[ Page 363 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 363

Mr. Barber — 368

Mr. Rogers — 381

Mr. Loewen — 385

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to take my place in this debate and to take the opportunity of commending and supporting the budget for its insistence on restraint while at the same time maintaining the highest level of service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Before I comment further I would like to take this opportunity also, Mr. Speaker, of once again paying tribute and thanking a gentleman for whom I have great admiration and with whom I have appreciated working, a gentleman who retired in September, my then deputy minister, Mr. Jim Sadler. He was in the service for 39 years and served a good many administrations extremely well.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Why did he quit? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, since the provincial budget was introduced on January 24, I have listened to a great deal of criticism about the so-called reduction in the proposed expenditure for the Ministry of Human Resources. Both the press and the opposition have waxed heavily on the so-called "cuts to social services spending," suggesting in the process that this is somehow a cold and inhuman thing, and also that it's a bottom-line approach of this government. Yesterday, I even heard the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi), who was previously a minister in the same ministry, say that there was a $25-million cut in the budget for Human Resources.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): They can't read a balance sheet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was very surprised, quite frankly, to hear him because I had given this gentleman much more credit than that. I thought that perhaps he would understand. But thinking about it further I can appreciate why perhaps he didn't understand exactly that there wasn't any cut, that in fact there would be additional funds over those expended during this fiscal year.

I'm somewhat curious, Mr. Speaker, about the audacity of those that perpetrated a $100 million overrun to criticize an administration that has not only enjoyed something approaching a $100 million surplus or overrun...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): That's Pharmacare!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...but further criticizing that administration which has managed that surplus in a year in which tremendous and well-deserved increases were provided in a host of key areas.

The comparisons with this year's budget, unfortunately, have been made on the basis of comparisons with last year's figures. If viewed in this manner, there is no doubt that one could suggest that the ministry will be spending approximately $25 million less than was estimated for the previous year. But it could also be argued, and I think it would be much more factual to argue such, that we will in fact be spending $50 million more on social services and income assistance and other requirements of persons in need in this province, more than we did in '76-'77. In fact, I would suggest that the budgetary estimates as outlined in '76-'77 were based on the experience of an administration grown too accustomed to overruns, and giveaways, and to an unaccountable administration that had little option but to plan for these ill-administered contingencies in their estimates for last year.

But even so, let's look at the record for the Ministry of Human Resources for 1976. For the first time in two years the rates for welfare recipients were increased substantially by up to $70. But in keeping with good administration and the philosophy of providing benefits to those most in need or most deserving, these increases were provided selectively, so that some 20,000 single parents, who were forced to provide as much of a normal life as possible for their children, were given the consideration of an additional $50 per month. Persons in the nearly-impossible employment category, aged 55 to 59, were granted $70 per month.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that these were increases provided through a budget that enjoyed surpluses.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Tell us about the handicapped!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Increases to persons in need rather than simply another giveaway.

MR. LEVI: Tell us about the handicapped!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Increases at a cost of more than $17 million.

Let's look at some of the other extended benefits that were provided during the current fiscal year.

[ Page 364 ]

Day-care rates were increased from $120 to $140, which is an increase of 16 per cent — the first time in two years that there was an increase in this very necessary subsidy.

Let's look at another programme that required a complete overhaul and much-needed rate increases: the area of personal-care rates provided to our many citizens in personal-care homes and private-care hospitals. When I assumed office one of the most frequent presentations that was made to me was the inadequacy of the rates provided to personal- and intermediate-care homes. Again, the suggestion was that the services being rendered to senior citizens in these homes were suffering terribly because of inadequate funding.

In an effort to improve these services and provide more cases and better care for our senior citizens, the personal rates were increased in July from $275 per month to $340 per month, an increase, I might point out, of 23.6 per cent in a year of surplus. Likewise, the intermediate-care rates were increased from $440 to $500 per month, an increase of 13.6 per cent. The nursing-home rates were increased from $577.50 to $750 per month. The total cost of this much-needed rate restructuring was over $6 million in a budget, once again, that is enjoying a surplus this year.

This ministry also recognized the inequitable situation faced by eight lower mainland municipalities which were still forced to provide the full administrative costs for welfare. As Minister of Human Resources, and more particularly as mayor of Surrey, I felt that these charges were most unfair and not a rightful charge against the citizens of these municipalities. As a result of this review, we initiated a very costly takeover of this administrative function from these municipalities and, at the same time, reduced the participation by the remaining municipalities in this province in the total welfare costs so that a $3.3 million saving was provided to them at the cost of the provincial government, and more particularly the budget of the Ministry of Human Resources.

There are some further, perhaps minor, increases that were granted, increases to services that, while not terribly significant in the public eye, we must certainly view as progressive to the recipient of the services. We increased the rates for dentists and opticians who provided services to welfare recipients so that professionals could provide the same services they provide to the general public. No longer will our welfare recipients be burdened with receiving welfare teeth or welfare glasses. We are paying the going rates and recognizing the need for this kind of preventative health care.

Again, another minor change, but one that I feel is most significant to the recipient, is the increase in the annual Christmas bonuses. Families received increases from $15 to $25, while single individuals received an increase from $10 to $15. While I could certainly agree that the dollar figures do not seem particularly significant to you or me, I can assure you that the recipient of this little additional benefit at Christmas is most appreciative of this consideration.

There is one other increase that is very close to my heart, and one on which I will have a good deal more to say during the estimate discussions: the additional benefits that were provided this year through the achievement centres and handicapped workshops throughout the workshop. In an effort to increase services and provide more adequately to the many worthwhile societies which offer this service to handicapped individuals, this ministry infused an additional $1 million into these programmes this year — $1 million, I might add, granted in a year of surplus.

How was this feat of providing more for less accomplished? It was not through magic, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, but rather through policy refinement and good, solid administration. The policies of this ministry now reflect our view that responsibility must first fall to the individual and only secondly to the state to provide support or to seek employment. I have insisted that wherever possible an individual must first look to himself either to provide support through his own resources or to be actively available for or seek employment.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the result of this effort, particularly in relation to the expenditure for welfare, has been most startling. Our figures now indicate that the welfare roll is at the lowest level it has been since any time in the last four years. The figures have dropped drastically since January, 1976. As a point of comparison, I might use the figures for October, 1975, with which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi), I am sure, will be familiar: in October, 1975, the number of people in receipt of welfare was 133,051; in October, 1976, one year later, following this administration taking hold of the situation, there were only 107,786.

This is a drop of 20 per cent in the welfare rolls in one year. This figure is even more significant when the number of single men on welfare is compared with the figure in 1975. In October of 1975, 18,185 single men were in receipt of welfare benefits through this ministry. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this particular category of individual is generally considered the most employable, and therefore any reduction in these numbers would seem to directly reflect upon the efforts of the ministry to insist upon work before welfare.

In October of 1976, just three months ago, the number of single men in receipt of income assistance has dropped to 12,285, a reduction in that particular category of 33 per cent. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is how surpluses are effected: not through magic, not through denying increases to the

[ Page 365 ]

needy and the deserving, but rather through solid administration, policy refinement and accountability.

I expect to discuss my programmes and policies more fully when the estimates come before this House, with respect to employment particularly, but I would like to take a moment to comment on one particular programme which has received a good deal of criticism by both the opposition and the press in recent weeks, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, this has been most unfair. Of course, I am referring to the Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Programme, PREP for short, which was initiated by this ministry in late July and has achieved some remarkable results that I feel are commendable in spite of the negativism that has characterized the attacks on this concept by the opposition in the press.

In reviewing this criticism, it seems apparent to me that it has been put forward by people who would suggest that welfare is better than work; by people who have no concept of the dignity of a day's labour; by people who have the audacity to suggest that jobs cannot be found in an era of high unemployment; by people who claim that there are already sufficient agencies, such as Canada Manpower, to provide this service and that PREP is a duplication; by people who, it would seem, prefer the easy giveaway, the provision of more and more welfare, rather than a much more arduous task of really helping persons who are anxiously seeking to obtain employment. This programme has been criticized by people who suggest that the costs are not worth the benefits; by people who expect magic solutions to basic problems; by people who view job-finding as a numbers game.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that PREP is not a numbers game. PREP was not designed to support itself with a lot of inflated figures or to try to calm the public into thinking that the Ministry of Human Resources has found some magic solution to the very basic problem of getting jobs for people. We are not engaged in a contest but rather a service, and a service that I feel fills a much-needed void in our counselling programme for employable people who are unable to find work.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that placement agencies such as Canada Manpower fully concede that they only deal with perhaps 20 per cent of the total jobs on the market at any given time and that 80 per cent of the jobs are located by the hard, street-pounding effort of individuals seeking work. Moreover, Canada Manpower will similarly concede that they are not geared to finding employment for the hard-core or difficult-to-employ, but rather emphasize in their efforts the more skilled who can be referred to a number of jobs posted on the Canada Manpower boards. But what do they do, Mr. Speaker, with the individuals who, through no fault of their own, have few skills and little confidence to go out on the street and talk to employers, fill in application forms, pressure and cajole and continually phone until they locate a job? This is a job which has not been done by Canada Manpower but has been taken on by PREP. I suggest to you that previously there was nothing for these people and now there is PREP.

I grant you that many of the jobs found are the lower-paying jobs. They are jobs at, or just above, the minimum wage level, jobs that in some instances are not viewed by the general public as the most desirable, but I suggest to you also that the critics of this programme are viewing that fact from a point of ease and opulence that renders their views useless because, Mr. Speaker, by comparison with welfare — even with the greatly increased rates that this government has initiated in the first year — a job offers not only a better financial outlook for the individual but also the dignity and sense of union with the community and personal worth a job can bring.

But there will always be those who overlook the work of the programme on the basis of its service to needy clients, who will insist that we produce huge numbers to justify its existence, rather than to simply suggest that it is serving human needs. Those who suggest, for instance, that jobs can't be found in a period of high unemployment might be surprised to learn that in the programme's infancy, when the Jobfinders were still learning their territories and their tactics, a total of 3,750 jobs were found throughout this province by Jobfinders — by the agents of PREP actively going out and pounding the street on behalf of welfare recipients to assist them in locating employment.

In addition and because of the unique nature of PREP, we also had access to Canada Manpower files, and whenever we could not fill positions we reciprocated by providing our unused jobs to them. Using this method in the first five months of the programme 4,465 welfare recipients have been placed in employment throughout this province — 4,465 individuals who previously had to rely on the state, 4,465 individuals whose families, in many cases, existed with the spectre of welfare hanging over their heads, many thousands of children whose view of life might always have reflected this reliance on state support had not these jobs been found.

Let me read to you two examples of the results that have been achieved through this programme. A letter received recently reads:

"Thank you for your concern. Even though you couldn't help directly, your expediting seems to have paid off. Your Jobfinder contacted me, I drove down and got my son to see him. My son is now working for the city and is in a job and will be able to clear off some of his debts.

"Thank you for your time. Most people

[ Page 366 ]

don't realize the concern that your department has for those who genuinely need assistance."

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): "Signed, Mrs. Vander Zalm."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Another letter:

"I couldn't find a job, and after answering several ads in our local paper, I thought, well, I'll go down to Manpower, and so I went. There, stationed between two partitions with stacks of paper were two young people, both PREP workers. This was Friday morning at 11 a.m. Both detained their lunch hour to fill in forms for me and I left with a feeling they won't be able to find me a job.

"I came home at 2 p.m. came a call: 'You have an interview. Call this number.' At 5 p.m. I was hired. I started at 9 a.m. the next day. The job is one block away, terrific pay, terrific hours, just perfect.

"I understand PREP is a new programme, and I just had to write and tell you how pleased I am with this programme and the two people on your staff."

Isn't there dignity, pride and appreciation in the tone of these letters?

MR. LEVI: May I ask if you will table them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I will. The member asks if I will table the letters, and I will certainly do that. I'm wondering if perhaps the member will read that letter, or if he will certainly again take a negative attitude, as appears to be so common from that side of the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I challenge anyone in this House to say that there isn't a dignity, despite the previous remarks that were just made by the member.

I challenge anyone to suggest that the expenditure of $100 or even $1,000 to find that person a job isn't worth the effort or isn't worth the costs, which brings me to the matter of cost benefit, a criticism which I have heard over and over again and which appears to me ludicrous in terms of the kinds of results that have already been achieved. I will admit to this House, Mr. Speaker, that there is no way to determine totally accurate figures. There is no way to say that we have saved precisely X amount of dollars for removing this particular individual from the income-assistance rolls. There are far too many variables in this equation for me to provide you with an exact cost benefit.

There are persons who locate employment and then, for whatever reason, come back onto the welfare rolls, and certainly there are persons for whom jobs are found through PREP who might otherwise have found a job on their own. I fully concede these facts and I'm certain that the easy-money philosophizers will point these out ad nauseam. But let's look at the facts in the most conservative way possible.

Suppose that it costs only $1,000 a year to maintain an individual on welfare, a figure that, I might point out, is only one-half of the lowest annual rate that might be provided by this ministry. Even with this estimate those 4,465 placements have saved, on an annual basis, $4.4 million in expenditures for this ministry, in a programme that is only five months old. And further, in a programme that only costs a little over $500,000 a year to administer. Is there cost benefit in dollar terms? I challenge any member of the House to say that there isn't. To suggest that the dollars spent for PREP are not returning a very high interest indeed, Mr. Speaker.... I suggest to you in every sense of the word PREP is working.

Mr. Speaker, when I assumed the responsibility for this portfolio, one of the first things that I recognized was the lack of accountability and responsibility that was rampant in the system. Money was being handed over right and left without any knowledge of the purpose or the consequence, without any accounting of who received the funds or whether such expenditure was based on policy or the whim of the many individuals who had the cheque-signing authority. The Ministry of Human Resources gives out $9 million annually to various community organizations and societies to perform such social services functions. Yet previous to this administration there was very little follow-up to determine, first, whether there was any value to this expenditure and, secondly, to determine whether the expenditure even met the guidelines as outlined in the application. Furthermore, this lack of accountability was prevalent throughout the Human Resources system — a system, I might point out, that provides nearly $200 million in income assistance and that had no accountability procedures prior to this administration taking office.

One of the first steps I have taken with this ministry is the establishment of an audit team — seven persons who circulate throughout the province assessing procedures, policy applications, accounting and the adequacy of services, not only in the Ministry of Human Resources offices but in the many community organizations that are funded through this ministry. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, I think that the public can feel assured that their tax dollars, as budgeted in this Ministry of Human Resources, will be well spent and properly accounted for. And when we find irregularities, misapplication of policy and

[ Page 367 ]

abuse of our system, immediate corrective measures will be taken.

Here is an example of some of the information that is stemming from our audit team reports. The system of bringing forward files is virtually non-existent. Of the files reviewed in one office, 60 per cent of the applications were reasonably current; 15 per cent were one to three years old, and 25 per cent were more than three years old. That means that for three years or more the cheques were being forwarded without assuring that the people were actually there or that the need still existed. That was the system that we had to face.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): That was $100 million overrun!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In reviewing the bring-forward system, a separate sample of files was randomly chosen from the active caseload. None of the files had been brought forward for annual review. None of the current applications sampled had been brought forward for the possible four-month-increase entitlement, and only 20 per cent of the files were current — less than one year old.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): The rest are in Gary's basement.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, I cannot tell you that X number of dollars saved have resulted from this programme. But I suggest to you that staff in all of our offices, as well as the persons carrying out services through community organizations, are indeed very aware of the necessity for accountability. They are assuming a new responsibility that, I am certain, is reflected in some part for the budgetary surplus that the Ministry of Human Resources has enjoyed in the fiscal year '76-'77. Perhaps, not too surprisingly, the audit teams have discovered that several community organizations failed to report other sources of operating income when they made application to this ministry for funds. I can only assume that this kind of slipshod approach has been taken in the past with the full knowledge of the then minister (Mr. Levi) . I assure you it will occur no more. As I stated earlier, success is a process, not an absolute. The accountability engendered through the audit team system, I feel, is a key process that this ministry has enjoyed.

I would like to take a few moments also, Mr. Speaker, to outline another programme which I feel has resulted in a substantial reduction in the 1976-77 budget of the Ministry of Human Resources. Since the fraud investigation programme has only been in force for three months, I can only offer the House a progress report on its activities. These figures do not reflect Vancouver activity, since the VancouverResources Board is only now upgrading its inspectors' programme along the guidelines of the Ministry of Human Resources.

While we were putting this programme together, I was constantly asked about the amount of fraud in the welfare system. There has been a good deal of effort to place an exact figure on the abuse in our system. During those earlier discussions I indicated that I received a variety of reports from social workers saying, for instance, that fraud was only 5 per cent, while some police were telling me that it runs as high as 40 per cent. Throughout, I have indicated that accurate figures were impossible to determine since there was no effort being made previously to investigate or pursue fraudulent claims. Therefore an aura of suspicion pervaded the system and reflected itself in the credibility of the entire welfare programme in the eyes of the public. I felt, and still feel, that this was a disservice, not only to the tax-paying public, but also to the many deserving clients who really should not be branded by the same label as those deliberately attempting to defraud our system.

In addition, I indicated that reports given to me showed that a small number of persons is ripping off our system for large amounts, rather than large numbers defrauding the Ministry of Human Resources. So far — and I will give you figures momentarily — it would indicate that this assessment was, in fact, correct. We are finding fraudulent cases of $10,000, $20,000, and even $30,000 by persons who are charged with 15, 25, or even 40 counts of fraud against the Ministry of Human Resources.

In reviewing the case files that we have so far collected in the first three months of operation, it would appear that abuse of the system falls into three basic categories. The first is the situation where the errors and overpayments are the result of staff oversight and inattention to application details. While these represent a particularly small proportion of our problem, they are significant. We are taking steps through the auditing process to correct our policies and, procedures and ensure that our own staff is fully aware of their responsibilities in providing benefits to persons in need.

The second category involves what I would term client-induced overpayments. These would be situations where a client fails to report a change in circumstance or income from another source, and is therefore receiving benefits in excess of those allowed under our programme. Indications are that this category represents by far a majority of the abuse cases. Our general procedure when it is not a flagrant case is to terminate the benefit and arrange for reimbursement of the overpayment by the client.

Again, the more flagrant case falls under two basic categories. I feel that our departmental investigators have taken a very positive and compassionate

[ Page 368 ]

approach to the pursuit of these individuals, in keeping with a responsible attitude toward a disbursement of public funds. I can assure this House that the ministerial inspector's programme is not out to throw people in jail. In many cases, the action taken is simply to correct the benefit, collect the overpayments and indicate to the recipient the error made so that corrective action can be taken in the future.

Let me give you some examples. We had a recent overpayment of $1,380 in social assistance payments to a person who was also receiving disabled veteran's pension benefits. This person was a paraplegic. Obviously, there would be no good served to the public or to the individual by prosecuting.

In another case, we found a woman with four children who was drawing social assistance from two offices in the Fraser Valley. Upon investigation, we found tremendous family turmoil and saw no benefit to prosecution. However, I can assure you that full restitution was arranged and the benefit corrected.

In another case, a person was in receipt of crime compensation benefits after having been seriously injured. This additional income was not reported to the ministry offices. In fact, this is a violation of the Act and could have been prosecuted. However, this individual had used the funds for a self-help re-training programme and prosecution was declined in this case.

In another case a deaf person — a gentleman who was somewhat disoriented — was in receipt of DVA and social assistance benefit and was overpaid in the amount of $1,600. Given the particular circumstances, no prosecution was filed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I must remind you that you are on your final three minutes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In reviewing these cases, there is no doubt in my mind that the claims were fraudulent, that they constituted fraud, that they are subject to prosecution and that public funds were misspent. These cases will not show up in court, or on any list of fraud cases that might appear in the press. We have taken a humane and compassionate approach, one that is responsible and accountable.

However, there are those cases — very flagrant cases indeed — where we will not only be prosecuting, but also asking that the full letter of the law be pursued.

Several cases come to mind, but since some of these are pending in court, it would be inappropriate of me to provide you with more than cursory details. However, we are now pursuing one case of 29 counts of fraud where an individual has very likely bilked this province of more than $16,000. In another case, an individual is being charged with four counts of false declaration and 40 counts of fraud in excess of $19,000. In addition, right now in the Surrey area alone, there are $75,000 in fraud cases pending in the court — $75,000 of the public's money that was illegally obtained, fraudulently obtained, and we are prosecuting these cases with all vigour.

But figures don't really tell the story of the department inspectors' success because, as I indicated earlier, the success is an approach and not an absolute. The departmental reports tell us that there is a significant deterrent which will never show up on the report figures. All indications are that clients are starting to report changes of status more readily so overpayments, hopefully, will not be recurring in the future. In addition, there seems to be a growing awareness by clients that they may face trouble with someone other than their social workers should they pursue illegal activities or make false claims. It is curious also that in many instances, following an inquiry by the departmental inspectors, the client will fail to re-apply for benefits, even though no action has been taken.

Furthermore, because of the integrated provincial approach of this programme, there appears to be a reduction in the incidence of persons hopping from region to region and collecting income assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and outline further the many positive approaches that have been taken through this ministry to bring down the costs of social assistance in the province of British Columbia, to provide greater benefits to the people in need, and I will tell more of this in the budget debate. But certainly, all of these, and many more, are reasons for the surplus which we are enjoying in the ministry. I am hoping that in the year to come we will not only be saving further money, but that we will be able to again increase the benefits to the people in British Columbia who need our help and must turn to us. I know that people everywhere will turn to look at this government and this ministry and say that it's accountable and that they have faith in government in British Columbia.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the minister's remarks, especially in regard to handicapped people, and would like to take this opportunity, if I may — especially enjoying the fact that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is in the House — to ask whether or not he and she would be willing to get together in response to a story and an obvious problem related on the front page of tonight's Times. I am referring, of course, to the story about the Handicapped Action Centre in the city of Victoria, located at 2535 Government Street, which provides an important service for many of the handicapped citizens of this city, and which was in receipt, in July of last year, of a grant from....

[ Page 369 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: What? I am asking a question.

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

MR. BARBER: The Provincial Secretary made a grant of $30,000 last July to this organization. This organization at the moment has seen, as of tonight, five people responsible for its operations out of a job. My question is simply whether or not, prior to April 1 and the start of, hopefully, new financial support from this government, the Minister of Human Resources and the Provincial Secretary would be willing to get together to interview — as I understand, the Provincial Secretary's executive assistant will be meeting with them — the appropriate staff in each of their departments, and see whether or not interim assistance might be granted these people.

I want to repeat: I did appreciate the remarks that the minister made about handicapped people. We have, by odd coincidence, just tonight, a report on a very important and beneficial centre for the handicapped right here in the capital city that tonight is in some difficulty. If the two ministers involved could get together and discuss the matter and determine whether or not interim support might be made available, I and they, I am sure, would be very grateful.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: If you think that that's put forward for political reasons, political purposes, I am very disappointed. I am very disappointed that you should make that accusation, because the request is very simple and straightforward.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Why don't you read the article?

MR. BARBER: I read the article very carefully.

MR. LAUK: Shame on you, Grace.

MR. BARBER: I mentioned that, and what I've asked is whether or not we could hear tonight a commitment from the two ministers — both of whom have a legitimate interest in the matter — to collaborate, to proceed and to make a decision which would allow this particular group to survive until the beginning of the next fiscal year, at which time it is hoped that her ministry — referring to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will be able to support it. I think that's a very simple request.

Now the subject of my speech tonight in response to the budget address is largely derived from three announcements which I wish to make on behalf of the government. I would like to inform the people of British Columbia of three decisions made by this government but not yet announced by this government, and I'm sure that once again they will no doubt intend, if they possibly can, to get away with disputing the facts. They may think that the travel industry of British Columbia tricks and deceives the poor coalition millionaire now in power. They may feel that they get false information and grossly misrepresented facts from the tourist industry of British Columbia. I don't feel that; they may do. However, tonight I propose to make three announcements on their behalf.

The first announcement that I'd like to make in the spirit of the St. Vitus dance into which those guys go every time.... I seem to have a terrible impact on them. They get awfully twitchy every time I stand up.

MR. LAUK: They don't like the truth.

MR. BARBER: The St. Vitus dance they're about to perform, the twitchiness that they're about to exhibit, as usual when these facts come out, is, in the first respect, to two decisions — two memoranda — and one very serious result that's come forward as the result of a decision made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) — or Corporate and Consumer Affairs, as I'm sure he'd prefer to be known — and his liquor administration branch. I'm quoting directly from this and I'd like to assure you it's not a trick of the tourist industry. It's not another act of deception by the chamber of commerce. This is material from the liquor administration branch and I'd be happy to table it. I want to make an announcement that talks about how once again this club of millionaires is prepared to use the club of fiscal policy to drive into the ground the tourist industry and the restaurant industry of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Once more with feeling.

MR. BARBER: From J.E. Warren, director of administration, December 6, 1976, circular No. 63:

"This is to inform you that the new liquor Act and regulations will be proclaimed December 31, 1976. Proclamation of the Act will extend your existing licence(s) to March 31, 1977. You will shortly be receiving an application form for your 1977-78 fiscal period liquor licences.

"(Signed)

"J.E. Warren, director of administration."

Simple enough. The government didn't announce it.

[ Page 370 ]

It didn't seem too forbidding when it came out. We didn't realize in this particular piece of information, not announced by the minister, the financial impact on the restaurant industry that it would have. It went to all of the licencees in the province who, particularly through restaurants, particularly through hotels with licences, sell liquor to the people of British Columbia.

The second memo comes out on December 14, circular No. 67, once again from the director of administration, Mr. J.E. Warren, of the liquor administration branch: "Subject: regulation 2(1), Liquor Control and Licensing Act." Let me repeat, this information, like the other I have presented in this House about the dire impact of your stupid fiscal policies on tourism, is not a trick of the chamber of commerce. It is not an act of deceit upon the part of the tourist bureau of British Columbia. This is your own stuff. You haven't announced it yet so I'm announcing it for you:

"In addition to the fee described in regulation 2(1), a further amount equal to 5 per cent of the gross value of the liquor purchased, shall be charged and payable at the time of purchase. Effective date of this change is January 3, 1977, The new Act and regulations should be in the mail next week.

"(Signed)

"J.E. Warren, director of administration."

I went tonight to speak to a friend of mine who runs a restaurant in Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: King George III.

MR. BARBER: A number of the members of that millionaires' club probably patronize that restaurant.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Churchill?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Shame! Hang your head!

MR. BARBER: It does well. It does well, and the minister would do well to listen.

I am referring to a restaurant which, running successfully enough under the circumstances in Victoria, last year paid $2,000 in what was formerly a 2 per cent tax on the gross purchase they made through the liquor administration branch of liquor for their customers.

MR. KING: When we charged 5 per cent they said that was too much for the mining industry.

MR. BARBER: Well, it may be too much for the mining industry but apparently it's just enough for the restaurant industry because it's now gone from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. What does that mean in cash, Mr. Speaker? This announcement I'm making on behalf of the government — which they didn't have the courage to make themselves — has had this result at this one restaurant. Last year he paid, in the form of that licence tax — 2 per cent on the gross purchases — $2,000 to the Government of British Columbia. This year he is going to pay $5,000, and more if his business should improve, as we hope it will.

MR. LAUK: Jackboot confiscation.

MR. BARBER: This government, lacking the courage to make their own announcement tonight in Victoria, is seeing yet another restaurant operation put in jeopardy because of the primitive, the stupid, the backward fiscal policies of that coalition. They didn't even have the courage to make the announcement themselves. The restaurateurs of British Columbia discovered this in the mail.

MR. LAUK: Faint hearts.

MR. BARBER: The difference for that particular restaurant operation is $3,000. This year he is expected to pay another $3,000. The response? It's ordinarily that of the Provincial Secretary, who smiles and says: "Well, you know, one of the reasons that you haven't done so well this year is because you charge so much." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Who charges too much? From 2 per cent to 5 per cent, and they didn't have the courage to make the announcement themselves. This restaurant, formerly paying $2,000, now pays $5,000. The extra $3,000 will come out — once again — of its customers, and once again they will suffer the Provincial Secretary telling them that they charge too much.

MR. COCKE: And telling them to smile.

MR. BARBER: And to smile more as they pay more and more and more to this coalition.

If anyone wishes to suggest, that this information is a trick perpetrated by the chamber of commerce I will, with leave, table the documents. It's your own. stuff; it's your own material — $2,000 to $5,000 in one year at one restaurant. They thank you very much. They appreciate very much what you've done.

MR. BARRETT: Help the little businessman go broke.

MR. BARBER: The second announcement I'wish to make has also not been made, this by the Minister

[ Page 371 ]

of Finance — and he may start his St. Vitus dance as quickly as he likes. It regards the Assessment Authority of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know about that yet.

MR. BARBER: Well, the minister tried not to know about it, but it's come out. I refer, in the budget speech, to those references and in particular to one brief item, page 35, vote 11: the operating grant last year to the Assessment Authority of British Columbia was $4.2 million; the operating grant this year to the Assessment Authority is $ 1.1 million.

Mr. Speaker, they have failed to tell the municipalities, regional districts, school boards and the hospital districts of this province that they are going to be stuck with $3.1 million; $3.1 million is what they are going to have to pay because the Minister of Finance decided not to make the announcement but merely slip it into the budget. They have reduced the grant to the Assessment Authority by $3.1 million. That means that the people of British Columbia, on every piece of property they own, are going to be paying an extra three-tenths of a mill. They paid last year on each of those pieces of property 1.255 mills; they will pay this year 1.555 mills.

This coalition once again, failing to make announcements that do not serve their political purposes, have failed to inform the municipal councils, the regional districts, school districts and the hospital districts of this province that they are going to have to cough up an extra $3.1 million because the millionaires' club has cut their grant from $4.2 million to $1.1 million.

Let me tell you what that means in some of the municipalities of this province.

MR. COCKE: They call that sharing the wealth!

MR. BARBER: They call it revenue-sharing, by the way, Mr. Speaker. We heard the term during the campaign; we haven't seen it much in the Legislature.

In the city of Victoria their decision to decline by $3.1 million the grant to the Assessment Authority means that the people of Victoria will have to kick in an extra $75,000 this year. The people of Saanich will have to kick in an extra $80,000 to $100,000 this year. The people of Vancouver will have to kick in an extra $600,000 this year.

Now we can understand why they may have decided to force the city of Victoria to pay an extra $75,000 — after all, it did have the nerve to elect a New Democrat to represent them in this House. We can understand why they might have decided — To do it to the city of Vancouver to the tune of $600,000. But, my gosh, Mr. Speaker, they've done it to Saanich — $80,000 to $100,000 — and that's represented by the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who promised to introduce a formula of revenue sharing within the first year of administration and at the beginning of the second year we still see no sign of it, and who allegedly represents the best interests of his people — $80,000 to $100,000.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): What party is he in tonight?

MR. BARBER: Remind me — what is it? Well, to make sure that I've got him right, referring to the Liberal-Conservative-Social Credit member for Saanich and the Islands, he promised that he'd introduce revenue-sharing and relieve the burden. The Liberal-Conservative-Social Credit member for Saanich and the Islands tonight has stuck his own riding with an extra bill of $80,000 to $100,000. Now we know that he personally doesn't get along too well with the present mayor of Saanich, Mr. Lum. We know that they're not exactly close friends, and there's some suspicion that Mr. Lum will be after the minister's nomination when the coalition holds its get-together at the next....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I have heard that.

MR. LAUK: Don't tell anybody on the islands; let's keep it within these walls.

MR. BARBER: I hope it wasn't another trick of the chamber of commerce; I hope I wasn't misled by the tourist bureau. But I have heard that. But surely even the minister's well-known dislike for the present mayor of Saanich is hardly an excuse for what they've done to the Assessment Authority, hardly an excuse for what they are doing to the people of Saanich. They reduced the grant from $4.2 million to $1.1 million, and they didn't have the courage to announce it.

The St. Vitus dance may continue: I'd like to make another announcement on behalf of the government. You know, it's becoming very clear to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that this government isn't merely two-faced, it is also two-fisted — by which I mean they give with one fist what they take back with the other.

Under revenue-sharing in the Minister of Municipal Affairs' estimates this year we see that they've increased revenue-sharing from $30 million to $34 million — an extra grant of $4 million. But $3.1 million they take back in extra assessments to support the Assessment Authority.

Let me tell you what else they've done. The third

[ Page 372 ]

announcement I want to make tonight, on behalf of this government, is to tell you what they've done to the construction programme for homes for elderly citizens in this province. The third announcement is this: this government has decided to reduce from $10 million to $4 million the capital funds available for the construction of homes for senior citizens in British Columbia — from $10 million to $4 million in this year's budget, Mr. Speaker. We see the drop in that commitment alleged during the campaign — and made unbelievable since they're in government — of support to senior citizens.

I think it's fairly clear now, Mr. Speaker, why they're offering free campsites to all the seniors. (Laughter.) They cut the grant for seniors' housing from $10 million to $4 million and offer them free campsites instead. That's quite an achievement, Mr. Speaker. It's a remarkable event.

There are a lot of seniors who will not be taken in. Contrary to popular belief, they are not fools, morons and senile, depraved idiots. They've wisdom and experience and they see through the ploys. They see through the phony promises.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: They understand most clearly the lack of action. From $10 million down to $4 million in one year. Do they deserve that, Mr. Speaker? What have they done to deserve that kind of treatment from that coalition? What have they done to deserve it? From $10 million to $4 million: the third announcement tonight I would like to make on behalf of the government, that they themselves didn't have the courage to make. It's quite an achievement.

You know, this coalition has, in its short — and no doubt quickly-to-be-ended-at-the-next-election — life established a reputation for unbelievability. They promised all sorts of things, and I'm going to get to one of them in a moment. They promised they'd pay their full share of property taxes in the city of Victoria, the capital city. But it's become very clear from the fiscal policies they've developed, from the endless theft from the pockets of the people of British Columbia — except for the millionaires — of dollar after dollar, that none of those promises was meant sincerely in the first place. They were meant only to attract votes. They've demolished the tourist industry on Vancouver Island. They've attacked the restaurants again, in another announcement they won't make. They've cut seniors housing capital grants from $10 million to $4 million and they've offered them free campsites.

These guys don't have a platform, Mr. Speaker; they have a treadmill. The treadmill is this: tax them and tax them and tax them again! If I have to offer a few incentives to get a few millionaires to run for me in the campaign I'll promise to remove the succession duties once I get into power. How did they get all those millionaires to run for them, Mr. Speaker? Is it possible that some of those millionaires were told: "Once we get into power we'll cut succession duties"? Isn't that possible?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. You know very well that there are two bills on the order paper dealing with both succession duties and the repeal of the Gift Tax Act.

MR. COCKE: It's in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As long as you don't refer directly to the bills which are on the order paper, hon. member, you are in order. I'm just cautioning you that the bills are there and they'll be discussed in second reading, and again in committee stage, but not during the budget debate.

MR. BARBER: I thank you for the advice, Mr. Speaker. I know it will be discussed by the people of British Columbia, by the seniors of my riding who have seen the ambulances tripled in cost; by the seniors who realize that the housing grants have been cut from $10 million to $4 million and they've been offered free campsites instead. And I know they'll be discussing the decisions of that greedy little club of millionaires over there who look after themselves before they look after anyone else.

MR. BARRETT: What's a million?

MR. BARBER: I'd like to talk about a few promises. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present information not authored by myself or the Chamber of Commerce or the tourist bureau or any of those other Commie fronts. I'd like to offer information published in the last campaign by the two coalition candidates in the city of Victoria, one of whom managed to hold a seat for this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that fellow — Ian who?

MR. BARBER: Rendle. I'd like to quote from one of these promises.

MR. LAUK: Colonel Flim-Flam Sam Bawlf.

MR. BARBER: The headline in the Victoria Times of November 27, 1975, reads: "A Team That Works." One of the items in it is: "More ways they'll work for you: They promise to fight for fairer taxes for Victoria by making the provincial government accept its fair share of property taxes." I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if any of them remember that promise. I wonder if any of the members of the coalition

[ Page 373 ]

remember the promise made by that group, when they were in opposition and during the campaign, to pay their full share of property taxes. And I wonder, now that we see them entering their second year in power, whether they have any intention of honouring that promise.

MR. COCKE: Where's Sam tonight?

MR. LAUK: He's at the $100-a-plate dinner.

MR. BARBER: He may be at the very restaurant to which I referred earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a sellout.

MR. LAUK: It's a sell-out all right; it's a sellout to the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: This coalition government has won the distinct honour of being the first in history to be referred to by the mayor of Victoria as "a welfare bum." The mayor of Victoria, who is, by the way, not a member of the New Democratic Party, referred to that government as a welfare bum and referred most specifically to the fact that this coalition has failed utterly to keep a campaign promise made most seriously and taken most seriously by the people of Victoria. That promise was — here's the information; seven facts, you know — that they would pay their full share of property taxes.

They're now entering their second year of government. Since they became government we've heard: "Well, now we're not so sure, because there's some dispute about which properties actually should be taxed." Although during the campaign it made sense to talk about 100 per cent, although during the campaign it made sense to talk about paying the fair share of property taxes, now that they're in government they seem to have reconsidered.

So I'd like to read something else, and I'll do it quickly. I'd like to read the 1976 certification Municipalities Aid Act report for Victoria city, prepared by the B.C. Assessment Authority. Let me repeat: it's not published by the chamber of commerce; it's not printed by the tourist bureau; it's your own stuff. It lists every single piece of property by roll number, legal description, land use, land assessed values and improvements, owned by the province in the city of Victoria, so after tonight when I read it into the record there will be no further dispute from that group about the actual extent of property ownership on the part of the province in the city of Victoria. Let me start:

Roll No. 1-002-001, lot 1, Pl. 12886 — Court House, 850 Burdett Street — land assessed $772,960, improvements $2,000,870.

Roll No. 1-006-010, lot A of 311/14, Pl 19445 — 865 Yates and 1250 Quadra Street Building — land $109,070, improvements $293,770.

Roll No. 1-018-009, lot 685 — parking, Fisgard Street — land $40,500, improvements $1,000.

Roll No. 1-025-003, lot 92 — Broughton, offices, parking — land $54,000, improvements $1,340.

They're twitching again, Mr. Speaker. They're into the St. Vitus dance again; they don't like to hear this stuff.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Let me continue: Roll No. 1-025-004, lot 91 — Broughton, offices, parking — $54,000, improvements, $1,650.

Roll No. 1-025-005, lot 90 — 737 Broughton Street — land $54,000, improvements, $1,340.

Roll No. 1-025-009, lot A of 83/4/5 Pl 27042 — Courtenay and Blanshard Streets, parking — land, $172,800, improvements $3,470.

Do you get the idea? Do you realize the impact? Do you understand the meaning.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. BARBER: It goes on — three, four, five, six, seven pages. It is not in dispute, Mr. Speaker; they may try to pretend now that somehow that there's an argument somewhere about what the province actually owns. The argument exists in their mind — if mind is the word for it. It exists nowhere else. We know what the province owns in this city. We know the tax they should be paying. We know what they promised to do and we see tonight the vain and hopeless attempt, now that they're entering their second year of government, to evade a serious campaign promise made to the people of Victoria.

MR. COCKE: Did they prevaricate?

MR. BARBER: Did they prevaricate? I don't know.

No. 1-025-011, south part of E. 30' of Lot 81 — Courtenay, parking — $16,090. No improvements.

No. 1-025-012, W. pt. lot 81 and NE pt. lot 81 — Courtenay, parking — land $54,000, improvements $1,340.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I can't do this if you're laughing like that. They're not laughing; they don't like to hear this. You shouldn't laugh.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it in.

MR. BARBER: Shall I read it in? Here we go.

[ Page 374 ]

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): How much would every person's house taxes be reduced?

MR. BARBER: I'll get to that in a moment. You bet they'd be reduced.

No. 1-025-014, lots 78 and 79 — the Windermere Building — land, $108,000, improvements $109,270.

No. 1-026-009, lot B, sec. 88, Pl 26090 — Blanshard Street and Burdett Avenue, offices — land $93,370, improvements $721,670.

Do you get the idea, Mr. Speaker? It's no secret what they own. It's no secret what the land is worth and what the improvements are worth. It's no secret what the assessments are. Seven pages of this. I'll go on; I'm willing.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): How much does it add up to?

MR. BARBER: Seven pages of this stuff demonstrating that the phony excuse offered by apologists for that coalition is not believable.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've listened closely to your debate this evening and a number of times you've come very close to transgressing the rules of this House in such statements as "phony" and like suggestions. Now I'm suggesting to you that I'm prepared to accept your line of debate, but I would suggest that you moderate your language a little bit in those types of terms.

MR. LAUK: He said their figures were phony, Mr. Speaker. He didn't say they were.

MR. BARBER: I'm sure they were sincere when they made the promise, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that they will be sincere when they make the promise next time, having failed in their first and only term of office to deliver the goods.

MR. COCKE: You're just far too kind.

MR. BARBER: Too kind?

MR. COCKE: Too kind.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry.

MR. COCKE: You are understanding, but your understanding is beyond belief.

MR. BARBER: Well, I wonder if it might interest the House if, rather than reading the roll numbers, the legal descriptions, the land and improvements, I simply continued to read, finally, into the record all of the other buildings under the title "land use," as presented by the Assessment Authority, that they actually own. I'll continue:

an office building at 780 Burdett Avenue;

a parking lot at Humboldt and Blanshard;

parking at Penwell and Humboldt Streets;

parking on Penwell Street;

offices at 512 and 514 Fort Street;

offices at 1115 and 1121 Wharf Street;

offices in the Dogwood Building, 1019 Wharf Street;

the Temple Building, 525 Wharf Street;

parking on Wharf Street; the Black Ball Ferry terminal building;

Belleville wharves and warehouses;

Belleville warehouses; Belleville Street lot;

Belleville terminal building and docking facilities;

Belleville wharves;

offices and parking at Yates and Johnson;

the materials testing laboratory; a parking lot on Kingston Street;

515 Pendray Street warehouse;

Kingston Street itself;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

parking lot at Kingston and Superior Streets;

offices at 466 Superior Street;

a parking lot on Superior Street;

412 and 414 Superior Street, parking lots;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

the legislative buildings themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, for at least the second time in the last two days, the member for Victoria has deliberately misled this House. I want to bring to the House's attention evidence of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Would the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) please take his seat? You know, hon. minister, it is completely unparliamentary to accuse another hon. member of the House of deliberately misleading the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 375 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: It is an unparliamentary term to suggest that a member has deliberately misled the House. Since you rose on a point of order and used that term, I'd ask you in the tradition of parliament to withdraw that term.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that term, but on the point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: There is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the remarks of the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I believe I have the floor. I have the floor, I believe, Mr. Member for Vancouver East.

MR. BARRETT: There is no point of order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Will all of the members please resume their seats?

If the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has a point of order, I'll listen to the point of order without interruption from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) or any other member of the House. But I would like to caution all of the members of this House that I am becoming extremely vexed with all members on all sides of this House rising on what are spurious points of order to try to gain attention of the Chair.

I'm glad that members on all sides recognize the seriousness of what I am about to say, because it is extremely unparliamentary for any member to try to gain the floor of the House if they do not have a point of order or, in some cases, a question of privilege. Too often too many members on both sides of the House use this as an excuse to get the attention of the Chair when they do not have a point of order or a question of privilege to raise.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, during the currency of the remarks of the second member for Victoria this evening, he mentioned that my department had not released details of a 5 per cent tax on liquor purchases by restaurants. I will leave it to the House to decide whether or not that was misleading, Mr. Speaker. I would ask leave to table the news release...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. MAIR: ...from my department on December 3, 1976....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is perfectly capable of keeping order in this House, hon. members. I draw to the member's attention further that if a member....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please sit down, hon. member, until I make the point?

If a member feels that he is misquoted by another member who has possession of the floor, he waits until that member has finished his remarks. He then gains the attention of the Chair and asks for permission to make a correction. He makes it quickly, to the point, and it will be accepted by all members of the House at that time.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having followed that procedure. However, in learning the decorum of this House I pay careful attention to the behaviour of the second member for Vancouver East, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the whole bunch on the side opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make my point of order at this time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the time that is deducted from the hon. first member for Victoria has been duly noted and he does lose that amount of time in his debate on the estimates.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: I wonder if the Speaker would mind explaining to the House precisely how this procedure

[ Page 376 ]

is taken care of under the new arrangement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on occasion not only when the second member for Victoria was speaking in debate, but on many other occasions, we've had interruptions of the members who had possession of the floor. I think in many respects the idea of this cross-fire that goes across the floor and continually interrupts members from both sides of the House is extremely unparliamentary to the person who has possession of the floor at the time. It detracts from what they are saying. It perhaps contributes to the loss of their train of thinking at the particular time. It just is not a good parliamentary example.

I'll take into consideration the fact that the hon. second member for Victoria has lost time in debate this evening because of this exchange that we have taken.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: If it is not, Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, no.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We've taken this much time; we might as well take a little bit more. It's not a matter that a point of order cannot be raised at any time during debate, but it is a fact of our standing orders that if you disagree with a statement made by an hon. member in debate, you do not take it as a point of order while he is debating on the floor of the House or delivering a speech on the floor of the House, you do it immediately following the speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is a point I'm trying to respect entirely. If that is now the rule of the House, then I will certainly obey it, and will expect the other side to obey it also. However, it has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, certainly, in the time I have been in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: If I must, with respect, wait until the end of his speech, I will do so, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. MAIR: With your leave, however, I would like as a matter of convenience to raise it now since I had it mostly stated.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not a proper point of order but I will certainly listen to your explanation of the disputed terms at the conclusion of the second member for Victoria's speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: Very well.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order, I hope.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to assist the hon. minister, he said it is now a rule. Well, standing order 42(1)....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules of the House are there for all members to read.

MR. LAUK: I was beginning to wonder, Mr. Speaker, because it has been there for generations. It's standing order 42(1), Mr. Minister.

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

MR. KING: On a point of order, I would like an answer to the question I posed earlier regarding the system the Chair has for recognizing the time lost to a member in his turn in this debate. You said you would take it into consideration, but I wonder if there is a precise way of measuring the lost time.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there is. The people who record for us in Hansard have it there. As soon as we allow the member to resume his place on the floor of the House, I'll be in touch with them to find out.

The hon. second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration you will give in regard to the time lost. I don't know why I make those guys so twitchy. You know, I don't speak all that often in this House but every time I do....

HON. MR. MAIR: Because you don't tell the truth, that's why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. BARBER: What do you mean, I don't tell the truth?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to withdraw again. Get it all over with at once.

MR. BARBER: When the Speaker gets off the phone, I'll ask you to withdraw (laughter), unless you

[ Page 377 ]

care to withdraw now. Will you withdraw that remark — that I don't tell the truth? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

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

MR. BARBER: While you were on the phone, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: There is no deduction from your time, hon. member. They stopped it at the moment the hon. minister got on the floor.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that I do not tell the truth regarding a piece of paper he is holding up in his hand. I wonder if the Speaker would order him to withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before the minister engages in another debate, I did ask him to withdraw the remark, and I am sure he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did it again!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: He thought you weren't listening. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: No, the member is wrong — when I knew you weren't listening!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, no — that was meant lightheartedly.

With respect, I leave it to the House to judge whether or not the remarks made by the second member for Victoria were accurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would be only too pleased to put before the House the true state of affairs vis-a-vis the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If one hon. member takes offence to a remark, whether in jest or otherwise, thrown across the floor, the procedure in the House is to withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by the second member for Victoria were clearly inaccurate and wrong. I will not withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't withdraw?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there are certain courtesies extended to all members in this House by all of the members on both sides. Tempers rise on occasion. I can understand that, but it is a custom and a tradition of the House that if a person who is in possession of the floor takes offence to a remark — regardless of how innocent it may be, but it's offensive to them — the person issuing those remarks withdraws them. Would you please do so?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the terminological inexactitudes of the remarks of the second member for Victoria, I withdraw the remarks.

MR. KING: What a position to take, Mr. Speaker!

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, when a member makes remarks about any member of this House it offends all members of this House and must be withdrawn without equivocation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows his words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister withdrew his remarks, as I recall, but it should be an unqualified withdrawal and then I'm sure that everyone will be happy.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have withdrawn any imputation. I have merely pointed out that the member has made a number of inaccurate remarks to the House and I've asked leave of the House to point those out, and I will do so — with leave — after the member speaks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask, hon. minister for you to withdraw unequivocally any remarks that offended the hon. second member for Victoria.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to prolong this matter, but I don't know what offends him. I certainly withdraw any imputation as to his character but I repeat that he is guilty of inaccuracy. I would be only too pleased, on a point of order, to cite these inaccuracies and table documents to prove them.

[ Page 378 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure that you will do that in good time, hon. minister, but I must repeat that if a member is offended by remarks of another member and brings it to the attention of the Chair, I have no alternative but to ask for the withdrawal of those remarks — an unqualified withdrawal — and this is the parliamentary tradition.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the member might state again what particular words I used that offended him.

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. COCKE: That minister is offended every time he gets up and looks in the mirror in the morning.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, there's a lot to offend me sitting on the other side of the House — I can assure you of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any remarks that imputed any wrongful conduct on the part of the member, and I do so unqualifiedly, but I do wish to bring to the attention of the House, at a later date, inaccuracies.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: It's nice to be back.

MR. BARRETT: Time's up! (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER:. If I understood, briefly, the remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — and I do accept his withdrawal — I would inform him that the information I have is material — presumably not forged — published by the liquor administration branch and signed by Mr. J.E. Warren, director of administration.

HON. MR. MAIR: Have you read the orders-in-council and the press releases?

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a debate that is going to take place back and forth between two members. The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor. I suggest you continue with your address.

MR. BARBER: I presume that Mr. Warren circulated his memorandum with authority. I presume he did so competently. I presume he did so with the authority of the minister. I'm sure it was perfectly legal, and I was not questioning that, through you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the whole point of my argument is that it was perfectly legal. It is part of their design. It is an aspect of their fiscal programme. I wasn't questioning it at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister announced it!

MR. BARBER: If the minister made the announcement and I did not hear it, I apologize for having suggested so.

MR. COCKE: Nor did anybody else hear it.

MR. BARBER: If the minister issued a press release which my office did not receive, I apologize for the failure of our office to receive it.

HON. MR. MAIR: There was an order-in-council!

MR. BARRETT: You've held orders-in-council back for over a week in some cases!

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

MR. BARBER: The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, is not that Mr. Warren acted without authority; it is not that the regulations are unfounded in law; it is not that these documents are a forgery and misrepresent government policy. I'm sure there was an order-in-council. I'm sure it was signed by the presiding member of the executive council.

HON. MR. MAIR: Why didn't you say so?

MR. BARBER: What do you mean, why didn't I say so? I presume it.

HON. MR. MAIR: You said we didn't announce it!

MR. BARBER: What I said, Mr. Speaker, is that this government, again and again, through policies like this, has seen fit to tax to starvation small businesses throughout this province. I do not recall the minister standing up in this House and announcing with pride his latest achievement in rebuilding the restaurant industry in British Columbia. I do not recall that. I do not recall anything. I do presume that the regulation is totally legal. If the minister presumes that I thought somehow it was done improperly or unconstitutionally, he presumes quite wrong. I know it was done properly. I think it shouldn't have been done at all.

[ Page 379 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: What's 5 per cent of it?

MR. BARBER: If I may reply briefly to the twitchy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I'll read it again. I'll read the whole thing. I'll read it again. It explains it.

HON. MR. MAIR: I heard it.

MR. BARBER: Well, listen then. If you heard it you'd understand:

"In addition to the fee described in regulation 2(1), the ordinary fee paid by restaurateurs as a licence, a further amount equal to 5 per cent" — here's the explanation — "of the gross value of the liquor purchased shall be charged and payable at the time of purchase."

Interjections.

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

MR. BARBER: It's on the gross value of the liquor purchased.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I obtained these figures from the restaurateur.

HON. MR. MAIR: Name names.

MR. BARBER: He asked me not to.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: And what will you do if I do?

AN HON. MEMBER: You like pushing people around, don't you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The members on both sides of the House, please allow the second member for Victoria to continue his address.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, the figures in cash quoted to me tonight by that restaurateur are not really the issue, because those figures obviously do not apply identically to any other restaurant in the province. What is at issue is that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as part of the stupid and primitive and confiscatory fiscal policies of this government, has chosen to increase from 2 per cent to 5 per cent yet another tax on small business in this province. That's the issue. That's the announcement I wish to make on his behalf, because my friend didn't know about it until he got those letters in the mail. He's a member of the executive of the Canadian Restaurant Association in Victoria.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's already taxed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Continue, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. Let me repeat, for the final time so as not to further vex the twitchy minister. If he understood me to say that Mr. Warren acted without authority, or without the minister's permission and consent, he understood quite incorrectly. I take the minister's word that it was announced, and I will not question that.

Let me continue my list of properties owned by the provincial government in the city of Victoria, for which they should be paying the full property tax, because that's what they promised they would do:

Parking and storage, Recreation and Conservation department: parking, $87,970; improvements, $15,480;

Multiplex clinic offices;

Departments of Finance, Health, Lands and Forests offices;

Agriculture, Mines and Labs offices;

Lands and Forests, water rights and air photo library offices;

forestry research, 514 Government Street, offices;

Civil Defence division, 506 Government Street, offices;

workshops, 584 Michigan Street;

parking lot, Michigan Street;

Conservation and Recreation offices;

offices at 544 and 552 Michigan Street;

a radio station, at 528 Michigan Street.

AN HON. MEMBER: A radio station!

MR. BARBER: Offices at 524 and 526 Michigan Street;

offices at 516 Michigan Street;

offices at 301 Menzies Street;

offices at Michigan Street with no address;

Civil Defence, 517 Michigan Street;

Forestry, 521 Michigan Street;

Forestry garage;

[ Page 380 ]

parking lot on Parry Street;

parking lot on Powell Street;

parking lot on Powell Street;

parking lot on Powell Street;

parking lot on Parry Street;

parking lot on Parry Street;

offices at 559 Michigan;

offices at 565 Michigan;

parking lot on Government Street;

parking lot on Government Street;

offices at 596 Toronto Street;

parking lot on Toronto Street;

parking lot on Heather Street;

offices at 603 Superior Street;

offices at 609 Superior Street;

offices at 611 and 613 Superior Street.

There are three more pages and I won't continue. The point, I'm sure, is clear enough, Mr. Speaker. This government cannot reasonably claim that they do not know the actual extent of holdings of the province in the capital city. They cannot claim that they do not know the assessed values of land and the improvements thereon...

MR. SPEAKER: You're on your final three minutes, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: ...and they cannot claim that they have not heard the mayor of Victoria describe that coalition as the biggest welfare burn in the city of Victoria. They have failed to honour a most important promise. I hope that this document is not in question. If it is, I'll be happy to table the rest. I hope that the extent of those ownings and property holdings is not in question.

I hope that that coalition, for once, takes a serious step toward honouring a serious campaign promise. If they had done so this year in the city of Victoria, taxes that would have been raised by 14.7 per cent would not have been raised at all. Taxes that were raised 14.7 per cent would have been paid, had the largest property owner in the city paid its share of taxes. The $1.4 million that the coalition should have paid in additional property taxes this year, and failed to pay because they failed to honour their promise, would have matched — almost dollar for dollar — the tax increase that was necessary in the city of Victoria this year.

The loss this year to the people of Victoria, according to the city of Victoria and its comptroller: $1,408,127. The loss anticipated next year if the coalition continues to fail to honour its campaign promise will be $1,487,154. The taxes could have been reduced by 14.7 per cent if the largest landowner in the city had kept its promise, if the largest landowner in the city paid its fair share. It hasn't; apparently it won't.

I'm prepared to stand here again and again and again for the rest of the session and read again and again and again all of those property holdings until it sinks in that we know what you own and we know what you should pay. We want you to pay it. You have every obligation to do so. You promised to do so. And you have no excuse for not doing so.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) I would like to make a slight explanation to the members of the House respecting what happens on interruption of debate. Whenever there is an interruption of debate by a point of order, or at any time when I call the House to order, the operator of the time clock in the Hansard console has a hold button. She presses the hold button at that time so that there is no lost time for the person who is on their feet speaking. They get their full 40 minutes, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAIR: Just to clarify and correct something that the second member for Victoria said, and I accept his statement that he was perhaps unwittingly inaccurate: The order-in-council setting the 5 per cent charge on liquor purchases was passed on December 3. With His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's permission, a press conference was held in the Hyatt-Regency Hotel. There were perhaps 50 reporters there. The press conference was televised on both British Columbia Television and the CBC and, so far as I know, the news release received the widest possible circulation. I would like just to point out, if I may, Mr. Speaker, so it will be perfectly clear and so that no member of the House is under any misapprehension, that the amount of increase from 2 per cent to 5 per cent was on the gross liquor purchases. In the case that the member for Victoria indicated, there would be $100,000 worth of purchases to give a $2,000 tax, so presumably it's still $100,000 worth of purchases. This would be approximately $400,000 worth of gross sales. The amount necessary to recoup that extra $3,000 would be something around two cents a glass of whiskey. I ask leave to table the news release, Mr. Speaker, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

MR. SPEAKER: We've listened to the hon. minister's explanation of the tax and the way it's derived by the department under his administration. The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I presume the minister was on his feet. According to rule 42(1) of the House, as I understand it, that would be the only rule that would permit the minister to stand. A reading of that rule, Mr. Speaker, says no member

[ Page 381 ]

may speak twice to a question, except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood. But then he is not to introduce any new matter and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation. (2) A reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion, which is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member is anxious to make a statement. However, 42(1) is clear. If there is no clarification of 42(1) and statements are allowed to be made on wide-ranging subjects, there will be no order in debate, Mr. Speaker. Bringing in new material is not covered in 42(1). I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would take this under advisement and give us a written interpretation. Further, Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that in such instances it would be more appropriate that leave be asked of the House to make a statement, rather than using 42(1), which is very, very strict.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there's another rule within our rule book which covers this matter of a difference in opinion about what has been said by an hon. member in debate. I'll look it up for you and quote it for you, because it is there. It's not 42(1) but it is in our rule books.

MR. BARRETT: But I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, for the information of all the members and for smoother debate, if it is clearly spelled out under what circumstances any member can speak the second time, or to a motion that is in debate, without offending the standing rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Leader of the Opposition. I'll take the matter under consideration and bring back a report to the House.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's not often that I rise in my place in this House, and for the last hour I've been sitting here anticipating this. The second member for Victoria has been interrupted so often that I might not even be able to get through it. But it's a great pleasure for me to be back and rise from my place and see all these friendly faces around the chamber. When the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) rose, he spoke about his vacation and the things he had done in the off-term. It's rather like getting back to school and giving a letter to the teacher telling her what you did. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) and I were chosen by someone in the cabinet — I'm not sure who — to have a great honour last summer. He hasn't mentioned it, but I'm going to. We accompanied 28 young athletes from the province of British Columbia, who were selected at random from their particular sports groups, to participate in the programme of carrying the Olympic flame in the relay between Ottawa and Montreal.

As you may know, the Premier carried the flame from the top of Parliament Hill for the first kilometer and then these 27 or 28 athletes, both boys and girls aged from 15 to 21 — and, boy, that was a handful handling them — carried the torch across the Ottawa River into Quebec and were part of the process of carrying the famous Olympic flame from Athens directly to the Olympics in Montreal.

It was a very trying experience, acting as a babysitter at my age, but it was very enjoyable and these young athletes were a tremendous credit to their province. Now that I've read that into the record I feel I can proceed.

Many members of this House took the opportunity to go on vacations. I know many of the members went to the Hawaiian Islands — I believe the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), the member for Maui and the Islands, was there himself. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has already told us of her fine vacation to southern California, and there was a rather infamous trip to Halifax by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett).

Well, Mr. Speaker, I also had the pleasure of getting away a little bit during the recess. I did something a little different. I went to Afghanistan, and that's about as far away from British Columbia as you can get. In fact, once you get there, you're actually on the way back. It's 14 1/2 hours of time change and 25 hours of flying time, so it was quite an experience for me to go there. The first people I met when I arrived in Kabul were, of all people, some employees of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. You never know where they get to, but they're involved in a CIDA programme helping the Afghans.

I am delighted to see the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has just come back in because I believe his nephew is one of the people involved in this programme. These British Columbians that are out in this very primitive and very poor country on the back side of Asia are helping to set them up in a way that we can all be very proud of. They are living in a primitive country, a country where the people are extremely proud, but where the amenities are 200 and 300 years behind ours. It was a very great pleasure for me to go and see them and take them a copy of the Victoria Times, which I happened to have in my briefcase.

MR. KING: Did you take a Hansard over there?

MR. ROGERS: I was also delighted when I was there to be accosted on the street by a constituent of mine who recognized me. I'm not sure that I get recognized in my own constituency, but when you can get recognized in Kabul, well, it does a lot of good for your soul.

[ Page 382 ]

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) in his remarks to the throne speech talked about many of the problems and the solutions which are going to affect directly our constituency, but he also talked about Canada in particular. I suppose the recent election in Quebec has all of us thinking about the future of Canada.

There are two things that come to mind to me. One is that Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois were elected by under 40 per cent of the people in the province of Quebec, which leads me to think that at least 60 per cent of the people in that province are against separatism, and I certainly am. But there's more to it than that, because while Rene Levesque was elected by the people of the province, many of those people — and I don't know how many of them — certainly voted against a tremendously corrupt government run by the former Liberal, Robert Bourassa, and his crowd. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that when the time has come for Mr. Levesque to put the question to the people of the province of Quebec, they'll resoundingly defeat it. Yes, they've got their young people that are all up and excited about it, but I think we're making more of this than meets the eye. I really do. I think that it's a little bit unnecessary,

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

You know, many of us wonder what Canada is all about, but I have more friends in Newfoundland than I have in Washington state, and that's not for any particular reason but that we're Canadians and we know people there. There's more holding Canada together than the CBC and the Post Office, and when we all come to realize that we'll want to stick to this country and hold it together.

There are a number of men and women who laid down their lives in World War II for Canada — not for Quebec or British Columbia or Ontario. We at least owe them the courtesy of a fight to make sure that this country stays together, one way or another.

I was going to talk about the budget speech, but I understand that the first two items, the succession duties and gift tax, are off limits, so we'll go onto item No. 3, and that's the mobile homes. I just want to say I'm delighted — we have two mobile home parks in our constituency — to see that the tax has been taken off mobile homes, because the word "mobile home" is a misnomer in the first place. Very few of these mobile homes are actually ever moved. They're nothing more than a permanent residence that is constructed in a non-standard way from a regular frame house. That's a delightful piece of information, and it does affect people in the rural constituencies much more than it does us in the city of Vancouver, but it's a very positive step. As far as the removal of the taxation on propane, or the reduction of it by approximately 85 per cent, that's also a very worthwhile step. It brings propane in line with other fossil fuels.

I have a little note at the bottom of this page that says: "Remember to mention Woodward's." As you'll remember, Mr. Speaker, in the debate earlier on many people said that Woodward's has complained that they're losing money — the first time in years that Woodward's is losing money. That's true. They've been around for an awful long time, and Mr. Woodward — I call him Mr. Woodward; some people call him Chunky — has led a large red herring in front of his shareholders, in front of some of the members of the opposition, and in front of many of the people in the public, when he blames the ICBC rates and the sales tax for the problems of his company.

Mr. Speaker, it's one store and one store alone in the Woodward chain that has caused him the tremendous losses they have undertaken, and it's coincidental. Woodward's opened in Oakridge in Vancouver and they found they had built a shopping centre that was too small. They opened in West Vancouver, in Park Royal, and then five years later they wished they had opened one that was twice as large. They have done the same thing in Mayfair and in Kamloops, and they've done it everywhere. Well, Woodward's learned their lesson over the last 20 years, and when they decided to build their latest store they built one that was certainly going to be big enough. The trouble is they opened it, not in British Columbia, but in Alberta, in the city of Lethbridge, and you'll never guess what — they built it so big that it's going to take a long time for the city of Lethbridge to grow into Woodward's. As a result of that Woodward's is suffering some rather substantial losses which they have tried to blame solely on this government.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: Oh, you'll get your turn. I believe everyone has his turn in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, in recent months there have been two aircraft accidents on this coast — one was tragic and one was near-tragic. That sparks me to make some remarks about search and rescue in this province, which is something we all have assumed was being well looked after, but in fact, as I will elaborate on, it is in a pretty sad state of affairs.

There is in fact on the British Columbia coast only one location for search-and-rescue facilities as far as helicopters are concerned, and that is at Comox. The people who are in charge of the paramedics, pilots and maintenance crews are excellent. There's no question about it. They are really first-rate people. They are equipment-limited and money-limited. The trouble they have is that being based at Comox, if there is severe cloud condition over the Island and they have to go to Tofino, they either have to go up

[ Page 383 ]

around the north end via Port Hardy or down around Victoria, and with the advent of increased shipping on the coast it is high time we really took a serious look at it.

Many people say that the coast guard looks after this, but under the terms of reference of the coast guard they are not involved in search and rescue. I am going to quote from Lieutenant-General W.K. Carr, who is the commander of the Air Command Division of the Canadian Armed Forces. He was asked in January, 1977...and I quote from a prestigious magazine, Canadian Aviation. The inquirer says: "Let us talk about search and rescue for a moment. Recently it took a search-and-rescue helicopter four and a half hours to reach a disabled freighter off the coast of Newfoundland." That's understandable because the Canadian Armed Forces don't maintain any search-and-rescue facilities in the province of Newfoundland. He said: "Do you have the equipment to do the job?" The general's answer is this: "Our technical responsibility is only for air search and rescue. Marine rescue is really the responsibility of Transport Canada and the Canadian coast guard, but their search aircraft aren't really equipped. Besides we are not going to just sit around when something happens."

Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the responsibility of the Canadian coast guard? Their function is to attend to navigation aids, lighthouses and blinkers, and they have some small cutters and one hovercraft — now being increased to two — which patrol the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Georgia strait in very limited amounts. As you know, the American coast guard in Port Angeles has effected more rescues in these waters in recent years than anyone.

There's another act in there, too. The RCMP marine division — they're involved as well. They are in charge of enforcing the regulations of the Ministry of Transport regarding such things as fire extinguishers, lifebelts, oars and the rest of it — and they do a certain amount of search and rescue. In fact all vessels up to 14,000 tons come under the perusal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What about the military facilities? We have a Canadian Air Force base at Comox; we have a base at Esquimalt; there's a base at Masset in the Queen Charlotte Islands, so the infrastructure for a more elaborate search and rescue facility is there — the cooks, the maintenance people and the rest of it that we need. The only thing we have to do is, somewhere in the federal budget, decide if we seriously want to be involved in total search and rescue, not just air search and rescue.

Unfortunately the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the lawyer, is not here right now; he could tell us what the technical qualities are because obviously when the air force gets through with air search and rescue, once the machine is on the ground, I guess it is a different thing.

We've been very lucky recently, but a tragedy could strike at any minute and it is time this very serious matter was looked into.

Coast guard helicopters are based at Sidney. at the airport, but, as I said earlier, their primary function is to tend to navigation aids, and they have no facilities for rescuing people. The Canadian navy and the Department of Fisheries are already involved. I appreciate that this is largely a federal matter, but it is the lives of the citizens of this province that are involved and I think it is high time the matter was placed on a higher priority.

The government, in the throne speech, talked about air ambulance and air ambulance service. With the proper equipment we are going to be able to see facilities for moving people from all parts of this province to first-class medical treatment within two or two and a half hours of the time the aircraft is able to get there, which leads me to one other thing.

There are only two airports in this province that have radar surveillance. In fact the capital city here isn't even blessed with that little modern technological aid that was invested, I guess, during World War II. In fact the only piece of mainline airline routes in all of Canada that is not covered by radar is right here in British Columbia. There's no question that we have been on the poor end of the receiving from the federal Ministry of Transport.

There is a desperate and pressing need for a mid-coast airport somewhere in the vicinity of Ocean Falls. There is no way that you can possibly fly a float-equipped airplane under instrument flight conditions to any destination on the coast and have a landing. It's just not feasible. The technicalities aren't there. You have to build a runway and you have to put an instrument landing system so that people on the mid-coast, Ocean Falls and other places, are able to get out with something other than the World War II transport that they're presently using today. It's just post-World War II — 1947 is the....

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): The worst in 60 years!

MR. ROGERS: Well, that's your opinion. I wasn't around 60 years ago, and you really don't show your age that badly.

You know, if the Ministry of Transport had it in their budget to put a chain-link fence around every airport in the province of British Columbia, I think they can find it in their budget to get some proper equipment for us.

You know that the advent of the oil tanker is going to be on us. The hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) spoke earlier of the Jones Act, and while the Jones Act will ensure that tankers going from Valdez in Alaska to Cherry Point will at least be

[ Page 384 ]

American-owned and American-crewed and American-manned, we at least have that assurance. We still aren't properly prepared for any kind of policing of shipping lanes or anything else, and I think that my earlier remarks about a little more surveillance on this coast might be worthwhile. But, as you know, the Department of National Defence have decided that the new billion-dollar airplanes they've bought for maritime patrol are going to the depressed Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Speaker, once in every year at least, every merchant in this province and in this country stops to take inventory. They take inventory for many reasons. They take inventories to plan their following year's budgets, to see where they are now, and to review where they've come from and decide where they want to go.

Mr. Speaker, it's time that we take inventory, not of our mistakes and our failures, but rather of our achievements. Let us become reacquainted with our assets and discover that, as British Columbians, we have the potential for greatness. Let us take inventory of our people, our resources, and our very political system. These are our greatest assets and yet we become obsessed with our liabilities. All members of this House have a common goal — at least I hope they do — and that's for making a better British Columbia. We have different ideas on how to achieve this goal, but in essence it is our common goal. So let us review our assets, our major ones — the people, the resources and our political system.

Mr. Speaker, these are British Columbia's assets and they have been underestimated and sold short and devalued for far too long. In comparison with the rest of the world we are very healthy, very well fed, well housed and well educated, and we have nothing and no one to apologize to. We owe no debt to anyone. In this very large world we live in there are few countries and few people who live with such freedoms as we live with. When we take inventory we realize that fewer than 10 nations live as we do: our children do not go to bed hungry; our old people do not die for lack of medical care; education in British Columbia is not just for the rich; there are no soldiers with guns in our streets; people are not condemned to mediocrity because of their names, their colour or their religion.

Our second greatest asset is our natural resources, an almost limitless potential. Canada alone possesses more than three-quarters of the world's fresh water and, Mr. Speaker, this simple glass of clear, pure drinking water is an untold luxury in many parts of the world. It certainly is in Afghanistan.

Our resource assets are stored up in the province that dwarfs western Europe and is larger than Washington, Oregon and California combined. Take inventory of British Columbia's resource assets and try to match them anywhere else on earth. Our timber, our natural gas, our coal, our industrial metals, our rangelands, our fishing grounds, our farmlands and, yes, even our vineyards, Mr....  Ah, he's not listening...magnificent recreational areas with abundant wildlife. Above all, our second asset, and most valuable of all resources, is room. British Columbia has a resource of space to grow and expand for decades to come.

But again, Mr. Speaker, the doomsayers will point out our shortcomings and our mistakes, and they would have us destroy all our assets. We should roll over and die as some sort of penalty for our alleged errors.

Well, we will expand our resource assets. We will build a base for secondary industry and still further enhance the opportunities for all British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, it takes what we already have, raw materials and room and people with drive and initiative to make it happen.

Let us take inventory of our third and biggest asset, our political system. Democracy is taking an awful beating these days. The gutless, the envious, the lazy, the freeloaders, the tyrants, the non-achievers of the world keep telling us that democracy is finished and it won't work anymore. They point to the fact that there are fewer than 20 nations which have a democratic government. There are 126 nations in the United Nations and there are more on the outside. What's more, Mr. Speaker, they're absolutely right. I have some facts as well, though. This particular group of doomsayers never mentions, however, that these democracies, and only these democracies, possess the highest standard of living, the greatest personal freedom, the widest range of opportunities and the fullest bellies in the world. We must be doing something right!

If you stop and take inventory of the things we're doing right, you'll find it very refreshing if nothing else. Believe in what we're doing and compare our assets and our political system to the Chinas, the East Germanies, the Argentinas, the Ugandas, the Koreas and the Indias of this world, and ask new Canadians who come from those countries to British Columbia and they'll tell you what we're doing right.

Democracy survives and prospers in partnership with free enterprise. Our political system is structured in freedom — the personal freedom of risk-taking, initiative and earned rewards for hard work. These are earned rewards that produce revenue, and the salaries and the wages for the workers and the tax revenues for our democratic government to provide the services people want. Our people want top-flight health, education and human welfare services. The assets of our political system, our democracy, have made these wants a reality in British Columbia. The assets of our political system are the envy of most of the world, and why not? We enjoy its reward and freedom, but we must never forget how it works and

[ Page 385 ]

why it works.

Mr. Speaker, in taking stock of British Columbia's assets I urge this House to reject self-doubt. We are blessed with riches beyond our imagining. This House is setting its goals for the future, and would be wise to take inventory of our assets today: people, resources and democracy. B.C. already has the assets for greatness; let us get on with the job and the adventure of making it happen.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for listening.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, it's a real privilege to rise today as the elected member for Burnaby-Edmonds. For a while, the last couple of days, I thought I was representative of Burnaby-Willingdon after my friends in Burnaby-Edmonds did a mail drop in Burnaby-Willingdon instead of Burnaby-Edmonds. However, in open house in my office I've invited my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon to greet all his friends as they come to visit me in my office.

Before going into details, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to first of all extend congratulations to a very special citizen in my constituency. On Friday last my wife and I were honoured to bring greetings to a Mrs. Selena Myles who has done something that very few of us will do; she reached her 107th birthday on January 21. Here is a lady who is 107 years old, who is in very good health, who raised 13 children, who lost her husband when she was 50, who kept her own home and garden until she was 100 years old, and on top of all that still has a tremendous sense of humour.

I'd also like to express my real appreciation to the cabinet for the meetings which they had on December 2 in Burnaby.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. LOEWEN: The meetings in Burnaby, I believe, to the best of my knowledge, were a first where the provincial government — the cabinet of the provincial government, Mr. Member — met in Burnaby, and at a point where some of us in Burnaby were beginning to think that maybe we were just a little neglected.

MR. KING: I can believe that!

MR. LOEWEN: I can say, of the different briefs I was honoured to be part of and I which I was able to encourage to be presented to the cabinet, that they left those meetings extremely enthused and extremely pleased. Already I can say that there's a great follow-through and there are some very real things happening as a result of those briefs.

One of them, incidentally, was a brief that was presented from New Westminster, and already, so promptly, we have the realization of that tremendous development in that neighbourhood riding of New Westminster.

Then I'd like to also extend my congratulations to the Premier on that day of December 2.

MR. KING: Why?

MR. LOEWEN: My two children, Mr. Member, and I got up at 6 o'clock that morning and jogged around the track of the Burnaby South High School. Now my children and I couldn't keep up with the Premier, but I brought four ringers from the YMCA in New Westminster. I didn't tell the Premier this, but these four fellows were in very good shape and I understand, even though I could not keep up with them, that the Premier stayed right up with the four, and the four are looking forward to his visit in New Westminster, and are looking forward to the Premier in fact taking the physical fitness test at the YMCA in New Westminster. I hope that can be arranged shortly. As I said, I don't mind losing the small ones, but it's the big ones that count.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Give it to the opposition — they need the exercise.

MR. LOEWEN: I do believe that we could arrange a physical fitness test at the YMCA in New Westminster for the opposition as well.

Mr. Speaker, some of the subtle things in a budget are often ignored, and the subtlety I feel that possibly has not had the emphasis that I feel it should have had is a very simple fact that in this budget in this year we had the smallest increase in recent history. To me, that alone suggests that this is a fantastic budget. There might not be a lot of pay-offs, as we have seen in some budgets, but the very fact that this provincial government at this time in history has exercised the restraint, the self-discipline and the determination to produce a budget with an increase of only 5.9 per cent has to be seen and recognized as being nothing short of fantastic and sensational.

Let me read a couple of excerpts. I'm pleased to know that so often we underestimate the intelligence and the responsibility of the average citizen — particularly the opposition. I read from an editorial in The Province, dated Tuesday, January 25. It's headed: "The Right Budget For The Right Time." It says:

"Yet it may be the right budget. The government faces two alternatives."

We as government members know this, and I trust the opposition is listening.

"The government faces two alternatives in confronting the economic situation. It can inject some new stimulus to encourage industrial expansion and more spending at home. To do that it would either have to cut

[ Page 386 ]

services" — services to people — "and maintain a balanced budget or maintain services and go into the red. Or it can stand pat and wait for world economic conditions to improve sufficiently to take up the slack at home.

"No amount of stimulation by the British Columbia government can improve foreign markets."

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't address, as some of the other members have to some extent, my interest and my knowledge and my experience on mobile homes.... Before I do that, I would like to make it clear that I have divested myself of almost all my interests and have moved out of that particular business.

First, I believe that "mobile homes," as the previous speaker said, is a misnomer. Very slowly government officials at different levels are realizing that mobile homes are really a modular home, a factory-built home, a home that can usually be produced at a lower cost. The public has realized this, because the public is clamouring for this kind of home.

I'd also like to point out that, really, a mobile home is a creative type of home that is needed and is in the same price bracket as condominiums are today. When you can produce a detached single-family home including furniture and land in the $35,000 to $50,000 bracket, you're really doing something. I think it is time that government officials at different levels began to recognize that many people are only in the wage bracket where they can afford homes in that price range.

Now not only do they have all the advantages of ordinary single-family living, but they have many additional ones. The very fact that there are eight small homes to an acre rather than possibly three or four suggests a sense of community much greater than is found in most communities. Not only that, but there is a security that is enjoyed by many senior people, the security of having one entrance way into a park and usually one entrance way out. Possibly 100 homes, and hopefully in time 300 or 400 homes in a community such as that, suggest a security, particularly for senior citizens, that is not enjoyed in most suburban subdivisions today.

I suggest that there should be some changes in regulations for people to begin to really enjoy this type of accommodation. First, there must be a move to encourage strata-titling of this kind of park. The fact that many people are living in mobile-home parks today where they have to pay on today's market $150 to $180 rent on top of buying their own home is not really in their best interest. Generally, the best arrangement that we should make for our people is to encourage strata-titling so that the people can have a feeling that this is their own land that they're on, and they're not subjected to monthly or annual increases in rent.

Let me point out one other key point. If mobile-home park developers would be allowed to compete with property on the same price as ordinary subdivisions, this alone would lower the cost of property approximately $20,000 an acre, or $2,500 per mobile home. When you think that $1,000 in financing on today's market suggests approximately $18 in rent, you would be able to lower the rent, if it is a rental mobile-home park, by $45 per month just by simply opening up the possibility of park development. Enough of that.

I'd like to speak just a little bit further on transportation systems in the lower mainland. Let me first of all read from a report from the GVRD: "The Greater Vancouver Regional District has called for the establishment of a 10-year road and transit improvement programme for the metropolitan area, co-ordinated by a provincial-regional transportation organization."

Perhaps the most significant effect is that the average travel speed in the region during rush hours will drop to 17 miles an hour within three years and the average for buses to 8 miles an hour. This drop, caused by congestion, will cost commuting drivers approximately $120 a year more in gasoline, which is more than it would cost to carry out needed improvements to the transportation system. On a per capita basis, less has been spent — and I'd like to point this out particularly to the cabinet — on improvements in this region in the lower mainland than any of 10 other metropolitan areas in Canada. Travel within the region has been increased at about 9 per cent a year and many people are now spending 15 per cent of their income on transportation.

I suggest that any delay in developing the transportation systems in the lower mainland, Mr. Minister, is not in the interest of our taxpayers. I suggest that because of inflation and because of the increase of property costs, together with the lower construction costs of the present time, the costs of future development will only increase. With the bottleneck that we have generally in the lower mainland, and I refer particularly to Burnaby-Edmonds and all the traffic coming from Surrey and Langley and through New Westminster into Burnaby and down to Vancouver, it's high time that a high priority be made on the transportation systems in this area. I'm pleased that in discussions with the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), he has given a strong indication that likely tenders will be on two of the systems in 1977.

If we could also call on the expansion of North Road from Coquitlam and through Burnaby into New Westminster, and some direction in respect to rapid transit, and tying that together with this major development in New Westminster, we will truly have a suburban development that will be beyond compare

[ Page 387 ]

in a modern city.

I would also be remiss if I didn't touch on some of the experiences that I had in the Far East in October and some of the things that I felt that I should pass on in this debate. First, I'd like to say that our group was treated very, very royally. The Chinese people were more than just a little kind to us. I'm thinking particularly of the great dinner at the Peking Duck restaurant. The 17-course Peking duck meal that we had over there in Peking was just tremendous. But touching on just a few things: one of them was the air raid shelter that we visited. I couldn't help but scratch my head. I had a few questions such as: how could a country with an average wage of $20 to $30 a month expend so much of their resources in building air raid shelters throughout all of their major cities? I asked a simple question: Who were the people of China really concerned with? And I had a refreshing answer. For a change it wasn't the ugly American or the ugly westerner. They suggested that their major fear, their major concern, were neighbours in the north.

With the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who is here today, I'm pleased to report that at the Shanghai Hospital we witnessed an operation where they used acupuncture anaesthesia during a hysterectomy operation. I can tell you it works, because I saw it. I saw the lady discussing the operation with her doctors as it was being performed. And I'm very pleased that, a few days after my appearance on a local radio programme, the minister was able to make an announcement that the medical association, in fact, is recognizing certain areas in acupuncture. And the medical association is furthering their interest and, in fact, recognizing some very key aspects of acupuncture.

I'd also like to report that I saw Senator Mansfield in the hallway of one of the hotels and I couldn't help but go up to him and introduce myself, as we say in China, as "a responsible person from British Columbia." As we said hello and we exchanged greetings, he said to me: "Now, Mr. Loewen, remember that British Columbia is part of Washington." I thought very quickly and I said, "yes, Senator, but please remember to give us our share of the lumber industry," to which he made a promise, and we wished each other well.

We attended a Canton trade fair and had a very good time there and, I feel, learned something about the produce and the possibilities of trade in China.

Now the one thing that again and again I tried to ask our guides and the different people that we met was: What was the overwhelming concern and interest of the Chinese people in respect to their public relations programme? Again and again, the message came, and I would be remiss if I didn't pass this on. Again and again, the message was: "We want to be friends with the people of the world." But more importantly to this House, again and again they said: "We want to be friends of the people of Canada." Because we are a Pacific Rim province, this is particularly important when we consider trade. Again and again, the message was: "We want to be friends with the people of Canada." Doing some research, I discovered that we exported $257 million worth of material, of goods, through our British Columbia ports to China in 1975. I discovered that grain and cereal products constituted $225 million of this $257 million, and that forest products constituted the next largest, amount, which is $18 million.

At the same time, we only imported through our ports approximately $8 million worth of goods. Now the reason I am mentioning this is that really this is not a very large amount. I would like to suggest that the possibility of increasing this trade is really quite great — in fact, quite phenomenal. All we have to do, I believe, is first of all work at it and, secondly, maybe do a little bit of planning. I'd like to make the suggestion to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that we encourage trade missions to China, remembering that the Chinese people feel especially warm to the Canadian people. I believe that we — China and Canada — have a unique place to play in history. Both of our countries are basically not military powers. We are both developing countries. We are both Pacific Rim countries. We are both countries that neighbour the two superpowers and, as such, we could have a great influence on world history.

Now I would also like to suggest, and I'll speak particularly for the Minister of Economic Development, the formation of a private corporation very like the one that the Americans have put together. The Americans call their corporation The National Council for United States-China Trade. It is a private corporation. It's not a Crown corporation; it's not a subsidized corporation. It is a private corporation with government endorsement, and because of the two political systems — there are two reasons for this suggestion — the Chinese people, particularly because of their political system, find it more comfortable to deal with a corporation which suggests that it has political endorsement.

Therefore my suggestion, Mr. Minister, is that the idea originate from British Columbia; that it be spearheaded through your department; that it obtain both provincial and federal endorsement so that it can have the stature that is necessary to have the respect of the Chinese people.

The second reason for this suggestion is that I believe a lot of small business people in British Columbia could be aided. China has a lot of small things to sell. Most of the things they sell are little things, and there are a lot of small businesses in British Columbia that could benefit as a result of

[ Page 388 ]

having this corporation which could front for them and help ferret out ideas in China and bring the two groups — the Chinese people and the local corporations — together. I'd like to just point out that many millions of dollars worth of our forest products that are produced in British Columbia today are actually sold through representation from the American Corporation. Now why shouldn't we have our own corporation which would encourage the same kind of trade directly? I appreciate that the minister is nodding his head and we will have some private discussions, I'm sure, about this.

Now the second serious recommendation in my speech lies in the area of merchant banking. I read a quote from I.H. Asper, a prominent Winnipeg tax lawyer, and his proposal is "a merchant bank which will fill an investment gap between the huge investors, such as CDC and Montreal's Power Corp., and the chartered banks which purely lend money." Where the real gap in Canada is today is down at the middle level. There is a shortage of high-risk capital in areas where there is a need for greater competition to break open a stale or controlled market.

There is a bill before the Ontario House at the present time which has received second reading and it is going to be receiving third reading, it is my understanding, in the next session. This bill, which is called Bill 44 and is headed An Act Respecting the Registration of Venture Investment Corporations, I believe is one of the most imaginative bills and proposals in respect to bridging that gap between large corporations and small corporations, and I would like to present this to the Minister of Economic Development.

For the information of all the members of the House, I would like to read the explanatory paragraphs, if I may, which go like this:

"The purpose of the bill is to provide a means of mobilizing new sources of risk capital and managerial assistance for small businesses. Briefly, the corporation tax amendments will provide that during any year in which a corporation is registered as a venture investment corporation, the rate of tax applied on its taxable income will be zero.

"A corporate investor investing in a registered venture investment corporation will be permitted to deduct 250 per cent of the investment from its taxable income. This deduction may be carried forward indefinitely against future income.

"If the investment in the venture investment corporation is transferred or redeemed, or if the venture investment corporation loses its registration, 250 per cent of the amount of the investment will be included in the investor's income for that year. Recoveries of investments in excess of the amount originally invested will be treated in the hands of the recipient as capital gains.

"Dividends paid by a venture investment corporation to an investor will be treated as interest in the hands of the investor. If a corporation does not maintain its registration, it will pay income tax on its undistributed income."

Now the back-up material of this bill is here and I would be pleased to provide it to anybody who is interested.

Interjection.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'll make sure that you have a copy of this. It is one of the most imaginative, most creative, most entrepreneurial ideas of helping small businesses, not by some political idea or setting up some new plan or some new programme for the sake of political merit, but it is truly mirroring a proven experience, day-to-day management and capital in the interest of the people of British Columbia, in the interest of small business and in the interest of our long-term economy. It is truly using the principle of initiative. And talking about initiative, it's rather interesting to me how the pendulum swings.

Many people in China today feel that in 1949 they had a great day of liberation. As one individual put it, in our travelling over there, he compared pre-1949 with the present this way: he said that in 1949 there were five members in his family and they only had two blankets; today there are three members and they have five blankets. This was his way of comparing it. Now our guide freely expressed that China lagged some 40 years behind us in development.

Now the pendulum swings strangely. We were there during the days that Chairman Hua took over the leadership, and all the demonstrations took place just when we were there. The whole point of all the demonstrations and what is happening today in China is the fact that Chairman Hua and Mr. Hsiao-ping realize that they would have to bring incentive back into the economy in China to bring up production.

This bill ties together the incentive of proven experience of day-to-day management and capital. Now if these ventures are successful, this will broaden our tax base dramatically. I can't think of any one thing that we can do directly that can influence the broadening of our tax base more — things that we can directly do and accomplish through legislation, and help the smaller industries which one day will become large industries which will produce taxes directly and via the different employees they will employ.

I believe that British Columbia today is just on the threshold of opportunity. As an accountant friend of mine suggested, British Columbia is one of the

[ Page 389 ]

world's last frontiers — I believe that — and if we manage well, not only future generations but we also can benefit from the development and from the prosperity that can take place in this beautiful province of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:42 p.m.