because they have a major contribution to make to this province, and they have been ignored.

Now there was another aspect of the problem, that of the so-called cutoff lands. I wish to report to the House that progress is being made, that British Columbia is now meeting with the national government to settle with the national government the respective obligations of the two levels of government in achieving the earliest possible settlement of the cutoff land problem in British Columbia.

There is now a clear understanding between Ottawa and Victoria, between Canada and British Columbia, as to what the relative responsibilities of the two levels of government are in settling the cutoff land situation. I expect in the next few weeks that discussions will commence directly with the Indian bands for whom the cutoff land is a particular problem. Negotiations will be carried on with them

[ Page 828 ]

on the basis that those cutoff lands are Indian lands. We are not talking about lands which are those of this government or of the national government. We are talking about the mechanism by which we return those cutoff lands to those Indian bands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We will treat the Indian bands involved in the same way as if you were settling negotiations with your next-door neighbour dealing with his land. There will be no settlement dictated by government to the Indians. That settlement will come about with fair negotiations carried on between government and the Indians whose land it is we are to return to them.

It all started many years ago, and British Columbia's position with regard to cutoff lands is quite clear. In the McKenna-McBride Commission report it was provided that no lands should be cut off without the consent of the Indian bands. That consent was never obtained, and British Columbia says it should have been obtained before the lands were cut off. The national government, in the resolution of this problem, will have to recognize that the legislation which denied the right of consent was legislation passed by the federal government of Canada.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): And approved by B.C.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not so, Mr. Member.

MR. LEVI: Oh yes, it is.

MR. GIBSON: An order-in-council was passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I know there was an order-in-council passed...

MR. LEVI: Yes, it was.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …but correspondence between the two levels of government makes it quite clear that the position of British Columbia is that the decision to move without the consent was that of the federal government. But anyway, as the members point out, actions were taken by British Columbia and it is for that reason that we are today actively involved in redressing that problem. It does us no good. We gain no honour from relying upon what may have happened in the past. We recognize that the solution must be found, and found in direct consultation with the Indians themselves. The lands should not have been cut off. They must be returned. For those which cannot be returned, there must be adequate redress, and that adequate redress will be settled with the Indians themselves.

It has been suggested that the commission which was established by the previous government has been disbanded. That is not true. In discussions with the members of that commission, they recognize that certain steps had to be taken by the governments themselves before anyone could approach the Indian people for the resolution of the problem. That is a step which is being taken. If there is need to use the services of those people who were appointed to the commission — Judge Colville, Chief Adam Eneas or Mr. Squires — then this government will reinstitute that commission and the authority which it needs in order to assist in the resolution of the problem. If the problem can be solved between the governments and the Indians directly, then the need to call upon the services of those men will be avoided.

There is another problem that affects the native people. There is their desire to retain — indeed, to recall and improve upon — the culture which is that of the Indian people. This government also recognizes, however, that to enable them to retain their culture and to build upon it — indeed, even to do the simple work of recalling what is their past history — they must be given the opportunity to develop economically in this province, too. I find, as I talk to representatives of Indian bands who come to Victoria for this specific purpose, that it is their desire to cease to be a burden, if that's what they are, upon the governments of this nation.

They say that they wish to make their own way in the economy of this province and of this nation and they need to be assisted by government in so doing. We find that there have been some attempts by the Government of British Columbia in this regard, fragmented attempts. We also find that there have been attempts by the national government to allow the Indians to achieve their economic destiny, but they have been fragmented.

What is required, Mr. Speaker, is for the governments on an organized basis to establish means of assistance to the Indian bands to allow them to engage in economic development and to achieve their own initiative on a long-range basis, so that once embarked upon action which brings them into the economic life of this province they don't find themselves frustrated because some particular programme comes to an end and then they're looking again for some other programme of government. Only by long-range planning, only by organizing programmes on a basis that will allow the Indians to achieve economic equality in this province can we hope to solve that area of the Indians' concern. This is the direction upon which this government is embarked.

I will be meeting with the hon. Judd Buchanan, Minister of Indian Affairs, later this month for the

[ Page 829 ]

purpose of discussing this particular problem among many others, to see whether the government of Canada, which again has a specific legal and moral responsibility to the Indians, will not sit down with the government and develop a long-range programme for economic development for the Indian people of British Columbia, so that they can make their own way without interference, without being suddenly left in the difficulties, the doldrums, when the programme is dropped, so that moneys are not wasted as they have been in the past. There have been moneys wasted, and therefore apparently a criticism of the Indians themselves, when really it is a criticism of government for failing to address itself in a positive way to the resolution of this most fundamental problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Indians in British Columbia and in Canada have shown remarkable patience over a hundred years. They are still displaying that patience, and I'm satisfied that responsible Indian leaders in this province will recognize that once embarked upon a course of action which is intended to achieve the resolution of the difficulties as quickly as possible...that they will be patient. But what they need is the assurance of governments at both levels that we are serious about our concern and that we will not be distracted from the direction upon which we are now embarked.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that this government is serious in its concern and is prepared to pursue the objective of full, final solution of the Indian problems in British Columbia which will allow them to obtain and achieve and enjoy full citizenship rights in British Columbia and in Canada.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, why did the people of British Columbia speak out so strongly against the socialists in December of 1975? Hadn't the former Premier promised a new era for the people of our province, an era where the rights of the individual were to be supreme? He said just that in his 1973 budget address in this House. He promised the end of recession, the end of unemployment, the end of social injustice, the end of fiscal irresponsibility. He forgot to mention which end. (Laughter.)

The former Premier called politicians irresponsible who said his government would be unwise in their spending habits.

On page 3 of the 1974 budget speech he stated: "Irresponsible politicians suggested that the previous government's accumulated cash surplus would disappear."

Well, time has proven those critics completely accurate, Mr. Speaker. They knew which end and the people knew which end he meant, and that's why they kicked the socialists out.

British Columbia demanded good leadership. They had felt the absence of any form of leadership in the past three and a half years. They demanded a man acquainted with the wants of the people — not only with the requirements of the hour, but with the demands of the future. They demanded a man broad enough to comprehend the relations of this government with the other provinces and with the federal government. They demanded a man who would preserve the financial honour of this province; one who knows enough to know that the provincial debt must be paid through the prosperity of the people; one who knows enough to know that all the financial theories in the world can't redeem the mistakes of the past administration; one who knows enough to know that taxes must be raised not by law but by labour; one who knows enough to know that the people of British Columbia have the industry and the honour to bring our province through these troubled times.

The people of this province chose wisely December 11. They picked a man with a heart, a conscience and a brain. They picked a man that does not shrink from seeing the province undertake its new duties.

A host of unemployed citizens faced a grim problem of existence and an equal number worked with little return. Now only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment — the moment we're faced with now. Our distress comes from no failure of substance. Our distress comes from the previous administration's failure through their own incompetence and stubbornness. They stand indicted in the court of public opinion and rejected in the hearts and minds of man today. They had no vision; where there is no vision men perish. That government perished.

The measure of restoration ties in the extent to which we apply social values rather than monetary profit. The stimulation of work must not be forgotten in the mad chase for ever-rising profits. But the dark days we are now experiencing will be worth all the cost if they teach us one thing, and that is that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto, but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow man.

Restoration calls for action and it calls for action now. Our first task is to put people to work. This problem isn't unsolvable. We must face it wisely; we must face it courageously. There are many ways in which this problem can be resolved, but it can never be resolved by merely talking about it. We must act and we must act now. Together we can't fail.

We must never go back to the kind of government we have just witnessed — power-hungry, arrogant, irresponsible people who could not manage the affairs of this province. Now they return talking only of revenge, indulging in innuendo and implied threats in an effort to disrupt, acting in opposition as they did in government, with a total lack of responsibility. This session has been marred by the irresponsible

[ Page 830 ]

nit-picking, delaying tactics of the opposition.

In order to clear up this situation, we should get the facts straight — I hope you're listening. The budget is sound, the budget is explicit and the budget is businesslike. There can be no mistaking what it means and British Columbians know the promises so definitely made are made to be kept — not evaded, not broken. We shall keep our promises by performance, by achievement, by proving our capacity to conduct the administration of this province in the spirit of our declarations with the firmness and sagacity of practical men who propose to do what is sensible and effective, not irresponsible.

Government is not a warfare of interests. We shall not gain our ends by heat and bitterness which make it impossible for either side to think either calmly or fairly, but if the opposition decline frank conference, then they must take the consequences and blame only themselves if they are in the end badly served.

It's necessary now that we act in the right spirit, and the right spirit is not one of hostility. Stability will only return to this province when we've done some careful thinking as to the exact things that are needed in the public interest and then using the most simple, direct and effective way of creating an atmosphere conducive to a better way of life for all British Columbians.

We didn't call upon the voters to support us merely because we call ourselves Social Crediters. Our commitment ran deeper than that. We mean to serve them like honest men, public-spirited men, because the common interests we share are interests that we share with every man, woman and child in this province. We are the servants of no special group and no special interest. The future is not for parties playing politics, but for measures conceived in the largest spirit, enacted by governments whose leaders are statesmen, not demagogues, who love not their office but their duty and their opportunity for service.

We are witnessing a renewal of an interest in politics by the public, a revival of sober political opinion. We look to a new age of thoughtful reconstruction, and a restitution of the values all British Columbians once held so high.

The socialists came to power through an election that was won on the strength of their promises. It's true they never carried out all of these promises, or many of these promises; in fact, an example might be the $25 automobile insurance plan. That is deception, and deception is always a pretty contemptible device, but to deceive the poor is the meanest of all crimes.

The day-care service is in a mess. Mincome payments to senior citizens have not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. The real needs were not being met for welfare recipients, and too many were abusing the system at the expense of the people who really needed the help.

Few of the services to people were really effective. Do you know why? Mainly because there was no direction from the former government. A giant, monolithic, bureaucratic system had taken over, and Band-aid measures were being applied to each mounting crisis.

There is no doubt that the socialists left this province in a deplorable state; the only things they excelled in were mismanagement and conversation. In order to put the affairs of this province in good standing we are forced now to borrow money for the first time in 21 years. While the opposition agrees that the bills must be paid, they say: "Perfectly true, somebody has to pay. But we would rather that somebody be somebody else."

We've started rebuilding. We need money for that rebuilding programme. We must remind you, and unfortunately we must keep reminding you, that the budget was brought down not merely for the purpose of raising barren taxes, but taxes that are fertile taxes, taxes that will bring forth fruit — the security of this province which is paramount in the midst of all, the provision for the aged and the poor. You know, it is time it was done. It's a shame that a rich country such as ours should allow those who have toiled all their days to end in penury and in despair.

We intend to cut a new path, an easier one, a pleasanter one. But we need money to make this new road, and, yes, even broaden that road. We propose to do more by means of this budget. We're raising money to provide against the evils of suffering that follow unemployment, to provide for the sick and the disadvantaged, to provide for everyone who really needs help, not those who don't need it and are looking for a handout.

I don't believe that any fair-minded man would challenge the justice and fairness which we have in view in raising this money through this budget. No province or country, however rich, can permanently afford to have quartered upon its revenue a class which declines to do the duties it is called upon to perform.

The opposition has menaced and delayed before. They seem to think that it's in their interest to carry out these futile objections. They are protesting against paying their fair share of taxation, and they're doing so by saying: "You're burdening the community. You're putting burdens upon people they can't bear." Well, they're not thinking of themselves, oh no! We're placing the burden on broad shoulders, and those shoulders will see us through — those are the shoulders of very proud British Columbians.

I believe that while we have the means no cupboard will be bare; no one will suffer because of this budget. But it is time for all British Columbians, and that means people over there too, to pull together until we are free of the morass we inherited from the previous administration, and this is the test.

[ Page 831 ]

I challenge them to logically judge this budget. Thank you.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wish to start, if I may, by speaking to the remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) earlier in this debate, and by telling him, in his absence — but he might read it in the Blues — that I found that part of his address which spoke to the problems of native Indians in this province a very agreeable part of his address. I think his analysis was excellent. I support that content and that direction, and I tell that minister that if he is able to produce the goods, as he outlined today he intends to produce, he will go down in our history as very likely a man of deserved merit and stature.

The problems of native Indian matters, especially those of land claims and the cutoff lands, have perplexed governments since those original agreements were signed and then promptly broken. I really want him to know, and as a member of our opposition, to express generally to the people our pleasure at their willingness to confront those problems as directly as they have.

However, when speaking to the other part of his budget address, I find it not quite so agreeable. I must, in beginning my remarks, ask you in some seriousness, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling. Are we discussing the first budget or the second budget — the first edition or the second edition? Hansard may note that the Speaker did not reply.

Well, I expect that the Minister of Labour was quite happy that the Minister of Finance was not in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is one budget before the House, which you're discussing. You're in order to discuss that budget.

I have no comment to make from the chair other than the fact that we are on the budget debate. It's a wide-open debate; you are entitled to discuss whatever subject matter you wish to put before this House in this particular debate.

MR. BARBER: The problem is, of course, as you know, that the ending is slightly different in one budget than in another. I would have to presume that the Minister of Labour....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARBER: Well....

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

MR. BARBER: It's really clear that I am making my point anyway, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the objections.

I expect that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was quite delighted when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was not in his seat when he made his remarks, because once again the coalition government is showing signs of falling apart. The Minister of Labour in his remarks took the opportunity to single out for special pleasure — for special support and commendation — the socialist government of the United Kingdom.

He went on at some length quoting admiringly from the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Callaghan, and addressed to this House certain remarks that Mr. Callaghan had made. The problem is that one would presume he was doing so in the spirit of the second ending to the budget and not the first. Because when we read the first, their earlier opinion of the government of the United Kingdom was somewhat different.

If I might remind the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, in the first edition of the budget they said: "Mr. Speaker, the parties that expound this irresponsible use of public funds are on the skids everywhere in the world. The people have thrown the socialists out in Australia. They have been thrown out in New Zealand. They are hanging on the ropes in Britain, and their leader has quit." Now this morning the Minister of Labour quotes admiringly the Prime Minister of the socialist government of the United Kingdom. They are not very consistent, are they, Mr. Speaker? When it serves their purpose they quote themselves to attack a sister nation in the British Commonwealth. When it does not serve their purpose they ignore that attack and quote someone else — in this case, Mr. Callaghan.

I expect....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I expect that, indeed, the Minister of Finance was glad that he wasn't in his place when his remarks were attacked by the Minister of Labour because we see again another instance — not the first and surely not the last — that when a coalition government is in disarray, as they surely have been these last two and three weeks, they cannot, in their disarray, fall back upon principle. They cannot fall back upon philosophy and they certainly cannot fall back upon one another, because they don't trust one another.

We have seen the Premier waltz the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) out of an ICBC press conference. We have seen the Premier waltz the Minister of Finance out of a brief conference with the members of the press in the back corridor. Now we see the Minister of Labour attacking the remarks that the Minister of Finance made but two and a half weeks ago in the first edition of the budget, now

[ Page 832 ]

quoting the now-admitted socialist government in the United Kingdom.

It's not very consistent, and that, I think, is the principal problem we have with the budget as a whole as well. It is unclear to me what principal direction this government is taking.

I want to speak more literally to the several parts of this budget....

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Liberally?

MR. BARBER: Literally, more closely. I want to point out, if I may again, that the remarks, which on the one hand take pleasure in the position of a socialist government in the United Kingdom, can only be considered as grotesque and ludicrous when compared with the remarks of the Minister of Finance discussing just two and a half weeks ago the same socialist government. It's really a bit weird, Mr. Speaker; it's a bit peculiar. I'm sure the people in the galleries are wondering just what's going on as well.

My remarks about this budget are largely the remarks of the people of Victoria who have, since it was introduced, written and phoned, visited and called and told me that there are a number of facets in it that they find objectionable. It's no doubt that this has easily within the shortest period of time imaginable been as unpopular a first budget as any new government has brought in.

I mentioned it a few days ago, and I'd like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I can tell most new governments do enjoy a period of good will, a period of affection and a period of popular support immediately after their successful victory in an election campaign. This is generally referred to as the honeymoon period.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): And yours was a divorce three years later.

MR. BARBER: Three? Well, we'll see, we'll see. I have different expectations, Mr. Minister.

In any case, though, it's pretty clear that this honeymoon has been as short as any on record. One wonders whether or not it's too late for an annulment, eh, Mr. Minister?

It's pretty clear to me that the temporary label affixed to this budget, that affixed by the Minister of Finance when he called it a recovery budget, has not succeeded in staying fixed. It has, in fact, in popular opinion and public esteem come to be regarded as a revenge budget. The reason that label has stuck is because it's the more accurate label; the reason it will stick in the future is because it will become clear that the political motivation behind this budget is one not of recovery nor of a renaissance of any sort, but of simple, strict, arbitrary, predictable political revenge.

There are areas of this budget which are hopelessly inconsistent with the government's commitment to reduce what they call "wasteful government expenditures". As a member of this Legislature, I'd like to point out one of them, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether or not this House has ever said anything about it. It may interest the public to know that the taxpayers subsidize in the amount of $50,000 a year the parliamentary dining room — the one, Mr. Speaker, which you and I and the rest of the members of this Legislature enjoy. That figure was not reduced in this budget. It's a tiny figure, but we are frequently called upon to find examples of larger principles and I think that one holds. Mr. Speaker, $50,000 a year is committed by the taxpayers of British Columbia to the subsidy of your lunch and mine. The government of the day, which tells us that it is cutting back wasteful expenditures, did not tell us that they were cutting that back. In fact, the figure this year is precisely the same as last year.

I for one, Mr. Speaker, would be quite happy to see that reduced to zero dollars, to see those $50,000 put to some more beneficial purpose. Mincome would be a good one.

The problem with this budget, essentially, is that it tries to do simultaneously two antithetical and opposing things. On the one hand, it tells us that the province of British Columbia is beset with a shattered economy, hopelessly wrecked and ruined, and, on the other hand, it is a great place to invest and everything's great, marvelous; the future is rosy and it's in good hands now.

The problem is that — and the fact that we now have a second edition of the budget demonstrates it — it is impossible to go to the investors and the capital markets of the world with those mixed messages. You cannot, in the first edition of the budget, tell them that the economy of British Columbia is shattered and ruined and in the second ask for their further investment. You can't do it; it doesn't work. No one believes it; no one buys it. It hasn't worked, and you had to rewrite the budget. You had to rewrite it, and that's why we have a second edition.

The government, Mr. Speaker, attacked member nations of the British Commonwealth. That was an offence. The government told the people that the economy was ruined in British Columbia. That was another offence. The third is that the budget, as a whole, attempts to do two opposing and antithetical things simultaneously. They can't do it — they just can't do it.

I think what that betrays most basically is that we see in this coalition government basic lack of leadership.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Where's your leader?

MR. BARBER: There is no firm, no clear, no

[ Page 833 ]

purposeful direction, no wit and imagination — nothing new. We see in this budget a failed attempt by the government to persuade the people of British Columbia that as of midnight on March 31 we were hopelessly bankrupt, a fact which was contradicted by a decision that government took in the face of our evident hopeless bankruptcy to write a cheque in the amount of $181 million just two days before the end of the fiscal year — a cheque which, as it turns out, will not be cashed and, when cashed, will be loaned back to the government in the first place. A not very persuasive argument, Mr. Speaker, in favour of the alleged fiscal responsibility of the coalition government. It betrays, I think, a lack of leadership, clear purpose and fundamental political principle.

I want to speak, if I may, about several departments whose estimates are discussed in general terms within the budget. I'd like to start, if I may, Mr. Speaker, by talking about certain of the failures of leadership within the department of the Attorney-General. We see in the willingness of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to permit the gradual decay and dismemberment of the legal services programmes of this province — legal aid and the community law offices — an apparently silent commitment to allow the poor to go unrepresented in court. That commitment, of course, will never be spoken, but its actions will be clear evidence for anyone.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my maiden speech address that we opened in Victoria, about a month ago, a community services office. That office, opened a month ago by Mayor Mike Young of the city of Victoria, has in that month seen more than 150 persons come through requesting help and assistance of many kinds. Since the Attorney-General made it clear that they did not intend to continue with the previous government's policy of granting legal aid to people whose incomes would not provide it themselves, the increase in the demand on legal counselling and services at our community office has doubled — has absolutely, simply, clearly, doubled — and I presume that that trend will continue. I deplore the fact very much that when we do see belt-tightening on the part of the coalition government, the first thing to go is the system of legal aid and community law services, invented as the result of need by the previous government and, in the face of clear need, diminished by the present. It's a shame; I wish they wouldn't do it. They don't have to do it; it does them no honour and no good at all. Primarily, of course, it does no good to the people of British Columbia who require it.

I wish to speak, briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the ombudsman. As I've mentioned before and will again, this is one of — if I may say it — the few shows of wit and imagination, new principle and new conception, that the coalition government has brought forward. I support the ombudsman. I support that principle; I support that office. I have offered to turn over to the ombudsman, when that office starts, the records, files, documents and experiences of our own community services office, and I hope that it might prove of some practical assistance. There is in the budget speech no mention whatsoever of a financial commitment to the office of the ombudsman. I presume this does not mean that we will have to wait until the next budget speech to see the evidence of that government's commitment to the ombudsman. But I note with some concern, Mr. Speaker, that nowhere in the budget is there even a penny committed. This may again betray what some of us have observed to be the lack of principled leadership on the part of the coalition government.

In the Department of Education we have a minister whose work is legendary — the good doctor, who has, I think, in again as short a period, in as quick a honeymoon as any new government has seen, thrown away the good will, the good faith, the affection and the loyalty that was otherwise his. I have received — and I am a very junior member of our caucus — more than 20 letters about the education portion of the budget speech. I wish, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to read parts of three of them into the record, because I think that one of the jobs of an MLA is simply to pass on, as fairly and as objectively as he can, what his own constituents say.

In discussing education, I can do no better than to read into the record, and thereby to the minister, in his absence, what some of the people in Victoria have said about the education elements of the budget speech. The first is from a gentleman who wrote:

"Dear Sir:

I am writing to express my concern over the government's total disregard for the ordinary people of this province, as indicated by their budget. I feel most strongly that we are victims of a government's political machinations, and I resent this.

"I am most concerned about the education portion of the budget. It is most unreasonable for the government to cause school taxes to rise by their failure to provide the funds necessary to maintain the status quo. The government should accept the fact of inflation that is beyond the control of the boards.

"Most importantly, I feel that the cutbacks that will occur will cost the society dearly in the end as the problems of the young people are ignored by the removal of special programmes if funds are not available for them. I urge you to do what you can to make the government aware of their real responsibility for people."

Another letter, also concerned about the plight of special programmes within the Department of

[ Page 834 ]

Education.

"Dear Sir:

I wish to express my frustration over the proposed budget restrictions in education. In my own school I feel we are finally making progress in dealing with youngsters who require special guidance for academic, social or emotional problems.

"The services of learning-assistance teachers and counsellors are essential to our programme. We are already working with classes in the mid-to-high 30s. In classes of this size it is impossible to give as much individual instruction as some children require. The public seems concerned over instruction in basic subjects. One of the government ministers made headlines recently when he revealed the social ills among young people in Victoria. Solutions to these problems will not be found by cutting back education costs. We need smaller classes and stronger support staff. To increase class size and reduce services would be disastrous to the school system."

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I may point out to the interjector that, to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, not a single one of these authors is a member of my party or, possibly, of any other party. They are people who, as professionals, as parents, as persons concerned with the educational system, have taken the time, shown the interest and taken the trouble to tell, through their MLA, this Legislature what they feel is the case regarding the education budget.

If I may continue, another person wrote:

"I am a learning-assistance teacher presently employed by School District No. 62. Recently I was reappointed as a supernumerary teacher in my school in order that I may perform a wider range of duties at a lower wage. I feel that this is a valid cutback as my school board is trying to cut budget costs for next year.

"However, Mr. McGeer has now placed a much greater burden on the students, parents, teachers and board members by making it necessary to cut back the number of teachers to such an extent by limiting the province's education budget to such a degree. This will only prove to cause problems in the future.

"I work with learning-disabled children who require special education programmes if they are to find success in the regular classroom. If cutbacks occur, I will be cut as a frill, as will my special-education programme. These children, if no longer able to receive special attention, will find the regular school programme too difficult to cope with and in two to six years will become our dropouts.

"Of course, as our number of dropouts increases, so does the rate of juvenile delinquency and crime. If they find no success in school or in finding employment, what will they do with their time? Will Mr. McGeer provide special programmes for them after they have committed the crimes?

"Therefore, Mr. Barber, please pass this letter along and my sentiments to Mr. McGeer and ask him to look to the future. Special-education programmes and teachers are as essential to the school system as our textbooks. However, if cutbacks do occur, these programmes will be the first to go. As a result, future problems will be compounded as many students will not receive the extra attention they require."

That author, by the way, works in the Sooke school district.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): That's not true in School district 62 — you tell them to go to the board and find out.

MR. BARBER: Regarding the Department of Environment, Mr. Speaker, once again we see further evidence of the failure of leadership on the part of the coalition government.

Interjections.

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

MR. BARBER: There appear to be rather arcane and peculiar rules about question period, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that on two occasions I put a question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) about the recycling depot in Victoria, and both were ruled out of order, so I have tried to find other ways to ask my questions.

But the one I want to put today — based again on the observation that there is an apparent lack of principle and leadership on the part of this government to do anything new, witty, original or imaginative — stems from the failure of the Minister of Environment to even lift a finger on behalf of the recycling depot in the city of Victoria. This recycling depot serves more than 30,000 citizens in a community of 220,000. It is a false economy to reduce the budget by 25 per cent — as to their great, I hope, future embarrassment the Capital Regional District board has now done.

It's not, I think, Mr. Speaker, so important that we point out how successful the recycling depot is, how many volunteers work freely for hours and hours and hours on its behalf. It is not essential to point out

[ Page 835 ]

that this is the most successful, the largest in scope and the most significant recycling operation in all of Canada. It is essential in this debate to point out that the Minister of Environment did nothing, said nothing, inquired of nothing and has achieved nothing on behalf of this recycling depot. This is very disappointing.

He may be a new minister; he's certainly new to the Legislature and, obviously, like everyone else, has to learn the ropes, and it takes time to do so. But on an issue as clear cut as this, where the questions are so simple and so direct, why is it that the Minister of Environment did nothing on behalf of the greater Victoria recycling depot? He did nothing — absolutely nothing.

I have received dozens of phone calls from the hundreds of volunteers who labour freely, on their own initiative, for the Victoria recycling depot and have asked, some of them again and again, when the provincial government is going to step in. I have been unable to give a serious answer because the Minister of Environment has been unable to make a serious statement. A recycling depot in Victoria is on the verge of folding and the Minister of Environment does nothing.

I wish the Minister of Environment would take the leadership that belongs properly in his hands. He could certainly do so in this Legislature itself. What the paper products of our government must be I can't imagine, but surely some leadership could be shown by that Minister. Surely some investment could be made by that department in recycling depots handling not just the rubbish that results from our debates and the work of the government generally, but encouraging the people of Victoria to move into the 21st century. We cannot afford to continue to use once only otherwise irreplaceable natural resources. We can't afford it.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You may have, Mr. Minister, after I have finished my notes, and I invite you to join me at Borden Street. You and I together may work as volunteers in the recycling depot for the days it has left.

That's what we can do with the rubbish — something creative and positive, rather than just adding to it here all the time.

Speaking if I may to the Department of Finance, Mr. Speaker, I think it's clear again that the fundamental problem a coalition government has is evidenced in what we see within the budget speech. The increase in the sales tax by 40 per cent is immensely unpopular. The increase in medicare premiums by 50 per cent is immensely unpopular. That government knows that, and it's fairly clear from the delicate choice of words within the budget speech why they've chosen not to make too much a point of this one.

Bill 3 clearly has persuaded no one. The bill that was allegedly required by midnight at the end of the fiscal year turned out not to be required after all and many of the amounts within the $400 million turned out themselves to have been in considerable dispute. One of them, the $7.5 million for the universities council, was put in dispute by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who tabled documents that demonstrated that the money was neither due nor requested and when spent will not be spent until July of this fiscal year.

I wish again, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to read briefly into the record another letter. This is from a gentleman concerned about one aspect of the social services tax. I raised this briefly before when we were discussing this. The letter is concerned about not only the principle but as well the impact of the increase in the social services tax for persons who, because of their income in life, are required to live in mobile homes. Because of their income position they find it impossible to purchase homes that stay still. They buy mobile homes.

If I may read from the letter:

"Dear Sir:

"There are many people who are forced into modest homes due to low-income positions. These homes are, in many cases, mobile or travel trailers, purchased with the express purpose of providing a 'home'.

"Persons capable of buying real estate for a home are exempt from the social services tax. Those forced into mobile-type homes are being taxed, and indeed are penalized for their inability to spend or finance big money purchases.

"The social services tax Act in concept is to exempt the necessary items of life and to tax the amenities. This further points out the inequity. The distinction is that any home that you move, including brick, frame, pre-fab, mobile or travel trailer, becomes tangible, personal property and is taxable, even to the extent that if your land should be expropriated and you choose to move your home you are also liable for social services tax.

"There are many of us here on Seymour Street and elsewhere who feel we have purchased homes — a permanent residence no matter how modest — and have been subject to sales tax on one of the basic needs of life, a place to live."

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had shown leadership, examined the horizon, asked the right questions, they would not simply be increasing from 5 to 7 per cent the onerous burden through the social services tax on people who

[ Page 836 ]

can ill afford it. They would be eliminating outright that 7 per cent tax on persons who, because of their income, are required to buy a mobile rather than a fixed home in order to live.

I've asked the Minister of Finance before and I will do so repeatedly in the debates on estimates whether or not this government will give an undertaking to remove outright the sales tax on mobile homes, the purchase for which is intended principally to provide accommodation for their owners.

In conclusion on the finance estimates, as discussed in the budget speech, I wish to support the recommendation made by the Social Credit member of the government, the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen), who asked the Minister of Finance and the Premier to indicate to the people of British Columbia that immediately the additional $200 million which are to be raised by the social services tax are raised, that tax be once again returned to its original 5 per cent level.

When that particular backbencher made that particular point, there was no visible response from the government. I don't know what that means in terms of that guy's future. I don't know whether or not that means he'll never make it into the cabinet, but I do hope his suggestion is taken seriously. It would be a great deal more bearable to the people of British Columbia if they knew that there was an end in sight and that 7 per cent was not fixed and here to stay, and I'm happy to support the recommendation of the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds that the Premier and the Minister of Finance give an undertaking that this tax will be reduced again as soon as possible to the 5 per cent level that it was before they came to power.

Looking at the Department of Health, Mr. Speaker, there are many senior citizens in Victoria who are enormously concerned about the inevitable cutbacks in the ambulance service.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, before the New Democratic government came to power, ambulances throughout British Columbia were largely in the hands of private citizens who would, as often as they could, make a profit out of the sickness, the immediate illness and disease of human beings,

I'm very happy that the NDP government made an ambulance service part of the health service — included it in the structure of hospital services and health-care services within the province of British Columbia.

There are senior citizens in the city of Victoria who are very concerned today, Mr. Speaker, about the possibility of an increase in the cost and a cutback in the service of ambulances in greater Victoria. These are seniors who themselves have had a history of emergent disease, strokes, heart attacks and other ailments. They are not much reassured in their old age and their disease by a government that talks about cutting back ambulance service. It does not tend to help them along the road to recovery very much. In fact, it is very bad medicine for those people. On their behalf, I put to you, Mr. Speaker, the observation that this is the falsest sort of economy to try and attempt to save a nickel or a dime at the expense of the morale, the health and the well-being of sick people, especially old sick people. It's a very serious mistake. I hope they reconsider. I hope they take one of the famous second looks and state to the people of greater Victoria, and especially to its senior citizens, that they do not intend to make dangerous cutbacks in the field of ambulance services.

There is another kind of cutback, Mr. Speaker, that could be made in the Department of Health. I pointed it out in correspondence which I've had with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and have yet received no satisfactory answer. The Victoria Times did an article and an editorial on the subject after that correspondence.

There is in my constituency a woman by the name of Mary McFadden. She's married, and happily two and a half weeks ago had a young boy. Mrs. McFadden came to me and said that she had learned that it was impossible for her, if she chose to have birth outside a hospital, to take advantage of the after-birth nursing services offered in this province. She thought that was a bit peculiar. She was offering to save the people of British Columbia hundreds of tax dollars by not taking up a valuable bed in an acute hospital and was simply asking that, in return for that saving, she have an opportunity to take advantage of what is available to every other nursing mother, after-birth service.

Mrs. McFadden and I wrote several times to the Minister of Health and pointed out the obvious inconsistency and the paradox. The Minister of Health wrote back and said in so many words: "Well, those are the rules and I'm not prepared to change them." The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has also pointed out this inconsistency and I wish again, if I might, to suggest to the Minister of Health, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government wishes to save some money and to set an example, change the rules. Make it possible for young women to choose to give birth outside the hospital not to have to go into the hospital in order to get what they really wanted, which was after-birth nursing care. Mrs. McFadden offered to do that. Mrs. McFadden offered to go into hospital for a day in order to meet the rules and in order to save the taxpayers of British Columbia some money. That too was proven to be against the rules and she was unable to do this and today is still able to take no advantage at all of the nursing services at home.

It's really silly, Mr. Speaker, that a government should be so concerned with bureaucratic rules and procedures that, having prided themselves on their

[ Page 837 ]

initiative in saving money, they decline to save money when they clearly could in this instance. Perhaps if it had been a member of the government and not a member of the opposition that had made the point, they would have been a little quicker to take advantage of it. But all the same, we'll continue to make the point. We'll continue to make the point that, had they been willing to change the rules and cut through the red tape, they would have saved hundreds of dollars in just one case, and having changed the rules, many other cases would save many more dollars.

I wish now, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to speak to what we see in the budget speech about the Departments of Highways and Public Works. It's known in the province that these budgets have been cut back very considerably. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if ever we might hear from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) about a problem that has perplexed the first Social Credit government, that perplexed the first NDP government, that is perplexing the second coalition government and that I hope will not end up perplexing the second NDP government after the next election. This is the problem of the Blanshard Street extension. This is a notorious problem in the city of Victoria. We have a four-lane highway, six in parts, which goes nowhere, which stops at a municipal boundary after you bound over a hill because the bump's so great.

The Blanshard Street extension has gone nowhere. The Blanshard Street extension is an embarrassment to every government, if I may say it, including the one whose party I represent. For many, many years, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), when he served as the mayor of Saanich, was well aware of this problem and I hope that in his capacity as a member of the cabinet he will attempt on our behalf, as the previous Social Credit government failed to, as we failed to, and as I hope you don't fail to, to do something. The problem of a highway that goes nowhere and ends in nothing is an embarrassment to everyone. On behalf of hundreds and hundreds of motorists and cyclists who have to make it somehow past Tolmie Street there to Woodward's where the highway stops, I urge you to take a look at it. I urge the Minister of Highways and Public Works to take a look at it. Give us some kind of a solution. There are at least, I'm sure, three or four on the drawing boards. Make a decision, commit some money and end this problem. It's been around for more than a decade, Mr. Speaker. Something surely can be done about it.

I would like as well, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to mention the restoration of the parliament buildings, which also comes under the purview of the Minister of Public Works. This is a restoration which, as you know, began under the previous administration and which is happily, I report, anyway continuing under the present. The Department of Public Works is attempting to restore a building that was rotting in the lower parts and in the upper, leaking. This too was another embarrassment to the people of Victoria for whom this is probably the most handsome and outstanding of any of our architectural works. I hope to hear later, Mr. Speaker, during his estimates, from the Minister of Public Works that he intends to proceed, as I understand it will take another two or three years to complete them, with all of the renovations and restorations presently planned for the parliament buildings. This is, indeed, the most valuable historical building probably in British Columbia — certainly in greater Victoria. I very much hope to hear from the Minister of Public Works that he intends to continue with this. If he does he shall have my praise and thanks, and he shall have also — and deserve — the praise and thanks of the people of Victoria and likely of the whole province.

There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, regarding the Minister of Public Works, and that's the matter of a report called Precinct '75. This report was prepared by staff under his predecessor and was released to the public shortly before Christmas. It contains a number of very imaginative, very unusual and very bold proposals for the substantial rebuilding of the legislative precinct area.

I am not myself in a position to know, because the report doesn't disclose it, how much these — any of them or all of them — innovations would cost, but I do hope that the Minister of Public Works doesn't simply ignore that report. It is not a partisan document. It is not a political document. It is rather a report prepared by planners and technicians, by architects and by persons concerned with the future of the capital city, that suggests a number of very unusual and very exciting ways to rebuild what we have here in the legislative precinct.

It proposes, Mr. Speaker, a broad swath of — in archaic language — greensward descending down from Beacon Hill Park, through the public grounds where St. Ann's Academy used to be housed, up along Belleville and Superior Streets into the grounds of the Legislature itself. It's a marvelous idea. It's an extremely attractive idea. The Minister of Public Works will do himself proud if he's able to take that, and some of the other ideas contained in this report, and take action on them as well. In the future, I will continue to be asking the Minister of Public Works, through yourself, Mr. Speaker, whether or not he's familiar with this report, whether or not he's willing to act on any or all of its contents, what kinds of deadlines he's willing to set. I should like to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if he's able to act on some of these remarkable ideas contained in that report he will earn the praise of this assembly, and I expect he will get it, too.

Finally, regarding that minister's estimates, I wish

[ Page 838 ]

to talk briefly about highway construction. Apart from lamenting the fact that the Blanshard Street highway goes nowhere, I would also like to point out that I believe it incumbent on the Minister of Highways to have some new thoughts, to take some new directions, to undertake some new approaches in regard to mass transportation as provided by cement and asphalt in British Columbia.

One of them I would like to point out is what's been pointed out and underway in Europe for the last 30 years: that's the construction of bicycle paths, Mr. Speaker. In every civilized nation in western Europe bicycle paths are a fact of life, as is cycling itself.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Some of the uncivilized, too.

MR. BARBER: And I suppose some of the uncivilized ones, Mr. Attorney-General.

In the city of Eugene, Oregon, population 60,000, the people there have more than 250 miles of bicycle paths at their disposal. In a town of 60,000 they have more than 250 miles of constructed and designated bicycle paths. I hope that the Minister of Highways is aware that there are other ways to transport people than simply within the four walls of a four-wheeled vehicle.

In the city of Ottawa, funded by all of us as federal taxpayers, there are now more than 60 miles of bicycle paths travelling the canal, the Ottawa River and into the beautiful low hills that surround Ottawa. I hope that the Minister of Highways will at some time during his estimates be prepared to give a commitment to this House that he is willing to look at the construction of more than just auto roadways, but bicycle roadways as well. They are, Mr. Speaker, cheap. They are very cheap. They are efficient. They are very efficient. They are healthy, certainly far more so than travel in automobiles is, and they lead the way into the future. I would predict, Mr. Speaker, that by the year 2,000 the private automobile will be banned in the downtown core of Victoria and Vancouver cities. It will be an offence to drive a private automobile in those cores.

Provision must be made now for alternative means of transportation. We'll be looking at mass transit. We'll be looking at other forms of light rail and transport throughout the great cities, but we must also be prepared to look after the needs of people who are cycling now. I would propose to the Minister of Highways that he would become a minister capable of exercising great leadership if he led this province into the 21st century by developing, throughout the province, a network of commuter and recreational bicycle paths.

He can, Mr. Speaker, use rail rights-of-way, he can use sidewalks, he can use lanes along major highways, and he can do things that have never been done before. I earnestly hope that the Minister of Highways considers those new things.

Finally, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment about the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'm concerned about mass transit.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I point out to you that you have two minutes left?

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

I am concerned that on December 8, 1975, the present Premier said to one Jack Webster that he, if he became Premier, would have the municipalities or regions sharing 75-25 on capital costs and 50-50 on losses. I will be, during the Municipal Affairs estimates, reminding the Minister of Municipal Affairs of this.

I would like simply before I conclude, though, Mr. Speaker, to point out that if in 1975-76 that formula had been in operation, as proposed and promised by the present Premier, the city of Victoria — the greater Victoria area generally — would have been required to share in operating deficits of $3.5 million. In capital costs they would have been required to share $4.4 million. The present Premier said on December 8 — I would be happy to table the document, as is the habit in the House — that he would intend upon election to engage in a system of sharing 75-25 on capital costs and 50-50 on losses.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Victoria would not abide by such a suggestion; the mayors of Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay and Esquimalt would never abide by such a suggestion. I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in this case, at least discreetly within the cabinet, succeeds in repudiating the Premier. This is a grotesque and unhappy prospect and is one which I hope goes nowhere.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Curtis moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:40 a.m.