[ Page 307 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Wallace — 307

Mr. Shelford — 315

Mr. Levi — 322

Mr. Schroeder — 328

TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the administration of the Transit Services Act and accompanying auditor's report with respect to T.S. Holdings Ltd. and subsidiary companies.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mayor George Thom of Kitimat and Art Currie, city manager of Kitimat.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Some of my friends suggested earlier on that after all the rhetoric...

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Name names! (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: ...that we've heard on the budget already — and I'm sure this proposition will get the unanimous consent of the House — I should simply stand up, say, "Amen," and sit down again. Please don't ask for leave, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) But of course, with all due respect to Rosemary, one should really say, "A-people." (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: A vicious attack. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: I wish she were here. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: She'll be back!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it's with some reluctance and regret that I have to try and give this budget a title. I have to say that it's ultra-conservative.

MR. G, F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It's ultra-vires.

MR. WALLACE: It's so ultra-conservative that it's almost ultra-vires, as my Liberal leader friend tells me. I would just initially wish to take an overview of the budget rather than go into some of the specific details at this time.

I believe that the budget does an excellent job of recognizing the problems that face British Columbia, but it does a less than adequate job of providing the kind of proposals and suggestions which are likely to deal in an effective way with these immediate problems. The budget, I would suggest, is one of omission rather than commission, because it seems as though the whole House is agreed that the No. 1 problem is a sluggish economy, which results in a continuing increase in unemployment. The number is now around 92,000. My regret is that many people in this province voted in good faith at the last election in December, 1975, because they really did feel that this party, the Social Credit Party, could provide many of the answers to our economic problems, and that their sense of priorities would demonstrate a degree of insight and awareness which many people felt was lacking in the government of that time.

I would agree that, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, in the budget, the predisposing causes to our problem are lack of investment capital, high costs of production, high interest rates, underused capacity in industry, and a great deal of concern about the labour-management picture in British Columbia. So I get the overall impression that while the budget recognizes that these are very serious reasons why we have a sluggish economy, it really provides very little, if anything, in the way of incentives or programmes to tackle these serious problems. It therefore seems to me to be almost a stand-still budget in the sense that the minister seems to hope that things just won't get any worse, but does not take any initiative to try and help the situation.

I should be fair and say that there is only one specific proposal which does indeed appear to take some initiative. I'd like to say a few words about the proposal to remove succession duties. It is very clear from the minister's statement that the one reason, if not the only reason, for removing succession duties is the understanding, or the hope, that this will result, first of all, in capital remaining in British Columbia which might leave, and perhaps capital coming into British Columbia which would otherwise stay somewhere else, were it not for succession duties.

I've listened carefully to the arguments today and I've done a great deal of reading since the budget speech was delivered in this House on the subject. I just have to say, quite honestly, that I'm not convinced at this point that the abolition of succession duties legislation will have the degree of impact suggested by the minister. I say that because there are many other reasons why business and industry are concerned about the future of British Columbia, points I have already mentioned — the frequent work stoppages, the high taxes in British Columbia, the high interest rates and the high costs of production.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the budget really is such that the government fails to recognize its own competitive position in the company of other jurisdictions —

[ Page 308 ]

provincial, federal, international. For the government to attract capital it has to create a climate — and it certainly has the power to create that climate — in which it becomes more attractive for industry to either locate in British Columbia or to expand existing plants in British Columbia. I don't think we should forget that many of these enterprises have a wide variety of choices as to where they can invest their money and where they can expand their business activity.

The kind of factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet in this debate is the amount of bureaucracy and red tape that the private sector can encounter when dealing with government. There are the various levels of taxation — and we know that the mining industry, I think, makes a legitimate point in stating that its potential level of taxation is considerably in excess of that applied to manufacturing industries in eastern Canada — and we must at least attempt to create a climate where taxation is no more onerous in British Columbia than it is in any other province. We must try to improve management-labour relations.

The other big factor that I think hangs over this province is the fear of many people in the business sector of British Columbia that the goalpost can always be moved quite abruptly, making it a whole new ballgame as far as the conditions under which business operates are concerned. I mentioned this in the throne speech and I am not suggesting that I have any answer to the business community or that their fears are not valid: namely, that two or three years from now there could be a return of the NDP government.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I thought that was rather a weak support I got for what was a good line. (Laughter.) I'll need to shout a little harder, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems I have in this House is that I try to do my homework and I so often come up with a rather in-the-middle conclusion that I can neither bitterly castigate the government nor, on the other hand, suggest that the opposition is a much better alternative.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): That's what you call a middle-of-the-road party.

MR. WALLACE: On this matter of succession duties: exactly the problem I have tonight is that philosophically I have some real difficulty, at a time when we are asking individual citizens of this province to restrain their personal demands on the economy, to approve the removal of a particular form of taxation in this province which is applied only to the wealthiest people in the province. At the same time, I recognize that the removal of succession duties could result in substantial amounts of investment either remaining in British Columbia or coming into British Columbia, thereby creating new jobs. If, on balance, that situation can be demonstrated to be the case, then, of course, the step of removing the tax can be justified. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, before we reach the point of debating the actual bill, I would hope that some of the ministers in the cabinet would, perhaps, demonstrate in a more documented way what the minister suggested in his budget speech, namely that there would be additional capital available for the expansion of our economy. If the succession tax were repealed, I would like to have some kind of idea what form of expansion the minister would anticipate, and how many jobs this would be likely to create.

It seems to me that there has been a great deal of emphasis by this government, and by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) for one, that business and corporations are leaving British Columbia and that individuals are moving to Alberta because there is no succession duty in that province. I would just like to have the opportunity to have some more specific outline of the facts and figures that are available to the minister, so that when we reach the debate on the bill members of the opposition would have a better opportunity to reach some kind of objective decision because, frankly, this is one issue where I would like to be able to decide essentially on the merits rather than on ideology. If I can be reasonably assured that the benefits to B.C. in the long run in the form of jobs for more people will be the outcome, then I personally would be quite willing to see the individuals involved benefit in having succession duties removed from their estates.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Bennett's stores have been moved to Alberta.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He doesn't have anything to move anywhere.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this debate there has been perhaps too little emphasis on the climate under which business functions in this province and the degree to which concern about work stoppages influences the investment climate in British Columbia. Perhaps later debates in this House are more appropriate to get into that field, but I think it's an over-simplification to suggest that the one outstanding, positive measure in the budget is the removal of succession duties and that that will be some kind of panacea for the lack of investment capital in British Columbia today. I think there are many other reasons which I have detailed, not the least of which is the labour-management climate. I would like to think that the government, during the

[ Page 309 ]

session, will come forward with some initiatives in some of the areas I've mentioned, such as incentives to corporations that provide for worker representation on boards of management, and corporations or employers who take initiatives to provide incentives in the form of profit-sharing in the various forms in which this is used in other countries. To me, that would seem to be a much more positive and long-lasting and likely way to assure industry that workers and management can get along in better harmony than they've done in recent times.

I'm rather surprised, since we all seem to be agreed that the economy is the major problem, that in the budget the economic outlook for 1977 is covered in just a few lines.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all they know about it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, they're rather bland statements, like the following: "Travel Industry expects 1977 to be a better year than 1976."

MR. GIBSON: It couldn't be worse.

MR. WALLACE: It could hardly be worse, Mr. Speaker, and it's a little bit like hoping that because it was raining today it'll be sunny tomorrow.

Another statement in the economic outlook — and this one, Mr. Speaker, really is quite amusing when you just stop and read it carefully — says: "The value of petroleum products is likely to increase because of an anticipated increase in prices." That would seem to me, again, that the government acknowledges only that there will be price increases but no increase in production.

It seems to me that when the problems are so clearly defined, the proposals or programmes put forward to try and solve some of these problems are almost totally absent from the budget. It seems to me that two particular measures could have been taken which would have, in effect, dealt immediately with some of the causes of the sluggish economy and the unemployment.

The first one would be to consider tax cuts. We read a great deal in the newspapers of the initiatives that are to be taken by President Carter in the United States in regard to tax cuts, and we frequently refer in this province, and certainly in the budget — I think particularly in mentioning housing — how closely our economy reflects upswings or downswings in the U.S. economy. The budget talks about an anticipated increase in the number of housing starts. It would seem to me that some form of tax cut in this budget would have been most appropriate, and the two particular taxes which, I believe, could have been reduced, and perhaps not even have led to a deficit budget in the long run as the government so obviously fears, are the Corporation Capital Tax Act...

MR. GIBSON: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: ...and the sales tax. The Corporation Capital Tax Act realized $23 million in 1976 and, of course, because the budget's written in a particular way, Mr. Speaker, we don't have any figures that are at all reliable for 1977. As a result, the capacity to accurately relate the current fiscal year to next year is sadly obstructed. But in 1976 the Corporation Capital Tax Act realized $23 million, and I notice the government expects to realize $33 million in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, this government — and quite rightly so — has at least espoused great concern and awareness as to the lot of the small businessman. The Corporation Capital Tax Act is simply another additional cost of doing business in this province. It's another obstacle, particularly to small businesses, and particularly in their earlier years, in the process of becoming established when borrowing is at a high level.

Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing to help the small businessman, although the small businessman is a key part of the economy. This government certainly acknowledged that fact on the election platform in December '75, because part of their platform was quite clearly a commitment to the small businessman to provide him with assistance to develop his own initiatives in British Columbia. It's a statistical fact that two-thirds of Canadians work for businesses employing 15 persons or less. In other words, almost 60 per cent of the entire labour force is employed in the smaller businesses in Canada.

When I talked a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, about the climate that government might create to encourage people to expand business, I think it's interesting to just list some of the bureaucracy, regulations and paperwork that face small business in Canada today. There's the minimum wage law, the federal-provincial income taxes, sales tax, excise tax, customs duty, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, Canada Pension Plan, building standards, labelling standards, weights and measures, regulatory licensing, patents and resale price maintenance, to name just some of the items that have to be coped with by the businessmen. Really, one wonders why the businessman isn't completely drowned in a shower of paperwork. So it would seem that removal of the corporation tax would not only reduce the mountain of paperwork to some degree, but also, I think, enhance productivity, aid the economy and quite probably create jobs.

The sales tax has been discussed at great length for the many years that I've been in this House — largely because it's not the fairest of taxes in the first place.

[ Page 310 ]

If we're talking about the fairness or otherwise of removing succession duties from the millionaires, I think we should wonder whether it's fair to impose sales tax on very low- and medium-income earners. Although, again, from the budget figures presented to us we can't calculate what the sales tax income will be as of March 31, 1977, there seems little doubt that to some degree the 40 per cent increase in sales tax was self-defeating because it simply led to a drop in consumer buying. When the stores don't sell their goods they lay off staff, and this creates further unemployment. In that case we are often left with persons, who previously were productive workers, simply turning to unemployment insurance or welfare for their livelihood.

I would ask of the Minister of Finance at least one consideration — even if he cannot, or feels he will not, relent on the 40 per cent increase — and that is the question of sales tax on telephone bills and B.C. Hydro bills, particularly for the senior citizen.

I would just mention, Mr. Speaker, that I tried to get the information from his office as to what amount of sales tax is derived from the application of the tax to hydro bills and telephone bills, and I was told by his associate deputy that that was not public information. I would just take this opportunity to say that if ever there was the kind of example of why we need a freedom of information Act in this province, it would certainly have to relate to that kind of approach by government. It seems to me that we have a substantial amount of difficulty, even as elected members in this Legislature, in getting the information from government on which we can present accurate, valid figures and statistics in speeches in this chamber. I resent that! Even if this government, or any government, feels that the public at large should not know the revenue derived from sales tax on telephone bills, I think, if I'm to be any kind of responsible contributor to this debate, the least I should be able to do is collect that kind of information from the minister's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Did you put the question on the order paper?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Minister, I just placed a question on the order paper today. But, once again, why go through all that falderal? Why can't I ask your Deputy? Why do I have to go through all the bureaucracy and paperwork of going through the business of putting it on the order paper? The answer's the same; I use the material the same.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's what questions are for.

MR. GIBSON: You don't even know how much money we have in the bank today.

MR. WALLACE: How much money have you got in the bank?

MR. GIBSON: He doesn't know; he has no idea. He doesn't even know what bank it's in.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What bank? Which one?

MR. GIBSON: He doesn't even know what bank.

MR. WALLACE: The one they held up on Fairfield Road. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the budget quite correctly deals at some length with federal-provincial financial arrangements, and it's an enormous subject in itself. I don't propose to go into any detail on that tonight. But the whole question of income redistribution, which is a primary function of any government in a modern economy, deserves some comment, particularly in regard to equalization programmes.

The minister, in his speech, places a great deal of emphasis on the multiplicity of universal programmes and the fact that they have some undesirable effects. He quotes a list of these programmes — family allowance, UIC, old-age pension, Canada Pension Plan, et cetera — and the minister seeks integration into a guaranteed income plan of the negative income tax type. I happen to think that this proposal has merit, particularly in its potential to reduce administrative costs which, as the minister pointed out in his speech, can amount to $25 out of every $100 paid out, which is indeed a ridiculously high cost of providing assistance to people who require it. In fact, the minister states on page 15: "Under the hodge-podge of existing programmes, some individuals do very well while others do poorly." I agree with that. But I would like to ask the minister how he reconciles that situation with the government plan to introduce universal Pharmacare, because such a proposal completely contradicts the minister's concern over a hodge-podge of programmes. Indeed, it adds to the hodge-podge by making prescription drugs more costly to those who really need the assistance while providing public funds for the purchase of prescription drugs to others who simply do not need that kind of assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge, in case the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is having some extra systole, that there are many persons and families not now covered by Pharmacare who merit assistance. There's no question about that. I know them as well as perhaps anyone in this House. I'm talking about families, in particular, who have children with such serious, disabling conditions as cystic fibrosis, diabetes, congenital abnormalities of the heart, and others. The help for

[ Page 311 ]

these families is long overdue. But to have the obvious need by some is no reason at all to introduce a universal programme covering everyone regardless of need. It in fact, to some degree, dilutes the money available for those who really need the help.

Such a measure, in my view, in providing public funding to some people who clearly don't need it, is an incredible contradiction to the theme of the budget which is responsible spending. The conclusion to the budget, Mr. Speaker, on page 27, says: "This budget reflects the government's determination to spend tax money judiciously." In my view, and I can only read the information we now have in that light, universal Pharmacare means that, to some degree or other, persons, regardless of their income, will be receiving some measure of public funding to pay for their prescription drugs. It's a distortion, Mr. Speaker, of the priorities in the health field.

The Minister of Human Resources is quite clearly on record as saying that we have about 17,000 elderly persons in nursing homes or some type of intermediate- or personal-care facility. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that until such persons are reduced in their finances to a certain low level and go on welfare, they are totally committed to providing the total cost of their care out of their own resources. How can we have this government, or any previous government, espousing the very worthwhile idea that there are human needs unmet in this province and then go ahead and spend money on one of the less urgent needs? To anyone who cares to look at the provincial picture objectively in the health field, the most crying gap for funding, and better facilities, and better service, has to be in the nursing homes of British Columbia. I don't say this to castigate or criticize the owners of private nursing homes. In a way, I bless them, because if they weren't there providing the level of care that they can provide, then heaven only knows where the poor patient would go.

This isn't any kind of attack on the private nursing homes of British Columbia. It is simply a statement of a very basic fact: that if this government feels there is some more money to be made available for health care, it just leaves me speechless that it would not be directed in the most urgent direction, which is on behalf of our elderly, sick patients in the nursing homes.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is not here tonight, but he well knows that, at long last, the federal-provincial agreements are such that federal funding can now be used at the discretion and choice of the province so that there is no longer the problem of cost-sharing for certain types of care with no cost-sharing for intermediate care.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the kind of statements that have been made by various people in the health field would agree with the point I have just tried to make, that if there is money available, the most urgent area in which it should be spent must surely have to be for the senior citizens in the nursing homes.

One small point I might make in passing, Mr. Speaker. I have corresponded with the minister on this one: how chintzy can the government be? I am thinking of patients who unfortunately have to wear certain appliances because they have artificial openings created by surgery, artificial openings somewhere on the surface of the body. To go through life with one of these is a penalty that is severe enough. I just want to tell the House one more time, and I don't know how many more times in the future, that these patients do not pay sales tax on the appliance. But would you believe it, Mr. Speaker? The adhesive, the glue, the various materials to stick the appliance on to the body, is taxed. There is sales tax on the glue but no sales tax on the appliance.

Now the appliance is liable to last a considerable length of time, but the materials used to make the appliance adhere to the body, of course, have to be purchased on a regular basis. Once again, where is the sense of fair play? We are just about to institute a programme of helping rich people to buy their drugs with public funding. Yet we have citizens in this province with these disabilities who have to go on paying sales tax on the purchase of these materials.

I am really disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that here is a government that has claimed to have a new awareness of human need and a more humanized approach to government, that the bottom line is not the only thing that matters. I wouldn't hazard a guess just how many peanuts, if you'll pardon the expression, would be involved in removing the sales tax from these materials I have mentioned. It would be a very small sum of money but a very considerable, fair, reasonable relief to the relatively small number of patients concerned.

In criticizing this government, Mr. Speaker, for not tackling the economy in an aggressive and positive way, one simply has to refer again to the rigid attitude that's been adopted in regard to ferry fares, despite all the evidence which makes it very clear that the real decline in utilization of the ferries began on June 1, when the ferry fares were doubled. Up until May 31, the utilization by passengers and vehicles had increased in the early part of the year, by approximately 3.5 per cent, but from June to December vehicle use was down by 24 per cent and passenger use was down by 20 per cent. In the month of June itself, when the blow really hit right in the middle of the summer, vehicles were down by 34 per cent and passengers were down by 30 per cent.

In the budget we learn that under "Travel" there is a proposal to spend $6 million in promotion. Mr. Speaker, that may be a good idea. I'm not prepared to criticize it out of hand without knowing how, over what period of time and under what circumstances that money is to be spent. But there is real evidence

[ Page 312 ]

to suggest that if when the fares were increased they had been increased by 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent, the ultimate revenue on the ferries would have been little different in terms of money alone, but in terms of persons travelling to this island, spending money and providing employment, particularly for summer students, the increase and the benefits could have been considerable.

I just say in passing that all the tourist bodies that I have talked to in the greater Victoria area are very keen to cooperate with this government in the widest and most consistent way because there is little doubt that much bad publicity was derived from our experience in the past summer, for whatever reason. However accurate or inaccurate, we have suffered bad publicity in British Columbia. While the $6 million promotion plan might, to some degree, improve the situation, it seems to me a much smarter, quicker and more effective way is to cut back on the ferry increase by 50 per cent.

It would be impossible — perhaps not impossible, I suppose — but it would be very unreasonable to discuss this budget without discussing Crown corporations. I can't think of too many subjects where I receive the same amount of comments — letters, telephone calls and otherwise — as about this next proposed increase in hydro rates, which as of March 1 will be the third increase in two years and will represent to the consumer in that period of time an average of a 60 per cent increase. I'm just amazed that for the last several sessions of this Legislature we are asked to approve increased borrowing capacity of literally massive sums of money for B.C. Hydro.

I notice that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is listening very carefully. I'm pleased about that because when he used to sit over here beside me he made some of the best speeches of his career pointing out the tremendous concern he had regarding the tremendous amounts of borrowing that were taking place in B.C. Hydro at that time and the fact that, being a Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro appeared to be some kind of law unto itself within which it was extremely difficult for members of this Legislature to gain accurate access to all the facts and figures so they could reasonably and intelligently criticize whether the borrowing was excessive or not.

I notice in the budget before us that already in this fiscal year B.C. Hydro has borrowed something like $725 million, and we have before us now a bill which I won't intrude upon, Mr. Speaker, but a bill to further increase borrowing.

The citizens who have phoned me about B.C. Hydro are not only deeply concerned about the increase in rates, but also about such new concepts as a $3 user charge, which we would like to know more about and which I think should be part and parcel of the explanation which a committee of this House should seek from B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, on that point I would make the suggestion that there is great potential for reform in the way in which this House functions in regard to committee work. I would certainly acknowledge my own lack of expertise in being able to question in any effective and penetrating way the gnomes from B.C. Hydro — if I could use an expression which usually refers to Switzerland — but it would seem that for B.C. Hydro officials to come before the public accounts committee of the House for the very limited period of time which is customary during the session hardly begins to scrape the surface of the problem. Certainly I would suggest that we find ways in which this House and its members are provided with consultant expertise and lead time so proper information can be made available ahead of the committee hearings in the hope that when the hearings are actually held not only will the questioning be to the point and accurate, but we can hope to get real value from the answers.

Mr. Speaker, one of the points which I think is so central to this budget is that the government, from step one, has made it clear that it abhors deficit financing. The zeal with which the Minister of Finance repeatedly talks about the evils of deficit financing resembles the kind of zeal with which his party took birth on the prairies. The impression that I get is that deficit financing is a little bit like original sin — it's just too bad to speculate about. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's rather amusing because we have such an incredible double standard here: if too much borrowing is bad — and I would agree that too much borrowing is bad — is all borrowing bad? Maybe we should ask B.C. Hydro if all borrowing is bad.

MR. COCKE: Ask the new Public Works Crown corporation about that.

MR. . WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Member for New Westminster, I was just coming to that.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Or ask Wolfe Chevrolet if borrowing is bad.

MR. WALLACE: It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude of this government is that borrowing by the Crown corporations is okay because it's less visible, and doesn't come in here on the floor of this House like we look at all the budgets of each minister for all the programmes he's seeking approval for in this House. But I tell you, the borrowing of the Crown corporations is visible enough when the hydro consumer gets his bill every month and 30 cents of every dollar is interest. As the member for New Westminster just pointed out, the B.C. Buildings Corporation got into the act at an early stage of its existence and borrowed $12 million, according to page 22 of the budget.

[ Page 313 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that for a hotel in New Westminster?

MR. WALLACE: And the total borrowing of Crown corporations in this fiscal year already is $1.04 billion.

Mr. Speaker, it seems inevitable to ask the question: if borrowing for massive capital expenditures is okay, what's so terrible about a modest deficit on operating expenses? It seems a very obvious double standard, Mr. Minister. The injection of capital, even if it has to be borrowed capital, would seem to be one method of creating jobs, and even this government has in an inadequate way put $8 million into the Community Recreational Facilities Fund.

If I could return just for a moment to another matter with which the Minister of Education is very familiar, since he also used to make speeches on this side of the House about the need for intermediate-care facilities, would it not make a lot of sense, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to borrow some very modest sum of money — but let's have it out in the open, visible, within the budget of the Legislature — to build modern, decent, reasonable facilities which, incidentally, Mr. Member and Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, would create jobs when the facilities are completed by employing all the personnel who are involved in these kinds of facilities? After all, the Minister of Education knows that the percentage of employment associated with health care in our total economy is now a very substantial one. I couldn't quote the figures, but it's a very high percentage of the total of all jobs.

But then of course, Mr. Speaker, what I'm really talking about is the cost-benefit ratio, the fact that you have to look beyond the immediate costs of the programmes and the interest on the borrowing in order to see what you would be providing for people, providing one segment of people a measure of fair play and a fair share of the provincial pie, which they are certainly not getting at the present time.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Oh, come on!

MR. WALLACE: "Oh, come on, " he says. How much do you know about these places, Mr. Member?

MR. LAUK: He knows about the after-effects — he buries them.

MR. WALLACE: We hear a lot about the terrible effect that borrowing has on our children and grandchildren. Well, I would like to ask the question: if we're concerned about them tomorrow, how about our grandmothers and great-grandmothers right today? Doesn't that ever occur to anyone?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few points on the figures in the budget itself. The minister stated that both revenues and expenditures for 1976-77 will be within 1 per cent of the original estimates. The minister has a quizzical look on his face.

MR. LAUK: It's not a quizzical look — he's chewing a peppermint. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that in the budget you state that revenues and expenditures will be within 1 per cent of original estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I spent some long hours last night trying to have some understanding of the interim statement of income for the first nine months of the fiscal year and to relate that to the figures in the budget. There are some very puzzling figures and I hope the minister would perhaps, when he speaks later in the debate, clarify this. On page 16 of the interim statement he has a 12-month estimate for a hotel and motel tax of $7.5 million, and in nine months the actual amount taken in was $6.1 million, which makes the figures seem just right. I would like to know if that accuracy results from having anticipated the drop in tourism that would result from the hike in ferry fares.

MR. LAUK: It's clear that wasn't anticipated, Scotty.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): They rent rooms in the north too, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we're sure not renting too many rooms on Vancouver Island, I'll tell you that.

On this matter of succession and gift tax, Mr. Speaker — again on page 16 of the interim financial statement, the latest estimate for the full year is $26 million, but the actual money that has been taken in in nine months is $32.3 million. I'm not sure what's planned for the last three months, unless there's going to be a great resurrection of the dead and a refund of death duties. If the figures are that out of kilter on the interim statement....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure it's an extraordinary year, Mr. Minister, but I'm asking for some of these explanations.

Under the same interim statement on timber and logging, the latest total estimate is for $113.9 million, and the total collected in nine months is $49.4 million.

I have to take it that this is a major indication of the underperformance of the B.C. economy. It begins

[ Page 314 ]

to raise doubts as to whether, in fact, the revenue will be within 1 per cent of the predicted figure in the budget.

Over the page on the interim statement, Mr. Speaker, on page 17, there are details about the B.C. Ferry system, where nine months' revenue was $48.4 million and the final estimates for the full year are $13 million. Now I'm not sure if this relates to the transfer of authority to the corporation, but these are the kinds of questions which may have some valid explanation. Once again, I just suggest that the manner in which the material is presented to us creates difficulties. The budget, of course, also recognizes that the various funds were used up last year — the Provincial Major Disaster Fund, the Green Belt Protection Fund and others. I just wonder if somewhere in this debate we could hear from the minister as to how we will deal with any major disaster.

I would also like to raise the question at this point in the session, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the government has any intention of funding the commitment that was made in 1973 by a unanimous motion of the House to provide $2.25 million of aid to the children of Vietnam. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was one of the persons who — in my opinion, very admirably — initiated the motion from this side of the House that we should show our awareness that, for all our economic difficulties, there are other parts of the world that have enormous problems compared to our own. All parties in this House supported the setting up of the committee to determine how the money — I think it was $2.25 million, somewhere over $2 million at least — would be made available to the war-ravaged country of Vietnam, particularly to provide assistance to the children who have been injured and disabled in the war. I just ask, Mr. Speaker, if this government could at least give an answer one way or the other: will this fund be disbursed? Or does the government adhere to the answer that it gave during the last spring session of the Legislature that, since a separate account containing the $2 million was not set up by the NDP government, this government was not prepared to find that sum of money elsewhere in the budget?

It seems quite clear that this House unanimously made that kind of commitment, and I have no reason to suspect that there is any less need of the assistance now than there was when we were deliberating the matter in committee. It is with a great deal of regret that I realize that our committee, in trying very diligently to be responsible to the taxpayers of British Columbia, in trying to spend the money in the most judicious way, used up so much time that it may well now turn out to be a fact that the recipients — deserving as they may well be — will never see the aid. But I think that if the members of this Legislature have any respect for the kind of decisions they make when they vote in this House, surely they should stand behind that commitment that was made in 1973. In my view it has nothing to do with a change of government, but was intended to reflect the kind of feeling that we, as members, felt the population of British Columbia held — that it would be a very human, worthwhile gesture that we allocate a very small part of our budget to help the children of a war-ravaged country.

I just want to finish with a few comments about what I think the budget figures should be. The great puzzle, Mr. Speaker, seems to be that in one part of the budget the minister talks about a real growth of the gross provincial product of 5 per cent, and we all know that inflation, even in the most optimistic estimate by the federal government, will be around 6 to 7 per cent. This would seem to suggest that there should at least be an increase in anticipated expenditures and revenues of somewhere around 12 to 13 per cent. But on page 16, the estimated total expenditures for '77-'78 are $3.829 billion, compared to expenditures that are expected to be within 1 per cent of $3.615 billion — which is an average increase of 5.9 per cent. And as far as revenue is concerned, the '77 estimate of revenue is $3.829 billion, compared to revenues which should be within 1 per cent of $3.587 billion, which is an average increase of 6.8 per cent.

I would just ask the question that if these are the expected increases in revenue and expenditure, even though we have had a projection of a 5 per cent real growth and a 7 per cent or greater increase in inflation, why do the figures that we are asked to deal with in the budget show such a modest actual increase in dollars? As the minister knows, there's a progressive impact of inflation on taxation. It would seem to me that perhaps we should be thinking in terms of a 13 per cent increase. I find it very difficult to understand the average of 6 per cent that the minister has given in the budget.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think that when one criticizes figures and policies one should make it plain what we believe the figures should be. My prediction for total revenues for 1976-77 is $3.415 billion. The total revenues for 1977-78 will be $3.9 billion, for a net increase of $485 million or 14.3 per cent. This I have calculated by representing real growth of 4.5 per cent and inflation of 7.5 per cent, plus the progressive tax factor. The total expenditure for 1976-77, in my opinion, will be $3.4 billion which will provide a small net surplus, which should please the minister. Total expenditures for 1977-78 will be $3.89 billion, for a net planned increase in expenditures of $480 million or 14.2 per cent.

Contrary to the impression left by the minister in talking about restraint, there really are some increases that I think should be mentioned just before I close. On page 33 of the budget under what is described as

[ Page 315 ]

Table G, I am very interested in a new phrase that I haven't noticed in budgets before: it's called "general government," which presumably is the general cost of government administration. The interesting thing about that particular figure in Table G is that although 1977 is missing again, between 1976 and 1978 the general-government figure has increased by 33 1/3 per cent. On the other hand, in that same period expenditures on some of the areas which would create business activity and jobs are relatively unchanged. The budget for natural resources, industry, trade and industrial development, the areas which we keep hearing in this House should be stimulated in order to deal with unemployment, have increased by 2.9 per cent over two years.

The aid to local government is another interesting figure on page 33. Again, Mr. Speaker, one has to quote 1976 and 1978 without being able to talk about 1977, but if you compare these two figures for aid to local government, the forthcoming year reflects a decline by 4 per cent, for a net reduction of over $16 million.

So while we hear the government talking about emphasizing productive capacity and providing incentives to those elements in the budget that will get us out of our economic slump, the figures don't really bear that out. But then, the more I come into this Legislature year after year and listen to the budget debate, the more I recognize that 54 different people take a different interpretation of all the figures and the percentages that are quoted.

But if I could sum up, Mr. Speaker, I really feel that this is a budget of omission rather than commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: We have, admittedly, a serious economic situation in British Columbia where surely there should be steps taken by the government to try and correct many of the problems. Yet the positive steps at the end of the budget, other than the succession duties and gift tax measures which I already mentioned, are so insignificant in the total economic picture of the province that it is really rather pathetic.

The measures that are outlined at the end to modify the Corporation Capital Tax Act to help the mining industry.... Admittedly, I would support the measure to make propane taxation comparable to heating-oil taxation and the measure in relation to sales tax on mobile homes — no one could argue with these. But, Mr. Speaker, does anyone really think that that kind of minute fiscal measure is really going to begin to do anything to tackle the one fundamental problem in the province, which is lack of expansion in the economy with a resulting lack of jobs and ever-increasing unemployment? I think for anyone to suggest that this budget does anything to tackle that No. 1 problem, they must, indeed, have some kind of blinkers on — I presume Social Credit blinkers.

I'm disappointed that the government hasn't taken more initiative in this budget. I would acknowledge that if you start off in our present picture of our world economy by insisting that under no circumstances whatever will there be any kind of deficit, that, right off the bat, cuts down on the options of the government in such a drastic way that there's very little other kind of budget that we could expect than this one, which is unquestionably a stand-still budget. Unfortunately, the one thing that will not stand still as a result of this budget is the number of unemployed persons in British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Right on! Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Because of that primary failure of the budget — even although some of its proposals will receive my support — to tackle the No. 1 problem, there's no way that I could vote to support this budget.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): In taking my place in this debate, I would first of all like to comment on a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) where he said that I was back for the second act of the gas-price issue.

I would like to first of all say that when it comes to acting, I certainly don't think I can compete with a professional such as the leader. I noticed even the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) recognized him for his talents as an actor. I must say he is an excellent actor but, as proved by his records in government, he appears to be a poor producer. (Laughter.)

I would also point out that during the 20 years that I was on this issue, the gas price only rose 3 cents in this province in 20 years, compared to 20 cents during his term of office.

I would say this is a very realistic budget for the times, and I certainly intend to support it. I am pleased to see that at least most of the sales tax has been removed from mobile homes, which will help a lot of people throughout the north country because mobile homes are very common through that area.

I'm also pleased to see a propane tax reduction by about 85 per cent. This was hitting many people in the north country very hard, especially those who are not on power lines and don't have any electricity at all. This is certainly a good move and I hope it will be followed by others later on.

The $50 increase for those over 65, which brings the homeowner grant up to $430, is certainly a good move and I'm quite sure all members in the House will support it.

Financial assistance to local governments will

[ Page 316 ]

certainly be welcomed by all municipalities in this province along with the $8 million for community recreation, and I'm quite sure there will be many people asking for grants. I hope the minister will change the formula and take all applications and then give each a percentage, rather than some a large sum and others nothing.

I am concerned, however, that there is no mention that I can see — but I certainly hope it's there — of aid to private schools. This is one commitment that we in this party must honour, because we made it. I don't think there's a member on this side of the House who didn't make this one of their commitments during the last election.

I'm also sorry to see the reforestation vote down by over $2 million, which appears to be a step backwards, because we certainly have to keep our forests growing so that there are trees to cut 70 years from now, or even 100 years from now.

There's been a great deal of discussion on unemployment in this Legislature along with various amendments and suchlike. I must say I'm never too impressed by some of these amendments, because unfortunately they don't put one person to work.

I would say there has been far too much time wasted on criticism by both sides of the House, on blaming one or the other. Blaming someone else will certainly not resolve some of the problems we're facing in this province today. I've listened very carefully for solutions, and I must say that even though there have been many speakers, there have been very, very few solutions offered by either side so far.

There's no question that government spending alone will not resolve this problem, because there just simply isn't enough money around where a government could spend enough to get everyone working. It only means more taxes to pay for it, because if governments spend, they've only got one place to get it, and that is from the taxpayers. This, of course, means less development and less jobs, as more companies will leave the province. Those, of course, that stay in the province will have less capital to spend on modernization and expansion, which is something we certainly need in many of our plants, as mentioned by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) this afternoon.

I would certainly like to congratulate the ministers for their hard work and dedication in helping the people of this province. I don't think there is anyone who could question the amount of work they do. Any of my remarks today are not so much intended to be critical, only to reflect my concern for the overall economy of this province. I would say, without fear of contradiction, that we certainly have greater challenges today to try and resolve than ever before in the history of this province.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

A year has passed since I expressed my concern. Yet contrary to most reports, the economy of the northwest has gotten progressively worse since 1973. It was in 1973 that the logging and mining industries started to go down. In that year alone, there were 140 contractors at the start of the year; by the end of the year, there were only 78 left. Most of them went to Alberta to find work in that province. Of course, those people — very skilled people and good loggers, mainly — will likely never come back.

It's encouraging to note that claims staked in the mining industry have gone up over 160 per cent. I note most of the helicopters up in the north country are already booked fully for next year's work. Exploration doubled last year, and I expect a tremendous growth, providing costs are kept down. This, I think, should be our chief concern.

The anti-inflation programme, in my opinion, is the only thing that is holding inflation under a little bit of control at this moment. I would say that the only criticism we should properly level at the Anti-Inflation Board is that it hasn't been tough enough, or it hasn't been fair enough. But I would expect that either the Anti-Inflation Board or some other mechanism is here to stay, as there are too many groups showing a lack of responsibility in restraint.

MR. LAUK: Imperial Oil.

MR. SHELFORD: The emphasis by this government seems to be on northeast coal development. I would say we support this development, as it will help the total economy of this province, and of course, in an indirect way, assist the northwest as well. But I would like to point out that none of the people in my area would be naive enough to think that it will solve our problems in the northwest, 1,000 miles away.

When the cabinet came to Terrace last fall, I made 12 suggestions that could be accepted to assist that area to get back on its feet.

MR. LAUK: Did they allow you to appear in front of them?

MR. SHELFORD: Yes.

MR. LAUK: That's unusual.

MR. SHELFORD: You'd better come over and join us.

I was appearing as a representative of people, like anyone else could.

MRS. JORDAN: You were not only allowed to

[ Page 317 ]

appear, but you could talk.

MR. SHELFORD: No. 1 point was better allocation of timber so that local timber monopolies can't hold back development. Later Pearse accepted this philosophy in his report. Tree-farm holders not cutting their allowable cut should not get new timber sales in PSYUs.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: Well, they'll cut them out. I don't think we should cancel anything; I think they'd phase out. But, for instance, Can-Cel and Eurocan are only cutting roughly half of their allowable cut, and have done for the last three years.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, that's right. Even if you take three or four years, they're still under half, so it appears they have too much timber for their plant capacities. There are enough chips, as you mentioned this afternoon, to feed at least three more pulp mills, and there'd still be wastewood left in the ground.

MR. GIBSON: And you are still cutting groundwood.

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, that's quite true, but you couldn't cut off, say, Can-Cel cutting groundwood because 60 per cent of the logs in that area are pulp logs. So if you stop them using groundwood then, of course, you would stop the sawmill in the area besides which is something we don't want to do. We have to go very carefully in this regard.

No. 2, as I mentioned, were programmes to help eliminate unemployment which was over 23 per cent, and higher than 58 per cent in the Indian villages which I'll be talking about later.

No. 3 — work out the northwest railway agreement with the federal government.

MR. LAUK: About time.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: When you two have finished your debate I'll start again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SHELFORD: No. 4 — I know you'll like this one — an immediate effort to reach agreement with the national government on a DREE agreement, with the northwest having No. 1 priority for assistance. This agreement, in my opinion, should be similar to the programme agreed on under the northland agreement and signed by the Manitoba government and the national government for expenditures of over $138 million on northern development, $96 million contributed by the national government.

No. 5 — major efforts to reach agreement with the native Indians, which is holding up the economy and increasing unemployment.

No. 6 — construction of a new government building in Terrace. I must say that I'm pleased to see that the government has agreed to build a new health centre in Terrace, which will cost over $3.5 million.

No. 7 — Kitimat port development, which is needed to ensure available space for all users. This will need cooperation of all levels of government, and I'll be mentioning more on that just a little later.

MR. LAUK: Are you in favour of the pipeline?

MR. SHELFORD: Yes.

No. 8 — a new ferry service from Tsawwassen to Kitimat....

MR. LAUK: Are you in favour of the pipeline?

MR. SHELFORD: I say yes. Provided it's handled correctly, yes.

MR. LAUK: What does that mean?

MR. SHELFORD: That it's handled correctly.

No. 9 — to buy out the Skoagland hotsprings, and lease it back to private companies to run, as I maintain no individual should be permitted to bottle up a natural resource such as the hotsprings, which could be used by 100,000 people. This hotspring was used by people right from Prince George to Prince Rupert, and some even came down from Alaska, and you had to reserve four months ahead. Then it was sold out and has gone down and down until quite often now you can drive by.... I went by Saturday night and there were only two cars in front of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try sending them down here.

MR. SHELFORD: There's enough hot air down here without hot water.

No. 10 — a royal commission to study labour-management relations which should attempt to bring all groups together to save our economy. We are on a dead-end road going the way we are, and no one group can bring this about. It must be a cooperative approach, and the terms of reference should be laid down by labour, management and government. It's certainly not good enough to have government lay down the terms of reference because everyone should feel at home and know that they can

[ Page 318 ]

present anything they please to this royal commission. I think that's one of the most important things that could happen.

Place a No. 1 priority on the construction of the road north, right from Kitimat, and a link from Kitimat to Alaska, and also a link road back to Hazelton for those people wishing to go east from the north country on toward Prince George. We need a major effort to construct access logging and mining roads. I'm very pleased to see that the various ministers, especially the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), have called several contracts on this link. I know my friend from Atlin (Mr. Calder) and I are certainly looking forward to the day when this road is the No. 1 highway clear through to the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it'll be all paved.

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, it'll be all paved — I hope not before too long — won't it, Alex?

I realize there's no easy solution with our costs of all kinds of going up all the time and, of course, world markets staying fairly well stable. However, attempts have to be made as the present economic problems will not remedy themselves without drastic changes.

It's interesting to note that the Premier of Quebec has appointed four cabinet ministers to do nothing else but to try and find ways to improve the economy of the province, because he sees clearly that the ministers...and I think you can see it right here where the ministers are so busy administering their departments that they simply don't have time to map out new approaches. I know what it was like when I was there; you're always so busy with people coming in and out. I think it's something that should be considered.

Now last year I proposed that a committee be set up to do this so that all parties are involved, and I still think this is the right approach.

MR. LAUK: That's why you'll never get back in the cabinet — you're too straightforward and too honest.

MR. SHELFORD: You've been speaking all night. Thank you.

I think a committee such as this should travel around the province the same as a committee did after World War II, to map out strategy for the next 20 years. I must say the government of the day did use that committee's studies as an area to go. There certainly have to be many new approaches found because it appears that we could be witnessing the end of an era. If it wasn't for excessive debt, credit buying and planned obsolescence, of course, the economy would be in worse trouble than it is at the present time.

MR. LAUK: Inconceivable!

MR. SHELFORD: It was worse a couple of years ago.

In my opinion, we can't expect private enterprise alone to pull us out of the present problems because it's been saddled by high taxes and excessive regulations and not allowed to function freely. With every regulation comes delay and, of course, delay costs lots of money.

I know some of the regulations I've seen in the forest industry where D-8 cats have been tied up for two and three weeks just because someone couldn't make up their mind. It seems that for every person in society trying to do something that will create employment, there are six trying to stop him. As an example, the Smithers plywood plant met four or five years ago rail and road developments to the north, where the cost of studies certainly exceeds the amount of money spent on the railroad into the north country to this time.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): When we bought the Princess Marguerite you tried to stop that.

MR. SHELFORD: Practically every single timber sale that comes up is challenged by a whole group of people who don't want to see any trees cut.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's for sale. Do you want to buy it again?

MR. SHELFORD: Then we have, of course, the steel mill which was protested by about everyone who wanted to be heard and now we have, of course, the controversial pipeline which no doubt will receive a great deal of discussion in this Legislature. I see even the environmentalists recommend that possibly Kitimat is one of the choice sites for this pipeline. However, of course, we have to be very careful that we do get something out of this pipeline, because there's no point in having it right across British Columbia without some benefits coming back to British Columbia, which I'm quite sure we will get. Without growth of greater than 6 per cent, it appears the system can't function properly. This system of free enterprise has given us the highest standard of living in the world, yet by our own action, we're certainly scuttling the system without finding a reasonable alternative. I would point out to my friends across the way that so far the socialist countries can't even seem to feed and supply themselves, much less export to other nations.

AN HON. MEMBER: What countries?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Like West

[ Page 319 ]

Germany?

MR. SHELFORD: All of us are paying high taxes to pay an army of people to think up regulations that are bringing wealth-producing industries such as agriculture, forestry and mining to their knees. We see simple timber sales or cutting permits taking two years to get approval, whereas not long ago you could get them in two months. When I came back from the army, in fact, I used to get them in two weeks. We thought we were pretty hard done by if we couldn't get a simple timber sale through in two weeks.

The forest guideline regulations brought in by the former government, but still in place, cost the industry $10.75 a cunit, with the added delay being even more serious. Even a company the size of Can-Cel is only operating about three months ahead of their sales, which is not good enough. They need at least five years advance so that they can plan their roads and develop them properly. We want to see Can-Cel, and all other companies, prosperous in this province because then we've got a good tax base.

MR. GIBSON: They've got the largest TFL in the province.

MR. SHELFORD: That's right, but they've also got very large holdings in the public working circles and so far they're not cutting up to full cut.

The delay is certainly seriously affecting our economy, and one department finally has to have the say with other departments having a fixed time for input. The way it is now that one department will shuffle it off onto the next, and the next one back to that one, and so on. I have seen timber sales held up by the Forests department thinking they are going to get it through...and I am certainly not blaming them. I think they basically are trying to do their best. It gets into the hands of the Environment department and it is held up again. It finally gets through there and it's held up by Fisheries. This kind of thing just cannot be permitted to last. One department must, as I say, finally make a decision after the others have had the opportunity of their say.

I would say the same type of thing is going on in all departments of government in all provinces, and with approximately 42 out of every 100 working for various levels of government, industry is caught in a web that is slowly strangling it. Elected members in all democratic countries seem powerless to stop this monster. More and more groups are springing up every day trying to stop projects with no alternative suggestions on how to employ our young people when they come out of school. There is no question the northwest can move ahead if both levels of government accept an overall plan for development. I am not sure that there is such a plan at this time.Granted, it will cost money, but little more than is spent at this time.

The Gitskan tribal council pointed out that welfare in those six villages costs over $1,059,000 a year. When you add all of the various LIP programmes, which do put money into the area but do very little else, all of these make-work programmes seldom get more than 10 cents on the dollar in real value. I'd rather see it spent on highways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: However, if it wasn't for these types of programmes, Canada would be in a depression right now as the economy is not functioning properly. Listen carefully to some of these figures when we talk about unemployment, and I am told that the Hazelton area is the highest in Canada: Hazelton village, 57 per cent unemployed; Kispiox village, 88 per cent; Moricetown 83 per cent; Kitseguecla, 78 per cent; Kitwanga, 54 per cent; Glen Vowell, 92 per cent; Hagwilget, 72 per cent.

I'll admit someone can say, "well, some of these people don't want to work in the type of industry there is in the area," which is quite true, but there is a very serious problem there, and a country cannot go on long spending more than it earns. It strains the ability of every business to carry on, because we just can't carry a load of this type of unemployment forever. We are nearly to the place where every worker who works is carrying someone else on his back. No wonder there are not enough dollars left for industry to expand; too much is being taken out in taxation at various levels. It's very high compared to what is taken out in U.S. industry.

With the present development patterns in the north country one point which disturbs me a great deal is the fact that Edmonton rather than Vancouver is becoming the service centre for northern British Columbia. I think this is something we should look at because we can't afford to see the province going downhill. The supply coming out of Vancouver is not as great as it was, and I know many companies today that are servicing straight through from Edmonton, right down Highway 16 and up into the north country.

There will have to be a complete change in strategy and, for that reason, I propose we start immediately to develop an overall plan, which will take maximum federal and provincial efforts, to develop and designate Highway 37 right from Alaska to Vancouver. This will require a roll-on, roll-off ferry from Tsawwassen to Kitimat. This would deliver trucks and trailers halfway up British Columbia with a saving of two drivers, and I might point out a truck driver today, with overtime and suchlike, costs over $120 a day. You certainly have to look at these kinds of things when you are trying to move produce

[ Page 320 ]

to the far north. These trucks would deliver hundreds of gallons of fuel which, no doubt, will not only become high-priced but scarce in the future, and we should try to conserve it. This will become more and more expensive and scarce as time goes on.

Another thing would have to be the development of the port of Kitimat for the use by all industries and, as I mentioned earlier, this should be done with the cooperation of all levels of government. I know the town of Kitimat will be very willing to cooperate.

Upgrade the road from Kitimat to Alaska, because already hundreds of trucks use this route in taking pipeline equipment to Alaska. It's surprising how many trucks from the Linden fleet come across at Sumas or Blaine. They go right up through Prince George and down to Kitwanga, and even with the road being as bad as it is, they still find it better than going up the Alaska Highway. And better still, as I say, it will keep trade within British Columbia, which is something we want to do. Once the road is up to standard, this traffic will increase, I would say, by 20 times. I again appreciate the minister's effort in calling several large contracts, along with the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis), who is gathering information on this proposal.

I'd like just to show you how simple it looks on a map. As you notice, it's pretty near a straight line from Tsawwassen to Alaska, going by the ferry route up to Kitimat; roll off, picked up by tractors at Kitimat, and rolled through to Alaska, saving two drivers and a large amount of fuel. Of course, it picks up a lot of other areas, which would reduce the need of a ferry north of Prince Rupert. A good road, a side road, branches off into Stewart, also Alice Arm, and as I mentioned earlier — one across to Hazelton, into Telegraph Creek, and finally a cutoff through that would shorten it a great deal more.

I think this is the type of plan that we have to have before the present economic problems in the northwest will disappear.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Cyril, did you have a vessel in mind? What vessel would you utilize?

MR. SHELFORD: I think it would require a brand-new vessel. I think that you would be amazed at the amount of trucks that would use this route, and I am quite sure that it would take a very large vessel to handle them. It would be busy all the time.

If this is adopted, it will clearly keep the supply services in British Columbia rather than in Alberta. As I mentioned before, it will eliminate the need for ferry routes to the very northern areas around Stewart, and you can see by this map, it is the most direct route, which is most important of all, from Vancouver and the western states clear through to Alaska — which, along with some of the other things I've asked for, such as buying out of the hotsprings, will keep tourists and people in that area, and there is no question that the whole economy of that area would grow and grow rapidly.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I just wanted to ask the government whether or not they're prepared to accept an adjournment now, as I see that they haven't got any more speakers on the list. Are you prepared to accept adjournment?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: We had one night on the budget. Come on, don't be petty.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, when the House Leaders met — the Liberal and the Conservative and the official opposition — they asked for an adjournment on Tuesday because it is customary that the budget is held over the weekend for study. Now at that time there was no agreement from the government. I think the least they could do is either put up a speaker, which they've complained about not having in sequence, or allow an adjournment now. If there is any spirit of cooperation at all, I'm sure the government will entertain that request.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the hon. member knows that the Chair is not aware of any speaking arrangement, and if you wish to have a motion to adjourn, perhaps you should put the motion.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I know you are not aware and I'm trying to enlighten you and the House as to what the situation was. If the government does want a new spirit of cooperation, as they indicated, and as their House Leader requested, I think, in the name of reasonableness, they should allow an adjournment this evening. Either put up a speaker — they have 35 members to the opposition's 19 or 20 — or allow an adjournment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I think that perhaps the best way would be to put the motion and see whether the House accepts the motion. The Chair is not aware of any speaking arrangement.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 321 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to what motion are you referring? Are you suggesting that any motion be put at this point?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm not suggesting it at all. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan was asking for an adjournment and if there were....

MR. BARRETT: No, he did not put a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He did not put a motion?

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So ordered.

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may make the point: As a matter of courtesy, the House Leader has asked the Premier for an adjournment. This is not a major issue that the government will fall or win on. It's simply a matter of courtesy, and we're asking the Premier, as a matter of courtesy, or permission of the House, for an adjournment. If the adjournment is wished to be moved by a government member, certainly that would be welcomed so that a government member would be the first tomorrow. But we are suggesting, simply as a matter of courtesy that would be an appropriate move for the government to make. The House Leader is absent so perhaps the Premier could give some indication if we are going to have that level of cooperation or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, it must be said that the rules do not provide for this kind of casual arrangement. Therefore the Speaker cannot make a ruling on this. I think that the best way to do it is to make the motion to adjourn, if that's what the member wishes to do, and put it to the House to test. If it passes, great; if it doesn't, then we go to the next one.

MR. BARRETT: Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, you know the rules very well, but perhaps you may have overlooked this one rule, that if a member did move such a motion of adjournment, and it was defeated by the government majority, he would lose his place in the debate. That's why the tradition is to ask for the courtesy, and that is exactly what we are requesting from the Premier as the House leader — a simple matter of courtesy, not a major issue. Nothing to be petty about or petulant about, simply a matter of courtesy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I recognize the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) .

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: I had a discussion with the Whip in the House, and I suggested that they have more than one speaker in the course of the day — that means the afternoon and the evening, Mr. Speaker.

The government has been telling us ever since the beginning of this parliament, let alone this session, that they have more people than we do and therefore should have proportionately more speakers in each debate. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggested to that Whip at that time that he come up with at least two speakers this evening. Instead of that, what they are trying to do over there is deke us into a vote.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the hon. members know that the work of the Whips is work that is carried on outside of these chambers, and the Chair does not know the arrangements of the Whips and therefore this discussion is completely out of order.

I have recognized the second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

On a point of order, the Member for Comox.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, the Premier was on his feet and had his microphone up. He wished to speak on this point of order and I wonder if he might be permitted to do so now before the second member for Vancouver-Burrard proceeds.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair must recognize the members as they stand. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. BARRETT: You've made some large gains tonight, Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Childish and petty!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. We have recognized the second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

[ Page 322 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members! The only way we can conduct reasonable business in this House is if we maintain a reasonable semblance of order. Therefore I would ask that all members cease and desist and that we recognize for speaking now only the second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: What a monumental victory you've won tonight.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, it's very unfortunate, because the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) and I were prepared to do a duet just now, but he's left because there was too much noise.

MR. BARRETT: Absolute pettiness. That will go down as a great victory by our leader here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say you're not ready now.

MR. LEVI: Yes, we're ready. We are all ready. I thought that what we would have, Mr. Speaker, was something like at least two of those freedom fighters across the way speaking, but they have decided they are not going to. Mind you, the House has filled up and it's very nice to be able to talk to a full House. After all, we only had about eight people in here just before.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will ask for order one more time: order, please.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, to quote the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), you are keeping a very disorderly House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and you are one of the members of this House. (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: Thank you, sir. Yes, I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I am ready to go now. Is everybody ready? — unless the Premier wants to get up and suggest we have an adjournment. That's quite all right; I am prepared to yield.

Mr. Speaker, in respect to the budget speech....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, may we give the courtesy to the member who has the floor?

MR. LEVI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am getting all sorts of invitations from the other side — either to sit down or to stand up. I am sure the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and I could do a very good duet tonight if we could get up on the floor, but he can't, obviously.

In respect to the budget debate, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Shhhh!

One of the basic messages that the NDP gave during the 1975 election.... We kept saying to the people: "Don't let them take it away." We said at that time: "If you elect a Social Credit government, they'll destroy the Mincome programme, they'll destroy the Pharmacare programme, they'll destroy the ambulance programme and many other programmes because what they're going to do is spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of the corporations' money to get elected. They'll promise you anything." What we've had in the budget since yesterday is a clear revelation that they intend to strip from the people of this province nearly all of the programmes that were in position when they came into government.

Not only that, but we had the somewhat ill-informed Minister of Finance get up yesterday and dance around the whole question of deficit financing. I watched him last night on the "Hourglass" programme. I think he was very fortunate that he was on a remote broadcast, that he was in Victoria and the questioners were in Vancouver, because he probably would have done even worse than he did. His answer regarding the succession duty thing was really that he didn't understand the questions put to him by Dr. Halliwell.

So what we've got is that over the past year we've seen the destruction of the Mincome programme. We now know from the budget speech that they're going to reduce the GAIN programme by some $20 million. It has now become a "GAIN-less" programme. I guess what's happened is that everybody out there is very happy all the senior citizens have enough money to live on so the government can now move towards its more specific programme of helping the rich people get richer and making sure that all of the children of these rich people are going to inherit all of the money that their parents want to leave them.

You know, the government talks specifically about restraint, but it really is restraint on paper — it's not specific. In the budget there is some $136 million, which is the money that is going to be spent by the Crown corporations and Public Works. Now, of course, we've got the ferries into another kind of

[ Page 323 ]

company, and then there's going to be the transit. All of that is seen as sound, sharp-pencil budgeting, but it is, in fact, deficit financing. That kind of cost is going to be picked up by future generations, and this is the government that says you have to pay as you go.

On the blind side of this ledger, Mr. Speaker, we have the uncontrolled galloping iceberg, B.C. Hydro, which is continuing to plunge this province into long-term debt at the rate of $1 million a day in interest alone. You know, one would think that given the philosophy enunciated by the government last year that ICBC has to pay as they go, you'd think that what they would do is give Hydro large grants. That would be consistent with the philosophy that they have. But that's not necessary. We're going to be dealing with a bill later on which will give them the possibility of borrowing even more money.

Last year to give a grant to ICBC was considered to be good business, but this year it's not good business to have Hydro pay as they go, because their attitude of pay-as-you-go is that you just keep putting up the rates, as was pointed out by the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) — three times in the last two years. What kind of impact does that have on low-income people, on the people who are trying to get by on what was a Mincome programme, or the people who are trying to get by on the so-called GAIN programme? Three times in two years the Hydro rates have gone up.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There is great concern in the budget about raising investment capital. Some of this investment capital, albeit somewhat speculative, is raised on the Vancouver stock exchange. I made some inquiries of the stock exchange as to how much money is raised there on the Vancouver stock exchange and how much of it is spent in British Columbia. Well, I received a letter from the superintendent of brokers, who informs me that they don't keep that kind of information. But they did do a survey in 1975, and they found that only 25 per cent of the money that's raised on the Vancouver stock exchange stays in British Columbia. I would hope that later on in the estimates the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) will enlighten us as to what he is prepared to do to put some kind of machinery in operation so that we know exactly what money is raised on the stock exchange, what it's raised for, how it's spent, and if, in fact, it really does operate for the purpose of attracting capital for the benefit of British Columbia, and not for the other provinces or operations in the United States.

Really, what is also missing from the budget speech is a real message from the government that there is such a thing as corporate responsibility. If corporations in the past have made large amounts of money because of the investments and the hard work of the people, then they have an obligation when times are tough to stay here and help the province out. Yet we have some of the major corporations, like MacMillan Bloedel and B.C. Forest Products, running off to other provinces to invest there and in the United States, in Georgia, and some of them overseas. The budget calls for a tightening of the belt, but what's missing from the message is that whole question of what the corporations are going to do. They have an obligation, they have a social responsibility in this province to help out and not to run away when times are tough.

The Minister of Finance, on page 7 of his budget speech, catalogued a lot of problems in this province that have really been brought about by the idiotic policies of the Premier. There may be a coffee boycott in eastern Canada and in the United States, but we've had a consumer boycott in this province for over a year — people going over the border because they can't deal with the cost of living that exists in this province and they're going to look for an opportunity somewhere else. They have an option: they can go over the border, but not everybody in this province is that fortunate in terms of trying to stretch their dollars.

In the midst of all this debate we have the somewhat innocent Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) telling the farmers that they'll probably lose their farm income assurance programme. That, again, is going to make some difference to the whole question of productivity, because this was another point that the Minister of Finance went into somewhat specifically — about productivity, wage costs. This government has been advancing this argument for over a year, Mr. Speaker, that the economy is depressed and that productivity and high wages are part of the problem, and that they can't compete on a world market. You know, they continue to tell us this. We hear this all the time, this big lie about the high wages that are restricting us.

On October 14 last, when labour had its day of protest, Gerry Stoney, president of Local 356, IWA, said in a statement that yes, it's true we are the highest paid lumber workers in the world, yet we can't afford to buy a house. Surely that statement has to be a barometer — when the demands made by labour in collective bargaining still do not provide the capability for workers to purchase a home. If one examines the current wages in B.C., compared with the State of Washington or, more specifically, Vancouver and Seattle, then the argument about wages being higher up here raises some serious doubt. We heard this from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who tells us that our wages are higher up here than in the United States, and consequently we can't be competitive.

I asked a friend of mine, who is a planner and

[ Page 324 ]

economist, to look at the specific question of whether in fact wages are higher in British Columbia than in the United States — specifically Seattle and Vancouver — and what the cost of housing is in Vancouver and Seattle, and whether there are any advantages tax-wise or in terms of mortgage money in the United States that we do not have up here.

You know, when you do the calculations, contrary to general opinion, the average wages in Vancouver are actually lower, per month, than in Seattle. For B.C. as a whole, the figures show an average B.C. worker making about $6 per month more than the Washington worker. These figures were collected earlier this month. If you make comparisons of the wage packet, they're not as significant as comparing the disposable income that people have left after paying taxes, food, shelter and clothing.

So we obtained the information and we found some interesting things: a new, 1,200 sq. ft. house in Vancouver costs $68,000; with current interest rates, the carrying costs are about $710 a month. A comparable dwelling in Seattle costs $39,000 and the carrying costs are $250 a month. What this means is that the average wage earner in B.C. will have $378 left for other items after purchasing a new unit, while the average Seattle resident will have about $843.

Mr. Speaker, we look at the two units — one in Seattle and one in Vancouver — and they basically have the same utility value: the Vancouver worker requires a salary increase of about $470 a month if he or she is to enjoy the same material standard of living as the average Seattle worker. If the Vancouver worker is to spend the same proportion of his income on housing as the average Seattle worker, then the Vancouver worker requires a salary increase of something like $1,900 a month over the current salary.

In looking at the differences, we also looked at some of the subsidies that exist in the United States, as compared with British Columbia.

We found, for instance, that the average price of a fully serviced lot in Seattle is about $7,000, compared to the price of about $33,000 in Vancouver. Construction costs are about the same in both provinces. Now if we had action to reduce the land prices in Vancouver to the level of the Seattle area, the average price of a new house in Vancouver would be about $41,000 instead of the $68,000 that it is today. At current Canadian interest rates, the carrying charges would be $426 a month instead of $710. It would be a saving of $284.

This difference in land price, Mr. Speaker, reflects mostly speculative gain, and therefore has nothing to do with the cost of production. If Vancouver interest rates were reduced to the U.S. level, and the difference is 11.75 per cent to 8.75 per cent.... I understand that the interest rates are now down to 10.75 per cent generally in British Columbia. If we had that kind of reduction of 3 percentage points, then the housing in Vancouver would be reduced to about $568 a month instead of $710 a month. That would be a saving to the worker in Vancouver of $142 a month. This is the kind of thing that Gerry Stoney was talking about when he said, "Yes, we're the highest-paid workers in the world, but we can't afford a house."

So we find that there is one significant difference — the interest rates. The Minister of Finance in his efforts to do something about the interest rates makes a plaintive plea to those who deal in mortgages to lower the rates, to do something more reasonable for people. We're a long way in this province, Mr. Speaker, from the 8.75 per cent mortgage money that's available to the workers in Seattle and Washington.

Then there is the other factor. The Seattle wage earner can deduct interest payments and property taxes from income for income tax purposes. If the Vancouver wage earner was allowed to do that then the purchase of a new house would have an annual tax saving of about $2,100 per year. There are some serious questions, of course, about the proposition that we should allow the deduction of interest rates. It tends to favour the people who are better off; it's a leakage to the rich people. Nevertheless, the reality is that those advantages that exist for workers in the Seattle area are significantly different from what exist in Vancouver. It really puts the lie to the constant harping about the high wages that exist in this province and the question of productivity. Now surely we know enough about our workers in this province that they are second to none.

But the question is: what kind of leadership is this government prepared to give to make it possible for people who generally earn high wages to actually be able to purchase a home? We have not one indication from this government that they are prepared to do anything at all.

The NDP government realized that lower-cost mortgages were crucial to the economy. We moved to establish the Savings and Trust Company for the people of the province, but we haven't heard anything from the government about that — just some talk about a report and how much they had to pay for it. We're still waiting for it to be tabled in the House so we can find out just exactly what was supposed to take place, what the findings were. They're not at all concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the issues of mortgage rates. They're prepared to lay back and just let the large corporations roll right over them. They're not prepared to do anything in terms of assisting the average workers in this province to get any kind of reasonable housing. These are decisions that they, as a government, could make — they have that kind of clout — but they're not interested in doing it.

[ Page 325 ]

You know, there's the other side of the question on productivity, that working conditions create the incentive to work as well as social conditions. So there, I think, we have to say to the government over there that the excuse that you give to us that we're pricing ourselves out of the market because we're paying people too much money, when we know that even with the money they get they can't even afford to buy a house....

I want now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to the budget speech in respect to the Pharmacare programme. You know, in August, 1973, when the NDP government announced that they were going to introduce a Pharmacare programme, there was a great deal of celebration in this province, particularly from the senior citizens, who said.... We knew at that time that 40 per cent of the 220,000 senior citizens over the age of 65 in this province who had been given prescriptions by their doctors were not able to fill them because they simply did not have the money to pay for the drugs, for the prescription. This is information that we got from the pharmacists.

So when the Pharmacare programme was brought in, it was brought in in order that this 40 per cent of the senior citizens would be able to get their drugs — and also those people above the low-income level who also had trouble, particularly those people who had civil service pensions that were being eroded, particularly the federal civil servants who at one time had seen themselves as reasonably well off.

The Pharmacare programme was intended to also make available some more disposable income for senior citizens, so the programme was put into operation. That group over there campaigned in the last election: "We'll do even better than that for the Pharmacare programme; we'll expand it." So now we know that we're going to have a universal Pharmacare programme. Universal. It was my understanding that if you have a universal programme, you take a large category of people and you treat them all the same. But they're not all going to be treated the same. Now it may very well be that the programme might make available to every citizen in this province, other than the people over the age of 65, one-half of a prescription a year, because we must conclude that from the $1,400,000 more in the Pharmacare budget, that's what's going to pay for the programme. But no, that's not what's going to pay for the programme. What's going to pay for the Pharmacare programme is the old people and the welfare recipients. Everybody's going to pay for the Pharmacare programme, regardless of how much money you've got. We don't have any facts, but we have to draw some conclusions based on what's in the budget.

I suppose we could say that every senior citizen in this province under the universal Pharmacare programme is now going to pay $25 to the state, and that will yield the state some $6.5 million. Then — remember it's universal — other people will probably have to pay $75. Then when they purchase their drugs, they'll pay the money then they'll send a letter to the government and get 80 per cent of it back. That's what's going to happen: we're going to have a deterrent fee and then we're going to have a lot of paper flowing back and forth, but everybody's going to pay for the programme — including those people who not three years ago were told that never again would they have to concern themselves and worry themselves about finding money to pay for a Pharmacare programme. That's what's happening with this government over there.

They went around during the election and they plainly lied to the people about what they were going to do. Universal Pharmacare a la Manitoba, probably — something like that. Yes, you can nod your head, Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — that's the kind of programme, that's the revenue. They're going to take $20 million off the GAIN programme, $6.5 million from the senior citizens, which is equivalent to about $26 million, Mr. Speaker, and which, ironically enough, is almost the same amount that they're going to let the rich people in the province off from succession duties.

Now I don't know whether that's a coincidence, and I don't even know whether we could really argue that in order to pick up the revenue loss on the succession duties, they've got to take it away from people who can't afford it. But we'll get into that when they bring in the details of the programme. We know because the last time we debated a programme from the Ministry of Human Resources, we did it on the last day of the session with about four of us in the House debating it — the GAIN programme. Yes, the Deputy Speaker nods his head. Yes, he was here; he was in the chair. The GAIN programme, which is probably now better known as the "GAIN-less" programme in this province.

Yet we must draw the inference from the budget speech that things are really good because they can actually save $20 million. So that's where we are with the universal Pharmacare programme, so called. It's not universal Pharmacare, Mr. Speaker; it's the deterrent fee. It's in this province and it's very large — the deterrent fee against senior citizens, the deterrent fee against the low-income people. You know, Mr. Speaker, who suffers from deterrent fees. Those are the people who can least afford it and are not able to participate.

I would think that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would be concerned about the Pharmacare programme the way they're going to bring it in, because if you spend thousands of dollars treating people and then part of that post-treatment period is a prescription-drug programme, and people can't afford to buy it, then really what has been the value of the medical treatment they have received?

[ Page 326 ]

But we're going right back to where it was in the days of W.A.C. Bennett, all the way back to there: universal Pharmacare, Mr. Speaker — the deterrent-fee programme.

I want to cover one other item. I want to cover the question of day care and the budget reduction. There is a $4 million reduction in the budget for day care. Again we must presume that the problems that were in place in respect to the needs for day care in 1972 no longer exist, according to the government. People don't need day care, and it may very well be that they don't need day care in order to go to work because there's such high unemployment they can't get jobs anyway. But the great pity about the cutback in day care is that day care is a preventive programme. For years in this province we have debated in respect to the huge sums of money spent on social services, but when are we going to do some prevention? Well, day care is a preventive service. That's the kind of service that was put into place by the previous government which enabled, up to 1975, some 22,000 children to take advantage of that programme. Almost 12,000 of those children were in a subsidy programme. In the Vancouver area, 70 per cent of the parents of children who were in receipt of the subsidies were working women — single working women.

So what we have here is a cutback in day care in such a way that it is going to create more unemployment. We are not going to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of those early identification possibilities that exist — because day care is there and you have staffs who are trained and who are interested and who make those kinds of referrals — because fewer children are going to be in day care.

What is worse, what is more horrendous m terms of the cutting back of the day-care programme, is that we are going to go back to some of the horrible day-care situations that many of us were so afraid of five years ago in this province, where you have some old person who is not trained, who possibly isn't too well either, looking after four, five and six children in some back room, with no programme and sticking them in front of a TV set. That's the kind of thing that the previous government inherited, and now we are going back to that kind of thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you expect from that bunch?

MR. LEVI: Now if the taxpayers — those people out there who are so upset about social programmes — would think about the future costs of what's going to happen to those children.... I can recall in 1965, when there was a study sponsored by the then United Community Services in Vancouver, that they said at that time that 11,000 children urgently needed day care; 6,500 of those children needed it now. Then, a couple of weeks after the report was released, there was an addendum made to that report. That report said that 1,500 children have been irreparably damaged because of a lack of day care and bad day-care facilities.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): They don't care.

MR. LEVI: That's where we're heading back to, Mr. Speaker. That's where we're heading back to. They have taken some $4 million out of that budget, with absolutely no care whatsoever for children.

MR. WALLACE: But they gave the millionaires $28 million.

MR. LEVI: Sure, they give the millionaires $28 million. After all, there's no problem now with day care anyway because he took off the ceiling in terms of what people can charge. So those that can afford to pay will pay it anyway. There's no problem for them. They don't have to apply for the subsidy.

We constantly hear in this House about the kind of programmes that they need to train people, to get them off welfare and into the work force. Well, that programme that was in place for the better part of three years in this province got people off welfare and moved hundreds of women into the work force. It created reasonable day-care situations for children who were healthy children, who had an expectation of going on into school with very few problems. We've gone back. We've gone right back down the time tunnel to the Dark Ages. That's what they want, because that's what it's worth, because they want to save some money.

MR. WALLACE: Let them grow up and send them to jail!

MR. LEVI: Well, of course. We have the great debate about juveniles. I remember I said this four years ago in this House: That a previous government was not prepared, by failing to produce programmes for children — an error that would provide cannon fodder for the jails. But that's what the group is going to do. They're going to put kids in jail. They're going to remove the day-care programme. They're going to remove the day-care programme and that is going to create problem children. That's what they're going to do. Why? Because it's cheaper? It's really cheaper, eh? And is the future cost cheaper? — the cost of dealing with these children when they're juveniles, and then later on when they're in the adult jail system or in the mental hospitals, or they're so completely incapacitated that they've got to become charges of the state? That's what the previous government did. That's what they did. The mess that

[ Page 327 ]

we took over! Now, in less than a year, you're prepared to create that mess all over again.

What is horrible about it, Mr. Speaker, is that while they are doing this, they're going to give the rich people another $28 million. If we don't have, or we never had, in this province any defined class distinction, we sure have it now — $25 million right out of the Human Resources budget and $28 million to the rich people. That's a coincidence, I would think. Well, it's one of the horrible tragedies of the 1977 budget. And that's where we are!

Tonight, we were waiting for the great freedom fighters to get up and defend the budget. There's the Premier, sitting there niggling to himself. No, no, we want you to speak. Not one of them has got up except the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . That's all, the member for Skeena. But the rest of them have nothing to say. They usually get up, they open their mouths and nothing comes out.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: We've got to hear from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). He's got to get up in this House, and I'm just waiting for his estimates. He's got to get up, and he's got to tell us why it is that he's such an evil ogre when it comes to children and day care.

Why is it that that Premier is prepared to go along with the kind of rubbish of cutting back on the day-care programme, the kind of rubbish of giving $28 million to the wealthy people in this province, but we don't hear from anybody? We don't hear from the 12 millionaires; we don't hear from the member from Houston — you know, the one with the loud mouth who usually has quite a lot to say in the background, but has nothing to say in the foreground. I would hope that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we are really going to hear from that side of the House. They are going to defend every indefensible position in that budget. We are going to hear people say: "It's a good thing to cut out day care. That's a frill; we shouldn't have that. Poor people don't need day care. What poor people need is the jackboot, to be kicked around and be insulted. That's how you treat the poor people, and then that drives them off welfare."

MR, BARRETT: No, but they call that restraint.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that's restraint, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: We should have adjourned so you could've done some research, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Research — you know what? In last year's annual report, which that gallant gentleman across the way tabled the last day of the session — and I guess we're going to have to wait till the last day of the session again this year — but if he looks at page 33, he'll see "day care — a preventive programme." That's what it says, a preventive programme.

MS. SANFORD: Then why are you cutting it back?

MR. LEVI: He's applauding himself. Why are you cutting it back? Because the word has come from the man, Mr. Speaker, the man with the sharp pencil — and I don't mean the Minister of Finance, I mean the Premier: we've got to save some money; we've got to deliver a promise to the wealthy. We told those corporations we'd treat them well; we told the people that we would take off the succession duties....well, you've got to find the money.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. LEVI: So where do you find the money? You find the money from the poor people: they don't need it; you just take it away from them. I watched the former Premier of this province sitting over there yesterday when the Minister of Finance was making his speech, and I watched the former Premier as the Minister of Finance said: "This change is made to encourage the retention and accumulation of capital by residents of British Columbia." That's what he said, and then he went on to say: "It would be inconsistent to encourage investment in the province by individuals and private entrepreneurs, and at the same time" — and I'm still watching the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett — "and at the same time maintain taxation policies which discriminate against private investment."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't wish to interrupt you, but you are on your final three minutes.

MR. LEVI: Thank you very much.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that that Minister of Finance has surrounded himself with some of the most capable advisers any minister could have — I don't think. He has yet to produce for this House one piece of information that will substantiate the statements he has made that by removing the succession duties we are going to get such a rush of investment capital in this province that it's going to knock us sideways.

Last night he was asked by Dr. Halliwell.... Dr. Halliwell said: "Well, do you really believe that people will come to B.C., will sell out all their investments and come here? Do you really believe that that will happen?" And do you know what he said, Mr. Speaker? When he finally found his tongue

[ Page 328 ]

to answer, he said: "Yes, we think that will happen." He hasn't got anything to base it on. It's a political promise that they've had to deliver.

MS. SANFORD: Bill Hamilton doesn't think so.

MR. LEVI: Yes. Well, Bill Hamilton — you know, he's so upset with this government, Mr. Speaker, so upset. He was upset with the previous government, but with this government...it's taken him less than 12 months to be upset with them. We would hope, during the next few days of debate, and into the estimates of the Minister of Finance, that he will give us some information that substantiates his argument. So far we don't have any. I look forward to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), when he presents the bill on Pharmacare, telling us that he is not going to take money away from people over the age of 65.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, like the GAIN programme was good — we know about that.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): It'll be good.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it'll be good. You know what he does? He stands in front of the mirror and says: "It'll be good, it'll be good, it'll be good." It's a big lie, but eventually he believes it. He actually believes that the GAIN programme is a good programme. He does, but he can't help it. You know, with his kind of IQ, what can you do? Can't do anything. He believes it. But I want to see him stand in his place and tell us that he is not going to discriminate against senior citizens, and that he is not going to take any money away from them — that he's going to let them live the way they are living with a Pharmacare programme where they do not have to worry about finding the money to pay for the drugs, and then have to wait to get it back in the mail. That's the greatest service you could do to the senior citizens.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It'll be good.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it'll be good. It'll be good. That's the theme song, Mr. Speaker; it'll be good. You know, that's a bit of a change from what they said in the election, because in the election they said: "It's going to be great!" Then they got in and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in his first speech to the public said: "We are ready to put this province on the rocks." Then he changed himself and said: "On the road to recovery."

Well, now we're down to: "It'll be good." Probably by the end of the debate, Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear somebody say: "We hope that it'll be good."

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to stand in this House. Since the appointment to spend more time in the chair has come my way, I've had fewer opportunities to speak than I would have wished. Nonetheless, this affords me one of the times. I had a speech all ready to go for the throne speech debate, and was nosed out by the time limits which are still in place for that particular debate. But it's always a pleasure to stand here.

I'd like to give some thoughts on the budget speech. I think that it would be perhaps hypocritical to just be a part of the game, to stand as a government member and just laud the budget speech because that would be what would be expected of a government member. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have a responsibility to be primarily honest in this House. Therefore, I will not only be passing on some observations and some suggestions, but I have a few disappointments I would like to share with you as well.

Perhaps one or two observations: I noticed that this seems to be the series of debates that tends toward marathon length. I've noticed at least two speeches that have gone on past the two-hour mark. It seems to be in vogue to see whether or not you can exercise your lungs longer than the previous speaker. But, sir, my time will be expended by the time we reach the 11 o'clock hour, and I hope I will not keep you beyond that time.

I noticed that there's a new approach, a new style in preaching, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . I wanted to say "member," but he is the leader — let's give him his due. He started out his two-hour speech in the usual sing-song, high-pitched fashion, but I don't know whether the rest of the members noticed or not that by the time he had passed the one-hour mark that high, sing-song pitch had been replaced with a rather deep growl, as though he were trying to project a new image. I hope the new image that he projects affects some of the other areas as well. Perhaps some of his philosophies might be affected during this stay in this session of the House; perhaps we can come to agreement on some of the areas in which we have differed in days gone by.

The budget speech says that the greatest single increase, and therefore supposedly the area of greatest concern, of greatest priority for the government, is the area of health. They say they've increased the expenditure by $110 million from $871 million to $981 million. I think that is commendable. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is perhaps not as important to cite the number of dollars that are involved as it is to talk for a few moments about the purposes for which the increased dollars are being

[ Page 329 ]

spent.

I think everyone else in the House would agree that sick people are not sick by their choosing. If it were their choosing, they would have not chosen so. Therefore they find themselves in their dilemma because they couldn't help it. I think we should consider them first when we think in terms of social dollars to be expended on their behalf.

Regardless of what the budget speech says, Mr. Speaker, it does not say what our government plans to do to erase those inequities that exist between the different levels of care. We have acute care, we have extended care — both of those two levels are well cared for. We've expressed this concern, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), on other occasions when we've been travelling in committee.

MR. WALLACE: Three years ago.

MR. SCHROEDER: There is another level of care called intermediate care — the people are sick too. They are not sick because of their choosing. They are at a different level of illness, we say. Yet, somewhere near the borders, the boundaries, the lines of demarcation between the three levels, who is to say when they are acutely ill, Mr. Doctor, when do we say they are intermediately ill, and when are they extendedly ill? There will always be inequities as long as we have lines of demarcation.

MR. WALLACE: Artificial!

MR. SCHROEDER: I think that I would like to urge our government to recognize sickness as sickness. To put it simply, sick is sick. I think that somehow we should take the number of dollars that we have to set aside for illness and divide it up so that the protection will go equitably to all levels of sickness.

I think we need to address ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to erasing the inequities that exist just between the three levels of care. Of course, I'm still hoping that in this session the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will stand in his place and tell us that this $110 million increase that we see in this budget is going to take the first step. I think it's too much to expect that in one year, in one budgetary step, we could have all of these inequities erased. But if I could see one step toward it, I would be extremely thankful.

Here we have an area where people cannot help themselves. They do not desire to be where they are. And we, who have means and who have health and who would gladly share our dollars with them, would like to see those dollars go on an equitable basis. I'd like to recommend that to our government.

I notice that the Minister of Health is concerned not only about providing good health care but providing health care throughout the province. I think every member knows, Mr. Speaker, that there are areas in our province where health care is hardly available, if at all. Somehow or other, I'd like to see the Minister of Health address himself to this particular problem: to provide some kind of an incentive that would induce me, if I were a doctor, to go into the areas where doctors do not like to be, where it's not comfortable to be, and where perhaps the earnings, on a fee-for-service basis, are not as great as they are in Chilliwack, where all doctors would love to be.

I think that I'd love to hear the Minister of Health address himself to this particular problem: how do we extend this kind of a service to everyone in the province? I believe everyone in the province deserves the same kind of care, on an equitable basis.

Enough for health. The time is short.

Mineral resources. The fellow with whom I shared my first office after I was elected, when I came to this House, was appointed the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, and I was proud that day. It was as if somebody had announced that your kid brother had just been placed on the Montreal Canadiens or something like that. There was a sense of pride.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Vancouver Canucks.

MR. SCHROEDER: I would like to see this Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) put together the knowledge that he garnered in his previous appointment to the cabinet and utilize the wisdom that he has at his command. I've learned to appreciate him. I'd like him to suggest in his first speech to the House how he is going to gain cooperation between his department and the industry so that we can create new markets and so that the resource province which is ours can return the riches that are latent and are underground, for our benefit; so that the greatest number of dollars will be made available so that those people who are in the first paragraph under health care in my speech could have the care that they deserve. I don't know how patient we can be, but I should certainly hope that within the first year of the Minister of Mines taking of his portfolio we're going to hear wonderful things. I'm expecting that from this minister.

I noticed that the budget concerns itself with a couple of things. One of them is restraint, and I might address myself to that a little later. It also addresses itself to unemployment, and there is a major concern about the number of people who cannot provide for themselves because they just don't have a place to work; more jobs for more people. I think that we in the province of British Columbia have come to depend on someone else to provide our jobs for us. We have grown to depend on large industry. We have believed that somewhere, after we graduate from

[ Page 330 ]

some school, college or university somewhere, someone else has the obligation to provide a job for us. What has happened, Mr. Speaker, to the concept that once was ours, when we had a pioneering spirit that said: "Hey, man! I'm going to make a job for myself."?

I had a very taxing question asked on one of my speeches I was making to one of the colleges — it was the Fraser Valley College. They said: "How in the world can you reduce unemployment if there are only this many jobs and we have more people than we have jobs? How are you going to reduce this thing?" I said exactly what I just said to you now: "Do we not have an obligation to make a job for ourselves?" The question came: How did you do it?"

You always hate, as you know, to have a personal example, but I worked my first job, until I was 19 years of age, for someone else — Canada Packers, to be exact. Then, at that age, an opportunity came where there was a need to be filled. There was a father who said: "Hey, Harv, your skills may fit this need. Why don't we go ahead?" I went to the bank and borrowed my first $1,500 — seared stiff. But I went into the interior decorating business on my own and created a job for myself and, lo and behold, to my surprise, my services were required. Within the years I was providing not only for myself but providing so that the capital loan, which was staggering — $1,500 — was repaid, and we were well on the way.

I think that this is the concept that, somehow or other, we've got to communicate to our people. Somehow or other, I'd like to see the incentives. I don't know if it belongs to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in his programme, or if it belongs to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in his summer employment programme.

Maybe just as a suggestion we should make available to our people a list that says: "Hey, these are the items which we are presently importing — why shouldn't we be creating these items for ourselves, and in so doing, put to work the people who would provide at least that much product for our own consumption?"

What is wrong, I ask, with the Minister of Economic Development expanding the list of imports which he is already publishing so we can say: "Hey, we've got 35 graduates from a course in welding; we can now put these 35 members to work because we have a commodity that is presently being imported and which we could very easily provide for ourselves. Let's put the guys to work." What's the matter with that idea?

I would think that the suggestion could go beyond just the digest of what is being imported; the list could go on to include those things which we wished we had but do not have because they are not being produced within our economic cycle, and give that visionary concept to those who are out there looking for a job, and say: "Hey, perhaps you have the skill. Perhaps your skills, with minor alignment, could help us fill not only our wants and our needs but also our desires and our wishes." I think it's a good idea.

I think that it is particularly important in 1977, because in 1977 in our economic cycle we find ourselves producing products that we cannot sell even to ourselves. I have heard speakers, economic experts, MLAs, stand to express their chagrin. It's more serious than we first anticipated because it's not just as simple a matter as producing a product that is not competitive and therefore does not sell on the export market. It's as serious as this in that our commodity — which we produce with our own hands at prices which we demand, both in wages, in salaries, in distribution costs, in finance costs and in regulation costs through government — the final cost of that product is so high that we refuse to buy it ourselves and we go to a neighbouring cycle and buy from the Americans. I've got nothing against the Americans — they make good products too — but we buy from the Americans because they happen to be on a smaller cycle, and buy from them the product we desire.

The problem is that the money we use to buy their product is the money we earned and cashed in in good faith, hoping that the product we created ourselves would sell. But as long as our product remains on the inventory shelf it does not represent value. It does not represent value until it is sold to a consumer; until somebody buys the thing nobody gets paid. But those who took their withdrawals in advance on that product take that money and inject it into a neighbouring cycle, and we contribute to our own demise because not only did we not buy our commodity, but now we can't even buy our own commodity if we wanted to — we have taken the very fund that represents that value and we have spent it in some other cycle. And guess who is smiling? The fellows who call themselves Uncle Sam across the border, because they now have an injection of funds into their cycle. In addition to their own, they have ours as well. Shame on us!

Now it's easy to cite the problem; it's much more difficult to talk about the answer. It's hard even to pretend to know the answer, but the fact is this: if our product were on shelf at a desirable price, we would buy it. How can we possibly put our product on shelf at a price which we ourselves will buy? I heard it alluded to here in this room today — say, hey, we're going to have to stop and mark time for a little while. We're going to have to wait until the other economic cycles catch up with us and we become competitive. When that takes place, we will buy our own product.

For shame! For shame — we say that now. I remember somebody saying that in 1971. It was a man for whom I had great respect. It was a man for

[ Page 331 ]

whom nearly everyone in this room had great respect because members of the opposition refer to his remarks and cite them as authority. The man was W.A.C. Bennett, and he said in 1971: "Gang, we've got to hold it down to 6.5 — that would be the greatest allowable increase in any area where we have jurisdiction." Let's hang on to this, because in his wisdom he could foresee the things that you and I have learned in these last four years, and, oh, if we had listened to him rather than turfed him out. Shame on us!

We stand here today, saying: "Oh, would it not have been smart to do it that way?" We stand here today, at today's junction, and are not even willing to entertain the restraint that is necessary to bring us into line in three or four years' time. Restraint is never popular; it never has been popular. Yet I have to tell you: without restraint the end result is chaos.

Do I tell the truth? We've got a case in point here today.

MR. COCKE: You've got chaos and restraint, Harvey — that's your problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: You gave them the chaos.

MR. SCHROEDER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the question needs to be asked: which came first — the restraint or the chaos? Which was the result of the other?

I was proud to see in the budget a reduction in taxes for mobile homes. I've said it in this House many times. I still believe that a fantastic alternative for our housing problem is to provide the alternatives to those who can't afford a $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 mortgage. They can get into something a little less permanent and bide their time until they can afford a bigger mortgage. I was glad to see the reduction in taxes. Bully for somebody, and I don't know exactly who to say it to!

However, I say. that there is little comfort in knowing that I can save $500 buying a unit but not have a place to put it. I would like to urge our government to do whatever they can to provide whatever incentive is necessary so that local planners — municipal and regional district planners — will provide in their plans spaces so that "mobile-home parks" is not an ugly word.

I get sick and tired of arguing with mayors, aldermen and council people, and saying to them, "Why can't we put a mobile home park there?" We name a specific place. They say: "We can't put it there because it's too far away from the core. We can't provide the services." They might need a policeman to come and look at it once in a while. Maybe if they had a fire, how long would it take the fire truck to get there? They have all the excuses as to why that thing shouldn't be there.

So I say to them: "Where would you sooner have it?" They say: "We'd sooner have it closer to the core." You say: "Okay. Now we'll take it and put it closer to the core. Let's put it right there." You make a specific suggestion. They say: "Uh-uh. It's not the best place for it because we are going to scare away the people who are nearby. We know what mobile-home parks are like."

I say this to you: where in the ever-lovin', blue-eyed world are we going to put those mobile-home parks unless we provide some kind of an incentive so that these dear people can have a place to live? Let's not only save them $500 in S.S. and M.A. tax, but let's give them a place to live. I could cite a specific example out of my own area but I would not want to embarrass anybody.

I've only got three minutes before the gong is going to go, Mr. Speaker. There is one subject that I would just love to get my teeth into, and that's this business of land use. I think that the government is taking a fantastic step — one step — in the right direction, and that is to provide greater local autonomy in this business of planning communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be more specific.

MR. SCHROEDER: We have a problem in our area right now that was brought about by some imported mourners — professional mourners, rabble rousers, imported agitators — who had addresses in New Westminster and Port Alberni...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR.SCHROEDER: ...who came to try and stir up the folk of our gentle little pastoral area, to try to make us believe that we had a problem out there that never existed. If you don't believe the problem didn't exist, I can ask you just one question, Mr. Speaker — you provide me with the answer. You know we did not have a problem.

The farmland that we have in the Chilliwack area is there not by accident, it's there by planning. The only reason we have it at all is because there was restraint in that area. Do you want to know how it came there in the first place? It was at the bottom of a lake. Somebody with a little foresight drained the place and created several hundreds of thousands of acres of land. Now once we got it, we protected it ever since the day we drained it.

All that we asked — and I want every cabinet member to blush now — was that we in our own local area be given the right to designate a townsite so that we wouldn't have to have the problems that we have today because we don't have a townsite. All we wanted was to have was a clear line that says okay, this is urban and everything else will be agricultural. Well, do you know what we have now? We have the

[ Page 332 ]

agricultural with the urban. We have piggeries in the downtown area. (Laughter.)

I still think a better plan, Mr. Speaker — and I think you would agree — is to provide a townsite that has in it enough space so that you can provide for your projected population growth over the next 50 years, and then provide around it a buffer zone....

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: Just hang tight; you'd think there's room for everybody in this debate. (Laughter.)...that could be used for row crops or field crops. Then let that part of agriculture which doesn't smell too good be just a little bit distant, and we wouldn't have the problems that we've got right now: Councils having to make ridiculous bylaws about 80 acres. You have to have 80 acres of land before you can grow a pig.

I would trust that, somehow or other, wisdom would still prevail and that cabinet would be considerate enough to allow the fact that perhaps the guy that's right close to the problem maybe knows a little more about the problem than someone sitting in an ivory tower. I know they'll do that. I've got faith in them.

The H hour is near the end, Mr. Speaker, and I guess I'm going to have to save this for the next throne speech. But there are other areas I'd like to talk about. Perhaps, when the legislation is introduced, I'll have the opportunity. I will conclude with that.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, by leave I wish to withdraw notice to question 7 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.