[ Page 333 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Floating Homes Regulation Act (Bill M-201). Mr. Rogers.

Introduction and first reading — 333

Oral questions

WCB chairmanship vacancy. Ms. Sanford — 333

Confederation discussion with Premiers. Mr. Wallace — 334

Share purchases in Quasar and Cheyenne. Mr. Lauk — 336

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 337

Mr. King — 343

Mr. Calder — 348

Mr. D'Arcy — 353

Mr. Kempf — 355

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in greeting in the galleries Mrs. Mae Ross, who is a very valued constituency worker of mine.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Mary Robinson, who is the president of the College Faculties Federation of British Columbia, and Mr. Ferris Adams, who is from my constituency and is a well-known breeder and trainer of race horses.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are two friends from the Coquitlam constituency, Wayne and Bonnie Hall, and I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to advise the House today that a member who represented that great north country, partly which I represent, in the House of Commons for a number of years under the Social Credit banner is in the gallery, and I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Bert LeBoe.

Introduction of bills.

FLOATING HOMES REGULATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Rogers, Bill M-201, Floating Homes Regulation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

WCB CHAIRMANSHIP VACANCY

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): My question is to the Minister of Labour. It's now a year since the Workers' Compensation Board has been without a permanent chairman and I'm wondering if the minister would inform the House how many people interviewed for the position of chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board have refused the job because under your administration the position has become too political.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is none.

MS. SANFORD: How many people have been interviewed for the position?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take that question as notice. The figure at this moment I don't know. I did know as of a month or so ago, and I'd be pleased to make that information available to the member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, a further supplemental: how many people now on the minister's list are yet to be interviewed for that position?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Two, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Supplemental. With the Workers' Compensation Board some time ago it was recorded that there were 1,000 board of review hearings that had been heard but were awaiting decision. To the nearest hundred, how many are now awaiting decision?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, could the minister, at the same time as he is taking that as notice, find out the month for which the boards of review are currently processing those hearings — that is to say, hearings that were held back? In what month are they now finally reaching decisions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious length of the question posed by the member for Nelson-Creston, I would suggest that in accordance with the rules he place that question on the order paper.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, come! You don't know to the nearest month.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): A further supplementary question: I would ask the hon. minister if he could tell us how many people whose appeals are awaiting the compensation board have applied for social welfare while their appeals are pending. How many have applied?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to find the answer for the member.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: could he also find out how many have applied, how

[ Page 334 ]

many have been accepted, and how many have been turned down as well?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. minister heard the further supplemental question.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, in view of his firing of Mr. Ison without consulting with that chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, and without reasonable severance pay, if it is not true that the problem we have today is a result of the shabby treatment by that minister, and if that is not part of the problem of finding a new chairman for a board that has been without a chairman for one year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's a question that demands an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are aware of the rules of the House as well as anyone in this House is aware of them.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I want to know if the minister is going to answer. Is the minister going to answer or not?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): What about the people who are suffering? Don't you care about them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Shabby!

CONFEDERATION DISCUSSION WITH PREMIERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Premier, if he could just restrain his interjections for a moment: in view of Premier Levesque's statement last night in New York that the important question is not whether or when Quebec will separate but how, and in view of the Premier of this province's recent reaffirmation in this House of his government's commitment to Confederation, and in view of the obvious speed with which events are moving in this national crisis, can the Premier tell this House if he is taking any steps to initiate discussions among the other nine provinces so the nation as a whole can become better informed of the consensus of opinion of the nine provincial Premiers as to how, perhaps, they should go about preserving Confederation?.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Oak Bay, I don't think every speech by the Premier of Quebec means that events are fast-moving; it means that he is sharing his opinions outside the country, along with the opinions he has already expressed inside the country. But if we measure events as to the desires of the people of Quebec, then recent public opinion surveys show that they are moving the other way since the election, and fewer of them today agree with separation than when the election was held.

But I do want to assure the member that the Premiers haven't waited till after the fact in getting together and dealing with the constitution or considering how to deal with Canada. We've been meeting, as you know, since I have been Premier, all of this last year on constitutional problems and on ways in which the constitution, should the Prime Minister's wish be met, could be repatriated to Canada, and how we could improve the constitution.

Along with these discussions, we've also had ways in which we could strengthen the country. This has been ongoing; these discussions will continue to be held. So I would like the member to know specifically that we haven't waited until after the fact. These discussions have been going on since I was Premier.

I do not feel events are running away with Mr. Levesque. The only thing that's running away, perhaps, is his oratory.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the Premier is correct in his quoting of public opinion polls, these in themselves are not as reliable as the power that resides in the hands of a Premier. In light of the Premier's answer today — and I acknowledge much of the validity of his answer — is the Premier of British Columbia making any arrangement to meet privately with Premier Levesque so that at least the public in British Columbia can be kept informed on what I believe to be events that are moving more rapidly than perhaps was formerly the case, so that at least our Premier can keep the people of this province up to date and well informed as to the ongoing plans and policies of Premier Levesque in relation to the various steps, upon which he appears to be embarking unilaterally, as if separation was already an established fact?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't plan on holding any secret meetings with the Premier of Quebec.

MR. WALLACE: I said "private"; I didn't say "secret." I'm very sensitive about secret hearings.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The business of our country is too important to hold these meetings in

[ Page 335 ]

isolation. They might be misconstrued. I'm prepared to meet with the other Premiers with Mr. Levesque. I'm certainly not out to arrange any unusual alliances or hold any unusual discussions, if that's what you're suggesting. I know other Premiers have suggested alliances with the Premier of Quebec and with a party. (Laughter.) That's not what we consider in the best interests of the country.

I put this for the information of all of the House: our cabinet ministers are continuing to meet with other ministers in their various capacities under the auspices of meetings arranged by the government of Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On the contrary.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): That minister there made a separatist statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You might find it unusual, with your position and your history in Ottawa, to realize that being a positive British Columbian doesn't necessarily make you less a Canadian. It's perhaps the history of the way the government of Canada has treated the provinces that has brought us to this situation, and that is why our ministers speak out for a more positive way in which we can build a stronger Canada.

I take exception to your remarks that any minister who is innovative enough to speak positively on ways we can improve this country will hurt it, when so many people are caught up in the negativism of separatism.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier not consider that the remarks of a minister who suggests that any powers in Canada which adhere to the federal government are only those on which unanimous consensus can be reached by the provinces, means, in effect, acceptance of the programme of the Parti Quebecois and are, in effect, a separatist statement by a minister of his government? They were made in this House the other day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano is being argumentative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, like one of your ministers!

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I suggest is this: If you look in history, this country wasn't built by a federal government that was suddenly there; it was built by the provinces getting together.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: In fact, that's how this country was built.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, a supplemental to the Premier following his last comment and the one prior to it. Do you therefore endorse the statements made by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his speech to the House during the debate? Do you endorse his statements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes or no.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes or no. If I may continue my supplemental: The hon. Premier just stated that he thought it was a very fine thing to have remarks made, such as were made by the hon. Minister of Education, so obviously he knew what the remarks were which were made. Do you endorse them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has made many fine speeches in this House with which, I believe, we all concur. But I want to refer back to the speech he made the other day.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want to listen?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You just heard it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

MR. LAUK: You just heard it yesterday. Do you endorse him or not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, the hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say exactly what I believe, and I'm not going to hand out speech notes outside the House that I'm afraid to say once I get inside, as did the member from Vancouver Centre.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I noticed one of the newspapers quoted the speech notes and reported them in the paper, a speech of that member yesterday, but...

[ Page 336 ]

MR. LAUK: Do you endorse it or not?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes or no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...they never quoted your speech notes. Anyhow, I'd like to respond to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). The Minister of Education's statement, as I understand it, called for more opportunity for the provinces to have more flexibility in powers and taxation and in developing programmes. That's been a position I've advocated all along, and one with which I agree wholeheartedly.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the question of the member for Burnaby and to enlighten the Premier. The specific comments of the Minister of Education to which he referred were that the powers of the federal government in this country should be only those that are unanimously agreed to by all of the provinces — meaning, in particular, those agreed to by the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec. Does the Premier endorse that statement by his minister or not?

MR. LAUK: Yes or no.

MR. GIBSON: Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. GIBSON: That minister should be fired from the cabinet!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Talk about a lack of intestinal fortitude on the part of the First Minister of this province who will not even support his minister's statements...

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question?

MR. LAUK: ...or make a clear statement as to this province's role in Confederation.

[Mr. Speaker rises]

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member has a question, please ask it.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

SHARE PURCHASES IN QUASAR AND CHEYENNE

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Economic Development: did the minister discuss with anyone the advisability of purchasing shares in Quasar or Cheyenne Pete prior to December 2, 1976?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think that question will be handled...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...by the judicial inquiry.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary. There's no rule of sub judice affecting the parliaments of this country. In any event, the ordinary rules of sub judice, if applied, would not apply to that question. Could the minister please answer yes or no?'

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Is the minister going to hide behind a judicial inquiry that does not bar him from answering this question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he afraid to answer?

MR. LAUK: Will the minister consult with Mr. Justice Kirke Smith and find out that he is indeed entitled to answer this question in this House? The inquiry is going on and that minister can answer this question without affecting that inquiry. I know that, and you can consult with the judge and find out for yourself. Now will you answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member please take his seat for a moment?

I would like to bring to the hon. member's attention, and to the attention of all of the members of this House, that Campion on page 129 states that: "A matter referred to a royal commission is not subject to a question on the floor of the House."

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is not a royal commission.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It is not a royal commission.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a commission of inquiry, which has the same status.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the rule you've quoted does not apply to a judicial inquiry; secondly, will we have the time taken by your unasked-for order back in question period?

[ Page 337 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a public inquiry.

MR. BARRETT: It's a public inquiry.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, just for a point of clarification, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) intimated he'd been talking to the judge or he knew something about the way the inquiry was being held.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to ask him if he's been talking to the judge.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Are we to have the time, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The question period has been terminated for a few minutes now, hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...in a disgraceful effort to deliberately deceive....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Take your seat, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. [Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
 (continued debate)

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the budget.

First, however, I would like to bid a warm welcome to hon. members returning to Victoria for this session on behalf of all the citizens of this fair city. My regards also to the various members of the opposition who have moved to Victoria permanently. Your constituents send their regards — to us. (Laughter.)

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank members on both sides of the House for their kind remarks on my appointment as Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I feel very privileged to be chosen for this task from among so many capable people, and I want to assure all hon. members that I shall do my utmost to fulfil this responsibility. Later in my remarks I want to tell you something about the reorganization of programmes and services which is underway in my ministry, but first, to the budget.

This is a budget which signals that government spending is under control, Mr. Speaker. It is a budget without increases in taxes and free of deficit financing. It is a budget set within the means of the taxpayers. Indeed, it is a budget which lowers taxes. This is a budget which lives within the same standards and limits that government asks its citizens to observe in these difficult times. It is a budget for fiscal restraint, yet within these means, it is a budget which provides for new and improved programmes and services which will mark this year as a year of significant' advance for British Columbians. It is a budget for increased confidence, investment and employment in our economy, and it is a budget which leads the way for all British Columbians to join in a unified effort, an effort to restore our productivity to a level which will enable us once again to compete in the world marketplace.

How important are these principles and objectives embodied in the budget, Mr. Speaker? This debate concerns the relevance of the budget to the realities which this government must confront. Many authorities will be cited in this debate, but too often they will prove to be biased by political partisanship, or will be theoretical and lacking in factual support. Perhaps one of the best assessments we can get is that of the detached viewer. Such a view of our economic reality was provided some months ago in the Wall Street Journal, in an article dealing with the value of the Canadian dollar. The writer, an American, had consulted some of the leading U.S. analysts of our economy for a dispassionate view of this country. This article says it all, Mr. Speaker: "Our analysis shows that Canada faces some pressing problems that are not generally appreciated in the United States — rapidly rising government spending, higher relative inflation, low profit margins and insufficient manufacturing investment."

The gentleman quoted here believes that wage-and-price controls in Canada, and heavy borrowings in the U.S. by Canadians, encouraged by Canada's high interest rate policies have masked

[ Page 338 ]

major deterioration in Canada's productivity and competitiveness relative to the U.S.

The estimate of the Canadian dollar's value takes into account, among other things, comparisons of U.S. and Canadian inflation index rates since 1967, Canadian unit labour costs, monetary policies and manufacturing productivity. Canada's absolute labour costs are some 37 per cent above U.S. levels; thus Canadian manufacturing is very much uncompetitive.

The analyst believes Canadians will continue to be heavy borrowers in the U.S. and that the large difference in interest rates between the two countries may not narrow significantly. This spread of interest rates has been the result of a conscious Bank of Canada policy to help restrain inflation and, in part, to force borrowing into the U.S. to help the Canadian dollar. "Canada has been experiencing worse inflation than the U.S.," he says, "but price restraints have helped that situation."

Mr. Speaker, as I say, that article tells it all. Let's just review the points that were raised there.

Rapidly rising government spending: the Minister of Finance has correctly stated that we cannot afford excesses such as the 112 per cent increase in government spending by the NDP in just three short years. We must temper our expectations. Government must live up to the standards it expects of its citizens. The 5.9 per cent is all the increase we can afford in the spending of this province this year.

Higher relative inflation: the budget address repeatedly and consistently places the highest of priority on this grave threat to our very way of life.

Low profit margins and inefficient manufacturing investment: Which, I might say, curtailed employment opportunities where the majority of our citizens are employed in the private sector.

The budget removes disincentives for investment, and what better example than the measures taken in the field of mining. Coal, oil, gas, copper — these are the raw materials, Mr. Speaker, which hold the future of this province, and we are on the threshold of the greatest era that this province has seen in those resources.

High-interest-rate policies forcing borrowing into the U.S. market: this is wrong in my view, and I'm glad the Minister of Finance addresses this problem as a high priority. Lower interest rates are a critical requisite not only to enable business to renew and expand and to provide employment for our people, but also to allow governments to meet capital requirements through the Canadian marketplace. It is a healthier economy and a healthier government which are integrated when they compete in the same marketplace for funds.

To be sure we will continue to need foreign capital, but I believe it would be healthier for Canadians and for Canadian government if the requirements for capital for those governments were assessed in the Canadian marketplace, and if the investment of foreign nations, in assisting the development of our economy and the development of employment in this country, were directed more, proportionately speaking, towards the private sector.

Major deterioration in productivity and competitiveness in relation to our vital markets: this budget repeatedly calls for restraint to enable our markets to catch up with our inflated production costs. The Minister of Finance has outlined the alarming deterioration of Canada's balance of payments. The member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) spoke in eloquently simple terms last evening about the economic suicide this nation is committing by increasing this imbalance. I believe, with a profound sense of urgency, that we must restore the ethics of individual saving and investment in this country. We must build on this base if we are to return to a sound, stable economy.

Yesterday the NDP financial critic (Mr. Stupich) was highly critical of this budget, but the NDP has still not grasped that it was precisely because they could not give this province's economy the kind of discipline and leadership that was needed — the kind that this budget stands for — that they were thrown out of office by the people of the province.

That member's speech was pathetically lacking in any real substance, Mr. Speaker. In any meaningful discussion of the course which this government and province must chart, personal invective and tunnel vision continue to be the order for the NDP. For them, figures are obviously just throw-away lines — sensation before the facts.

I'm particularly sorry that the falsetto logic, for which the leader of that party (Mr. Barrett) has become infamous, has rubbed off onto a newcomer to that party, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). That member delivered a staggering amount of misinformation to this House on the subject of tourism a few days ago, Mr. Speaker.

For the sake of a rational and informed debate on this vital industry, I want to set the record straight at this time. Compare the statements of that member with the facts provided by the very capable research staff of the Ministry of Travel. That member said that the government lost $70,000 a day on room taxes as a result of increased ferry rates, presumably alluding to the hotel-motel business of Vancouver Island.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I suspected you were all mouth, Mr. Member, but I didn't realize you would admit it.

Revenue from hotel and motel tax is up, not down — up 15 per cent. So $70,000 a day, Mr. Member, times 100........

[ Page 339 ]

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): On the Island?

HON. MR. BAWLF: That is for the entire province.

MR. BARBER: What about on the Island?

HON. MR. BAWLF: All right, let's deal with the Island: $70,000 a day times 100 days is $7 million. That happens to be impossible, Mr. Member, if you are dealing with Vancouver Island because it is greater than the annual revenue from that tax for the entire province.

Seventy thousand dollars a day is more tax than is collected daily in the entire province.

HON. MR. MAIR: Would you call that a terminal logic in example?

HON. MR. BAWLF: What sort of nonsense is this you are trying to foist onto Vancouver Islanders? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what's a $70,000-a-day error for an NDPer? Nothing's changed over there, has it?

Let's go on to another figure provided by that member. On Vancouver Island tourism was worth $269 in 1975, he tells us.

MR. BARBER: Million.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Oh, $269 million. The travel research division estimates that figure as $200 million, Mr. Member, but what's $70 million? It's the effect that counts, Mr. Speaker.

The second member for Victoria goes on: "An estimated loss of tourist revenue between 25 and 35 per cent, between $67 million and $90 million for Vancouver Island."

AN HON. MEMBER: An unimpeachable source. An unimpeachable source, sir!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the facts. The actual reduction in people travelling to the Island last year on B.C. Ferries was 12.4 per cent. Taking all carriers to the Island into account, it was less than 10 per cent.

How does this compare with the performance of the industry elsewhere in B.C. and Canada then, Mr. Member for Vancouver East? Travel into other regions of Canada was down overall 7.6 per cent last year. The comparable figure for Ontario was a decline of 8.4 per cent, for Nova Scotia 14.5 per cent, for New Brunswick 14.7 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, travel was down for eight of the ten provinces last year.

The figure for British Columbia? Down 7.2 per cent overall — below the national average. This is not a sudden change, Mr. Speaker. It is a continuation, unfortunately, of a downward trend that began in 1973.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was in power then?

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

HON. MR. BAWLF: After years of steady growth in travel activity, the NDP's Yankee-go-home attitude started driving people out of this province and the trend remained steadily downward. Remember the quote: "We don't want those campers up here anyhow"? Remember that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Now the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has the gall to ask why we didn't anticipate and correct this situation. What did the NDP do about it? Nothing. Nothing, Mr. Member. What special plans did they lay to counter the American Bicentennial effects? When this government came to office last December, Mr. Speaker, only days before those celebrations were to commence, what plans were in place? What plans had the NDP laid to withstand this? Absolutely nothing. Don't give me that 200-year stuff; the NDP couldn't see 200 feet ahead. (Laughter.)

The former travel minister, Ernie Hall, was to busy writing paranoid letters to Panco Poultry, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The second member for Victoria thinks we should have been instant wizards, meeting advertising and promotional deadlines retroactively.

Quebec staged the event to end all events this year, Mr. Speaker — the Olympic Games. Did that counter the U.S. Bicentennial? American travel to Quebec was down 6.7 per cent from the previous year. Never fear, Quebec. We'll send you the second member for Victoria. When he's finished with your travel industry you'll count Bill Vander Zalm as a friend by comparison.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Now then, we have the most sensational claim of all from that member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, could I just remind you that you don't refer to hon. members of the House by their name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him get away with it; he's a new member.

[ Page 340 ]

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, sir. We have the most sensational claim by that member, the one that's supposed to send Vancouver Island scampering to the lifeboats, Mr. Speaker. Vancouver Island lost between $67 million and $90 million due to ferry rate increases, he tells us So I call across the floor to inquire just where these figures come from. The travel ministry is indicated. But, Mr. Speaker, the travel industry did not provide those figures.

The travel industry indicates that the 10 per cent decline in travel to Vancouver Island was offset by increased spending per visitor, and the increase in Vancouver Island residents vacationing on Vancouver Island. No significant decline in tourist revenues was experienced from the previous year, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: This is a far cry from those sensational figures you provided.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to your former importer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You must make up facts!

HON. MR. BAWLF: It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the second member for Victoria just selected figures from hither and yon to suit the scenario he wants to create. He added two and two and, in the great NDP tradition, came up with seven.

I'm not questioning, Mr. Speaker, that last year was a tough year for some operators. Facilities geared to outdoor recreation, such as camping, suffered all over the province due to one of the worst summers on record for weather. I can cite statistics for the Rogers Pass, for a free ferry across Kootenay Lake, where travel was down 20 and more per cent. Facilities that service day attractions, particularly those in secondary locations, also suffered. The precise reasons for that are not clear. But that, again, was a province-wide phenomenon.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They don't seem to understand. Play it again, Sam. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, how did that member help these businesses on the Island?

MR. LAUK: Bill wants to get rid of you, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: How did that member help these people who were suffering on the Island? Well, Mr. Speaker, he shouted far and wide that it was too expensive to come to Vancouver Island. Big help! Now he has begun his 1977 campaign. There he was on TV the other night crying about a 15 per cent increase in fares on the Marguerite. What does he propose as an alternative — taking money from health care, from education or from the other social services which make up two-thirds of this budget to subsidize ferry fares? Does that member realize, Mr. Speaker, that more than 80 per cent of the passengers on the Princess Marguerite are American? Should we take from programmes for our citizens to subsidize travellers from the U.S.? It's a simple question, Mr. Member. He's quick to criticize but he doesn't care. He doesn't dare pose an alternative.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: He doesn't do his research; he doesn't get his facts straight. He's too busy running to the TV and the press with a sensational quote. I'm disappointed in that member, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that he would be more responsible and that he would make a positive contribution.

AN HON. MEMBER: You even lose sleep about it.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I had expected more than this gadfly behaviour. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, this is a time for all members of this House to join in constructive debate for the sake of this province, not the sort of frivolous, uninformed diatribe that the member delivered in this House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Would you attack me like that? It gives me more votes.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I want to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to discuss just one of the many positive steps this government is taking. There was a reference in the budget speech to the Cook bicentennial. In 1778 Captain Cook arrived on these shores and laid claim to these lands for Britain. The year 1978 will be the 200th anniversary of that occasion.

The contributions of this man in three voyages of discovery probably rate him as the greatest ocean-borne explorer in history. He was responsible for discovering and circumnavigating the Antarctic, for charting and discovering much of the coast of Australia, for discovering New Zealand and the Hawaiian Islands, and for taking the first step in dispelling the notion of a northwest passage from Britain to the orient. But in arriving on these shores and establishing contact with the native Indian people of these lands, he established something else. He subsequently inaugurated trade with the Orient, between the Orient and these coasts.

He brought in his wake settlement of this land. He is, for all intents and purposes, the individual who has contributed most directly to these lands today belonging to the Commonwealth.

This man was not simply a great explorer, he was a great medical scientist; he was the man who defeated

[ Page 341 ]

scurvy; he was the man who contributed immensely to the study of anthropology and the study of friendship between peoples; he was a man who never raised a hand against an alien people; he was a man who insisted on putting the best foot forward for the mother country in all places and with all peoples; he was a man to whom tribute must rightly be paid; he was a man who will be the centre of the celebration in this province in 1978, which will be, I think, the greatest celebration that we have had as a people.

This will be an international event, Mr. Speaker, drawing on people's friendship from all around the Pacific Rim and from abroad in Europe. The precise details of the celebrations which we are working out will be forthcoming in this session. I am pleased to be able to serve on a cabinet committee with the hon. Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

The work that is being laid now, I think, will have great significance for tourism in this province. I believe that not only will 1977 be a great year for tourism, thanks to the programmes that the Minister of Travel Industry has undertaken in this budget that is before us, but 1978 will see the greatest tourism that this province has ever seen. Vancouver Island will be the major beneficiary of that, thanks to the Cook bicentenary.

MR. BARBER: We won't hold our breath.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, I'm sure I can count on that member for positive support. Mr. Speaker, the way that member's been dooming and glooming it up around here, you'd think there was nothing positive happening in Victoria.

MR. LAUK: There is. The second member for Victoria is pretty positive.

HON. MR. BAWLF: You know, Mr. Speaker, the budget which is before us is a truly remarkable document. It is remarkable because it meets the needs of the day better than any budget that the NDP ever presented. That is not so much remarkable in itself, but it is remarkable that it does this and still........

HON. MR. BENNETT: Theirs weren't budgets; they were guesses.

HON. MR. BAWLF: They were guesses. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: And bad ones at that.

HON. MR. BAWLF: What's $200 million or $300 million here or there? What's the difference, eh? It's remarkable because this budget brings spending for services to people to an unprecedented level — the highest level in the history of this province. There is restraint within a limit of a 5.9 per cent increase in the budget with total expenditures of $3.83 billion, of which two-thirds are for social services — services to people. Health-care expenditures total $981 million — an increase of $101 million, Mr. Speaker, over last year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I read that member's campaign literature when he talked about 600 new hospital beds — 450, was it? — for Victoria that they delivered? They just bought up private beds and renamed them, Mr. Speaker. There wasn't one new bed in Victoria, but I can tell you that after 15 years of talk, this government is committed to putting 300 new acute-care beds in this city.

MR. BARBER: And robbing Vic General of the same 300.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Education expenditures: $948 million, Mr. Speaker, up $94 million from last year.

Mr. Speaker, we had the pleasure of a meeting — the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and I the other day — with the president of the University of Victoria. That institution is becoming not only one of the finest in this province, but one of the finest in the country in the fields of its specialty. It is doing so with the support of this government, Mr. Speaker: $6 million in capital construction underway at that university right now.

MR. BARBER: How much?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Six million dollars.

The Highways department, Mr. Speaker, is up $70 million, and that, too, relates to this constituency because after 10 years of talk and three years of waffling by the former government we're finally getting the Trans-Canada Highway widened from Douglas Street west to Colwood. For three years the previous government, Mr. Speaker, ignored one of the most crowded and difficult arterials in B.C.

Blanshard Street, Mr. Speaker — the Blanshard expressway — is a project that again that government fumbled about with. They had three different plans, Mr. Speaker. Every year they trotted out a new one and every year they got shot down because they couldn't make it work. They finally got to where they were going to tunnel under a shopping centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't the police catch

[ Page 342 ]

them? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BAWLF: I knew they were in financial difficulty; I didn't know it was that bad. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has indicated that there will be an announcement shortly on the extension and completion of that vital highway through to the Pat Bay Highway — again a project the NDP did nothing about.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker. We have for the first time this year opening in Victoria — for the first time on Vancouver Island — a rentalsman office, after years of talk from those people.

MR. LAUK: That should give you a lot to worry about, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: We have in the city of Victoria an addition to the YMCA with the assistance of this government. We have a major recreation facility going up in Sidney with the assistance of this government.

MR. BARBER: When are you going to pay your taxes?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Let's talk about that, Mr. Member. When the NDP government took office, the contribution....

MR. BARBER: $1.4 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: After taxes, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: Ask Mike Young. That's Mike Young's figure.

HON. MR. BAWLF: You're wrong again, Mr. Member.

MR. BARBER: You're terrifying!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, when this NDP government took office the Government of British Columbia was paying $305,000 in grants in lieu of taxes to the city of Victoria. In that time, Mr. Speaker, they doubled the amount of land held by the government, they embarked on all sorts of building programmes, and do you know where they ended up, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what they added to that contribution to the city of Victoria — that grant in lieu of taxes? They added $100,000. When the city council complained that they felt that it was unjust, what did the former Minister of Finance, the former Premier and leader of the NDP (Mr. Barrett) say? He said: "Well, if you don't like it, you guys can give back your per capita grant." That was magnanimous, wasn't it? Mr. Speaker, that was the present Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this year those grants in lieu of taxes will be roughly double what they were a little more than a year ago, about three times what the NDP government increased them in three years in office.

MR. LAUK: How much, Sam?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn now, for a few minutes, to my ministry and to talk a bit about the reorganization that's underway in the ministry.

MR. LAUK: Sam, turn up your hearing aid. How much?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I wish the member over there would turn down his mouth.

MR. LAUK: Come on, Sam — how much? Answer the question, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, there are three new branches being established in my ministry, and I would like to just share some information about that with the members of the House. I know they will want to explore this further during my estimates. But as a result of the many programmes which were consolidated in the ministry, we will have a new ministry, we will have a new recreation and fitness branch. This branch will be responsible for administering to the outdoor recreation, community recreation, sports and fitness and regional recreation needs of the province. They will include administration and regional parks, facilities grants, the coaching development programme, Action B.C. and a variety of other programmes, Mr. Speaker, which, for the first time, have been placed together in one ministry.

We will have as well a new heritage conservation branch. The heritage conservation branch will be responsible for the administration of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, for the administration and planning of historic parks and sites, and will be developing a new programme which is aimed at lending technical support to communities in the area of preserving heritage. That programme, Mr. Speaker, will tie in with the British Columbia Heritage Trust, that was mentioned in His Honour's Speech from the Throne. That trust, I believe, will be a major breakthrough in the preservation of that which is valuable for future generations of this province.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, in the area of culture we will have a cultural services branch. This new branch, that will embody an arts division, will have responsibility for the administration of the cultural fund. As well, a libraries division will be responsible

[ Page 343 ]

for programmes development in connection with the Library Development Commission.

Alongside of that, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to have a parks branch. In its present structure it is administering some 11 million acres of parks, and to that acreage, in recent times, we have had the opportunity of adding several additions to, parks totalling some 4,000 acres since my appointment to this capacity.

As well we have a fish and wildlife branch and a marine resources branch that will remain as before in structure, pending, in the case of the fish and wildlife branch, the report of Mr. Mair. He is examining with all interested groups, public and otherwise, the future of that branch and the reorganization of it to better serve the objectives of the branch.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's perhaps beyond my time here. I would just offer, in conclusion, the comment that I think this budget address is an admirable contribution, I want to commend the Minister of Finance and I wish that I would have the opportunity to speak to many of the measures that he outlines in detail. Perhaps another day I will.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the new minister on his speech, the minister who just sat down. He has become a real comic, Mr. Speaker, and developed a true sense of humour and I want to congratulate him for that.

Some of the statements that that minister uttered required some kind of a new sense of humour, because I don't think he could really have believed what he was suggesting to the House. I noticed that he had to go to the Wall Street Journal to find any quotation which supported in any way the strength of the B.C. economy. I wonder why the minister doesn't read what's going on in the province of British Columbia, read about the anguished cries of people all throughout this province who are suffering as a result of that government's economic policies. Is it because of their fixation and their identity with Wall Street interests that they are so insensitive to the needs of the people of B.C.? Perhaps that's the answer.

I was amused, quite frankly, by the preoccupation of that minister with the activities of our new rookie member, our MLA, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who's doing an excellent job in the community of Victoria. He is communicating with the people of this constituency. He is talking with them and finding out the effects of the devastated tourist industry, not only with respect to the ripple effects through the whole economy of Victoria.

The manager of Canada Manpower in this city — and certainly you wouldn't call him partisan — has cited the stark statistics demonstrating 11,000 unemployed people searching for the 100 jobs posted. Is the minister proud of that, Mr. Speaker? Nevertheless, he was obsessed, apparently, with the activities of the second member for Victoria, and I can understand and sympathize because I predict that after the next election we're going to have two members of the New Democratic Party from Victoria.

The dissertation on Captain Cook's history was interesting, but I would have hoped that the new minister, that neophyte minister in the Social Credit coalition cabinet, would have had something positive to say about the programme he intends to develop to stimulate the economy of Vancouver Island and the province. He spent most of his time attempting to blame the weather and everything else on the New Democratic Party and attacking the second member for Victoria. A rather sorry performance, Mr. Speaker. When he said that the budget was a remarkable document, that was the one area in which I had to agree with him. It truly is a remarkable document — remarkable in its insensitivity and its hard-heartedness toward the poorer people of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just a little bit about the budget, and I want to draw attention to the closing remarks of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he wound up the debate on the throne speech. I want to again refer to his turgid nonsense in attempting to blame all of the economic ills on the previous New Democratic Party government. I wonder where the Minister of Labour was when a passage was incorporated in the new budget speech, on page 7 and reading as follows: "This government cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of continuing restraint. Restraint must be practised by everyone so the wage increases won by our citizens are below nationally established guidelines."

Mr. Speaker, where was the Minister of Labour when his colleague, the Minister of Finance, incorporated this kind of inflammatory interference into the process of collective bargaining in this province — stating a government policy and objective, upholding working people throughout British Columbia not only to the government-imposed guidelines but below? You know, there's a simple adage in industrial relations that the arbiter — the referee, as it were — the government must be an impartial referee; the government must not attempt to tip the scale in favour of either party in the economic test of collective bargaining. Yet here in the budget is a section which accomplishes precisely that. It's unwarranted, inflammatory rhetoric in a year where we are facing major industrial relations, major collective bargaining in virtually all of the primary industries of this province.

I want to say to you that the Minister of Labour would have been much better advised to warn his government and to demand that they restrain

[ Page 344 ]

themselves from interference and incursions into the delicate balance of industrial relations. We don't need inflammatory rhetoric, facing, as we do, a troubled economy, facing a tough series of bargaining in this province. I think it's a shameful display. It's a shameful revelation of this government's basic bias toward the position of working people, the poor, the fixed-income people and so on. They are a government of millionaires, and it shows all throughout the budget speech and throughout the policies that have been introduced by this government.

Mr. Speaker, while the budget calls for that kind of restraint — apparently restraint that this government is prepared to enforce beyond the guidelines they have entered into with the federal government — let's just have a look at what happened to the office of one minister. And who would be more appropriate to look at than the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the minister basically responsible for the economic health of this province?

MR. LAUK: He doesn't answer questions.

MR. KING: The minister who doesn't answer questions about his advice to those who deal in the stock market. Perhaps he has better reason than this House realizes for refusing to answer, I suggest to my colleagues.

Let's just have a look at that office, Mr. Speaker. I find some curious and unusual inconsistencies. I'm sure all of those members over there who are prepared to get up and pay lip service to the budget are going to be as interested as I am in the anomalies and the inconsistencies contained in the estimates.

We find, first of all, that the minister himself did fairly well; he got a pretty fair increase. I imagine that the people out in the community are going to draw their own conclusions about the equity of that increase. But, Mr. Speaker, what about the special adviser to the minister?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What was your salary when you were a minister?

MR. KING: We find that the salary of the special adviser grew from $26,100 last year to $29,000 this year, an increase of $2,900. Now I don't know which adviser that was for; I don't know whether that was for Mr. Weeks, whom the minister fired, or for the constituency secretary, Cameron, whom the minister fired. I don't know if perhaps it was for Mr. Ellis...

MR. KAHL: How many advisers did you have when you were in government?

MR. KING: ...the man who was brought in, the two-day wonder whom the minister hired and dismissed two days later. I don't know which special adviser this was for, but apparently, regardless of the man who was filling the position, the minister felt it was a position that deserved to appreciate to the tune of $2,900. I think everyone in this House recalls last year when that minister first employed one Arthur Weeks he was asked to describe the responsibilities of this special adviser, and he stumbled. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that was the longest silence I have ever seen on a television show, with the exception of "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman." When the minister was asked to describe the functions and the role of his special adviser, he stood there, glared glassy-eyed into the television camera and finally said: "Well, you don't need a college degree." I guess not, Mr. Speaker. I guess you don't need a college degree; all you've got to do is know a little bit about the opportunities that obtain on the VSE. Maybe they're the qualifications — I don't know.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a degree? (Laughter.)

MR. KING: No, it's not a degree, my friend. But it's a degree that's understood on that side better than the academic ones.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's rather interesting that the minister, as I say, did well. And I'm not arguing about his value; the people will judge that. I am curious about the value of his special advisers because he's got rid of three of them in short order.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe they got rid of him.

MR. KING: Maybe they did. But to and behold, I turn the page in the minister's estimates and I see the poor old deputy minister, the workhorse of the department, good old Sandy Peel — he's been around quite a while; a good little deputy minister — and we find that restraint applies to that deputy minister. Restraint applies to him — he had his salary cut by $1,080 per year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): There's a message.

MR. KING: The minister did all right. His special adviser — whichever one it was, if you can find one — did all right.

MR. NICOLSON: Special adviser of the day.

MR. KING: The special adviser of the day, yes. But poor old Sandy Peel, he got a deduction, he got a demotion. Is that the kind of equity, is that the kind of fair-minded, good business management this government brings to British Columbia? I wonder.

I certainly wouldn't want to suggest anything

[ Page 345 ]

improper, but I wonder, with all the clouds that are shrouding that minister's office, if the opposition is to infer from that reduction in the deputy's salary that he was in some way responsible. Was he in some way responsible for the problems the minister is experiencing? — a judicial inquiry, trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I think the minister has an obligation and a duty to get up and defend his deputy, and certainly the kind of defence I'm thinking about does not infer a cut in salary while he and his special adviser do very, very well.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we heard the previous minister, the neophyte Minister of Recreation and Conservation and travel industry and tourist bureaus and Lord knows what all else — and Captain Cook celebrations (Hon. Mr. Bawlf). We heard him quote the Wall Street Journal. We heard him say that the economy of Vancouver Island is not really in bad shape, that B.C. is really rolling along pretty well.

MR. BARRETT: For millionaires.

MR. KING: Well, I don't know whether he would call the Vancouver Province an NDP rag or an NDP paper. I don't really think so. I know he's got an imagination, but I don't think it goes that far. Seems to me that the editor of that paper knows this government pretty well.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he does — no, no, the publisher.

MR. KING: The publisher, all right. But let me read what it says in the Vancouver Province of Wednesday, January 26, just yesterday, by one Philip Mills:

"The number of B.C. residents failing to meet monthly mortgage payments has risen by 50 per cent in the last six months. Financial institutions say delinquencies and threatened foreclosures are likely to increase.

"Some banks say they will stiffen mortgage qualifications if the trend continues.

"A sluggish economy, high unemployment and increasing social disorders are blamed. "

Royal Bank district mortgage manager, Don Morris, said Tuesday: 'There has been a 50 per cent increase in delinquencies where court action has been considered in the past six to eight months.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: That's progress.

MR. KING: That's progress. That's the effect the policies this government is visiting on the province are having.

I want to tell the House in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that in the last session, when this government was busily heaping increase upon increase on every area of social service, the opposition warned what the consequences would be. Certainly it's no great gratification to me or my colleagues to see our dire warnings come true, but indeed they are. You cannot ignore almost 100,000 unemployed people in this province and say that everything's rosy. You cannot ignore the fact that the budget is bereft of any positive programme to stimulate employment or to stimulate investment in this province. There's nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the next paragraph.

MR. KING: All right. The next paragraph says: "Morris said: 'An increase in marriage separations and drug and alcohol use also are adding to the problem.'" Mr. Speaker, while those social problems are continuing, what do we find in the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. McClelland's) estimates and in the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's)? We find giant cutbacks in the services to those very areas.

MR. KAHL: Read it all! Shame!

MR. KING: This is the state of the economy.

At the same time, we find another headline in the Victoria Times: "$47 Million Surplus Possible." Isn't that wonderful? While people are being foreclosed upon because they can't meet their mortgage payments, this government is sitting back rubbing their hot little hands and saying: "Look at us. Aren't we financial wizards! We've got a $47 million surplus." I ask the millionaires, Mr. Speaker: at whose expense have they amassed this surplus — the poor people, the sick and the indigent who cannot fare and cannot cope in this society?

MR. BARRETT: It's happening in Delta more than any other place. Their MLA (Mr. Davidson) doesn't even know what to do about it.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, it's selective. Yes, I read selectively, because there is more. There's much more; I could continue.

It says: "Strikes are one reason. Not that we institute action while a strike is in progress, but when it's over there are those who drop their mortgage responsibilities." It goes on: "Almost all companies contacted Tuesday said there has been a significant increase in delinquencies in recent months." Is that what you wanted to hear? Are you satisfied now? Does that cover your political...?

MR. KAHL: When you were Minister of Labour,

[ Page 346 ]

how many man-days were lost? Tell us that.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if that covers and placates the conscience of the superficial member for Esquimalt, well, I have pity for him. Because it's pretty short shrift to the people who are suffering out there.

Let's look for a moment at the programmes that have been cut to generate this $47 million surplus that the government is so happy about. There have been cuts of about $26 million from the Department of Human Resources. The specific programmes that have been cut are the contract treatment programme, which provides special treatment for children with behavioural and emotional problems — it drops from $226,000 to $51,000; there's a cut in the allocation for the adoption programme — it's decreased from $98,000 to $91,000; specialized treatment resources, which give basic care and special services suited to a child's emotional or behavioural needs, is down from $15.3 million to $14.5 million; special services to children, which gives counselling to children in institutions, is down from $5.3 million to $3.2 million; the child day-care programme, which provides care services to children during a prolonged illness or crisis, or enables single-parent families to engage in gainful employment, is cut back.

Fourteen programmes, all sensitive programmes dealing with children's needs, dealing with the needs of senior citizens and handicapped people, are cut back $26 million. Is that something to be proud of?

It's significant to me that the amount of the cutback in Human Resources very closely approximates the loss in revenue which the government undertook when they eliminated succession duties and gift taxes. About $30 million was lost as a result of putting the axe to that programme and, as a consequence, the people who can least afford are being deprived of very, very necessary services.

I said at the outset that this is a very insensitive government. It's one that is apparently incapable of understanding the needs of people out there who were not born into estates and so on, people who have to work for a living, many without a trade union to protect them, many who are handicapped, many who are in a broken-home situation where the cost of gainful employment is much higher. What we find is a government that just, has no understanding of that kind of plight. I suppose in a way it's understandable. Many people have talked about the preponderance of rich people who are involved in this government, and I think it comes across in their policy.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most heart-rending situation I have encountered is a $5 bill that came to my attention. It was picked up just today by a friend of mine who was at the bank to cash a cheque. Written on the top of this $5 bill, in what looks to be a female's hand, is the word "food" — f-o-o-d. It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that here was a person trying to budget for a family. I don't know who it was — whether it was some poor widow with children who she was trying to obtain food for — but apparently she was in tough enough and dire enough circumstances that she was doing her budgeting on the $5 bill. Maybe it was the last one in the house, I don't know.

I want to ask the government, Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of person this government was thinking of when they advocated and introduced such restraint in their budgetary thrust. I wonder if that person was a senior citizen who perhaps, as a result of the increased poll tax incident to Hydro rates, is going to now be confronted with doing their budgeting on a smaller bill than a five even — perhaps writing heating costs on a $2 bill.

I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) with a big smirk on his face. Mr. Speaker, that's precisely why that government is prepared to ignore completely the plight of people: they just don't understand what it is like. They don't understand what it is like for almost 100,000 people in this province. They sit there and are quite content to snicker away at genuine indications that people are, indeed, in sorry circumstances. I pointed out in the throne speech that no less than three people in my constituency last time I visited home were into my office with absolutely no money in their pocket. For the first time in my political life I encountered three people who were actually facing hunger. Yes, that's what makes it possible to believe and to imagine that people who are writing a pathetic little message on a $5 bill denote a circumstance of real need in the province.

I want to quote just briefly from an editorial that was printed in the Victoria Times analysing the budget. The last paragraph I think is particularly significant. It points out:

"Mincome or GAIN, as it is now known, is $20 million down over last year, which is difficult to understand unless benefits are to be cut or certain people removed from the rolls. The Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat — one of the most important bodies under the NDP — has dropped $148,000, or nearly 10 per cent. Even the reforestation budget has been cut by $2 million.

"But spending in the Premier's office is up $50,000 to $4,049,148, reflecting increased emphasis on intergovernmental relations. By contrast, in the last year of the NDP administration the Premier's office budget was $286,290. To top it all off, MLAs' and cabinet ministers' salaries have had their 10 per cent cuts restored."

All of this kind of spending is going on around the

[ Page 347 ]

offices of all of the politicians. Yet no attention, no sensitivity at all is displayed to the plight of people who need a hand up from the government. I've outlined already the cuts in virtually every sensitive area of Human Resources, that can do nothing else but visit additional hardship on people who are in need.

I honestly feel, Mr. Speaker, that even the biased, even the partisan backbenchers on the government side, must be shrinking, with some degree of horror and some degree of embarrassment, out of the knowledge that the cuts that have been introduced can do nothing less than visit extreme hardship on people. The member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) was entering a plea on their behalf in this House just the other night. He knows very well that the total cumulative effect of this budget is to make life a little more difficult for those people who can least help themselves. I don't think he can sleep very easily with that knowledge.

MR. NICOLSON: That's why he's not in the cabinet. He's not a millionaire and he's got a heart.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to lay great emphasis on what I honestly believe to be the plight of so many people, so many groups. I feel even ill-equipped to do it because you have to be out there and you have to experience the difficulty, the anguish of being unable to meet bills, mortgage payments. You have to know and experience the anguish and the frustration of people who want to work but are denied the opportunity before you can really express it well. I feel ill-equipped, quite frankly, to express what I really feel in this whole mess.

But let's contrast the outline that I've attempted, in all good conscience and all seriousness, to draw to the attention of this House. Let's contrast that, for just one moment, with the real beneficiaries of the new budget introduced in British Columbia.

That new budget contains one main thrust, one highlight. That is a cut, an abolition of the succession duties and death tax in this province. The government that is calling upon people to exercise restraint, that is cutting the salaries of deputy ministers, that is cutting back on virtually every human need programme under the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), has introduced a $30 million bonanza for the millionaires. No more taxation on their heirs to million-dollar estates. We made over $30 million last year of revenue derived from that source — $32 million in nine months.

I ask, Mr. Speaker; how that revenue is going to be replaced. Of course, it's going to be made up in the only area it can be made up in — cuts in service to the poor. I see people on the other side of the House who I used to feel had a social conscience, who had a vestige of compassion and humanitarian concern in their body. I wonder how they can sit there with smug smirks on their faces, much less get up and in good conscience support this kind of document.

I think it's an abhorrent document. It's a sellout to the rich friends of that government across the way, Mr. Speaker. I feel affronted by it. It's times like this, it's issues like this, it's performances like this that give politicians a bad name. I'm not proud to be a part of it on a day like this, Mr. Speaker.

This $5 bill with the word "food" printed pathetically across the top of it speaks volumes in my mind about the hardships that people in British Columbia are being confronted with.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Who gave it to you? Dave Barrett?

MR. KING: It was picked up in the bank, my friend. I don't know who gave it; I don't know who cashed it. I can only speculate on the plight of that poor family who had to do their budgeting on a $5 bill. I can only speculate and I can only worry as to whether the budgeting that they do will be forced to smaller denomination bills by the time the full effects of this budget are felt in the community.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wish someone would give the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) a sucker and perhaps he could get a job on television. Then he wouldn't have so much to say in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to me that the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) found that he could endorse and subscribe to the abolition of succession duties and sales tax. I have felt that that member, the leader of the Liberal Party, was trying to develop a new, perhaps unique approach for his one-man party in this province. In recent months he's changed his role as critic of the government to critic of the official opposition. That's fair enough, I suppose. Certainly, I see our role as mainly a critic of the government. That's the traditional role of opposition under the British parliamentary system.

We had, of course, to speculate that perhaps he was paving the pathway for the same trip that his colleagues took — the three Liberals who were seconded into the Social Credit Party on the eve of the last election. Again, my speculation runs rampant when I find that on issues of basic social consequence, such as the succession duty and gift tax issue, we find the leader of the Liberal Party four-square in support of this coalition government, defending the preserve of the rich, the super-rich, the elite of our society, voting four-square with the government.

I'm not sure whether it is out of philosophical

[ Page 348 ]

dedication, Mr. Speaker,, or whether it's out of self-interest, because I understand there is an estate that that member might be interested in one day. I wonder if that member can truly say in good conscience that his motivation in voting for and supporting the removal of succession duties and the death tax emanated from a concern for investment in the province of British Columbia or a concern for protecting that handful of people, both in his neighbouring area of the British Properties and with respect to his identification with certain other members of this House, with self-interest.

Mr. Speaker, I find it reprehensible — I find it unforgivable — that the main concession of this whole budget in a time of high unemployment, in a time of economic hardship for so many groups in our society, provides the only benefit, the only windfall, for the heirs of millionaires, of which this House seems to have more than its fair share. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why we find such inhumane policies at a time when there is a need for stimulation, at a time when there is a need for the introduction of new and vigorous employment programmes to put people to work. I find that it's a sad day in British Columbia's history.

Mr. Speaker, even the former Premier, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, stated in this House that it was a fair proposition to tax estates that have been built up largely through the sweat and the muscle of workers in British Columbia. He declared in this House that if those people wanted to generate their millions, their fortune, in this province, and then flee the province to evade their fair share of taxation....  He said: "Let them go, because they are not worthwhile citizens of the province of British Columbia."

MR. KAHL: Selective reading again!

MR. KING: That man had a social conscience, but unfortunately, apparently the Howe Street Liberals have taken over what once was a populist party with a heart.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must draw to your attention that you are on your final three minutes.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I shan't be much longer, because I don't know what else one can say other than to repeat, re-emphasize and plead — yes, plead — with the government for a recognition, for a sensitivity to what they are doing to the people in this province who can least afford to fend for themselves.

My colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) outlined, I think, in the most effective, most intelligent and most eloquent manner the shortcomings of the budget in terms of a financial and economic policy. I have tried to give a dissertation on the impact in social consequences on people. I know that many of my colleagues will be dealing precisely with these areas as well.

In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I want to say to the government that it is not too late for you to reconsider some of the priorities which are contained in the budget. There has been talk about vigorous highway programmes. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we learned last fall that the highway construction that is underway is not putting new people to work. It's essentially the same dollars and the same people. Certainly, blacktop is no alternative to some security in the home; certainly, blacktop, although it may be politically attractive in terms of a symbol, is no alternative for meeting the real needs of people in this province who are desperately in need of assistance at this time.

I ask some of the backbenchers, Mr. Speaker, to try to generate some backbone, some independence, some sense of responsibility to their own constituents and to the people of B.C., rather than shallow subservience to the cabinet benches. I ask them to get up and speak from the heart, and recognize the problems for what they are.

Never mind the long dissertations trying to blame the economic ills on previous administrations. You are the government. You ran for election on the basis that you could do a better job than we. Get with it. Get with it and show your priorities to the province of British Columbia. Take an aggressive and a vigorous stance to get some health back into this economy of the province of B.C. again. Quit making excuses. Excuses are certainly not going to provide for the needs of the people of B.C. this winter.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, it's a very real pleasure for me to rise in my place this afternoon on behalf of the people of the Atlin constituency, and to contribute to this budget debate. I have always welcomed the opportunity to participate in this debate because, first, Mr. Speaker, it has provided me with the avenue to express my appreciation and thanks to the government for services it has rendered to the constituency. Secondly, I can convey to the government the current needs and the constructive criticisms of our northern frontier people. I shall continue this approach now, and during the course of this current session.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance for the presentation of a well-thought-out, considerate, sensible, cautious and optimistic document. The budget speech, like the throne speech, is truly and sincerely a moderate and temperate one. According to my book on economy, both words mean "neither too much nor too little." Moderate implies absence or avoidance of excess; temperance suggests the effect of restraint or restriction. Mr. Speaker, how else can we

[ Page 349 ]

handle the situation? Are we not in a period of restraint? If the prior administration had not foreseen or managed for such a period, but instead had emptied the moneybags by its hog-wild, unguided spending spree, should not our new administration become a little cautious with the people's money in order to return the economy to a more stable climate?

Our immediate programme following the last election was to restore confidence in this province: to balance the budget; to replenish the empty treasury; and to prepare a sound economic base from which to return benefits to the people. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia gave us a tremendous mandate to fulfill these obligations. In addition, the mandate authorized us to rebuild the shattered economy; to rehabilitate the social, health, educational, housing and community programmes; to reactivate primary industries; to promote and expand the tourist trade; to improve upon the public services; to give top priority to human needs; and above all — and these are the words in the throne speech — "to improve the quality of life for all of the citizens of this province."

As evidenced in budget '77, I would proudly say that we have performed mighty well in reaching most of our objectives. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, we thank the people of British Columbia for their full participation, their endurance, dedication and sacrifice in paying off the debt of the former NDP government. Full credit is due to the hard-working people of this province.

However, the opposition parties, the opponents of the government, the critics of the people's Social Credit government, are not about to recognize this period of restraint. They refuse to do it. They do not care about deficits; they advocate borrowing money to run a government. They demand more money, regardless of restraints and lack of funds. They care less about the spiralling costs that are strangling the economy of British Columbia. They don't give a hoot about pricing ourselves out of the market. They represent the typical hordes at the gates: they are so hurt from their defeat in the last election, and their irresponsible and uncooperative cries are helping to disrupt the economy right here at home.

We presented a most satisfactory throne speech but they termed it threadbare, empty, trivial, misleading, indecent, bad medicine and lacking in priorities and ideas.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Now we have presented another basic document that can only lead us to further, if not complete, recovery. What do we hear from the hordes? Terms like "foggy," "cynical," "tragic," "standstill," "flim-flam" and "rich-a-care." Mr. Speaker, their contributions to the debates, in or out of this Legislature, continue to be nil.

I'd like to say this: I believe that there is a real sigh of relief out there. I really believe it. There were millions of British Columbians who had certain doubts about whether or not the new Social Credit government would balance the budget in its first year in office. But we managed it; we did it. I believe now that the people would invest in the economy of our province with confidence, very much confidence, now that the government has paved the way by lightening and easing up on some of the burdens that have hindered the progress of many investors. In connection with this, let me examine the budget and government intentions in four major areas. This was covered, I believe, on this morning's news. I only hope many people would read it as one of the main guidelines and the basis upon which we have guided our budget that was presented so ably by the minister.

I'd like to read it into the record; it illustrates that we have made good progress towards bringing spending under control; it demonstrates a restrained-spending programme for the next fiscal year. Our new budget shows an increase of only 5.9 per cent, which is under the AIB guidelines. The restraint increase has been achieved — notwithstanding increases to health and education of some $200 million, plus an increase of $50 in the homeowner grant to senior citizens, to a total of $430 in 1977.

It demonstrates initiatives to create jobs and stimulate investment in British Columbia. This is indicated by removal of succession duties and gift taxes, a $70 million increase for our highway construction programme to a total of $180 million for next year, $50 million to student summer employment — a substantial increase over this year — new regulations allowing the write-off of mining exploration costs through the corporation capital tax.

The budget of Economic Development has been increased 18.5 per cent and, lastly, the budget demonstrates a continued accent of accountability in that each ministry, for the first time, will be charged back for computer charges, for rentals and maintenance of building space. A good foundation. It's a good, basic budget, Mr. Speaker, for future beneficial ones under this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement in the throne speech and in the budget that the Social Credit government has established, at this current session, an air ambulance service throughout the province of British Columbia. It says in the document that this service will be available between the remote areas and major hospital centres, without heavy cost to the patient. The government has indicated that this equalized plan will include the provision of escort service to patients, where necessary.

[ Page 350 ]

Mr. Speaker, the people in the remote and scattered communities in the far-flung Atlin constituency, and in other remote areas of this province, welcome the announcement. To these people one of the real highlights of the throne speech and budget speeches is the establishment of the British Columbia air ambulance service. In every election since 1949 and on numerous occasions on the floor of this House, I have advocated, as top priority, the establishment of an air ambulance service.

Just last September 30, I submitted to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) a request for a comprehensive review of northern health situations, this review to be treated as a priority. First on the lost was the recommendation to establish an air ambulance service. Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for the good people of the frontier and remote communities and industrial camps. It is a great day for me to stand in my place on their behalf and thank the Social Credit government for the establishment of air ambulance service in British Columbia.

I'd like to say something about the repeal of mineral royalties and the improved prospectors' assistance programme and the writing off of exploration expenses to reduce capital subject to tax under the Corporation Capital Tax Act. This will result in an increase in mineral exploration in the Atlin constituency and elsewhere.

The announcement to encourage stability and productivity of the mining industry is a welcome one indeed. This mining industry, Mr. Speaker, is part of the history of the Atlin constituency, and vice versa. It is the heart and lifeline of the constituency. Imagine, therefore, the indignation of the people up there when the previous administration introduced mineral royalties. This legislation nearly destroyed the mining industry in that mining belt and nearly knocked mineral exploration out of existence. Indeed, the legislation created unemployment, created doldrums and stagnation in the mining field.

Now I'd just like to read you some of the resulting figures when the mineral royalties were operative. The number of active mineral exploration companies in the Atlin constituency decreased from 45 to nil — that is at the time just following the introduction. Of course, in that category unemployment was 100 per cent. In 1965, six exploration companies performed just minor activities. Following the Social Credit government announcement last year that it would repeal the mineral royalties, the number of mineral exploration companies increased from 6 to 32. Naturally, employment increased. With the new incentives, as emphasized in both the throne and budget speeches, we in the B.C. northwest can expect a busy mining and prospecting season. I wish to thank the people's positive government for its positive mining programme to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my constituents, to express my sincere appreciation to the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for the major highway construction, maintenance, paving and contract programmes which he has scheduled for every district in the Atlin constituency.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What about Columbia River?

MR. CALDER: I'm quite sure that in his travels elsewhere in the province he has also issued programmes. On June 21 of last year, I submitted to the minister my annual constituency highways and bridges priorities. I must say that there was a quick response. He and his staff arranged for an August trip into the most beautiful part of our province with these top officials from Victoria and Prince George, Terrace and Prince Rupert. We travelled not by helicopters, but by vehicles on every road in that large riding.

Now the result of the minister's observation trip was press released on November 22 last. Included in this release are the following Stewart–Watson Lake highway programmes, and I would like to read this into the record: a contract award to Emil Anderson Construction Ltd. to construct a 24-mi. section southeastward from Nash Bridge — that's in the Meziadin Lake district — at a total cost of $10 million; a contract award to Dawson Construction to build a 22-mi. section between Sawmill and Pine Tree Lake at a total cost of $8 million — this is in the Dease Lake area; a contract award to Commonwealth Construction Co. Ltd. and Geddes Contracting Co. Jointly, to build a 25-mi. section between Cassiar Junction and Pine Tree Lake at a total cost of $7.1 million. So the total contract was almost $26 million.

In addition to the construction and paving contracts, the Highways ministry purchased $750,000 worth of highways equipment, including a $90,000 DC-6 for Atlin, and, of course, equipment for snow avalanche clearance work. It was a great day. The previous administration had removed the heart of the highways in the Atlin camp by taking that tractor away. What else could they use to maintain the roads? One of the results of the trip was to return a tractor, and the minister was good enough to return a new one. I don't think you have seen this, Mr. Minister, but the people in Atlin turned out when the new DC-6 — that is a large machine — arrived, and there is a picture of it.

People in every community ought to pass this message on to the minister. People in every community are thankful for the local road improvement programmes, and they are thankful for the job-creating aspects of these road projects.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say something about the

[ Page 351 ]

Northland Navigation. We've been reading articles from the newspaper that there's a real controversy and a mess over this situation because of the removal of the subsidy from the federal government. I would just like to pose a question: How in the devil's name did we ever get involved in the Northland Navigation subsidy mess? It was none of our provincial business, and I just don't know how we got involved in it.

The Northland Prince, which is the largest of the vessels, called weekly in three ports in the southern part of the Atlin constituency, namely Stewart, Alice Arm, and Kincolith. These ports are busy ones in terms of steady passenger traffic and the freight traffic. One of the big customers of that service was Granduc Mine Limited. It was a vital customer. Now, it was common knowledge that the Northland Navigation service and subsidies were federal situations, and indeed they were. But in early November, when our own Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) announced a joint federal-provincial arrangement whereby the B.C. Ferries would expand its ferry services to some coastal ports left unserviced by the Northland Navigation Co., I received very many long-distance phone calls from people resident in the three ports that are located in the southern part of the Atlin constituency. They demanded to know our provincial jurisdiction in this whole affair. Mind you, there were many citizens who welcomed the minister's intentions to assist the unserviced ports.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we really wanted to go to the aid of our coastal people, we should have consulted them first. There was no consultation whatsoever, right from the beginning of this whole mess, and perhaps even now. But as a province, we have to remember that these are citizens who are involved and we should have consulted them, then approached the federal government on their behalf. At the same time, we could have sat down with the federal Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Lang) and his colleagues, and even with the B.C. federal MPs, to consider the whole question of federal subsidies for our B.C. ferry system. The announcement came around December, but had we foreseen what may have happened, we could have made our move — say around October — and right then and there consulted the people who were involved and then proceed to negotiate with the federal government on the whole field of subsidies to our ferry system. But it came rather late and we got involved. People actually thought that we had full jurisdiction over this business. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that B.C. Ferry system is satisfactory to every port on the B.C. coast. It may be okay for Bella Bella, Ocean Falls and Prince Rupert, but that is all as far as the passengers are concerned. For freighting, you will have to rely on a ship model like the Northland Prince to serve the coast. Mr. Speaker, do you know that this ship is up for sale? I understand the price is in the neighbourhood of $2 million. And do you know that the Northland Prince and the company can return to operation if the federal subsidy is returned? Did you know that the Northland Navigation Co. still has its doors open for negotiations to operate, and that is a fact. I believe, in the meetings ahead, with the knowledge of this, that perhaps maybe the two levels of government should approach RivTow, which is in charge of the barges, to purchase the boat. After all, I understand that RivTow was quite deeply involved in this whole mess. I really believe that because of that, they should take some action — at least buy the boat.

I urge this government to continue meeting with the federal departments to negotiate for equalization of shipping and ferry subsidies on both coasts. There should be no discrimination; there should be no differentials. I say, "Equal treatment!"

Failing all this, I'm going to have to bring to the attention of this House the wishes of my constituents. The seaport of Stewart is a very important port in this province. It is the terminus of the Stewart–Watson Lake Highway, one of the busiest at the moment. We propose, Mr. Speaker, that the government extend the Kelsey Bay–Prince Rupert ferry system to Stewart. It is one of the major solutions, and indeed an alternative to the Northland Navigation system.

The extension will link commerce and tourism from the United States proper to the State of Alaska and return. It would be a link to a highway in my constituency that is becoming one of the busiest in Canada, a link to our B.C. northland that is just opening to a new mineral and other business enterprises. Now the municipal council and people of Stewart have requested this extension. The American businesses that have been contacted support the idea. Therefore I would advise, Mr. Speaker, that this government take a good, hard look at the proposal that has been presented by the people in the north. I believe correspondence has been submitted to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by giving my views about the oil spills. My subject here is the protection of the fishing industry against oil spills in the province of B.C. I was happy to note in the throne speech these words: "Together my Ministry of the Environment and my Ministry of Recreation and Conservation will give special attention to the management of the new 200-mile coastal economic zone in relation to the ongoing salmonid enhancement programme."

Of course, in the budget speech, the government indicated its interest in the fishing industry by remarking upon the improved salmon catches, on the prices and the strong market demand. I also would

[ Page 352 ]

like to point out that there is a federal salmonid enhancement programme, work on which will amount to $300 million.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the quote from the throne debate means protection. That is the key word: protection — protection against any form of pollution. What I am going to talk about now is protection against oil spills on this coast.

I was born in the little community of Nass Harbour — that's near the mouth of the Nass River. It was one of the first salmon canneries established on the coast. I have spent most of my life in the fishing industry, working as a commercial fisherman and as a shore-worker. Therefore I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that when I see something that may endanger the very survival of the industry, I must speak against it. I understand that there may be an oil tanker route through Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, Browning Entrance, Principe Channel, Otter Channel, Lewis Pass, Wright Sound, and through Douglas Channel to Kitimat.

In the past months, Mr. Speaker, I have read the remarks of critics respecting this route. At this time I would like to bring to the attention of the House certain facts that may not have been mentioned. I have here a map of the north coast on which I have drawn a black line that indicates the proposed route of oil tankers.

Some of you have seen it in the newspaper, but this is actually an enlarged section: this is Dixon Entrance, this is Hecate Strait, there is Browning Entrance and there is Principe Pass, there is Otter Channel, there is Lewis Pass, there is Wright Sound and there is Douglas Channel up to Kitimat. Right here are the flats. There are the halibut grounds and the salmon grounds, rock-bottom fish, and all through here is the salmon-herring fishing areas and spawning areas.

I would like to just give you some points for thought. Now in the halibut and salmon fishing season in the Hecate Strait, during the months of May, June, July, August and early September, there would be anywhere from 1,800 to 2,200 fishing vessels all through this area. The vessels include halibut boats, or longliners, beam trawlers, salmon trollers, seine boats, crab boats, gillnet boats, and of course during the winter months, the beam trawlers and the herring fleet would be in operation.

From Browning Entrance to the port of Kitimat, the oil tankers will be travelling through channels that measure from less than one mile to five miles in width. Now we've read about the people's concern about this channel here, the oil tankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but I understand that is at least 18 miles across; we are talking about a width of less than one mile to five miles in these channels. The narrow channels to Kitimat present a real problem because in those channels there are very strong rip tides. In the fall and winter months there are severe winds that can easily divert the huge tankers shoreward, and heavy fog is quite common in these channels. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that in these cases tugboats can be of any real value in assisting and guiding the tankers through these channels.

Out in Dixon Entrance and in Hecate Strait there are very severe storms. In these two bodies of water the waves are not like the beautiful rolling waves out in the Pacific, which the poets usually write about. In these waters the waves have a chop action due to the flats, the shallowness and the meeting of strong currents and the wind. I am told that with this chop action waves can go as high as 35 to 40 feet. I doubt if the huge oil tankers can survive the heavy storms in the Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait.

These large tankers involve these measurements, for your information, and these are the bigger ones: 175 feet wide, 1,132 feet in length and, believe this, the depth is about 105 feet. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what would happen if these boats were blown into the flats, and that is a real possibility. It would mean the destruction of the halibut and halibut grounds, the rock-bottom fish and salmon grounds. A spill within the channel would be difficult to remove and surely the oil would destroy thousands of spawning grounds within those channels.

I understand that Kitimat was selected over other possible ports, which include Marrick Island — I believe that's near Prince Rupert — Smith Island, which is definitely near Prince Rupert; Ridley Island, the same; and Prince Rupert; they've even looked at Port Simpson. Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I cannot see the selection of the other ports either.

It is said that an oil tanker travels at least three miles before it comes to a complete stop. You may picture as well what would happen in a case of emergency, if the boat has to stop in those channels and passes. There is only one way they can stop and that is when they hit the beach. Remember, they are only one to five miles in width.

I am shocked, Mr. Speaker, to hear that our own federal government is going to create, for the American companies, an oil tanker corridor through the bodies of water to which I have referred. It is indicated that fishermen will not be allowed in this corridor, that there is going to be a complete ban on fishing throughout. If this is true, Mr. Speaker, then perhaps the government in Washington has already approached our government in Ottawa. Now the fishing companies on the coast, along with their fishermen, object most strongly to the proposed closure of these rich salmon grounds.

Mr. Speaker, the word is that in the United States — now I want the members to listen to this very carefully — the laws to protect the environment are so strict, the American oil and pipeline companies may take up to four years to process and finalize an

[ Page 353 ]

oil pipeline right of way in the United States. Similarly, the word is that in Canada the laws to protect the environment are so much less rigid that the American oil and pipeline companies may take only one year to process and finalize an oil pipeline right of way in Canada.

I'd like to point this one out: by the interpretation of the famous United States Jones Act on American shipping, if a ship transported its load between ports in the United States, that ship must be American-owned, must be registered in the United States and manned by American workers. In other words; if an oil tanker delivers oil from Valdez in the state of Alaska to a port in the state of Washington or to any port in the United States, then that oil tanker must be American-owned, must be registered in the United States, and must be manned by the American seafarer. To the oil industry in the United States, living up to the Jones Act regulation would involve high cost of shipping, high cost of labour, high rates and taxes.

Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, how do they get around this high cost? It is simple. Approach the Canadian government. Its laws for protecting the environment are not so rigid. Get a pipeline right of way and approval in Canada and install your pipeline.

The rest comes easy, because an oil tanker delivering oil from Valdez in the state of Alaska to a port in another country does not require American registration or ownership. You can then bring in your Liberian ships. They fly the flag of convenience. They may be owned by American companies, but they are registered in Liberia or Panama, because then you can avoid taxes, avoid high shipping cost and you can employ cheap labour.

Have I got a couple more minutes? Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask: how knowledgeable are these captains who guide these vessels? If some of them couldn't even find the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, how do you expect them to find, for instance, Browning Entrance that would lead them to a narrow channel to Kitimat? Are they knowledgeable enough to guide these huge vessels through what I would call a "keyhold squeeze" through the channels? I don't know if I could say this, Mr. Speaker, but if the federal governments of Canada and the United States have considered such a route, by avoiding the Jones Act — and it sounds like a conspiracy to me — then the whole plan is at the expense of the fishing industry. The fishing industry will be the victim.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one page of concluding remarks, and I will ask that the Chair take this as read. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. Hon. members, for the guidance of the House: for those members who have not yet taken their place in this debate, you will note that Bill 11, intituled the Gift Tax Repeal Act, and Bill 12, intituled Succession Duty Repeal Act, as of January 26 now appear on the order papers, and it is the opinion of the Chair that continued or protracted debate on either of these bills would therefore be out of order.

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, you and I seem to draw each other rather frequently here — another mass gathering of MLAs today. Mr. Speaker, I would try and confine my remarks almost entirely to the budget and what is not in it and what is in it, and what bad effects what is not in it is going to have — in my opinion — in continuing bad effects on the economy of British Columbia.

I believe that governments seldom, if ever, help or encourage the economy. In fact, it seems that in Canada we increasingly measure only degrees of harm or of meddling, and hope that governments will please leave people alone. This government is certainly not ever, in my opinion, going to stimulate prosperity in British Columbia. Our economy will move upward eventually, but only because the people of B.C. get it moving, on their own — not because of the government, but in spite of it.

Last year we lost tens of thousands of business and job opportunities because of the rather Draconian economic measures imposed on us. Before we can move ahead....

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Are you chattering about something over there?

Before we can move ahead I would hope that the government would move to restore what was deliberately destroyed last year. We want to see you give the people of B.C. a chance — just the opportunity to show what they can do. Why can't you relent on some of your tax increases of last year? Why not start with corporation and gift taxes?

As the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has suggested, I think there is no doubt that our existing industry is sorely in need of some massive infusions of capital in order to take advantage of production technology which their competitors, in some cases, have taken advantage of internationally years ago. Our industry needs this just to stand still, just to keep up in the international markets.

It's also interesting that in Canada — not just in B.C., but in all of Canada — most corporation tax is in fact paid for by independent Canadian businesses operating in those provinces. They're the ones who need the break most. The multinational conglomerates, who control much of our raw materials, can and do avoid much income tax that they would pay if they were independent B.C. or

[ Page 354 ]

Canadian firms. I'm not suggesting that they avoid them, and it's quite legal in Canada to do that. They've been given all kinds of loopholes by a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments in Ottawa.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that corporation income taxes seriously affect only Canadian companies and not international ones. In fact, obviously they discriminate against B.C. Investment in B.C. and in favour of foreign conglomerates operating in British Columbia. Either we should be collecting our own taxes, as has been suggested, or we should sharply adjust these taxes so that they are no longer a disincentive to B.C. companies that wish to expand their operations.

A great deal has been made of last year's tax increases. One aspect, however, that has become increasingly evident as the year unfolded was the fact that our own independent firms were forced into even more of a competitive disadvantage with major multinational operations. I ask that the government move immediately to even up the ante and give British Columbians a chance. We might all be pleasantly surprised by the results.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that the newly elected government in the province of Quebec has declared its intent to move exactly in this direction. The Finance minister there, M. Parizeau, has said repeatedly that income taxes are not paid by foreign-owned subsidiaries, only by Canadian firms. Why must this government compound and perpetuate the taxation mistakes of the Ottawa government? I wonder if there are perhaps too many Liberals and Tories over there — too many Liberals and Tories on the Treasury Board. You know, they're so used to federal taxation policies that discriminate against British Columbia it has become a way of life for those parties. They don't know the difference any more. They've forgotten what fairness is all about because they're so used to seeing their governments act in this way when they're in Ottawa.

You know, there used to be some real Socreds, some populist Socreds, who knew what it was all about, but I think they've forgotten all about it now, or they've retired, or they've been muzzled. I even remember the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), before he entered the cabinet, used to talk about the discriminatory taxation practices of federal and provincial governments. We don't even see him in the House now, much less hear about him trying to do something for British Columbia businessmen who are desperate for opportunities to expand.

I'm only asking that you give people in B.C. a chance. Everything that this government has done in the last 13 months has discouraged people. In particular, this budget has suppressed initiative and imagination that are the natural attributes of British Columbians. The economy of B.C., which has been so productive in the past, could become so again if only the government would show people that it has a human side. Give people the opportunity to get this province moving in the right direction for a change and they will indeed stop the slide and put some spirit back into our investors, businessmen, professionals and skilled craftsmen.

They were supposed to be the party that defended the individual, but every time an individual citizen in British Columbia thinks he sees a way of improving his position, he gets slapped down by a chippy, irrational tax and rate structure.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Hear, hear!

MR. D'ARCY: Not only do you give the public no hope, but you tell them they're failures and they have irresponsible expectations out of life. What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with wanting a decent house and a comfortable car and stylish clothes and, slowly but surely, a higher standard of living at home and a better range of amenities within their community? What is wrong with an individual wanting at least a chance to get ahead? Yet you give people no chance, no hope, and, as I said in the throne debate, many of our most productive people have pulled up stakes, taken their capital, and moved to other provinces, and in some cases, tragically, have even left the country.

Thousands more British Columbians are doing a huge proportion of their retail spending in Washington and Alberta. Retail businesses in towns and cities near the border in my riding, and in all ridings near the border, have suffered a universal loss of trade resulting in employee layoffs and business failures, and, ultimately, the subsequent social cost of dislocation, retraining and resettlement.

Although incomplete, this government's own revenue figures for sales tax revenue show that income from this source is well below expectations. Indeed, the revenue has increased about only the normal annual growth rate that took place when the sales tax was, pegged at 5 per cent. Think of it — a 40 per cent increase in tax rates but no increase in revenue above what would have been usual with average retail sales growth. We know that cheques cashed in British Columbia are up over $30 billion in 1976 over the year before. Of course, the sales tax rate went up by 40 per cent, yet we see only an incremental increase in revenue from sales tax. There is no doubt the government has met with what is euphemistically known as consumer resistance. The public in B.C. Is not buying anything in British Columbia that they don't absolutely have to. It has shown up in slumping sales tax revenue performance.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we need an immediate sales tax cut and immediate corporate and personal income

[ Page 355 ]

tax cuts. Only in this way can the government show its good faith to the people of British Columbia. The public has no faith in this government right now; perhaps they have no faith in any government, but that faith must be restored.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Job opportunities will only be developed if first there are business opportunities. Yet instead of business opportunities we have seen a sharp increase in business failure — lost opportunities, lost capital and lost productivity. Worst of all, there is no credibility for government economic policies and statements.

MR. COCKE: Bankrupt in government and bankrupt in business.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, whether any given person on the street likes the government or not is not so much the issue here. The point is that no one, least of all employers and potential investors, believe anything the Finance minister or the treasury benches have to say, and that is dangerous.

Previous speakers have documented huge discrepancies in stated intent and real actions by the government. Employers and investors have to know what to expect from government. They can't be told one thing and then watch the government do something else as the year unfolds. Uncertainty and apprehension about the future is a fearsome thing.

In the budget speech, British Columbians were told over and over that we must fight inflation on all fronts — restraint, restraint, restraint. Then the minister called on Ottawa to start the printing press to grind out more cheap money because, as he said, interest rates are too high. No wonder eyebrows have been raised in many curious places, not the least of which is the Royal Bank newsletter. What absurdities we are asked to swallow! They tell us to fight inflation and endure business reverses, but let's have someone else pump out cheap money. That's going to lower the value of everyone's savings and everyone's investments. You're not merely content with preventing people from getting ahead, you want to reduce the value of the productive assets they already have.

A policy like you are advocating will reduce the value of savings and pensions that people have set aside for later years so they don't have to rely on governmental largesse. I thought that was a watchword of your party, but evidently you're going to throw people back on the state or back on their right to sleep under bridges or in parks for free, even if they have tried to look after themselves when they are no longer productive. All the while you are preaching that everyone else should tighten their belts. What a contradiction.

Please, I ask the government, consider doing just a few things to give consumers a choice, just a few things to expand business opportunities. Those opportunities and rising consumer optimism will indeed make new jobs, and new jobs bring in new revenue. Even modest tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, will be more than made up by increased revenue from increased activity in the investment and job markets of British Columbia. I ask the Minister of Finance to go to cabinet, to go to the Treasury Board and think about it, think about giving people some hope of light at the end of the tunnel. This government, as I said earlier, will never by itself turn the economy around; only the people can do that. But you've got to get off their backs, even just a little bit, and they'll do the job far better than anyone could imagine.

I note from letters and from discussions I've had with people that no one really expects the government to do anything for British Columbia; they've given up hope for that. The editorial comment on the budget has shown that, and man-in-the-street interviews and so on graphically illustrated that. But people are asking one thing: they're asking to be left alone, Mr. Speaker. They're asking the government to quit tampering and meddling in a chippy, doctrinaire way with people's livelihoods.

If you leave the public alone and give some reassurance that in the future people will be able to keep some of the fruits of their work and enterprise, indeed we will see some action.

I am sometimes surprised that people haven't petitioned this House to protect the taxpayer from politicians who are convinced they have all the answers. It has been said many times before that as soon as someone believes he knows all there is to know about a particular topic, he never learns anything new forever after. This government must step back from its doctrinaire, dogmatic, know-it-all approach to revenue and expenditure, and allow the people of B.C. to get on with the job. Only then will revenue increase. Only then will we have a balanced budget which can restore some of the decent and humanizing things which once were becoming a part of life in British Columbia, and have been so summarily cut by that government.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I rise once more in my place in this House to speak in this budget debate.

First, I would like to compliment my government for, during these times of restraint, bringing in a budget which will do so much for the people of British Columbia.

Before turning to the budget, Mr. Speaker, as this is the first opportunity that I have had to stand and speak in this House during this session, I would like

[ Page 356 ]

to reaffirm to this House my pride at being here on behalf of the people of my constituency of Omineca. I consider it a privilege and, indeed, an honour to stand in my place as their representative, bringing to this House their wishes and their views on what they would want done in this Legislature should they be here themselves. I take that direction and that mandate seriously.

I would also at this time, Mr. Speaker, extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) for his re-election as Deputy Speaker, and to the Hon. Jim Chabot (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources), the Hon. Jim Hewitt (Minister of Agriculture) and the Hon. Sam Bawlf (Minister of Recreation and Conservation) for their recent appointments to cabinet. I wish them every success in their endeavours.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like at this time to pay tribute to a former member of this House, the member for Omineca from 1949 to 1952, whose loss we suffered in the past year, Mr. Robert Cecil Steele.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I would be remiss in speaking in this budget debate not to relate to this House the amazing change that I have seen in just over a year in the outlook of the people of my constituency. For three and one-half years a dark cloud hung over the north — the dark cloud of socialism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: There was fear, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker: the constant fear of government takeover and government intervention into the very everyday lives of our people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Terror tactics!

MR. KEMPF: I want to tell this House that that fear is now gone and the constituents in Omineca now breathe easier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: They now breathe easily with the realization that under a Social Credit administration they will not lose the right to own their own land and they will not lose the right to own their own homes. There is no thought and no threat of the loss of the freedom that they so dearly cherish.

The people of Omineca are very pleased to return from the road of socialism. They can see that there is no hint in this government's budget of government takeover. I've listened to the members opposite speak of the lack of investor confidence in this province. How wrong they are! They are wrong again. I challenge their statements, statements that have been made without a shred of fact — not a shred of fact to back them up.

I've listened with particular interest to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — I am sorry she isn't in the House today — expound on the lack of investor confidence in British Columbia, expound on the high unemployment in this province. Mr. Speaker, that member doesn't even know what's going on in her own constituency, let alone the province — not even in her own constituency.

A recent news release from Mr. Robert Rogers, chairman of the board of Crown Zellerbach Canada, announced on December 9, 1976, the addition to the Elk Falls operation of his company in Campbell River a $45.9 million expansion, including a new high-speed sawmill and a new paper machine.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was announced five months ago.

MR. KEMPF: I have also, Mr. Speaker, a newspaper article announcing a new sawmill in my constituency of Omineca by Weldwood and Eurocan — a consortium...

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Where? Where?

MR. KEMPF: ...an expenditure of some $17.5 million, and the creation — for the interest of that member — with both logging and milling operations, of some 400 jobs. Four hundred jobs in British Columbia!

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of Omineca, there will come into realism a mine — a mine, for the first time in several years in this province. I have here a news release dated January 14, 1977, and I'll read it, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker: "Vancouver, B.C., January 14, 1977."

MR. LAUK: We read it.

MR. KEMPF: It says:

"A letter of intent covering the development of the Sam Goosly silver, copper, gold property, 22 miles south of Houston, B.C., has been signed between the Equity Mining Corp. and Canex Placer Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Placer Development Ltd. Equity holds a 70 per cent interest in the Sam Goosly property, for which it has estimated ore reserves of 43.5 million tons of ore rating 2.73 ounces of silver per ton, 0.33 ounces of copper per ton, and 0.026 ounces of gold per ton.

"Under the proposed agreement with Equity, Canex will purchase treasury shares equal to 30 per cent interest in Equity for $2.3 million."

[ Page 357 ]

MR. LAUK: Stock promoter. Have you got any shares?

MR. KEMPF: "Canex will assume responsibility for designing, building and commissioning a mine and mill on the property."

MR. LAUK: Don't hold your breath.

MR. KEMPF: "Canex will also provide assistance in financing, including a guarantee of a total of $20 million for the construction, completion and loan repayment." A $20 million investment in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. This operation will provide, in this province, 275 new jobs.

Facts, hon. members — facts as illustrated in this budget. We have all seen the announcements of the $125 million expenditure by provincial coastal lumber firms. We are seeing the coming of the Grizzly Valley pipeline, the northeast coal development, and the Kitimat pipeline project. These are projects that will create thousands of jobs in the province of British Columbia — literally thousands of jobs.

MR. MACDONALD: You're for the Kitimat line, eh?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very remiss in speaking on this budget not to mention the Kitimat pipeline project, that project that a few, small, pressure groups would like us to believe is controversial. Well, I want to tell you that my people in the constituency of Omineca, through which for 200 miles this line will be built, want the development. They have no ridiculous fear for the environment caused by a line 36 inches in diameter through which flows a liquid under practically no measurable pressure. They have no fear for that type of development, Madam Member.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this new budget will get British Columbia rolling again, or, should I say, keep it rolling in the right direction.

MR. LAUK: Straight down hill.

MR. KEMPF: That socialist Leader of the Opposition can misquote me if he likes, but I still believe there are 100,000 people on unemployment insurance in British Columbia but there are not — and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, there are not — 100,000 people looking for work.

MR. LAUK: Did they give up?

MR. COCKE: How many are there?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am straying a short distance from the subject of the budget, but I believe it important to mention in the budget debate that I don't buy that tear-laden presentation from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who pleads for jobs for his people in this city.

MR. BARBER: Ten thousand unemployed.

MR. KEMPF: I don't for one minute believe that there are no such people. I'm just saying let those people have the intestinal fortitude to go north, as my people in Omineca have.

MRS. WALLACE: Terrace? Hazelton?

MR. KEMPF: Go north, brave the elements, and seek out and work at the jobs that are available! Yes, Madam Member, these jobs are available and, incidentally, Madam Member — through you, Mr. Speaker — they are very available. Sure, maybe they are lowly jobs — pulling lumber on some green-chain of some sawmill, or setting chokers in six feet of snow on some logging operation — but they are jobs, Mr. Member.

MR. COCKE: Can you and Shelford get together and have a chat?

MR. KEMPF: That is how I started, and that is how many of the people of my constituency started.

MR. COCKE: Shelford's sending them all down here and you want them all to go up there.

MR. KEMPF: I see nothing degrading about that. I challenge the second member for Victoria, who meets with his unemployed people at 4 o'clock in the morning, to ask those people if they are willing to take these jobs, if they're willing to go to the north and brave the elements as my people have, and take these jobs.

MR. COCKE: Nanook of the North!

MR. KEMPF: If they are sincere, I will assist them in doing so.

MR. BARBER: All 10,000?

MR. KEMPF: All 10,000, if they're willing to go north, if they're willing to take these jobs. We've had situations, Mr. Speaker.... Since I came to this House a little less than a year ago, I have tried on several occasions to take those people of which the second member for Victoria speaks, to take them north, to get them jobs, and I did just that, on two or three different occasions. The longest one stayed a week. Two of them lasted two days. There are 100,000

[ Page 358 ]

people on unemployment insurance in this province, but there are not 100,000 people looking for work.

MR. LAUK: Good Lord!

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, this budget shows a sound legislative programme for this province and one that the people of my constituency can certainly relate to. The budget of the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) contains many of the answers to our problems in Omineca.

MR. LAUK: Did he ask you to resign?

MR. KEMPF: In Fort St. James, work will begin almost immediately on the construction of a $415,000 bridge over the Necoslie River. The people of this community had to use a very dangerous Bailey bridge arrangement since 1973, when the original wooden structure over the Necoslie was destroyed by vandals.

I have also had assurances that a project just recently initiated north of that same community of Fort St. James — the reconstruction of a 22-mile stretch of very dangerous road — will continue with moneys allocated in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, moneys have been allocated in this budget for the completion of the design and location for a new bridge over the Nechako River at Vanderhoof. Construction will take place, I am told by the hon. minister, in 1978. This bridge is long overdue. The people of Vanderhoof tried to get this bridge built during the past administration. Again, no action by that group over there. This bridge will now be built in 1978.

Also in the highways budget are moneys for the repaving of several sections of Yellowhead 16, the northern trans-provincial highway through my constituency...

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better save a little money.

MR. KEMPF: ...a stretch of highway grossly ignored by the previous minister under the socialist administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kind of like that word, don't you?

MR. KEMPF: My people don't like it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your people!

MR. KEMPF: In this budget, Mr. Speaker, there is emphasis on secondary roads in my constituency, in particular, further upgrading of the Francois Lake, Ootsa and Takysie Lake roads, and at Fraser Lake, the northside road.

You shake your head, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't listening to shake.

MR. KEMPF: After three and a half years of your administration I, too, would shake my head. I would hang my head in shame — through you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: If you shook your head, your head would fall off.

MR. KEMPF: Allocations for the setting and upgrading of many badly neglected sideroads are seen in this budget — fourth-priority roads given no consideration by the previous administration, and which are so much a problem to my people in Omineca.

MR. LAUK: Did you really want to be Minister of Mines?

MR. KEMPF: In health care, Mr. Speaker, the budget is very implicit: more health care to all British Columbians. But most important to my constituents — as the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) has put it — final relief for those needing the services of an air ambulance escort. This is a godsend to the people of the north who, because of their location in relation to the major treatment centres, have faced horrendous costs of patient transportation. This is a breakthrough for the rural residents of British Columbia.

I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that this budget will put more emphasis on the problem of alcoholism in this province. It's surely one of the most serious problems in our society today, not only in the cities and towns of this province but also in the very small communities in my constituency, and in particular among the Indian people. In the same regard I herald my government's move to further crack down on the impaired drivers.

MR. LAUK: How about the impaired voter?

MR. KEMPF: The budget provides a system of universal Pharmacare. I have heard ridicule of this plan, and I have heard the socialist Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) call it Richacare.

MR. LAUK: That's not what he said — get your facts straight.

MR. KEMPF: He believes that Pharmacare should be exclusively for only 25 per cent of the citizens of this province.

MR. LAUK: You're confused.

[ Page 359 ]

MR. KEMPF: He does not believe that it should be a plan for all British Columbians. He doesn't even believe that it should be available to parents with chronically ill children.

MR. COCKE: Come on, it always was.

MR. KEMPF: He doesn't believe that it should be available to people in low-income brackets. Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Then why did he call it Richacare, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, if he believed it should be available to these people?

Mr. Speaker, I relate only briefly — and I do not wish to debate the subject — to the abolition of succession duties, but the socialist Leader of the Opposition has said that by doing that we are playing into the hands of the rich.

MR. COCKE: That's what he calls Richacare.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the question of that opposition leader: Who are the rich of this province? Are they not the pioneers who settled on the raw land of this province, hacked out a homestead and cleared the forests.... . ?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You laugh, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. You've never been north of Cache Creek.

MR. COCKE: I was born in Athabaska.

MR. KEMPF: Then you should know better, Mr. Member.

After a lifetime of hard work, they produced a viable farm or cattle ranch which they could pass on to their children. Or are they the people, hon. members, who were born here, or came to this province early in life and started work in our forests as chokermen or Catskinners?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Omineca is on his feet and has the floor. He's getting far too much assistance from all the other members of the House at the moment.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Are they not the people who were born here, or came to this province early in life, started work in our forests as chokermen or Catskinners? It's from there with guts and brawn, hon. members, through you,

Mr. Speaker, they built from literally nothing but hard work a logging, trucking, or sawmill operation. Are they not the people who started by providing for our citizens the services of a grocery, dry goods.... . ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hardware, hardware.

MR. KEMPF: And yes, Mr. Member, they ran a hardware store, or garage out of a hole in the wall and again, through hard work, hope, and public service built a viable business.

MR. LAUK: The new frontier — Wolfe Chevrolet.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not even cute.

MR. KEMPF: Or are they people such as a lady who wrote me, and I have the letter here, pleading for the abolition of succession duties...

MR. KING: Who read it for you?

MR. KEMPF: ...in order that her mother, after raising three daughters entirely on her own, working as a waitress, a matron and restaurant cook, in some cases for 18 hours a day...

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): What was the value of her estate?

MR. KEMPF: ...and later as a roominghouse operator, paying her taxes and never taking one penny of welfare or any other type of assistance...? This lady is pleading with me for the abolition of those duties so she may leave her small apartment house — which, incidentally, she is still paying for — to her daughters when she dies.

MR. LAUK: The exemption is $200,000.

MR. KEMPF: Are these not the rich of British Columbia of whom the socialist Leader of the Opposition speaks?

Mr. Speaker, of significant importance to many hundreds of citizens in my constituency of Omineca is the reduction of sales tax on mobile homes. To southerners this may not seem of too much importance, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that northerners — many of whom because of the nature of the north, and because many of our citizens are young people just starting out, find that the mobile home is the only affordable home for them — it is very important that the reduction of the sales tax takes place.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I challenge you to vote against that.

[ Page 360 ]

MR. KEMPF: The reduction of the sales tax on propane fuel is another positive step by this government in this budget. It's very important for the people of the north, many of whom have had to pay this unfortunate tax on the very commodity used to heat their homes in an area where such heating is required in some cases for as long as 10 months of the year.

Mr. Speaker, the budget has allowed for changes in the land policy of this province. On behalf of my people I look forward to these changes, changes which will remove the many inequities that are causing untold hardship to many of my constituents. I, too, am a staunch supporter of the retention of bona fide agricultural land. I do not wish to see that changed.

MR. LAUK: Who decides what's bona fide and what isn't?

MR. KING: Harvey Schroeder decides.

MR. KEMPF: However, as we all very well know, hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, many inequities exist, especially in the north, and which must be changed.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised and disappointed, and it is ironic, that those socialists over there criticize the government's effort to rectify these inequities in the land policy. I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: You're talking through your hat.

MR. KEMPF: During their administration, one of their ministers — and, hon. members, I won't mention his name here today, built a sawmill on prime agricultural property, prime agricultural land within the land freeze.

MR. LAUK: Name names.

MR. KEMPF: He didn't bother to take it out of the freeze. He didn't even bother to apply to the regional district for a building permit — that very arrogant then-minister.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker? No, I wouldn't call those members hypocrites — that would be unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: It would be a lie, too, wouldn't it?

MR. KEMPF: But I leave it to this House to decide; I leave it to the people of British Columbia to decide.

I'm happy, Mr. Speaker, to note in the budget emphasis on the tourist industry, an area to which far too little attention has been given in the past. We in the north are very cognizant of the advantages that are derived from tourism, and, of course — I must get a plug in here, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker — of having the most beautiful scenery, the best fishing and the best hunting of anywhere in this great province.

HON. MR. MAIR: Order!

MR. KEMPF: Emphasis on tourism must definitely benefit my constituency of Omineca. I do, however, caution the hon. minister on British Columbia's participation in the establishment of the Klondike Gold Rush International Historic Park, as this section of our province is one of the richest mineral-bearing areas in the world.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I believe that we have enough of British Columbia in mothballs now, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mothballs?

MR. LAUK: I won't tell your constituents. I won't tell them a word.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I only want to touch upon three more subjects when speaking on this budget...

MR. KING: When are you going to touch on the first?

MR. KEMPF: ...as I will be more specific when speaking on the individual efforts of the ministers. Indian land claims, and in particular, the claims of the Stuart-Trembleur band at Tachie on Stuart Lake. I would hope, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, that moneys will be allocated from the minister's budget for a successful settlement of these claims, claims that are valid and that have been bandied around by two successive governments and not resolved. The success or failure of our own British Columbia Railway operations north of Fort St. James is dependent on this settlement. I call upon the hon. minister for immediate action.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that there is no allocation in the budget for independent school financing. I do, however, realize that legislation is needed. I am sure that this legislation will come in this session. I would hope that it is possible through a special warrant to give relief to these people in time for the new school year beginning in September. I would hope that you will give serious consideration,

[ Page 361 ]

Mr. Minister, to this very vital issue. For 105 years, since 1872, this province has had a double standard of taxation for those citizens sending their children to independent schools, a double standard of taxation for the independent-school users. I will not be satisfied until this inequity is rectified.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that no mention was made in this budget of airport maintenance assistance to the small northern communities of this province. We hear daily of the plight of coastal residents who are isolated because they have only one-day-a-week ferry service. We see much emphasis placed on bringing better service to these areas, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker. But I have communities in my constituency which are completely isolated, some for as many as six months a year, with no means whatsoever to receive even emergency service. I would ask the hon. minister to give serious consideration to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to stand in this House on behalf of the people of the constituency of Omineca. In summing up, I would say that it is on their behalf that I support this budget. Thank you very much.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, under standing order 42(1), in view of the fact that the speech of the last hon. member who was speaking was so totally incomprehensible, the opposition agrees to allow him to speak a second time in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that you know as well as I do that you gained the floor of the House supposedly quoting a correct standing order of the House. But an incorrect interpretation of what it was really there for.... And I don't think that that's becoming to the decorum of the House. All members have an opportunity, and will be afforded an opportunity, to make their speeches as they see fit on the floor of this House, as long as they don't impinge upon the rules, the integrity of the House or the position of other hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does eating at the Union Club addle your brain, Gary?

Hon. Mr. Williams, on behalf of the Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McGeer files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.