[ Page 251 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 13) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading — 252

Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 5) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 252

Oral questions

Federal subsidies to ferries. Mr. Lockstead — 252

Kitimat oil pipeline. Mr. Gibson — 253

UBCM housing committee hearings. Hon. Mr. Curtis answers — 253

B.C. Tel rates. Mr. Wallace — 254

Oyster River marina development. Ms. Sanford — 254

Assessment Act inequities. Mr. Lea — 254

Status of Egg Marketing Board. Mrs. Wallace — 255

Budget address. Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 255

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 8) Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 267

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural

Gas Producers Repeal Act (Bill 10) Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 267

Gift Tax Repeal Act (Bill 11) Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 267

Succession Duty Repeal Act (Bill 12) Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 268

MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): In the Speaker's gallery today is my daughter Cindy, accompanied by her friend and my good friend, Mr. Gerry Bridge. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I have many distinguished guests from my constituency in the gallery today: the newly elected chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Mayor Jack Campbell of Port Coquitlam, and Mrs. Campbell; Mayor Jim Tonn of Coquitlam, and Mrs. Tonn; the mayor of Port Moody, Norm Patterson; Mrs. Verna Barrett, director of electoral area B; Mr. Brian Corbould, chairman of the Eagle Ridge Hospital Society; Mr. Lloyd O'Toole, hospital administrator; Mr. Bert Smith, hospital board member. Last, but most certainly not least, I have a group of students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in Port Coquitlam. They are touring the buildings and visiting the House today with their teacher, Mr. Kirk Templeton. I would ask the House to join me in making these guests welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity this legislative parliament has had to greet a former Premier on the floor of this House. Even though in the last budget debate he was seated in this assembly on the floor of the House as a guest, there was not an opportunity at that time to welcome him. I would like at this time to ask all members of the House to pay tribute to a gentleman who led this province for over 20 years as the outstanding Premier of this province, a gentleman who brought more social reform to British Columbians than anyone in history so far.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to you that we would like, in this government and in this assembly, to rival that record. It will be difficult, and I ask all members of this House to greet an outstanding member of this House, the former Premier, the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'm only sorry that the former Premier wasn't in the House to hear the words of the Provincial Secretary. I would like to express my personal appreciation of the fact that the former Premier is in good health and with us and still interested in the affairs of British Columbia.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): As the current leader of a party that has in the past had some agreements and some disagreements with the former Premier, I would like to share the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Provincial Secretary in complimenting the former Premier on a wonderful appearance here today. We're glad to see him.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I might say that the Liberal leader stole some of my words about disagreements, but I would like to add my personal welcome to the former Premier and I'm particularly pleased that he's fully recovered from his heart attack. I think that his ongoing interest in the province and his close interest which I'm sure he has in today's budget is something that we should all commend. I very much welcome him on behalf of our party.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming two of my young friends from Prince George, Lorrelle and Liard Ongman, to the House.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a point of order on behalf of the official opposition. We suggest, with leave of the House, that we dispense with question period today, because it is budget day.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'm asking for leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The question is that leave of the House be granted to suspend question period today.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no debate.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not debatable. I believe I must ask....

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It's not a debatable point but it is one that has not come before the House before in this manner. I'm prepared to listen to a statement by the Premier.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[ Page 252 ]

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker

lnterjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It seems that there was a slight change in the rule when I allowed the hon. member for New Westminster to get up on a point of order. Now I will listen to the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested earlier last week in the meeting of the Whips that, as was the tradition the only other time we had a Monday budget, question period be suspended. At the meeting of the Whips this was turned down by the opposition, so we have re-scheduled today to allow the full opposition the courtesy that they asked for — that question period proceed. So the government is not prepared to deal with the motion, but is prepared to allow question period to proceed as that party demanded last week in the meeting of the Whips.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if I may be out of order as well....

AN HON. MEMBER: You always are!

MR. SPEAKER: It would seem, hon. member, that there is a consistency in the out-of-order today. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much. Your ruling will be one that I'm sure will be a precedent, Mr. Speaker, and we expect you to understand that it was the decision of the Whips that's outside of this House, and for the Premier to say that it's on the Whips' decision.... As a matter of courtesy, it was our decision to ask leave to dispense with the question period today. That question must be put. If it is not granted by the House, then we go on with the period. But this debate is completely out of order and the request must be put.

lnterjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is: shall leave be granted to suspend question period for today?

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: That's fine. Very good.

Introduction of bills.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 13, Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

POLLUTION CONTROL (1967)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 5 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.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table correspondence from the Prime Minister of Canada concerning the Constitution.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO FERRIES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications: would the minister please advise this House of what progress was made at the meeting or meetings held Friday, January 21, between members of his staff and members of the staff of the federal government regarding granting of federal subsidies to B.C. Ferries and coastal shipping facilities in British Columbia?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, meetings were held between the officials of the provincial government and the federal government concerning ferry subsidies on the west coast. The federal staff has reported back to the federal minister, and we expect to hear from the federal government in due course.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A short supplemental, Mr. Speaker: would the minister please advise, in the course of these meetings with the federal government, if the province has, or will, indicate that it is prepared to pay part of the subsidy to private companies operating vessels on the coast?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the discussions have centred around public transportation and the share of the subsidy to public transport provided by the two levels of government, and are not concerned with payments to any private corporation or agency.

[ Page 253 ]

KITIMAT OIL PIPELINE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same minister: last summer the minister was quoted as saying that the government of British Columbia essentially backs the Kitimat oil pipeline. I wonder if the minister could tell us if that remains the position of his government.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, that isn't a correct quotation. As the hon. member knows, the Kitimat pipeline proposal is one that is now before the National Energy Board. It's a matter for the federal government's disposition. Of course, the provincial concern about it will be expressed during the course of the hearings of the National Energy Board.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the minister's statements were pretty clear. In any event, could the minister undertake to this House and to the province that, before making representations as the official stand of the provincial government to the National Energy Board, the provincial government will hold hearings within the province to give all affected and concerned groups the right to make their opinions known?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can't give that commitment at the present time. As an individual minister I certainly couldn't give that commitment. It's a commitment for the government if it, in fact, chooses to make it.,

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing what the minister has said, that ultimately the decision is the National Energy Board's, and also recognizing that the provincial government, of course, will be requested to put some input in before that decision is made, could the minister tell us — at this point — what is the provincial government's position? Is it for the pipeline or against the pipeline?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter. The project is under careful scrutiny and the province's position will be known at the time of the National Energy Board hearings.

MR. BARRETT: If the National Energy Board is able to do its work properly, we'll need to know now. So I ask the minister, even if it is tentative: What is the provincial government's position, tentatively? For the pipeline or against the pipeline?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's a repetition of the same question you had just asked.

UBCM HOUSING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In a question period last week, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) made several enquiries with respect to the joint committee study on housing in British Columbia. The first question was: "In what centres were meetings held?" The answer is Victoria, Vancouver, Prince George and Vernon. "Were briefs submitted privately or by invitation?" To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, they were submitted by invitation. The invitations went to representatives of financial institutions, municipalities, regional districts, planners, engineers, representatives of building trades and companies, developers, architects, two other ministries at least — Environment and Highways, as well as the ministry for which I'm responsible, Municipal Affairs and Housing. The meetings were, I assume, on the decision of the committee, represented by members of the government caucus and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. There was no direction from me in this regard. The meetings were determined to be held in private, and they were so held.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the legislative Hansard staff and equipment accompanied that committee. I wonder who authorized the use of Hansard staff and equipment and under what vote their expenses were paid. Will the minister undertake to table the Hansard transcripts so that we can compare them with the Bawlf report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the latter part of the question as notice. To the best of my recollection, the use of Hansard staff was introduced as the committee proceeded, not for the first meetings but as it became apparent that there were voluminous materials to be presented. I believe, again, to the best of my recollection, it was checked with the Speaker's office and will be charged to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

MR. GIBSON: To the same minister: since this was not a legislative committee and no members of the opposition were serving on it, I would ask under what conceivable authority this could make the use of legislative facilities....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question poses its own answer. And the question of conceivable authority; I indicated already that the costs relating to Hansard facilities to assist the committee in its work — and I emphasize for the hon. member it was a joint committee involving representatives of municipalities in British

[ Page 254 ]

Columbia....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Come on.

MR. COCKE: What authority?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder if the hon. member who has asked the question would indicate if he indicated a desire to serve on the committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: If I might make a supplementary answer to the minister's question, I certainly have, on many occasions around this province, said it was a disgrace that there were no opposition members on that committee.

B.C. TEL RATES

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications: In the light of a proposal by the B.C. Telephone Co. to raise its rates, and particularly in light of the fact that the average proposed increase is well outside the guidelines, have the minister and his department developed any policy and had any communication with B.C. Telephone to discuss this matter?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There have been communications with the regulatory authorities in Ottawa — as the hon. member knows, B.C. Telephone is a federal corporation and under federal regulation — requesting information and also requesting a delay in the hearings so that the province would be in a better position to intervene on behalf of customers in this province.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if, in fact, his department will be intervening in the hearings, regardless of the date on which they are held?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes.

OYSTER RIVER MARINA DEVELOPMENT

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): My question is addressed to the Minister of Environment: Now that the government has announced that it has no objection to Pacific Playground's application to dredge in the estuary area of the Oyster River for the purposes of access to a marina, I wonder if the minister will release the Bentley LeBaron report, which was a sociological-impact study.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): To the member: There are a number of documents and reports associated with the Oyster River development and, if that is a request, we will certainly take your request into consideration for the release of such documents. I'll respond to you directly on whether all of the documents will be released, including the LeBaron report.

MS. SANFORD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister replies, I wonder if he would also indicate whether or not he is prepared to call a public hearing into the matter, since it is of great interest to the residents of the area as well as the elected municipal officials of the area.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll take that question as notice, in that it is involved with the earlier question, but I'll respond to you in total.

ASSESSMENT ACT INEQUITIES

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): To the Minister of Finance: Last Thursday, in answer to my question about the Assessment Appeal Board's decision, which cost the city of Prince Rupert more than three-quarters of a million property-tax dollars as a result of the board's interpretation of section 24 of the Assessment Act, the minister said he would not interfere with the board's procedures. Yet the same day the minister tabled in this House the board's annual report that, on page 2, said the board had asked the minister to repeal six aspects of section 24 due to inequities in assessment which magnify themselves each year. I ask the minister again: In view not only of the terrible hardship visited on Prince Rupert — the same hardships now face other northern and interior communities — but also in view of the strong recommendations of his own appointees to the Assessment Appeal Board, will the minister not take steps now to relieve the municipal taxpayers around this province of the inequitable hardships this legislation can create for them?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, is the member through with his speech yet? I think I answered that last Thursday by indicating that the government would not interfere with the appeal decisions of the appeal board. Now this report to which you referred has been tabled in the House. I recognize the recommendations to which you refer. These are under review by the government and some of these will be presented for consideration by the Legislature.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, is the minister informing this House that these inequities, under section 24 of the Assessment Act, will be changed this session? Is that what he's saying?

[ Page 255 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy, and I think the member heard my first answer.

MR. LEA: Is the minister...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would draw to the hon. member's attention that it is irregular to multiply, with slight variation, a similar question on the same point, or to ask for another answer to a question which has already been answered or in which the question has not been answered.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I know of no other way to get around an evasive answer. Is the minister aware that this is a dangerous precedent that every company in this province can take advantage of? Maybe this is the sharing programme you talked about in the throne speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member is now out of order.

MR. LEA: You're going to....

MR. SPEAKER: That was out of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Sorry.

STATUS OF EGG MARKETING BOARD

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister whether or not he is aware that since August of last year the egg producers on Vancouver Island and in the interior of this province have been without representation or voice in handling their own product, and if he is aware that an appointed board is contrary to the regulations under the B.C. marketing legislation. Finally, does he intend to return to the egg producers their democratic right to conduct their own business?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat: I am aware that the board that is in existence at the present time is an interim board. I believe their appointment is up either March 1 or March 31 of this year. I will be meeting with the interim egg board — I believe it's on February 1 - and there will be recommendations coming forward from that board, which was part of their terms of reference, I believe, when they were appointed. We will be dealing with representation matters at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in order to facilitate some of the people who would like to watch and listen to the delivery of the hon. Minister of Finance when he brings in the budget — I understand some were delayed and are now present and would like to be seated on the floor — I would therefore call a short recess, but be prepared to return to the chamber at the call of the division bell.

The House took recess at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:02 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year 1975-76 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present the report of the comptroller-general, pursuant to the provisions of the Audit Act, chapter 22, RSBC (1960) .

ESTIMATES OF SUMS REQUIRED
FOR THE SERVICE OF THE PROVINCE

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Estimates of Sums Required for the Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, including Schedule A, sums required by Her Majesty to make good certain sums expended for the public service for the period ended March 31, 1977, and to indemnify the several officers and persons for making such expenditures, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe moves that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

BUDGET ADDRESS

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, barely 10 months ago I stood in this House to deliver the first budget of our new government. Today it is my privilege and pleasure to present the second.

In the last 10 months much has been done by this

[ Page 256 ]

government to restore the balance to the British Columbia economy. We have brought government spending under control and provided a new level of accountability with the introduction of quarterly financial statements. At the same time, we are maintaining and improving government services.

Our government has accomplished a substantial deceleration in the annual growth rate in provincial government spending in the 1976-77 budget. Despite this, tax increases were required during the last budget year. We did not relish imposing higher taxes and fees but, in our view, such action was a necessity to avoid the long-term burden of debt repayment.

As a result of our efforts we are able to propose additional services to people in the budget being presented here today. At the same time we are able also to schedule the elimination of two taxes and a reduction in others.

This past year has been one of restraint in public spending in British Columbia. We hope to end this fiscal year on March 31 with a modest surplus — and all signs point to that happening.

Additional millions of dollars will be spent in the 1977-78 budget, but restraint will remain a byword and, again, a balanced budget is proposed.

Much time and effort was expended by this government during the year to plan and realign spending priorities to give full value for each tax dollar received and spent. Two examples come readily to mind. The new British Columbia Buildings Corporation will, for the first time, charge all government ministries rent for premises each occupies. Similarly, with the announcement of our intention to establish the British Columbia Systems Corporation, all government ministries will be billed for computer time. Neither measure will provide additional tax dollars, but each will save some in focusing attention on public spending in the area of rents and computer use.

Mr. Speaker, while we will continue to hold government spending within income, no doubt some theorists will continue to press for deficit financing in government, as they have in the past. This government does not subscribe to deficit financing to underwrite its current operations. We are at present paying interest on sizeable borrowings required to compensate for ambitious spending programmes of the past, and further deficit financing would only add more debt cost to the expense of government. I suggest we cannot borrow our way to prosperity.

The United States firm of Morgan Guaranty Trust reports that Canada was the largest borrower in international markets in 1976. Canada now has a greater external debt in relation to its gross national product than Britain — and you know of the economic problems now facing Britain. What is disturbing is the suggestion that an increasing portion of the borrowing is to refinance maturing external debt. This extension of debt increases the amount paid to lenders outside this country.

Over a 20-year repayment period at 10 per cent interest payable semi-annually, the amount repaid is 2.3 times the original borrowing, and over a 40-year repayment period it is almost five times. It is obvious from this that borrowings, and particularly foreign borrowings, by government for current operations, by business or individuals have a high cash drain on the resources of the country. We believe a high level of Canadian dependence upon foreign capital is dangerous for future generations.

The slow recovery of the economies of our trading partners has continued to be a major factor in the economic performance of this province during the past year, far more so than the tough budgetary measures needed to recoup our position and raise the money used to pay government bills: for income support programmes, payments to hospitals and doctors caring for British Columbia residents, the support of local education and municipal governments, and for many other programmes. The dollars spent for those services, of course, had their own impact on the economy of the province.

We all know that British Columbia is dependent on world markets for both the sale of a major part of its production and as a source of much of its consumables. Under these circumstances the demand of other countries for our products, and our ability to supply those products at competitive prices, determines in great measure the strength of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that it is apparent from figures I will soon quote that the province has lost ground in the fight to stay competitive. When this happens, industrial capacity is under-utilized, product costs rise, and unemployment increases.

What this province's economy needs is stimulation so it can generate additional revenues to pay for the services which government provides. We can create this stimulus by bringing our costs into alignment with those of our competitors, or we can pause for them to catch up with us. We won't stimulate the economy by borrowing money to provide services today for which future generations will have to pay.

Mr. Speaker, the days when governments of this province can increase spending by 25 per cent or more each year are over. Governments, like people, have to restrain spending and demands to bring down the inflation rate to manageable levels. For this government, the increase in spending in its first budget was 12.2 per cent over the previous year's budget, and the budget I present today proposes an increase of 5.9 per cent in expenditures for the coming year.

Ten months ago I described this government's first budget as a "recovery budget." That budget was intended to bring government spending under control

[ Page 257 ]

and to encourage confidence and activity within the provincial economy. We are managing the money better, as our financial results show. But, as your Finance minister, I am concerned at the lack of capital investment in this province which, in turn, would stimulate employment. The government is developing job programmes where it can, but the real stimulus to employment must come from the private sector.

We must move now to encourage capital to remain where it is in British Columbia, or to come to British Columbia. This budget is aimed, then, at continuing to manage tax dollars properly while further encouraging capital to stay as well as invest in the province and, in the process, provide employment for our people and additional revenue for our programme.

There is a growing debate on Canada's record on productivity and unit labour costs compared with the United States and other countries. The results are clear enough. Between 1970 and 1975 Canada's share of world exports dropped by one-third to 3.8 per cent in 1975 from 5.4 per cent in 1970. In the same period imports, as a percentage of spending on goods in Canada, rose to 32.9 per cent from 26.1 percent. The Vancouver housewife shopping in Bellingham for groceries is a symptom of a declining preference for Canadian products by foreigners and Canadians alike.

Being competitive means being able to maintain or expand your market share. By this definition Canada has not been meeting the market test. For British Columbians this trend has more immediate consequences than for Canadians as a whole. Approximately 55 per cent of the annual provincial commodity output is marketed in other countries and possibly an equal proportion of provincial income originates from commodity sales and related activities in external markets.

Within the forest industry the need to halt the cost escalation and let our competitors catch up with us is well documented by the Pearse royal commission report and other commentaries. Between 1961 and 1972 Canada's share of world exports in forest products dropped from 22.6 per cent to 19.3 per cent. At present, American imports are claiming 23 per cent of the Canadian market for soft-wood plywood. As late at 1971 the percentage was 1 per cent.

We cannot go on in this manner and hope to maintain our standard of living. The dilemma of continuing inflation, industrial sluggishness and high unemployment can be resolved by coping with our declining competitiveness. Wages and profits should relate to productivity and not to union bargaining strength or monopoly power, If we become strongly competitive, our industries will produce to capacity, investment will occur and unemployment will be reduced. It is the only effective long-term solution to inflation, unemployment and underproduction.

The performance of the economy this year depends heavily on the successful settlement of collective agreements in many provincial industries. This is bargaining year in British Columbia. Agreements covering approximately 65 per cent of the province's organized work force expire in 1977.

New agreements must be negotiated in the wood products sector for about 58,000 employees; in the construction industry for another 45,000; in the public service of British Columbia for about 37,000 people; in transportation, including the British Columbia Railway, for 22,000 workers; in health services for another 21,000; and in the food and beverage industry for about 16,000. Other areas of activity are also involved. If the contract issues in these industries are resolved without further work stoppage this will influence favourably our total economic performance, job creation and employment.

This government cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of continuing restraint. Restraint must be practised by everyone so that the wage increases won by our citizens are below nationally established guidelines. That is the only way we can combat inflation and become productive.

Restraint and increased productivity depend on a shared effort by management, labour, capital and government. Management cannot expect to shift costs of doing business onto government. Various tax and subsidy schemes of government over the years have not yielded the desired results. Business must improve its cost control and resource management and practise reasonable pricing if it is to recover its competitive position in export markets.

Labour must recognize that times have changed. Previously held conceptions of what the system could provide in material benefits have proven to be misconceptions. Working people, just like everyone else, must assume individual responsibility to help solve the economic problems that confront the province. They must come to expect less, demand less, and produce more. We must compete with people who are working hard in other countries or inflation, social unrest and unemployment will continue.

Capital must play its part and receive a fair return. Unfortunately, in some areas capital has demanded more than other sectors of our society for the last several years and the high interest rates that have existed have done more than anything else to injure our economic performance. It is scandalous that our people cannot borrow money at interest rates they can afford in order to shelter themselves properly. There is a limit to what our citizens can pay for money, and our financial institutions must show some responsibility to the provincial and national effort by delivering capital at reasonable cost. This

[ Page 258 ]

government has sought to have a say in appointments to the board of governors of the Bank of Canada. We do so with good reason. The preamble to the Bank of Canada Act states that the central bank is established to regulate credit and currency "in the best interests of the economic life of the nation." This government believes the policies of the bank at the present time encourage high money costs and are detrimental to Canada, and particularly to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, professionals also have a role to play in this battle against inflation. Professionals are generally a hard-working group and are entitled, like everyone else, to higher incomes on the basis of productivity increases. This government must say now, however, that it will not tolerate unjustified increases in professional fee income.

The role of government is to keep down the cost of the public service so big government does not result and intrude into people's lives. No hand at the table can expect to grasp more than its share, and this applies as much to government as to any of the productive sectors of the economy.

The British Columbia government joined the national government's anti-inflation programme in 1976 and proposes to remain in that programme. A cabinet committee, of which I am chairman, is carefully monitoring all developments in the continuing battle against inflation. We consider that, while the rate of inflation has been reduced, it is still too high. Inflation has to be brought back to a manageable level so it will not destroy our productive effort.

This government challenges every citizen to practise restraint on a voluntary basis until this crisis is over. Short-term personal interest will not be allowed to come ahead of the good of the province.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that in a free society we cannot have controls forever. These controls are temporary, but necessary. They could easily become permanent, however, if we do not restrain our demands. We should all make restraint a habit so when controls are lifted we will know that moderation by all individuals and groups will keep our economy sound in the long run.

Now turning to the British Columbia economy for 1976: British Columbia's economic performance in 1976 shows a marked improvement over 1975, with prospects for continued improvement in 1977. Inflation has moderated and external demand for the province's major exports has strengthened. The real growth in gross provincial product in 1976 was 5.1 per cent and this should, be exceeded in 1977. However labour-management disputes continued to retard economic progress.

The consumer price index for Vancouver advanced 9.7 per cent in 1976, down from an 11.1 per cent increase in 1975. Much of the improvement in price performance was related to a slower rate of food price increases. However, productivity improvements must be realized in non-food areas or it will be difficult to reach the Anti-Inflation Board target of 6 per cent inflation in 1977.

Private and public investment in the province rose an estimated 10.8 per cent in 1976, to $6.4 billion. The most significant gain occurred in housing, where construction activity was maintained at a high level. Building permit values in 1976 were 10 per cent higher than in 1975, while housing starts were up 15 per cent.

British Columbia manufacturing shipments climbed from $7.2 billion in 1975 to $8.6 billion, mainly because of increased shipments of forest products. The value of wood products shipped increased to $2.3 billion from $1.6 billion, while pulp and paper industry shipments were worth $1.7 billion, compared with $1.4 billion in 1975. Improved economic conditions in export markets, particularly the United States, accounted for these gains.

The estimated value of mineral production in 1976 reached $1.49 billion — $122.1 million higher than in 1975. Copper was our most important mineral, accounting for 60 per cent of the value of all metals produced in British Columbia. Copper's average price advanced 13 per cent while volume rose 6 per cent. Silver, gold, zinc and iron concentrates declined in price. However, in the case of silver, increased volume resulted in a higher value of production. Lead and molybdenum showed price and volume increases in 1976.

Coal and natural gas production declined in 1976 due, in the case of coal, to strikes. Crude oil production increased marginally. Exploration activity in 1976 increased in response to improved metal demand, a new income-based tax which replaced royalties and higher prices to natural gas producers. As evidence of this, the footage drilled for oil and gas wells in 1976 increased 120 per cent over 1975. Mr. Speaker, the number of wells completed increased over 230 per cent, and mineral exploration nearly tripled.

British Columbia's fishing industry experienced more buoyant conditions in 1976, with the wholesale value of products rising to $250 million from $167 million in 1975. Improved salmon catches, higher prices and strong market demand were factors in this advance.

The tourist and travel industry in 1976 experienced a slowdown with only a 3 per cent advance in estimated dollar value of expenditure. Poor weather, competition from the Olympics and the Bicentennial celebrations in the United States, plus higher prices in Canada, combined to retard growth in this sector. However — and please note this, Mr. Speaker — the 15 per cent increase in the province's revenue in 1976 from the hotel and motel

[ Page 259 ]

room tax is in excess of the inflation rate.

The 1976 recovery was not sufficient to absorb fully the growth in the provincial labour force, and the unemployment rate changed marginally from the 1975 level of 8.5 per cent in 1976. The labour force in 1976 grew by 32,000 to 1,135,000, while employment increased 29,000 to 1,038,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the 1976 budget was presented in the Legislature last March, expenditures of $3.615 billion were forecast for the 1976-77 year. The budget was forecast to be in balance with revenues, after including amounts available in certain recaptured special-purpose funds.

Present indications are that our first budget will achieve a break-even result, or perhaps show a small surplus. Mr. Speaker, both revenues and expenditures are now forecast to be about 1 per cent less than originally estimated.

The government's objective of controlling expenditures and eliminating unnecessary spending has been responded to in encouraging fashion by the ministries. The operation of the British Columbia ferries within the provincial service for a longer period this fiscal year than earlier anticipated, and additional requirements for the Farm Income Assurance Programme increased budgetary expenditures, but cost savings in a number of other ministries affect these increases.

Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the 1976-77 budget, I expressed our commitment to a policy of balanced budgets. We expect the outcome of the first budget of this administration to show that to date we have fulfilled that commitment, despite a difficult year for the province.

Economic prospects for British Columbia favour a modest increase in the pace of economic recovery during 1977. Gross provincial product is expected to increase 5 to 6 per cent in real terms. The comparative real gain for Canada's gross national product in 1977 is estimated to be 4 to 5 per cent.

Improving economic conditions in the United States, Japan and most of western Europe are expected to foster increased exports of British Columbia resource products. Price rises in Middle East crude oil recently announced by the OPEC countries are not expected to have a serious impact in 1977, although world balance-of-payment problems and inflationary pressures will increase.

Our forest products industry should show continued improvement, particularly in lumber exports to the United States, where housing starts are expected to rise from a level of 1.5 million units in 1976 to 1.6 million to 1.8 million in 1977. Although the pulp and paper market is expected to remain soft during the first half of 1977 because of excessive world inventories, improvement is expected in the second half of the year.

Construction will make real gains in 1977 with increased business investment and the continued high level of housing construction.

Recent reports indicate the tourist and travel industry expects 1977 to be a better year than 1976.

Increased Japanese demand for British Columbia mineral production, particularly copper and coal, is forecast. Coal should have volume and value increases of more than 20 per cent in 1977. The value of petroleum products is likely to increase because of anticipated increases in prices.

Other sectors with favourable prospects include retail trade and fishing. However, all of these predictions depend, as I said earlier, on the productive effort of all of our people.

Now I'd like to turn to some comments on the importance of the negotiations that have recently transpired to federal-provincial relations. Several important meetings were held this past year between the provinces and between the federal and provincial governments on financial relations with the federal government. As I indicated in my budget address 10 months ago, these discussions covered the financial arrangements to replace those expiring March 31, 1977, affecting such important issues as income tax sharing, the guarantee of provincial income taxes from the effect of federal income tax changes, the continued financing of post-secondary education and the national equalization programme, as well as alternative financing arrangements for hospital and medical care. These discussions culminated in mid-December at a meeting of the Prime Minister of Canada and provincial Premiers.

British Columbia argued throughout these discussions that the federal government should compensate the provinces fully for the effects federal income tax budgetary measures have had upon provincial income tax yields since 1971. Only at the conclusion of the First Ministers' meeting did British Columbia yield on this point, and then only to safeguard the national income tax collection system.

A unique achievement was realized by the provinces through these discussions. At a meeting of provincial Premiers in August, 1976, in Edmonton, following a June meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada at which the original federal position on the new arrangements was presented, a decision was made to explore the possibility of developing a provincial consensus on the appropriate arrangements. This was achieved and is represented in a brief presented by the hon. Merv Leitch, Provincial Treasurer of Alberta, on behalf of all provincial Ministers of Finance and Treasurers, to the federal Minister of Finance at their meeting on December 6 and 7, 1976. This brief is included as an appendix to my printed budget speech.

In taking this approach, the provinces saw a means of developing a rational solution to a thorny issue, given the diverse concerns the individual 10 provinces have over the matters affected by the federal

[ Page 260 ]

proposals. Through this process, many of the provincial differences on individual issues were modified, thus assisting in an earlier and better agreement than might otherwise have been possible.

I should stress that the provincial consensus was not arrived at without accommodations being made by each of the provincial governments. But in the process, this resulted in the best proposal in the national interest, in view of the national significance of these government services.

The discussions encompassed the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act that expires March 31, 1977, and that provides for provincial revenue equalization, stabilization and tax revenue guarantee payments, tax collection agreement, and post-secondary education adjustment payments. Also included in the discussions were the federal shared-cost paymbnt provisions under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and Medical Care Act. While interested in all aspects of the discussions, British Columbia's principal concern was over the financing changes for hospital and medical care and post-secondary education, replacement of the revenue guarantee provision, and the revenue equalization payments.

When the three shared-cost programmes now considered to be established — hospital care, medical care and post-secondary education — were introduced by the federal government, a 50-50 sharing principle was embodied in the federal legislation. Post-secondary education was shared equally on the basis of actual expenditures of a province; hospital-care sharing was a composite of actual expenditures of a province and the average of all provinces' expenditures; and medical-care sharing was based on the average cost of all provinces' expenditures.

However, in 1972 in the case of the post-secondary education cost-sharing programme and in 1976 for the medicare programme, the federal government unilaterally imposed limits upon the annual increase in its total contributions to these programmes, which cut their share of programme costs and increased the provinces' share. Provisions in the agreements entered into between the provinces and the federal government on hospital cost-sharing prevented capping of the federal contribution to this programme. But the federal Minister of Health and Welfare gave notice on July 15, 1975, of the federal government's intention to terminate the agreements on July 15, 1980.

The federal government's action in limiting its share of these very important social programmes abrogates the government's initial 50-50 commitment to these programmes. This federal financial commitment encouraged provincial participation in the arrangements for the sharing of costs of these major provincial programmes. For some provinces, it meant new programmes; but for all, it resulted in an expansion of services — in a number of cases beyond requirements.

The increasing cost of these major programmes is of concern to all provincial governments. However, the solution to the problem hardly lies in the federal government turning away from an equitable sharing of the increased costs which it encouraged.

And now, Mr. Speaker, the following "package" agreement was reached to replace the existing federal contribution towards the financing of these shared-cost programmes:

(1) On the basis of 1975-76 shared expenditures, the initial federal contribution will be approximately one-half in cash and the other half in additional taxing authority for the province.

(2) This additional taxing authority will amount to 12½ points of personal income tax and one point of corporate income tax, and includes the present income tax abatement for post-secondary education of 4.357 points of personal income tax and one point of corporate income tax, which is no gain for the province.

(3) Since one tax point raises unequal dollar amounts in each province, the taxing authority is equalized on the basis of the national-average-per-capita yield.

(4) Federal cash payments are to be escalated by a three-year moving average of the gross national expenditure.

(5) The federal contribution to each province will be brought up to the national-average-per-capita level over three years or down to the national average per capita over five years.

(6) Transition payments will be made to safeguard provinces against a cash loss during the changeover period.

(7) Termination of the hospital cost-sharing agreement will be effective April 1, 1977, which was a condition of the federal offer.

The federal government made a commitment to participate in financing lower-cost alternative health care facilities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, throughout the period of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, the provincial share of income taxes has been expressed as a factor of the federal income tax payable. The federal government carefully protected the provinces' income tax yield from the impact of any changes in federal income tax laws.

In 1972, with the introduction of tax reform, British Columbia, along with other provinces, pressed the federal government on the inadequacy of the new standard personal income tax rate given the provinces of 30.5 points of the federal basic tax, which raises as much revenue for them as their 28 points would under the pre-tax reform law.

To satisfy the provinces' concern, the revenue

[ Page 261 ]

guarantee was included in the 1972 federal legislation with the understanding that, after a period during which the revenue performance of the new income tax law could be compared with that of the old income tax law, an adjustment in the respective tax rates could be made, if necessary. The inadequacy of the revenue yield of the 1972 tax law at 30.5 points of personal income tax is indicated by the growing amounts of revenue guarantee being received by British Columbia — from $2.3 million for the 1972 taxation year to an estimated $87.9 million for 1976, or a total, over the five-year period, of $223.5 million. Over the same period, the total of the corporation income tax revenue guarantee is an estimated $30.6 million.

The major portion of this revenue guarantee results from federal tax law changes subsequent to '72, except for indexation of the personal income tax, which is not protected by the revenue guarantee. This is the first time in the history of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements that federal tax changes have affected the provincial tax base and thereby the revenue yield.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any merit for a unified income tax collection system between the federal and provincial governments, the importance of this revenue source, which is over 36 per cent of total revenues for British Columbia, as a means of financing provincial government services, demands the provincial tax base be held safe from any federal budgetary action. Any further erosion of this revenue source may jeopardize the continuation of our collection agreement with Canada.

In the provincial consensus the provinces sought an additional four points of personal income tax to restore the productivity of that field for the provinces. The offer from the federal government finally accepted by the provinces was for one point of personal income tax and the equivalent of one additional tax point as cash, escalated annually as under the established programme's arrangements. While our revenue yield suffers in comparison with the current arrangements, the settlement is higher than the original federal offer which was for no compensation beyond the current arrangements.

Upon my return from the December meeting of Ministers of Finance, I reported that had the federal government continued the revenue guarantee after 1976 as we expected them to, British Columbia would have had an estimated $68 million more in its fiscal year 1977-78 revenue budget for provincial spending programmes.

While British Columbia does not receive any payment under the revenue equalization provision of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, we are concerned about its concepts.

The present formula compensates provinces for a revenue capacity deficiency related to a national average level of utilization of revenue sources. British Columbia has contended for over 10 years now that the general equalization formula should recognize the fact that the level of provincial taxation can be a factor of the cost of providing provincial government services. Our rapidly growing population in the post-war period, rugged terrain, high consumer and labour costs, and distance from central Canada are a few of the factors which affect the costs of providing government services in British Columbia relative to other regions of Canada.

But more importantly, we believe the revenue equalization programme of the federal government has not achieved the objective of reducing the income disparity between regions. The criticism we have of the revenue equalization programme is that the payments flow as unconditional payments to governments. There are no strings attached that require the revenue be spent on raising the incomes of people in those regions.

This system has spawned a multiplicity of programmes and created a number of undesirable effects:

(1) Administrative costs have become extremely high in comparison with benefits paid. During 1974, the last year for which results are available, all levels of government in Canada spent a total of $23.3 billion on some of the most obvious income distribution schemes, such as federal old-age security, guaranteed income supplement, family allowance, unemployment insurance, Canada Pension programmes and the comprehensive provincial GAIN programme. This is equal to the total output of the three prairie provinces combined, or one and a half times the production of the entire British Columbia economy. However, the disturbing thing is thatoout of every $100 paid out in benefits, another $25 must be paid out in administration.

(2) The multitude of programmes has made it impossible for governments to tell people what money is being redistributed and in what amounts. For example, the Unemployment Insurance Commission was originally set up to help people who became unemployed. However, unemployment insurance has become a mechanism for income redistribution.

(3) Various income redistribution schemes are not effective in meeting the income redistribution objective. A number of recent studies have shown that the extremely costly redistribution programmes are not achieving equality among income groups.

(4) Existing income redistribution measures are largely self-defeating because they remove the incentive for recipients to climb above the welfare system.

This government believes that existing welfare schemes of all government must be integrated into one guaranteed-income plan that will place the tax money of the country devoted to income support

[ Page 262 ]

schemes in the hands of the people who need it and not in the hands of a growing bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, a guaranteed-income plan is essentially a system which government employs to ensure that the income of any defined family unit does not fall below a certain minimum.

The most generally regarded type of guaranteed annual income is the so-called "negative income tax." This is simply a government subsidy administered through the tax system to all families and individuals whose incomes are below the minimum level.

A negative income tax would make the income redistribution system more efficient. It would provide people with adequate income to live decently, because we all know that under the hodge-podge of existing programmes some individuals do very well while others do poorly. It would reduce administrative costs since existing schemes would be eliminated or drastically reduced. Benefits would be accounted for clearly so Canadians could see exactly where their tax dollars go. High-income Canadians who now receive such things as family allowances would not receive welfare payments any longer, so a negative income tax would be more effective at redistributing income.

A guaranteed annual-income plan would be compatible with this government's commitment to a strong federal system and strong regional governments. Replacement of existing programmes with something like the negative income tax would put our collective tax dollars into the regions where the people need them

Now, Mr. Speaker, to our expenditure proposals for the coming year. In preparing the 1977-78 fiscal year budget care has been taken to ensure the government's limited financial resources will be used to maximum benefit. All ministries have reviewed their priorities and programmes. The reorganization of government programmes, the creation of the office of the auditor-general and the expansion of Treasury Board staff all reflect this government's concern that every budget dollar is effectively used.

Mr. Speaker, the budget I am introducing today on behalf of the government calls for total expenditures of $3.83 billion in the fiscal year 1977-78. This is only a 5.9 per cent increase over the current year's budget. I might say that I am told that this is the lowest level of increase over a previous year since the year 1962-63.

Within this limited increase we have redirected expenditures to allow for substantial increases in health care, education and employment programmes. In my budget speech I present the table of expenditures for each department, comparative budget estimate for last year and the net budget for the upcoming year.

As I said earlier, ministries for the first time are being charged rent for the government building space they occupy and for the operation and maintenance costs associated with that space. The charge for publicly owned space will be comparable to the charge for privately owned space. Similarly, government use of computer services is being established on a more businesslike basis with each ministry being charged according to use. Thus, for the first time, ministry estimates will reflect the total cost of delivering a programme. These steps will improve cost control and use of resources.

Expenditures for the ministries in 1977-1978 are increased a total of $33 million for the rental charge upon government-owned buildings. This appears for the first time in next year's budget.

From the estimates of expenditure which will be tabled in the House this afternoon, members will note the ministries are presented to reflect the reorganized structures introduced by the government last fall, including the change in designation of departments to ministries. Also, ministries have been grouped in three categories: general government, resource-related and services to people.

There is again this year a deduction from the amount voted for each ministry entitled "staff reduction salary savings." The total saving, which results from constraints on the hiring level of the permanently-established public service, amounts to $36 million.

The appropriation for the operation of the Legislative Assembly, which covers the salaries and expenses of members, officers and staff, increases by $300,000 to $3.6 million. Appropriations for the offices of the opposition are increased $28,672, or by 12.3 per cent, next year.

A budget of $119 million is submitted to cover the Ministry of Finance expenditures in 1977-1978. This appropriation includes sums for interest costs on the provincial debt, payment of natural gas producers federal income tax on deemed income, and salary contingencies and management benefits for public service employees. For the first time, funds are provided for Treasury Board staff, including staff transferred from the Public Service Commission and forming the Government Employee Relations Bureau.

The comptroller-general has certified the 1975-1976 deficit under the British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 is $261,447,790.

Expenditures under the executive council are estimated at $714,000 in 1977-1978, which is up $77,000 over this year.

The appropriation for the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry is raised $10.7 million to $107.7 million, an increase of 11 per cent over 1976-1977.

Postal branch expenditures will rise $1 million to $4.5 million because of general increases in postal rates announced by the federal government. For first-class mail, the increase will total 50 per cent

[ Page 263 ]

between September, 1976 and March, 1977, and approximately 20 per cent for many other classes of mail. An amount of $100,000 is provided in the grants and special services and events vote for Captain Cook's bicentennial celebrations. The provincial and resource museums' vote is increased to $3.7 million to maintain existing programmes. The travel industry branch will require $6 million in the coming year to promote tourism in the province.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you just bring down the ferry fares?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Government employee benefits require additional money next year: $1.8 million more for a total of $13.2 million for unemployment insurance and workers' compensation charges; and $4.9 million more, to a total of $58.4 million, for pensions and retirement benefits.

The Ministry of the Attorney-General spending estimates for 1977-1978 total $147.1 million compared with $117.6 million in 1976-1977, an increase of $29.5 million.

RCMP costs are up $2.6 million under the contract with the federal government. The steady increase in offences and complexity of cases has resulted in an increase of $7.2 million in the costs of courts, Crown counsel and corrections.

A number of the regulatory activities long associated with the Attorney-General ministry have been transferred to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

The budget for the Ministry of Economic Development is increased 18.5 per cent to $7.1 million for 1977-1978 from $6 million in the previous year. Major emphasis from the increase will be expansion of export development activities to further stimulate the creation of new jobs and export sales income, the strengthening of the statistical data compilation capacity, and establishment of a tariff analysis unit to make recommendations on British Columbia's position for tariff reform. In addition, the ministry will continue to co-ordinate large-scale resource development in the province with a view to diversifying economic activity on both a sectoral and regional basis. A primary example of this is the planning and co-ordination involved in the development of British Columbia's northeast coal resources.

The appropriation of $45.5 million for the Ministry of Environment in 1977-1978 allows the continuation of the many programmes designed to ensure the preservation of our precious environment.

The budget for the Ministry of Agriculture of $64.6 million in 1977-1978, a one-year increase of 9.8 per cent, shows the determination of the government to maintain a viable food and agriculture industry in this province. Expanded resource activity will be encouraged, with emphasis on the development and demonstration of range reseeding equipment. Priority will be given to increased development of biological controls for certain serious insect pests. Variety improvement work with fruits and vegetables will assist in adapting production to market demand. Continued support for promotion of British Columbia food products is also indicated. The ministry will participate with the federal government in a major farm development programme for British Columbia Indian farmers.

The total appropriation for the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications is reduced 37 per cent to $64.3 million next year. Of the $37.4 million decrease, $29.2 million results from the establishment of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, effective from January 1, 1977. The province transferred ships and terminals to a value of $260 million to the corporation for a nominal sum and will own all its shares. The budget includes $25 million for the payment of the annual highway-equivalent subsidy to the Ferry Corporation. Apart from the provincial government subsidy, the corporation is expected to meet operating costs and capital costs of maintenance of the fleet and terminals from ferry revenues derived from the user of the ferries. Responsibility for the automobile insurance refund programme has been transferred to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

The Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources is allocated $8.6 million next year. Increased support is given to the prospectors' assistance programme, and control of coal mine development and operations is to be strengthened.

Expenditures of the Ministry of Forests are increased to $104 million in 1977-1978 and include $2 million more to control serious major outbreaks of insects and $700,000 more for an intensified range-management programme. The British Columbia Research Board has now been established as a co-ordinating agency within the ministry's research programme to service the four agencies practising forest research in the province — the federal and provincial governments, forest industry and universities. Greater emphasis is being placed on construction and upgrading of existing primary forest access roads for the present and future management of Crown forests and other resources and for public access.

The appropriation for the Ministry of Highways and Public Works for 1977-1978 is $336 million, up $61.5 million from $274.5 million in 1976-1977. A greatly expanded construction programme to upgrade and extend the province's highway system is planned as part of the government's overall job creation effort. The appropriation for highway construction, therefore, is increased by over $70 million to $179.9 million.

[ Page 264 ]

Education continues to be a high priority of this government. The budget for the Ministry of Education for 1977-1978 is $947.7 million, which is up 10.9 per cent, from $854.3 million in 1976-1977.

As in previous years, the largest single expense in the ministry's budget will be for the public schools system in the amount of $563.7 million. There is provision in this budget for $191.9 million for the universities, up from $172 million in 1976-77. Funding of community colleges is increased to $118.6 million, from $107 million in 1976-77.

The largest single expenditure in next year's budget is for health care under the Ministry of Health. The province's comprehensive health-care programme requires an estimated $981.2 million, an increase of $100.7 million or 11.4 per cent over 1976-77. This budget amount represents more than one-quarter of the total 1977-78 budget. Of the increase, $62.4 million relates to the increased cost of hospital programmes, and $14.8 million to increased costs under the Medical Services Plan. The emergency health services appropriation is increased $3.1 million, to allow for the improvement in the air ambulance service, increased production of ambulances and expansion of the ambulance crew training programme.

Expenditures for the Ministry of Human Resources in 1977-78 are estimated at $569.8 million. Services for senior citizens and handicapped persons will cost $167 million, of which $108.9 million represents the GAIN programme for seniors and handicapped persons. The adult-care programme, that provides care in boarding and rest homes for the elderly in need, accounts for another $41.7 million.

A total of $194 million is allocated to the income assistance programme. This programme provides income maintenance, special needs, educational upgrading, vocational training, and work incentives to persons in need. The full-year cost of benefits extended this fiscal year to qualifying persons, in the 55-to-59 age group and to single-parent families, is $34 million and $17 million more is provided for this in next year's budget.

Family and children's service expenditures are estimated at $60.3 million in 1977-78. The Pharmacare programme will now provide assistance in the purchase of prescription drugs for everyone in British Columbia, and $26 million is provided next year. Special programmes for the retarded will cost an estimated $39.4 million in 1977-78.

Mr. Speaker, expenditures under the Ministry of Human Resources for 1977-78 are one of the three largest allocations in the budget.

Total expenditure for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for 1977-78 is $223 million. Financial assistance to local governments and regional districts has been provided to the extent of $140.7 million for next year, an 11.7 per cent increase.

Assistance to enable as many residents of the province to own their own homes, and also to ensure an adequate supply of affordable rental accommodation for all types of families, remains a commitment of this government. A total of $71.8 million is budgeted for these purposes in 1977-78.

The provincial homeowner grant programme is being expanded this year for homeowners 65 years and over. Legislation will be introduced, Mr. Speaker, increasing the maximum property tax grant for this group by $50 to $430. The additional money for this increase is also included in the budget for the Ministry of Education.

The estimates of expenditure for the Ministry of Labour for 1977-78 total $35.5 million, an increase of 80.3 per cent over 1976-77. This substantial increase reflects the ministry's responsibility for development and administration of job-skills training and employment-opportunities programmes for the government. The budget incorporates $15 million for job-creation programmes, particularly youth seasonal employment activities.

Estimates for 1977-78 are intended to allow the ministry to increase activity in the apprenticeship-training programme areas and develop new initiatives for training in industry. Mr. Speaker, in the apprenticeship-training programmes over 450,000 training days are provided in the ministry's estimates, as well as funds for training-on-the-job programmes.

The conduct of labour-management relations is a primary responsibility of this ministry, and the continued high level of funding for these programmes next year represents this government's commitment to assist and improve the collective bargaining process. The services provided in this area are extensive — including mediation, arbitration and the activities of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.

Of considerable importance to the government are the ministry's programmes and expenditures in the areas of employment standards, occupational environment and related inspectional activities and human rights. Funds are also provided to enable the ministry to continue with its functions of co-ordination of government programmes for British Columbia's native Indian population.

Establishment of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reflects a broader commitment of the government to the promotion of fair dealing in the marketplace and protection of the public as consumers, investors and borrowers.

In addition to the former Department of Consumer Service and the corporate, financial and regulatory divisions from the Department of the Attorney-General, the new ministry is responsible to the Legislature for the rentalsman's office and the Rent Review Commission, as well as for the control

[ Page 265 ]

and distribution of liquor in the province.

The 1977-78 budget for this ministry is $8.6 million, compared with $7.4 million in 1976-77, an increase of 16.9 per cent.

The Ministry of Recreation and Conservation has responsibility for the government's recreational activity programmes and for conserving our archaeological and historic sites. In the latter capacity the ministry will be working with communities to recognize the heritage development potential of British Columbia. Expenditures of $54.9 million in 1977-78, compared with $44.5 million in 1976-77, show an increase of $10.4 million or 23.4 per cent. An $8 million appropriation for community recreational facility development is the major part of this increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to the financing of our Crown corporations. Fund requirements of the provincial Crown corporations and agencies for capital projects and working capital advances are supplied from provincial trusteed accounts, the Canada Pension Fund and market borrowings.

In fiscal year 1976-77 to date, the province has provided $1.04 billion in investment funds to the Crown corporations. Of this amount, provincial trusteed funds have supplied $182 million, Canada Pension Fund $185 million, and market borrowings $675 million.

I include a table demonstrating a list of the Crown corporations, the extent to which they borrow under provincial trust funds, Canada Pension Fund and market borrowings. During the fiscal year to date, the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority obtained $675 million from two market borrowings. These two issues were made in the United States because of the availability of funds at significantly lower interest rates than could be obtained in Canada.

In July, 1976, $500 million in U.S. funds was raised through the private placement of 20-year sinking fund bonds with an interest coupon of 9-5/8 per cent. In December, 1976, a public issue of $175 million was also made in the United States. These sinking fund bonds have a 25-year term and an interest coupon of 8-5/8 per cent. Both were sold at par. The Authority also borrowed $50 million from provincial trusteed funds.

I have introduced legislation in the House to increase the borrowing power of the Authority from $3.5 billion to $4.15 billion. This increase is needed to allow the Authority to borrow funds up to this amount to meet its capital construction requirements.

In this fiscal year to date the British Columbia Railway Company has received $140 million in investment funds — $105 million from provincial trusteed funds and $35 million from the Canada Pension Fund. During the year the $25 million balance outstanding of Series R and RR parity development bonds was retired.

The British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority has provided $65.6 million during 1976-1977 to date to regional hospital districts for hospital construction. The British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority has made available $99.8 million for school construction to school districts in the same period. The newly established British Columbia Buildings Corporation borrowed $12 million in October, 1976, to finance its government building programme.

For the balance of the current fiscal year the requirements of the Crown corporations are estimated to be $64 million.

The Crown corporations are estimated to require $1.3 billion in investment funds in fiscal year 1977-1978. This amount includes $733 million for British Columbia Hydro, $203 million for British Columbia Railway, $108 million for hospital construction, and $120 million for school districts. Three Crown corporations which this administration formed will be borrowing for their capital requirements in 1977-1978: $80 million for British Columbia Buildings Corporation to meet the capital cost of government buildings; $15 million for British Columbia Ferry Corporation; and $30 million for British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for construction at the universities and British Columbia Institute of Technology. Urban transit capital requirements are estimated at $11 million.

Pension, trustee accounts, and sinking funds administered by the government and the Canada Pension Fund are estimated to yield approximately $700 million next year toward these requirements.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to the revenue measures for 1977-1978. As I indicated earlier, this government believes in financing the province's operating expenditures from ordinary revenue sources whenever possible. This philosophy places a fiscal responsibility upon the administration and ensures an early accountability of its actions. In periods of slower economic growth, as is being experienced around the world today, the growth in government revenues also slows. Under our financial philosophy this encourages government to make the most effective and efficient use of the revenue it does receive.

The expenditure programme I have just outlined for the next fiscal year requires an increase in revenues of $243 million over fiscal year 1976-1977 estimated ordinary revenues, or an increase of 6.8 per cent.

In my earlier discussion of federal-provincial relations, I mentioned the measures which will replace the existing Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act after March 3 1, 1977.

The principle of the new measures agreed to between the federal government and the provinces provides a reduction in the personal income-tax rates

[ Page 266 ]

levied by the federal government. This reduction will be matched by a corresponding increase in the provincial income-tax rate to help the provinces meet the cost of certain shared-cost programmes that will no longer be financed by transfers from the federal government.

These changes only affect the allocation of personal income-tax revenues between the federal and provincial governments. The individual taxpayer will find the increase in provincial tax is equal to the decrease in the federal tax. The adjustment required to the British Columbia personal income-tax rate to yield the revenue to be given up by Ottawa has not been finally established. The exact financial arrangements are expected to be worked out when federal-provincial Finance ministers meet in Ottawa in early February. As soon as the rate can be confirmed, this government will proceed with the necessary amendments to provincial income-tax legislation to be effective from January 1, 1977.

Although the margin available for reducing taxes, Mr. Speaker, is small, the government proposes to make the following tax changes:

(1) The Succession Duty Act will not apply to new estates after midnight tonight. This change is made to encourage the retention and accumulation of capital by residents of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it would be inconsistent for any government to encourage investment in the province by individuals and private entrepreneurs and, at the same time, maintain taxation policies which discriminate against private investment. It would be hypocritical to wring our hands over the extent to which outsiders are buying existing family businesses or farms, when the government's actions have forced people into a situation where they must sell those businesses to pay succession duties. It is far better to allow investments built up within the province over a lifetime to remain without confiscation than to have the government force the unnecessary disposal of those assets.

Through an equitable tax system applying to current income earned in the province, a reasonable contribution is obtained for the support of government services from private investments. It would be shortsighted to give up that permanent source of tax revenue for the sake of a temporary boost to government income. Further, we must foster economic growth if we are to provide work for those unemployed members of the labour force anxious to contribute to the province's productive output and for our young people as they enter the work force. A major part of the provincial budget is expended on the education of our young people and the only way we recapture some of that investment is by their gainful employment within the province.

It would be illogical to complain of the unemployment rate among young people, educated at considerable expense to the province, if we did not take actions designed to encourage investment to give them permanent employment here. It would be foolish to speak of encouraging residents to invest their capital and build up their assets in British Columbia while the government was continuing to levy a tax which would increase the probability that those assets would be sold to outsiders.

There are five other provinces in Canada where no succession duties are levied, including our neighbouring province of Alberta. If we are to attract people to reside and invest here, we must not place any unnecessary obstacles in their way. There are many alternatives open for those looking for investment opportunities. Recent statistics show an increase in the trend towards direct investment to other countries by Canadians. To reverse this trend we must provide an investment climate which is favourable to investment here.

Let me dispel the illusion that the revenues raised through succession duties, or in any other manner, can be used by government to create permanent jobs in a way which is as effective as private investment. This government recognizes that continued investment by private business is much preferred to investment by governments. Governments frequently demonstrate their greatest inefficiency in attempting to create jobs in areas previously considered to be the responsibility of the private sector. Termination of the succession duty will reduce our revenues by an estimated $13 million in 1977-78 because of the time-lag which occurs in collecting the duty. Revenue from the imposition of succession duties in a full year averages about $15 million.

Accordingly, I will recommend to the House that the Succession Duty Act be amended to effect this change.

(2) The Gift Tax Act will not apply to gifts made after midnight tonight. The main purpose of this Act was to prevent people from avoiding tax due under the Succession Duty Act. The yield from the tax in a full year is approximately $500,000. There will be a recommendation to the House that the Gift Tax be amended to effect this change,

(3) The social services tax regulations have been amended to reduce the amount of tax levied on a mobile home to be used for residential purposes. This change is effective at midnight tonight. The amendment will reduce the application of the tax to the value of materials used in the fabrication of a mobile home used for residential purposes, the same as for a conventional house. There will be a significant reduction in cost to purchasers of these homes, with the average saving estimated at over $500 per home. The consequent reduction in revenue to the province will be about $4 million in a full year.

(4) Regulations have been made changing the

[ Page 267 ]

taxation of propane used for residential heating purposes from the Social Services Tax Act to the Fuel Oil Tax Act, effective midnight tonight. Propane is used primarily in areas of the province where householders do not have access to conventional fuels such as natural gas. In heat equivalents propane is less efficient and is generally priced higher than other fuels. A change from an ad valorem to a volumetric base for the taxation of propane will establish a more equitable taxation relationship with fuel oil.

Changing the taxation of propane used for residential heating purposes to the Fuel Oil Tax Act will reduce the tax payable from 7 per cent on price to 0.5 cents per gallon. For the average residential propane user the annual amount of tax paid will drop from $40.32 to $6. A full-year revenue loss to the province is estimated to be $600,000.

(5) Lastly, an amendment will be recommended to the Corporation Capital Tax Act to allow mining exploration companies greater flexibility in writing off their exploration expenses and thus reducing their capital subject to tax. This change is to be effective January 1, 1977.

Mr. Speaker, I now include a table of revenues for the current year and the budget year — the next year coming up — including all provincial revenues.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it should be evident from this budget statement that we in British Columbia are still working our way out of the financial and economic difficulties that we inherited. An economic recovery would have been easy under the strong world economic conditions that marked the first part of this decade. Under today's conditions, the development we seek is going to take longer than anyone anticipated. However, we have taken the necessary steps to place this province and its people in a position to benefit from the economic up-turn as it develops. We have restored the affairs of this province to a sound financial footing and improved the management of the people's money.

This budget reflects further this government's determination to govern for the welfare of all groups in our society, those who are able to contribute and those who are unable — the elderly, the sick, the underprivileged, the handicapped and the unemployable; to follow policies that will encourage economic activity; and to spend tax money judiciously, and not in larger amounts than are received.

It is through such policies, this government believes, that we can move back to being a free, vigorous and productive society in which everyone can share the benefits.

Mr. Speaker, we urge all sectors of the British Columbia community to restrain their demands.

MR. BARRETT: The millionaires' budget.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This government is demonstrating its commitment to this objective by presenting a budget which calls for a restrained spending programme.

MR. BARRETT: A giveaway to the millionaires.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Such restraint is necessary if we are to regain our competitive trading position and strengthen investor confidence in doing business in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, a short-term easing of everyone's growing expectations could bring greater benefits over a longer term. The challenge is there for us all. The degree of the response will determine just how much wealth can be realized for the advantage of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Mr. Stupich moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

The House took recess at 4:46 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:53 p.m.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 8 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.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PAYMENT TO
CANADA OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX
ON BEHALF OF NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS
REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Repeal Act.

Bill 10 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,

GIFT TAX REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His

[ Page 268 ]

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Gift Tax Repeal Act.

Bill 11 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.

SUCCESSION DUTY REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Succession Duty Repeal Act.

Bill 12 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.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents the return submitted in accordance with section 85(4) of the Taxation Act, remissions and refunds made under the authority of section 85(1), (2) and (3) of the Taxation Act, RSBC, 1960, during the calendar year 1976.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:59 p.m.