[ Page 391 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

BCR settlement with M.E.L. Paving. Mr. King — 391

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Gibson — 394

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 395

Mr. Lauk — 395

Mr. Speaker — 395

Mr. Gibson — 395

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 395

Mr. Cocke — 402

Mr. Haddad — 408

Mr. Lockstead — 410

Mr. Kahl — 417

Petitions

Vancouver Stock Exchange petition. Mr. Shelford — 422

City of Vancouver petition. Mr. Strongman — 422

Society of Industrial Accountants of B.C. petition. Mr. Veitch — 422

Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of B.C. petition. Mr. Veitch — 423

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two gentlemen from the Coquitlam constituency, Alan Sinclair and Roger Purdy. Would the House join me in making Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Purdy welcome?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In the gallery today from the constituency of Omineca are Pauline and Doug Stelling. Mr. and Mrs. Stelling are involved in the mining industry. They are here to see the government that has turned the tide in that industry in this province in action. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): In the gallery today is a group of students from Belmont Senior Secondary School. They are accompanied by Mr. Batis. They have been in the precincts since 11 this morning and I would like the House to bid them welcome, please.

Oral questions.

BCR SETTLEMENT WITH M.E.L. PAVING

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A question to the Premier: could the Premier advise the House on what date he was informed of the BCR board's decision to settle the M.E.L. Paving dispute out of court?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am trying to recall exactly. It was somewhere around just before I left for my Christmas vacation. I think it was somewhere around December 22. I'm not sure. I will just check and make sure of that but it was somewhere in that neighbourhood.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier for his information and look forward to a precise answer. I wonder if he could also tell me precisely who — which person or persons — informed him of the decision.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was informed by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. KING: Supplementary. I understand the B.C. Rail board is meeting this very moment. I want to ask if it is the decision to settle the current dispute with the KRM and Keen Construction companies out of court in the same manner as that agreed upon with M.E.L. Paving.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the question is still directed to me, I'm not a director of the board and I have not been consulted, as I wasn't consulted on the other decisions.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, then: may I direct that question to the Minister of Economic Development, as he is a director of the board, and ask that he communicate with this House as well as the Premier?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question: yes, there is a board meeting of the directors of the British Columbia Railway taking place at this time. I had intended to be there and left my slate clean this morning so I could be there. However, Mother Nature intervened and I was not able to get over to Vancouver this morning. The meeting is going on at the present time. I was just talking to the chairman. No decisions had been reached but I understand that they will be issuing a press release when the meeting is completed, if a decision is indeed reached at this board meeting.

MR. KING: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that advice and I would ask him whether or not the government has transmitted a position with regard to this question to the board of directors.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's questions: this government has stated quite emphatically that we have put in a board of directors with sufficient experience to run the railway, complete and apart from political interference. I further want to state that I have every confidence in that great board. I further want to state that for the first time in a number of years the railway is running like a clock, and serving the great industry of British Columbia which it was meant to serve.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the decision made by that board of directors will be in the best interest of the citizens of British Columbia whose responsibility they have to serve.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I simply asked whether or not the government had transmitted to the board a position for the government. The Minister of Economic Development is a director of the board, and I don't wish to get into a debate as to whether or not he plays a political role as a director. But if his performance in the House is any indication, he is not silent on that board and

[ Page 392 ]

therefore he must be part and party to some of the decisions made. Now has he advised his colleagues on the board of directors of what position he would take incident to this proposed settlement out of court?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, not knowing all of the ramifications of the contract and having missed the last two board meetings, I am not aware of all the ramifications. But I'll state again that I have not relayed any position on behalf of the government or given them any instructions as to whether they should settle in court, or out of court, or what settlement.... As I said before, I have every confidence in that board of the railway. I am sure the decision they make will be made after lengthy deliberations, which I understand they are having today. Again, I want to state that I have every confidence in the decision they will make.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): A supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development. Does the board not consult the Attorney-General of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Gardom) before making settlements which could involve the taxpayer in a very considerable impost?

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Under a case that is now under investigation by the Attorney-General?

MR. MACDONALD: Do you not consult that department at all?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not aware that there are any allegations with regard to the Keen contract or the KRM contract that are under investigation. I am not aware of that.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't discuss it.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A supplementary to the Premier on the same subject. The government has said over and over again that they want to run this province in a businesslike way. It is my understanding that the board of directors of any corporation is responsible to the shareholders. The shareholders of the BCR are the people of this province, represented through their government, which is you. Are you telling this Legislature that the board of directors is not responsible to the shareholders represented by this government? Are you saying they are not responsible to the shareholders?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Prince Rupert knows, the directors are accountable to the shareholders, which are not just the government, but the Legislature, on behalf of the people of B.C. That's why the minister will be accountable to this assembly for decisions made by that board of directors. However, we do not give them the decisions in advance. They've been asked to direct the company — that's the function of a director.

Mr. Speaker, I know that that member knows full well that in private companies, such as corporations, the shareholders elect once a year a board of directors, and during that year those directors direct the company. They call annual meetings of the shareholders in which they are accountable to them. Again, in this assembly we meet, and the directors are accountable through a director to this assembly of the shareholders.

We represent the shareholders with the same accountability that directors of all companies have to their shareholders in what are called annual meetings, meetings they must call by regulation and law in this country. That is the type of accountability there is. But it would be folly indeed to continue the practice we witnessed when we came in, where there were directors who were taking political direction. I think that it is wrong and that practice has been discontinued.

MR. BARRETT: To the Premier: A political decision was made to extend the line to Dease Lake. As a consequence a fraud case was launched in court and now an unique situation exists, unlike any other in a Crown corporation. Does the Premier not consider, in view of the fact the Attorney-General is investigating this fraud situation at this moment, that it is highly improper to settle related cases at a board of directors' meeting without the government being directly represented, or for the government to state a position on the settlement of these contracts while the Attorney-General is conducting an investigation he announced?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who used to be president of the railway, knows how he used to operate it and deal with it. I would say that the Attorney-General's department has been asked to review a transcript of a trial. That's what they've been asked to review: evidence given in a transcript.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too late!

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: They've been asked to review the transcript...

MR. BARRETT: Call all the witnesses.

[ Page 393 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...the same sort of review that went on under the former Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I've recognized the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano. I'll listen to your point of order immediately following my recognition of him.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Mr. Speaker, if, as the minister has said today, the BCR is free of politics, why has that minister put a gag rule on the corporation? Why is it that when we phone up to get simple information on the Dease Lake extension, we are told by the BCR that we have to go through the minister's office?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that this minister has put no gag rule on the board of directors of the British Columbia Railway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, and I want all of the citizens of British Columbia to know this: That board of directors told me that if there were any political interference with their actions on that railway I would be looking for a new board of directors. I want all of the citizens of British Columbia to know that.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, the minister may say there's no gag rule, but since I can't obtain this information from the railroad, would he be good enough to obtain for me a list of all the contracts on the Dease Lake extension, the signing date, and the value of any amendments to those contracts?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that is public information. However, since I'm having the same data prepared for myself at the present time, I'd be most happy to supply the member with it once I am in receipt of it.

MR. KING: Another supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development: When he is tabling those documents with the House, would he be good enough to table also with the House copies of all the board of director minutes relating to the Dease Lake extension from its inception?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm willing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give that matter some consideration, although the minutes of the board meetings are not normally public knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I think the members should well know that we have a public accounts committee of the Legislature and the representatives of the railway are accountable to that public accounts committee. Any questions with regard to any matters pertaining to the railway — fiscal or otherwise — can be asked of the railway. I'll tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, the board of directors are going to be accountable not only to the opposition, but the board of directors are going to be accountable to the government and to the people of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: A supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development: As the representative of the shareholders of the BCR on that board, will you, as the representative of the shareholders on that board, instruct that board to make those minutes that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has asked for available to the public? Will you ask the railway to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's a repetition of the same question previously asked by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. LEA: I am asking whether he will so instruct the board of the wishes of the stockholders that those minutes be made available.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's a matter of stating the same question in a slightly different terminology. It's the same question, hon. member.

MR. LEA: No, it isn't.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to correct what the Premier said. Under the NDP administration, the Department of the Attorney-General was always consulted and gave an opinion before cases were settled against....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: No, he said the opposite. I have a right to correct the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, can I not...?

MR. SPEAKER: I must draw to your attention

[ Page 394 ]

that that is not a proper point of order, as you well know.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm correcting a false statement made on the floor of the House about our administration and the practice. We were always consulted because we represented the people, and the people have a right to protection of their legal interests and their tax pockets. We were consulted first before M.E.L. settlements were made or before a Keen settlement would be made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is not your turn in the debate, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I want it corrected. It's not true, what he said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of standing order 35, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state the matter, please?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter is undoubtedly of importance, namely the attitude of the government of B.C. to national unity, separatism and the challenges raised by the new government in Quebec. The matter is definite, Mr. Speaker, relating, as it does, specifically to the remarks of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in this House...

AN HON. MEMBER: Telephone call from Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Allow the hon. member to make his point.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: ...and yesterday to the press, where the Minister of Education advocated policies which would quite clearly lead to the breakup of Canada, and the refusal of the Premier yesterday to repudiate those statements.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Resign!

MR. GIBSON: That the matter is urgent is demonstrated by a previous similar case, namely the damage done to national unity and the image of the Government of British Columbia within a very few days by statements made by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) immediately after the Quebec election.

Mr. Speaker, the urgency is that unless there is an immediate opportunity to clarify this matter as to whether or not the Government of B.C. supports a separatist stand of its minister, irreversible damage may be done.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Direct call from Trudeau!

MR. LAUK: You're going to laugh your way right out of Confederation!

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

MR. LAUK: You people are so stupid you don't know that!

MR. GIBSON: You think that's funny?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's some joke?

AN HON. MEMBER: McGeer's a joke!

MR. LAUK: Talk about bunglers. I really believe, Pat, you didn't know what you were saying.

MR. GIBSON: He knew what he was saying! It was all written out in advance. That was no accident.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano has risen in his place under standing order 35, requesting a debate on a matter which he considers to be of urgent public importance.

In dealing with his request for a debate, I must point out to the hon. member, and to all of the members of the House, that one of the requirements — and only one of them, among others — is the fact that for the motion to qualify under standing order 35, it must be raised at its earliest opportunity. There are numerous authorities, hon. member, on this matter, including Beauchesne, page 39; May, 16th edition, page 369; Journals of the House, 1955 and 1959.

On that one point, I'd like to quote from the Journals of the House, 1959, when a motion of urgent public importance was put before the House. Speaker Shantz brought to the attention of the members on page 64 of our Journals, 1959, that: "The matter requested for discussion, in my opinion, has not been brought up at the earliest possible moment."

I would like to refresh the memory of all of the members of the House that the subject matter to which this motion refers was certainly a matter of discussion at some length yesterday, as I recall, in question period. It would follow, therefore, that if it was the member's intent to move a motion under

[ Page 395 ]

standing order 35, the earliest opportunity would have been immediately after the question period.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I concede the fact that if you, at that particular moment in time, were not prepared to make the motion or avail yourself of that opportunity, because it was immediately following question period and the time interval was not great, there was another opportunity, hon. member, yesterday, and that was last evening when we started debate again after the supper recess. That would certainly have been the time to have moved your motion at the earliest opportunity available to you.

Would the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) please take his seat until the Speaker is finished?

That would have been the earliest opportunity. Certainly there would have been sufficient time by then to prepare such a statement. So it does appear, hon. member, on that basis alone that the motion fails to qualify as one of urgent public importance. There may be other reasons other than the matter of time, but on that alone the motion fails, and I so rule.

MR. LAUK: I am loath to speak after your honour has made a decision, but I would ask for certain clarifications. Standing order 35 states, inter alia, that the definite matter of urgent public importance must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business, pursuant to standing order 25. Standing order 25 states: "The ordinary daily routine business in the House shall be as follows: prayers, presenting petitions, reading and receiving petitions, presenting reports...motions and adjourned debates on motions, questions put by members, introduction of bills" — and order of business." After that are the precedence motions that we were considering, and so on. As soon as this House entered precedent motion debate, no hon. member was allowed to make any such motion under standing order 35(1) .

What I'm suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, is that if there are other reasons for finding this motion out of order, you should state those, because the first one, with respect, is not correct, as I see clearly set out in standing order 35 and standing order 25.

MR. SPEAKER: In replying to the point raised by the first member for Vancouver Centre, I must point out to the hon. member that we have to interpret the rule in light of routine business and before the entry into orders of the day. This is why I suggest — and I say to the hon. member — that the earliest opportunity for the member to raise the matter on the floor of the House would have been immediately after question period yesterday, before orders of the day were entered into; failing that, last night when we were back in session.

MR. LAUK: He's not entitled to, though, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, you've ruled and, naturally, that's that. I just want to make this explication. You may have noted in my statement that I refer to press statements as well as to what happened in this House. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is importantly quoted in press statements which were first published this morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis tables the 36th annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission covering the licence year ending February 29, 1976.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): I was rather concerned that I wasn't going to get the opportunity to speak this afternoon, with all the points of order that were being raised a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise on this first occasion that I've had to speak in this House at this session, and to take part in the budget debate. It's nice to be back, and it's nice to see that everybody's in good shape. The beards are getting a little greyer, Mr. Speaker, but we appear to have survived the summer vacation and the fall and the winter enjoyment that we've had in our ridings. I'd like to compliment the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is sporting a new beard to join the rest of us who like to grow hair on our faces, along with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair). One of my colleagues said I have to grow it where I can, Mr. Speaker. I think that's highly unfair!

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity, in my first speech in this House, to compliment the mover and the seconder of the throne speech — I thought they did an excellent job in explaining the concerns of their riding, and their concerns for this province — and also the other members in this House who spoke during that debate. I'm sure that their comments will give guidance to the ministers in setting the policies for this province.

I read over Hansard, as all of us do now and again, and I recalled the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) last year handed out some awards to the government members. So I thought I would take the liberty of handing out two awards today to the members of the opposition.

[ Page 396 ]

The first award is what I've entitled the Chuckle Award, and that is to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who stated in his speech the other night that "with tripping tongue" he ran through his speech. It almost sounded like he was tiptoeing through the tulips and I have dubbed him with the name of Tiny Tim.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there was the other award, which is the highest award, I think, that can be given to a member of the opposition. I've entitled that the NDP Award, and that award goes to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) for his ability to make up facts.

Mr. Speaker, in a serious vein, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), to whom I very much enjoy listening because he is very concise and attempts to get his points across, quoted Sam Rayburn in his speech the other day and stated: "The stand you take depends on where you sit in the House." And I believe John Diefenbaker once said: "The role of the opposition is to oppose." I suppose those comments are probably valid, but it is unfortunate that sometimes when tempers flare in this House in the heat of debate and we get a little carried away, we have to go. through the unnecessary debate which sometimes takes place. I hope, as we progress through this session, that we can come out with some mutual agreement without too much unnecessary, irrelevant debate. I hope we can proceed to get the province's business done in the quickest possible order.

An example of that, Mr. Speaker, is the selection of the auditor-general selection committee. I would just like to take a minute to comment on that as I have been appointed chairman of that committee which was appointed in June, 1976. It is a four-party committee made up of representatives of the Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit and New Democratic parties. I would like to thank and compliment the members of that committee for their effort and interest in trying to deal with a difficult task, and I would like to especially thank the secretary of that committee, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), for his efforts in arranging the meetings, dealing with correspondence and doing an excellent job in keeping the committee informed. Up to this date in the meetings we have had agreement in that committee; we have had good discussion. I think and hope it will continue and I hope to have a recommendation from that committee before this House recesses this spring.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I would also like to compliment the Minister of Finance for presenting his budget in the House. It is a forward-looking budget, a budget on which we can build this province. Last year we talked about restraint; this year we talk about cautious optimism. This government will build a sound foundation, a foundation which in the coming years will encourage investment and development, exploration and expansion and full employment for the people of British Columbia.

The result of those efforts, Mr. Speaker, will further improve the social benefits to those people who are in need and who are handicapped, and it will provide better education and better health services for the people of the province. Without the expansion, without the development, without the employment you can't have those social benefits, you can't have those additional education and health services.

The government, Mr. Speaker, is not made up of car dealers, of millionaires and of Liberals, as the opposition sometimes would lead you to believe. This government is made up of builders — builders of a great province concerned with all citizens and not just special-interest groups. At the end of our current mandate I am sure the people of British Columbia will be able to see the efforts and will be able to see the results of this party, and this party will be re-elected with an even greater majority.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to comment as an MLA for Boundary-Similkameen and express my thanks to a few of the ministers who have worked and who have listened to some of the problems in my riding over the past year. To the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who has made a tremendous effort in our area to improve the roads, I can say to you that the people of Kaleden, Keremeos and Grand Forks appreciate the efforts you have made. I know that you are dealing with the Penticton bypass, and that there is an Indian land problem there, but I am sure that can be resolved and we will see that coming in the future.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Take a bow, Alex.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) for hearing and dealing with the concerns of the people in the rural area of my riding who were looking for assistance under the rural electrification programme, and the expansion of that programme.

There's one other point, Mr. Speaker, which is very small — a very minor item which probably hasn't taken too much space in the newspapers — but I would like to compliment the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the RCMP in dealing with a situation we had in a small community called Hedley, in my riding. You may recall last year in the spring session that I brought it to the floor of this House because of the vandalism and the delinquency that was taking place in that small community. I can say

[ Page 397 ]

to you today, Mr. Speaker, that the problem has been resolved. The effort that was put in, the communication that was made between the RCMP and the Attorney-General's department, led that community to get together and last week they opened up a community skating rink. That's a big event for that small community, but it was done strictly by a community effort, an effort of a number of people getting together and recognizing the concerns their young people had, and the skating rink came about. I wish to publicly compliment them on their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, to the man who looks after people, the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the people-man, the man who provides the people services: in Grand Forks we have Broadacres Training Centre for retarded children and adults; the assistance his department gave to that community group was very much appreciated. It is an environment which, I am pleased to say, allows for young people and adults who are handicapped to live out a somewhat fruitful life, as opposed to being locked away. I have visited that area and I visited the Broadacres Training Centre, and it is an environment of which, I am sure, the parents of those children are most appreciative.

The South Okanagan Human Resources Society, Mr. Minister, is most appreciative of the efforts you have made there. It is also appreciative of the efforts of the ministers of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that they've put in to establish a medical clinic in the small community of Rock Creek.

Mr. Speaker, those are small items that never get the headlines in the press. But in my.community, which is a rural riding, those are big items. I can only say that this government recognizes the concerns of the small communities and the small groups of people who live in our rural ridings and who really are the backbone, I feel, of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment all the ministers. As an MLA, I would like to compliment them for their open-door policy that they've had since this government was formed. I would like to say, as a new minister, I hope I can live up to and match the efforts of my colleagues in the years to come.

Before I comment on the budget in general, I would like to spend some time dealing with agriculture, Mr. Speaker. As minister, I feel it is important that I make some comments on the speech that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) made a few days ago. The member stated that she was shocked to hear my statements that I was proposing the discontinuance of farm income assurance. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) also stated that I was telling the farmers that they will probably lose their Farm Income Assurance Programme. In question period, Mr. Speaker, my response to the member for Cowichan-Malahat was: "I would like to make the comment that the contracts are five-year contracts and they will be reviewed, and at the time they come due we will have something to present to agriculture." In response to that, the member replied: "They don't want something to be presented to them. They want to be part of the negotiations."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the address I gave at the B.C. Fruit Growers Association meeting in Vernon a few weeks ago. The member was there, Mr. Speaker, because I happened to introduce her, and she thanked me for that and said I was very much the gentleman. What I said, Mr. Speaker, was this:

"Briefly, your industry is under a five-year programme which expires in 1978. I would advise you that nothing has changed. You had a five-year agreement with the previous administration and that agreement is still in effect. You will undoubtedly ask — as many other commodity groups have — what happens at the end of the five-year programme. I can assure you that during the coming year the programme will be reviewed by my ministry in consultation with your organization," — and that was the B.C. Tree Fruits organization — "and the Federation of Agriculture. As your Minister of Agriculture, I can advise that if the need is there at the end of the five-year programme, my ministry will have a programme to offer your industry. It is hoped, whatever new plan is developed, it will be compatible with, and support, the federal agricultural stabilization programme."

Madam Member, your government introduced that plan. It was a five-year programme, and I would suggest to you that at the end of that five years they would be reviewing it as well. Now, Madam Member, is the time to review because we have time to look at it, to evaluate it, to determine what the future is going to hold. We have a year in which to do that. It's good planning to give yourself that much lead time. I would say to you that the industry will be involved in those discussions.

The member for Malichan-Cowahat...Malichan-Cowahat? That sounds good. That's a new riding — Malichan-Cowahat. (Laughter.) We'll have to remember that name when we get to redistribution, hon. member. But the member stated:

"If we think we are paying high costs for food right now, we don't even know what we are talking about, because now we are in the area where there is competition — good healthy competition. This is to the benefit of the consumer."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that member is in

[ Page 398 ]

the wrong party. She stated: "If the control of our agricultural production falls completely into the hands of the large vertically integrated concerns, then we are going to be in trouble."

Mr. Speaker, she talks about vertical integration and I would ask her: what about Panco Poultry, Madam Member? It has the farms, the hatching eggs, the birds, the feed plant, and the quota — the quota in excess of the amount allowed to other producers. It is a government-owned operation, and your government bought it. You got into the chicken business. It's rather unfortunate, because I feel that creates a conflict of interest. It's pretty difficult when the government sets the regulations that look after business and they also deal in business. What is the effect on the family farm with that kind of competition? Madam Member, the point I want to get across here this afternoon is that it isn't just vertical integration or it isn't just Panco Poultry.

There are members on that side of the House — and if you refer to Hansard I'm sure you'll see it — who have stated in the past week that they are socialists. I would like, for your benefit, Madam Member, to read you a definition of what socialism is. It is

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state."

Madam Member, that's the definition of socialism, and the members of that side of the House have quoted that they are socialists.

I would suggest maybe you should refer to what is known as the Waffle Manifesto of years ago. Madam Member, you are on the fringe of that party. You should get the experts to explain your objectives — their true, long-term objectives. If they do, they will tell you that they are buying into business to save jobs.

There are other ways of saving jobs, Madam Member, than buying into it and going into competition with the farmer, the proprietor or the small business in this province. When you buy equity, you're buying it with the tax dollars that are put up by the people of the province, and you are going into competition with those very same people.

I would like to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, one sentence from page 24 of the budget, which states: "This government recognizes that continued investment by private business is much preferred to investment by governments." That one sentence, I think, sums up the feelings of this government. The government can and does regulate industry to allow and encourage competition. But where is the competition when the government owns the business? Where is the incentive to the individual to develop a new process or product, or to provide a new service? Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) would explain the long-term objectives of the NDP. Maybe after hearing those, Madam Member, you'll join us, or possibly join the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), as he is a little closer to you.

Mr. Speaker, in Hansard in 1973, the member for Nanaimo, the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich), stated that he wanted to make agriculture economically viable in this province. I concur with him in that statement. As minister he did bring in some good programmes — the ALDA programme, the Agricultural Credit Act — but he did not accomplish the economic viability he worked for, probably because, I would imagine, he was too busy explaining finance to the Minister of Finance, the former Premier.

It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to make agriculture viable in the province of British Columbia. We are faced with imports from across the line, and those are a federal responsibility. I quote to you from a newspaper item; the quotation is from the manager of B.C. Tree Fruits. He stated:

"Sixteen million pounds of cherries were imported into Canada in 1976, equivalent to the entire Canadian cherry crop. Ever-increasing quantities of fruit from the United States are flooding the Canadian market ahead of the harvesting and marketing of B.C. soft fruits. The first cherries arrived in Canada from California last May, and we did not have ample supply of cherries until July.

"The prices on the incoming fruit also seriously affect the Canadian product. The U.S. cherry prices started at $9 and up when they first arrived in Canada last year; by the time the B.C. cherries hit the market, the U.S. cherries were selling at $6.50, resulting in depressed prices for the B.C. fruit."

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that is facing the agriculture industry in this province, not just with fruit but with other products as well. The high cost of labour and the cost of materials are problems in this province when you compare them to the imports. We also have in many parts of this province the geographic problem, the problem of small family holdings as opposed to big holdings in land where you don't have small pockets and small, narrow valleys where you can only have 10- or 20-acre plots. So that presents a problem, because you still need the equipment to run that farm, regardless of its size.

I want to ensure, even with the U.S. competition, the geographic problems that we have and the high cost of labour, that my goal and the goal of this

[ Page 399 ]

government is to make agriculture economically viable in this province.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the speech that was made by Mr. Barichello, the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. He made this speech in Vernon. I would say that Mr. Barichello is an excellent spokesman for the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, a man with whom I've dealt on a number of occasions. He demands a great deal of respect. This speech also deals with farm income assurance, which really seems to be the main concern of the agricultural industry today. I have met with the federation on several occasions, and I will be meeting with them again, to discuss our long-term approach to solving the problems facing the industry. I hope to achieve the goal of economic stability for the industry.

Mr. Barichello made a number of statements. One was: "The end of a programme is traditionally a time to reflect on its value." I agree with that statement. That is what we intend to do, and that is why, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, we are starting now — so that we will have a programme available.

Mr. Barichello stated: "The government should initiate a programme of transfer payments to cope with the deficiency, a programme which will guarantee an adequate income to the farmer on a continuing basis." I cannot agree with the concept of guaranteed income. I don't really think the farmers agree with the concept of guaranteed income because the farmers are individualists, they are enterprisers and they are the people who are closest to the land.

They need and require protection against depressed market prices; they need to get out of the concept of boom-and-bust because they are dealing with a perishable product. We should be able to be there and to help them when there is a deflated market, a depressed market, where the cyclical aspect of their industry affects their income. They want that assistance, they need that assistance at times, but they also want the freedom to achieve good returns when the market improves. They do not want increased dependence on government.

Mr. Barichello stated that, "It is in the interest of everyone involved in the food chain, from the producer down to the consumer, that the B.C. agriculture remain a viable and competitive industry." I agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker. But today it is not competitive, mainly through no fault of the farmer, but again through those problems Of imports, high cost of production and other items.

Regarding imports, Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea in the beef industry how we're affected, I want to quote to you from an Ottawa press release dated December 23, 1976:

"Following from the recent actions of the United States regarding import limits of beef and veal in 1977, Mr. Whelan said it is a matter of concern that there should be an orderly and stable situation in the Canadian market. The understanding reached with our trading partners ensures this will be the case. The arrangements provide for imports from the United States, Australia and New Zealand of up to 144.75 million pounds of beef and veal in 1977."

In relation to that, Mr. Speaker, the United States envisions imports from Canada in the order of 75 million pounds. Mr. Speaker, we're getting a tremendous amount of import in the beef industry into Canada, and I think we should make every effort to curtail some of that.

Another item, Mr. Speaker, is potatoes. The United States, in the states just south of the border, got involved in over-production of their potato crop and our potato industry has been affected by what is known as the "stripper potato." It is a potato that comes below the grading classification in the United States, and it is literally dumped on our market and it affects our market price. Mr. Speaker, I am well aware, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is aware, that it is a federal responsibility, to regulate imports. But I can assure you, and I can assure the members of this House, that my ministry is going to every effort to try and change some of [illegible] thinking at the federal level so the agricultural industry in this province isn't affected by American imports.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barichello is concerned about the future of the agricultural industry in this province, and I am concerned. I think — I know — we need a long-term plan to improve the viability of farmland in the province. In essence, the intent of my ministry is to work toward long-range planning, not by ourselves, but in concert with the Federation of Agriculture and the commodity groups. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what we come up with are not just five-year programmes, not just programmes that are in constant negotiation, but with a long-term answer to the problem that the farmers face.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the very short period of time that I've been Minister of Agriculture, the negotiations are one of the biggest problems that I can see affecting my staff. What happens is that during these negotiations my staff are put on one side of the bargaining table and the commodity group is put on the other side. When my ministry's prime function is to support and to complement the industry, my staff — really, truly — cannot maintain their role of support one day, providing information and guidance to improve the viability of farmland, and then be in conflict the next day trying to determine what is the true cost of production of farm products.

The Farm Income Assurance Programme, I feel

[ Page 400 ]

strongly, should be reviewed. It has to have some long-term approaches to it. Just to give you an idea of what is involved, Mr. Speaker, it was first brought in in 1973 and at present there are 10 commodity groups in place: beef producers, sheep producers, tree fruits, blueberries, broiler-hatching eggs, commercial eggs, dairy, field tomatoes, greenhouse producers and swine producers; and we are at the present time discussing potatoes and raspberries. I understand from the federation that there are a number of other commodity groups that are looking to come on the plan.

The cost of this programme, Mr. Speaker, throughout the years: The first payments were made in 1974-75. In the first year payments were only $28,000, but that's not too comparable since only a few items had come on the programme. In 1975-76, the actual expenditures were $26,831,000. Our estimate for 1976-77 — since the payouts haven't been completed, nor have we finished our fiscal year — was $27,088,000. In 1977-78, the year through which we are moving, the estimate is $36,553,000. Mr. Speaker, the costs of that programme are costs to the taxpayer and are costs to the consumer. If you take the market price and you add the cost of that programme, you get the true cost of your product.

I am not saying, Mr. Speaker — and I want to make it clear — that farm income assurance is not a good thing. What I am saying is that we should have a programme that is there when the need is there, that is based on a constant, on something that we can relate to, rather than get into negotiations. I am hopeful that any provincial plan that we arrive at, in consultation, I hope, with the Federation of Agriculture, will be in concert with, and will supplement, the federal agricultural stability programme.

The viability, of the industry, Mr. Speaker, should not be in farm income assurance alone. It should be on proving new markets and getting stability in the agricultural industry. It should be one, Mr. Speaker, that is determined by working with the industry and one that will put the industry finally in a competitive and viable position.

There are a few projects, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on. They are again minor projects possibly, but they're efforts I'd like to make the members aware of in order to show how the ministry is trying to assist in improving or developing the industry, improving efficiency, the expansion of it, and making it financially stable.

We have a programme called the AGMA programme — the Agricultural and Food Products Market Development Assistance Programme — and the programme's objective is to develop a co-ordinated marketing effort for B.C. products. One most recent to be introduced to that programme is the raspberry crop, and the purpose of the programme relating to that crop is to increase the per capita consumption of raspberries in North America and to provide, through that increased consumption, an increase of returns to the growers. We are involved in a three-way, cost-sharing basis with the grower, who is putting up some dollars, the federal government and the provincial government.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, we have 300 growers in the province of British Columbia growing raspberries and a crop of 10 million pounds a year with a farm cash value of $5 million. We are the only area in Canada that grows raspberries commercially, and the funds out of this programme to provide for the expansion of this commodity group will be used for hiring a market development officer to have raspberry promotion through the news media, to promote local sales on the fresh market, to promote and to develop a juice programme for the United States and eastern Canada, and to develop further product and market research.

Mr. Speaker, another item in regard to efficiency and of benefit to the consumer in the province is that of our provincial meat inspection service. We are attempting to have some of our abattoirs in the province go under federal inspection. At the present time we have six abattoirs — there are five in the lower mainland and one in the metropolitan area of Victoria — and at least four of these provincial plants are sufficiently large whereby they could qualify for the federal meat inspection. They would only need minor alterations in their plants to provide for that. I have approved a special incentive programme to help those abattoirs qualify for the federal inspection with the effect, Mr. Speaker, that after those were under federal inspection, we could move out and our training staff could provide meat inspection in other areas in the province of British Columbia. The programme really provides, Mr. Speaker, for the backing of a loan at the bank for construction purposes with a low interest rate on that loan.

Mr. Speaker, the government and industry must work together to ensure a viable industry, and I would quote from Mr. Barichello's speech once again in regard to the objectives that are outlined by the Federation of Agriculture. They are:

"To encourage the production to meet domestic requirements; to enhance market opportunities; to encourage the processing of B.C. agricultural commodities; to encourage optimum, utilization of B.C.'s soil and climate conditions; to minimize the farm input costs; and to protect the viability of the B.C. farmer."

To accomplish the long-term goals, Mr. Speaker, we need the combined effort of the farmer, the federation, the government and the consumer, and it's not going to be easy. It's going to take some time, but if we have that cooperative effort, if we have the support of all segments of the industry, I think we

[ Page 401 ]

can achieve economic viability in the agriculture industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items that we are going to do throughout the coming year 1977-1978 in the Agriculture ministry, and one that I have been asked about on several occasions is that of a marketing board review. Again, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the members of this House, I would just like to list the marketing boards that are in place at this time. We have the Broiler Marketing Board, the Cranberry Marketing Board, the Egg Marketing Board, the Tree Fruit Marketing Board, the Grape Marketing Board, the Mushroom Marketing Board, the Oyster Marketing Board, the Turkey Marketing Board, the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board, the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board, and the Sheep and Wool Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to work with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) to review the efficiency of marketing boards, to analyse the effect — if any — on the market price, and the effect on the consumer and the producer.

Mr. Speaker, in light of consumer reaction which we have seen in the last few months — I have noticed it in the paper on a number of occasions — I felt strongly that this review should be carried out. We have many, many consumers going to the U.S. to purchase food. A lot of consumers say it's because of our marketing system increasing the costs. I can't necessarily say that's correct, and that's why the review is to be carried out: to determine whether or not the marketing board system is the best way. Is there a better way? Can we make it more efficient? Is the administration of those boards adequate? Are their marketing practices the best that can be had? And would the consumer be worse off without them? I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this review will answer some of those questions.

Mr. Speaker, another programme we are looking at is the negotiation of a new agreement with ARDA, and we are going into a programme of co-ordinated resource management in this province for the development and redevelopment of range land to provide seeding, drainage and irrigation in order that we can have better forage for our livestock industry and in order that we can provide for the finishing of our beef products rather than shipping them to the east so they can only return to us as finished product. I think we are making efforts to allow for a new feedlot up in the Kamloops area, and I'm hopeful that there will be one down in the Boundary-Similkameen country too, hon. minister. In that way, Mr. Speaker, we will improve the viability of our beef industry because, as I understand it now, we are only supplying 17 per cent of our market by B.C.-finished product.

Another programme I'd like to research, and hopefully come back with a recommendation to this government, is that of assistance to young people or new farmers who wish to farm. I've had my staff begin their research and their planning to see if we can develop a programme, and I would hope to have such a programme to be presented to the cabinet by the end of this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, another one that we are looking at, of course, is an ongoing one — one that the former Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) brought in last year — the promotion of B.C. quality products. We are making every effort to co-ordinate this programme with the industry. I have met with the commodity groups over the past months and I will be meeting with the retailers to try and get a co-ordinated effort between the producer, the wholesaler and the retailer to promote B.C. quality products.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, you have three minutes left in your time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't think I was talking that long, Mr. Speaker. I'll try and speed it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time passes quickly when you're having a good time. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr; Speaker, the throne speech suggested cautious optimism and the budget stated: let us pause and let our trading partners catch up — the reason being that we are part of a global family; we rely on imports and we rely on exports. I think the first indication to this province, and probably to this country, that things are changing is a quote I will give you from The Vancouver Sun January 12, regarding the United States: "The good news was offset by another sharp jump in wholesale prices in the United States, particularly in food. Coffee," — which of course we can't compete in — "pork and poultry costs were the chief ingredients in the biggest rise in farm and food prices."

If we pause now it gives us a chance to get into that competitive position if we allow those others to catch up to us. But it's not just in food, Mr. Speaker, it's in all our commodities.

MR. LEA: Did you read that in the Sun?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's in all our commodities, Mr. Member, whether it be clothing, whether it be food, whether it be furniture or whether it be appliances. We've got to pause and let the competition catch up. Once our products become more competitive in price, we can obtain new markets, we can create new jobs and our provincial revenues will be increased, and through that our social programmes will be improved.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to echo quickly the

[ Page 402 ]

comments of the Minister of Finance in his budget speech regarding the year 1977 and the fact that it is a year for union negotiations. If we are to be competitive in the world marketplace, if we are to complete with the foreign imports, this year we cannot afford work stoppages, and we cannot afford excessive increases in the cost of production of our products.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to paraphrase the late John F. Kennedy. It probably is a phrase that has been used many times, but I've changed it a bit: ask not what your government can do for you, but ask what you can do for the future of your province.

Mr. Speaker, it's a 5.9 per cent increase in the budget. It deals with controlled spending, but it deals with people, people in the fact that health, human resources and education make up 65 per cent of our total budget.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the red light is on. I had a number of other comments, but I would just like to say in closing that it is a balanced budget, and it is a balanced budget at a time when the people of this country and of this province are saying to all governments: "Control your spending." At all government levels — federal, provincial and municipal — we must set an example to control our spending. I think this government is setting the example through good fiscal management as the trustees of the public funds. I would say once again, in closing, that this budget will set in place a sound foundation on which to build a better province, and I'm pleased to support it.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to be in the House representing the people of New Westminster, and talking to the people of the province about this budget.

I would like to ask on behalf of the opposition if you would take a message from us to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . We understand that he's not well. We wish him a speedy recovery. Tell him that we'll all be here when he gets back.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, who is rather a new boy here, pointed out that he wondered if he was ever going to speak this afternoon because of points of order. I wish he'd been here during the period of 1972 to 1975. There was never a greater bunch of point-of-orderers to enter this chamber than stood here, over on this side, during that period.

MR. LEA: The longest speech he ever made was on a point of order,

MR. COCKE: That's right. The only time he ever made sense was one time when he said: "I had to leave on a point of order."

Mr. Speaker, that minister defined socialism as he understood it and as he saw it written down in some book.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dictionary.

MR. COCKE: I'm sure that some of your relations wrote that dictionary.

But, Mr. Speaker, a democratic socialist or a social democrat is one thing.... It's understood by those who are ones, not by those who write...wherever he gets his description. A democratic socialist believes in the greatest good for the greatest number — nothing else, nothing more and nothing less!

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture was vague during his dissertation, but he was no more vague than the budget. The only thing that he really seemed to get excited about was feedlots. I remember that minister when he was a member supporting a feedlot right in the middle of a little town in the Okanagan. Ten thousand cows were doing all they could do to drown that little town in effluent. I hope that when he starts making decisions in his department, which I'm sure will be some day, he makes decisions that are better thought out than that decision.

Mr. Speaker, it's becoming obvious that this coalition government has returned to the old Social Credit government's belief that insurance policies should be used to skin the public, not protect it. There are two glaring visible signs that the bad old days are here again. The bad old days are here again for the car owners of British Columbia. Everyone knows that they have been stung badly by ICBC by those rate increases, Mr. Speaker. But what are those huge boosts for? Well, they were for protection against the cost of accident repairs — that's what we're told. Were they? Or were they just intended to fill a Crown corporation's coffers full and overflowing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Here today, gone to Maui!

MR. COCKE: Have you looked around the streets lately? Have you noticed the steadily increasing number of bashed-up vehicles on the roads during the past year? Look around the local parking lots; look around the precinct. You don't have to go very far, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), to see some of the havoc that you've wrecked on this province. Are those cars, some of them probably dangerous, not being fixed because the vehicle repair shops are swamped with work? No. It's not so, Mr. Speaker, because the car repair industry is in the worst slump in its history. In this province 200 or 300 repairmen have been reported laid off during 1976.

MR. KING: "Let them sell their cars."

[ Page 403 ]

MR. COCKE: Let them sell their cars. Well, why in the world are our citizens paying double and trebled rates if they can't get their cars fixed after an accident? It's happening in your constituency, too, Mr. Minister, as in mine.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, who is responsible for ICBC rates, wants our kids to go back to the old math. He sure is applying the old Socred arithmetic to ICBC customers.

MR. LEA: One plus one plus two....

MR. COCKE: A plus B. What he's saying, in effect, is: "I'll collect $400 from Mr. A and Mr. B. If Mr. A doesn't have an accident, I'll be able to keep his $400. When Mr. B has an accident, I'll tell him he hasn't got a claim, so I'll keep his $400 too, except that I'll take 17.5 per cent of it and give it back to Mr. A as a rebate for not having an accident." It sort of reminds you of the good old A-plus-B theorem.

MR. KING: Major Douglas!

MR. COCKE: That's right — Major Douglas, complete with a social dividend, Mr. Speaker. Where is Aberhart, now that we need him? What about old Ernie LeCours? Ernie LeCours would be proud of that Liberal-turned-Socred coalition member.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I thought you were going to call me a PQ. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I never thought the Minister of Education believed in that funny-money stuff, because he used to laugh at it so much when he was a Liberal.

MR. LEA: You're a perfect case of you become what you hate.

MR. COCKE: It's a whale of a story though, isn't it, Mr. Member?

MR. LEA: You become what you hate if you hate hard enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are what you hate.

MR. COCKE: I guess I should have realized that his perceptions of reality had changed when he tried to convince us last year that a reported drop of 20,000 cars from the total of insured vehicles actually meant more people were covered than ever before; at the gasoline pumps, sales were higher. Well, Mr. Speaker, through you to that minister, I guess that he's been using his government credit card. He didn't notice that gas prices have increased quite a bit in recent times, as if it wasn't bad enough when he tried to persuade everyone that he could give rebates because everyone was driving more safely, despite his own government's report that accidents are up.

MR. BARRETT: Selective reading.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: That's not core studies.

MR. COCKE: We predicted a year ago that the exorbitant premium increases would give ICBC an enormous profit, He denied it, and he said he doubted it very much if there'd be rebates even. The minister knew he'd be swimming in money after gouging the car owners in the way he did. I believe that he was sincere when he said he didn't expect to give any back. That's when he was sincere. This government never intended to give any of its overcharge back. It was forced to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Last November when ICBC announced the rebates it acknowledged that the decision was made after intensive discussion with the provincial anti-inflation officials who have the job of applying the national guidelines.

MR. LEA: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, that's especially interesting because ICBC was specifically exempted from those AIB guidelines. But it had run up such a huge surplus on one year that even its own officials had to warn it that the premium hoist was just too brazen a caper, in view of the federal AIB insistence on some limit being placed on private insurance company profits. That's why ICBC revealed its estimated distributable surplus of $52 million — after those intensive discussions about the guidelines. But when you consider the corporation's arithmetic, under the Minister of Education's supervision, you have to be very suspicious, because all his predictions in public on accident numbers, on claims, on deficits, have been so far from reality that one wonders if the real surplus isn't two or three times as high as the sum that he's deemed distributable.

Well, Mr. Speaker, nobody'd be surprised if the minister is hiding things. He has a record of doing that. For instance, he's hiding the real reason for staggering the Autoplan renewals — the policies — in 1978. That move will smooth out some workflows, of course, but not by much. It'll not reduce the amount of work involved, but it'll increase the proportion of year-round full-time employees needed, particularly in the marketing end for both independent agents and the corporation. The relatively minor benefits of that move to the operation are nowhere as important in this government's mind as the hidden fact that

[ Page 404 ]

returning auto insurance premium renewals to a staggered basis is absolutely essential if the private industry is to be brought back in to cream off the market. Twenty million a year....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has woken up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: He just got back from Calgary.

MR. COCKE: You made the same speech last year. Mr. Speaker, I listened to his job speech for so long that I even know how to pronounce it — "Chops!"

Mr. Speaker, it's no accident that the Royal Insurance Co., one of the biggest multinational branches operating in this country, announced it was re-entering the province in auto insurance business, shortly after the ICBC decision was made to stagger the renewals from now on. It's the thin edge of the wedge, Mr. Speaker. The Royal is only coming in on a limited basis this year, just to get a toehold and set up for the bonanza in 1978. I predicted that there'll be lots of other private firms racing back into B.C. In 1978 to get in on the gravy.

You know, that wouldn't have happened if the annual licence insurance renewal method had continued, because private industry is geared to the staggered system — always has been — and wouldn't change easily, even after the Minister of Education brought in the rates that made the private firms lick their lips hungrily. It's difficult for them to change their system. But now that he's given them everything on a silver platter, those millions are certainly becoming very attractive. Those were two steps that were absolutely essential to make it feasible for the private industry to come back into this province to fleece the citizens again. The ICBC rates had to be boosted to such high levels that matching competition could make a substantial profit, and the technical requirement of staggered policies had to be introduced so that private companies could function.

MR. LEA: Shame!

MR. COCKE: You know, those are the hidden reasons for the minister's amazing difficulty in simple arithmetic when trying to publicly rationalize his actions. Think of it: a university egghead, Mr. Speaker, so woefully and obviously unable to add or subtract that even the press couldn't swallow his answer.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's pose is as phony as his figuring. The hidden reasons for all of his actions lie buried in a series of closed meetings he held with representatives of various multinational insurance companies last year. The minister still has not made public the content of those discussions, but private industry has. The men have talked. The men you talked to have talked, and where did they do their talking? They did their talking in Toronto, not in New Westminster, or even in Burnaby-Edmonds, that constituency that you have never heard of.

Mr. Speaker, that minister still has not made public the content of those discussions. However, the Financial Post has. They inter-viewed some of them, and here are a few published comments. Let's hear what they say.

"Insurers are looking hungrily at the $400 million-plus in automobile premiums available in B.C. Before they go back some have made it clear that they want more than the crumbs in that business. Alan Horsford, president of the Royal Insurance group, is emphatic that his company wants the business, but the terms will be tough. 'We would want to compete across the board, and if we couldn't because a certain element of the business was reserved for the ICBC, we would want a large slice of the business available.' "

The article also quotes Gerald Fournier, president of Allstate Insurance, as saying that his company is taking out a company licence, but it wants firm guarantees from the government. The article goes on: "So it remains to be seen whether private insurers will be back in B.C. In '77. Some are saying they will need good rate increases to be able to build up capacity to handle the large B.C. business. But it looks as if both sides are serious." That's what it says in Toronto.

MR. BARRETT: There it is — the old sellout.

MR. COCKE: Yes, they certainly are serious, Mr. Speaker. They are serious, and that's why private industry helped finance that coalition election campaign, and that's why the minister has relicensed every private company that has applied to do auto business here.

MR. KING: Thanks for the memories.

MR. COCKE: Every one of them. That's why he deliberately overcharged Autoplan customers, using, as an excuse, the phony argument about startup deficits that should be amortized for several years.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. One of your honest members over there, the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree), said that they had to put the premium up

[ Page 405 ]

high enough so the private industry would be attracted back. That's why they are staggering the renewal dates, too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Political chaos!

MR. COCKE: That's why we are all staggering under the load they put on us — all but the millionaires, Mr. Speaker!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That's why that member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) is going around making his great announcements. That's why he scrapped plans for building a permanent ICBC headquarters in New Westminster — he wants to undermine it. I'm talking about undermining ICBC in order to get more re-election campaign slush funds. Mr. Speaker, that's why the citizens of this province will lose this valuable, home-grown public corporation if this coalition is re-elected.

To get to another subject: we are here to debate a budget which has been described by the Minister of Finance and other government spokesmen as providing a growth in expenditures of 5.9 per cent. We heard the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) say that. Everybody in this room witnessed it today. But you know, Mr. Speaker, that's false advertising. It's false advertising on a scale far more damaging than any conducted by, for example, a hardware store — far more damaging. We have to contrast March 31, 1976, dollars with those of March 31, 1977. Of course, the data isn't in yet, but the best approximation I can get from Statistics Canada....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You wouldn't understand, Mr. Member, so why don't you just keep quiet?

The best approximation I can get from Statistics Canada is that from March to March the dollar will have deflated 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent — somewhere in there — so let's use the 7.75 per cent as a deflator figure. By my arithmetic we have budgeted expenditures of $3.53 billion in March, 1976, dollars, down from last year's $3.615 billion. You know, that's the fact of life.

Mr. Speaker, a very considerable portion of the budget is spent on services to a growing population. The vital statistics branch of the Department of Health estimates that the current growth is at 2 per cent, or about 46,000 more people per year. A 2 per cent increase is the estimate. Whereas in the government's last budget they were spending about $1,570 per capita — that's March, 1976, dollars per capita — this year they are proposing to spend about $1,500 1976 dollars per capita. What a boon! What a blessing! That is a decline in real dollars, and it is a greater decline in real dollars per capita.

Furthermore, for any of the programmes for seniors the figures will be worse. Let me tell you why. That section of the population is growing at about twice the rate of the general population. In the health field particularly, these figures are especially ominous, Mr. Speaker, even if general morbidity remains equal, for the older segment of the population requires more intensive and expensive treatment, and more frequently. So to compound the problem health services, the cost of constructing health facilities and equipment and materials associated with sophisticated treatment are all increasing in cost at a rate considerably greater than the overall rate.

Now the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has abandoned his responsibilities to build a monument to himself out at UBC, will be well aware of that.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I think it runs in the family. Remember Uncle Gerry? He first read the Riot Act, and then he built a monument to himself. Remember the house that Gerry built — that great city hall in Vancouver? Now we've got a Minister of Education who read the Riot Act to everybody who drives a car in this province, and now he's building a monument to himself out at UBC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: Gerry-built, Mr. Speaker — they're all Gerry-built.

This is an ominous budget....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Yvonne tell you that?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Yvonne told me that. (Laughter.)

This is an ominous budget, Mr. Speaker, for all British Columbians, save coupon-clippers, large estate-holders and large estate-inheritors. It is especially ominous for the elderly in this province.

The Minister of Finance calls for restraint. He has the audacity to call for restraint. He calls for restraint on the part of the wage-earners; indeed, he calls on them to accept settlements. We just heard the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) a minute ago accept settlements below the national guidelines which are set at the inflation rate. So he's proposing that while some millionaires receive bonanzas of $400,000 or $500,000 or more, the working people in the province are expected to endure not only a decline in publicly financed services, but also a decline in the purchasing power of their incomes.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

[ Page 406 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's beyond endurance to hear this millionaire car dealer lecturing to the people on the need for restraint.

MR. BARRETT: After they've bought a car.

MR. COCKE: They — and I'm talking about the people — practise restraint as a matter of survival! That they are alive today is an illustration that they know a lot more about it than you do, Mr. Speaker. I even read the speech that member made in this House a few days ago before he made it.

MR. BARRETT: What are you, a masochist?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what more precisely is his advice to those people? Should they fly to Hawaii less often? Would that be the advice we give them? Or should they stop attending $100-a-plate political dinners? Should we advise them like that? You know, I'll advise them. I'll say: you guys out there stop lighting your cigarettes with $5 bills! That's what we'll tell the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that.

Mr. Speaker, listen to this: the national welfare council produces from time to time model budgets for families in various income groups. None are recent enough to include the massive effects of this government's fiscal activities, so may I propose to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that they get together and update those budgets, then give us specific advice about restraint.

The budget confesses that the economy needs stimulus. Yesterday's Province article, page 18 — some of you saw it — they ran a story and I think they made it clear. Incidentally, I won't give The Province too much credit; it appeared in The Province, but it was actually a Financial Times article which they reprinted. It was: "Faced with conflicting economic statistics and forecasts, executives and managers polled for Financial Times have taken a big sigh of discontentment. At 61, the latest index of business confidence is the lowest in two years." I could go on quoting from that, but I think we all know the situation we are in.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was pleased to ramble along with the depressing effects of the AIB programme a couple of days ago. Incidentally, during that turgid address the Minister of Labour took some comfort from the fact that there was a higher unemployment rate during the summer of 1975 — you know, during the summer of 1975 when there was a massive industrial-relations dispute. And in the summer of 1976 there was not. His own people in his own department know better than to take any comfort from that. So if he can be spared from his diligent search for a Workers' Compensation Board chairman, maybe he should spend some more time with the people in his own department and get a little education.

If anything more about the depressed state of our economy — about its need for stimulus, and about the total absence of it in the budget — was said by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), it was by the Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour sounded more like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — remember that wise sage from Omineca? What did he say, Mr. Speaker? He said and I'll just read part of this article very quickly:

"At least one Social Credit backbencher isn't sure where the provincial government is trying to lead B, C. during the next three years.

"Cyril Shelford, Socred for Skeena, shied away from expressing that concern about his leaders in the Legislature Tuesday, but said outside the House that he was worried about the lack of cabinet strategy: 'Contrary to many reports on the economy of the northwest, it's got progressively worse.'"

Mr. Speaker, he knows what he's talking about. When the present decline began in late 1974 and 1975, we drew down on $140 million of reserves. That was one decision which created the fanatical, right-wing hysteria of this government and was used as part of an excuse to drown the province in taxes.

I'm not going to prolong the debate about the accounting process or about whether moneys received. during a fiscal year can be spent during that year without creating a deficit. That matter can be explored in a public debate between the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . What concerns me now, Mr. Speaker, is that it makes simple common sense to do that in times of economic stress, and no sense at all — except crass political sense — for any government to add to the decline, as this government is doing with this budget.

Mr. Speaker, the decline was caused, as everyone but the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows, by the decline in demand and prices for our natural resources. It will continue until the effects of President Carter's expansionary measures, and like influences, overcome this government's determination to strangle our economy. The decline will meanwhile have been made far, far worse than it need be by our own government's position that they want to make some gain out of it.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing written in stone about March to March balances. This is an accountant's convenience, with all deference to the member for Nanaimo. But it is; it's an accountant's convenience — nothing more. It represents nothing of economic significance. It might as well be four months or 16 1/2 months. There is an economically significant unit of time, Mr. Speaker, and it's called

[ Page 407 ]

the business or economic cycle.

For decades, Mr. Speaker, governments across the western world have recognized that their responsibility to provide economic prosperity, to even out roller coaster dips and raises in the economy, required them to spend more during downturns and less during upturns — fairly rational. It does not take an economist to understand that, Mr. Speaker. Governments should make use of idle resources during recessions, thereby alleviating unemployment and stimulating the economy. It's just as simple as that. Even the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) could understand that, if he would listen.

Governments should not compete heavily for labour, capital, and material during upswings. They should, during these periods, reduce the inflationary effect of competing for scarce resources. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) knows that, Mr. Speaker, and yet this government is proceeding down the opposite path. It's strangulating the economy when it should be stimulating, and it's precisely at the time when it should be dampening an overheated economy that it will go on a spending spree. You just wait and see.

MR. BARRETT: I believe you.

MR. COCKE: It's a course of action deliberately calculated to sacrifice our economic well-being for this government's own political gain, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was wrong. There is a plan; there is a strategy; and it's to proceed with a fiscal policy that is the precise opposite of every sound and tested principle of public finance, Mr. Speaker, and to do so for their own political ends — for the political ends of the coalition government.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. COCKE: It is a shame. Mr. Speaker, if you ask the average person in this province where we're going, you'll get the automatic response: "We're in trouble." Mr. Speaker, any of those backbenchers that deny that aren't listening, aren't going home to their constituencies. The member for Dewdney flies his plane too high. He's not hearing what people are saying. After listening to the budget speech and the excuses made for the budget since by the ministers and the backbenchers, we all know why we're in trouble, Mr. Speaker.

If one were forgiving one might say: "Forgive them, O Lord, for they know not what they do." Forgive them we might, but continue to accept their ignorance we can't. Mr. Speaker, there is suffering, and it's being ignored; there is poverty, and it's being ignored; there is unemployment and it's being ignored.

Mr. Speaker, that new coalition lived on excuses for a while. Do you remember what those excuses were? "The bad old NDP" — that's what those excuses were. Excuses, excuses! But what have they got now? They can no longer use that. No longer can these pathetic bleatings by the faithful 34 over there be accepted as anything more than just pathetic, empty rhetoric.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, the new chairman of their caucus (Mr. Kahl) sits there — that great leader among children, that school teacher — making empty remarks on a very serious subject. I listened to his speeches in this House, and I just can't believe that the children of this province are in the hands of that kind of leadership.

Mr. Speaker, just to show the convoluted coverup for what it is, let's look at one example. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) could understand this one. Think in terms of the student opportunity in B.C.

First, we heard a mighty hosanna from across there when $15 million was allocated for a work study programme. Do you remember that? It was a few days ago. That's what it's called in-House; that's the $15 million student programme. They're calling it a "work study," despite the fact that in the face of the problem, the figure is miserably low. Compare that to the NDP: $20 million in '73; $30 million in '74; and $20 million in '75, in times that weren't so difficult. Yet their mighty hosannas over this $15 million....

Mr. Speaker, last year they spent about $8 million; now this year it's $15 million. But let's look at it closely. Let's look at the estimates on Education. It would do some of you some good to read those estimates. You see an increase of about $0.5 million in the student-aid programme, right? Okay. That brings it up to about $11 million, down from oui $12.5 million when we were government. I charge, however, that that allocation is window dressing. It's not being spent. The criteria are so tough that the kids are not taking advantage of that programme so the money sits gathering dust in the treasury.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No. Wait a minute! It's gathering dust waiting for a political ploy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR, COCKE: Oh, yes. The ploy is to spend it on a work programme and get the credit twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no!

[ Page 408 ]

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes.

There are more publicity stunts from that group, Mr. Speaker. They have more stunts in there than Barnum and Bailey ever had. It's no wonder you hire every editor and PR man that you can get your hands on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Oh, oh! Yes, we say "oh!" every time we pick up the orders-in-council: another editor from some paper is being hired as an executive assistant.

Mr. Speaker, there's a vacuum in government and it's slowly being filled by hot air. I can see one of the best examples of that sitting right across from me. The government of B.C. has a game plan: do nothing but look after its millionaire friends. That's their game plan. The byword is: govern by press release; govern by appearance.

Let's not forget the magnanimous statement by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) regarding the basic mill rate for school purposes. Do you remember that? "Open up the purses," he intimated. "Instructional units are going to increase 16.4 per cent, the mill rate's up five mills. We're going to do some educating in this province." But now that the budget is down, the estimate is that the province will be paying 42 per cent, so they will dump 58 per cent of the cost on the school districts, on the local taxpayers. This government was going to do so much to take the costs off the shoulders of the local taxpayers in the municipalities. How can you hold your heads up when you go home? How can you go to Kamloops, Mr. Minister?

MR. BARRETT: Take it off their shoulders and put it on their backs.

MR. COCKE: Oh, your direction is clear: pick up whatever kudos you can; call the shot at all times — centralization is the objective of that government, Mr. Speaker — but dump financial responsibility wherever you can. Your record is deplorable, absolutely deplorable. I'll ask you: when will you repent, you sinners? When will you repent over there?

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

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I watch the lights very carefully.

Now that ICBC is dripping in the car drivers' money, you have again shown your true colours. You are misleading "your people," as they are described by the monarch of Omineca. Do you remember yesterday? "Our people, my people."

Look at page 19 of the budget.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'm quoting the budget now. Listen carefully, because you all heard the promise last year: "Responsibility for the automobile insurance refund programme has been transferred to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia."

MR. BARRETT: They use the next speaker to make it disappear.

MR. COCKE: That's right. A promise to take it out of general revenue — another promise broken. ICBC's just dripping in money — another way to cover up.

Mr. Speaker, even the backbenchers toy with truth. Recall the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen), who has done so much for his own constituency, making all those glorious announcements about what they're going to do with ICBC property in its future development. He has got a free-enterprise government building hotels and, oh, everything else. It's the strangest thing I have ever heard in my life. However, when I asked the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), about it, what did that minister say?

MR. LAUK: He left the House.

MR. COCKE: Gobbledegook is all he said. He wouldn't make an announcement out of it, Mr. Speaker. They have no credibility. Their credibility is terrible with us, and it's going to become a greater and greater problem with the public because, you know, you can fool less and less people as you go along because more and more catch on to you. No, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to support this budget — this excuse for a budget, Mr. Speaker. The contradiction that we are watching is that a group of self-righteous people in this House can. That's the contradiction: the self-righteous group over there can support this budget. We can't.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Kootenay.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Stand up, George!

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to tell the members in the House that where I come from they don't measure a man from the ground up, they measure him from the shoulders up. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: You had that so spontaneously rehearsed! (Laughter.)

[ Page 409 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you a friend of Tommy Hunter's?

MR. HADDAD: Oh, I think Tommy is a great guy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that things are certainly very quiet around here — I haven't seen any books being thrown around. However, I appreciate the privilege of attending my second legislative session and I must say the experience is less frightening than the first session. There just don't seem to be the squabbles going around. It appears that everybody is quite friendly.

I would like to thank, once again, the constituents of the riding of Kootenay for placing their confidence and trust in me as their elected member to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're going to regret that mistake, George.

MR. HADDAD: They never made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to congratulate the Premier on the manner in which he and his cabinet have brought us through the past critical months. I would also like to congratulate our three new ministers whose appointments will be a great asset to the cabinet: the Hon. Sam Bawlf, Minister of Recreation and Conservation, who will assuredly use his expertise to the benefit of all British Columbians; the member for Boundary-Similkameen, the Hon. James Hewitt, our new Minister of Agriculture, who, I am sure, will take good care of the B.C. fruit growers, cattle ranchers and produce farmers, and will once more make agriculture a productive industry that we can all take pride in; and, last but not least, my good friend from Columbia River, the Hon. James Chabot, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I trust that everyone who heard the travelogue in my maiden speech now knows that the largest mining activity in the province of British Columbia is centred in my constituency — the largest lead and zinc mine in the world at Cominco in Kimberley, and the coal mines at Sparwood and Elkford. The new minister will have his work cut out inducing capital investment to open up new mines throughout the province.

MR. LAUK: Quebec has a better chance.

MR. HADDAD: I know that he will do a good job. The people of my area were as delighted with his appointment as I am. To each of you, I wish much success in your areas of endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the budget I would like to commend the Premier for his efforts and excellent progress that he and the cabinet have made in the first year of the new Social Credit government. I would like to commend the Premier and the cabinet ministers on their decision to hold cabinet meetings throughout the province.

MR. LAUK: In camera.

MR. HADDAD: It is most gratifying that they met in my constituency of Kootenay.

MR. LAUK: How did you hear about it?

MR. HADDAD: The citizens of Cranbrook were very proud to have the cabinet in their city and pleased to have the opportunity to meet with the various members of the executive council. Many briefs were presented and the opportunity to discuss problems was extended, and gratefully accepted, by the citizens. The ministers were considerate of everyone who approached them.

It was also gratifying to me that several of the ministers visited neighbouring cities, attending luncheons and meetings with people. The hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), along with senior officials of his ministry, accompanied me on a tour of the majority of my riding. We established priorities regarding bridges, highway construction and upgrading. We in the Kootenays appreciated the personal attention we received, and still are receiving, from this minister and the cabinet as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the good reverend, Captain Garnet Cassell of the Salvation Army, in giving his blessings on January 24, 1977, stated that this assembly would need the wisdom of Solomon. I say to you that members of this assembly will not only require the wisdom of Solomon, but will need to develop the hide of a rhinoceros, as it appears we have another tough year ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker, I now turn my attention to the hon. Minister of Finance. I would like to state here and now, Mr. Minister, that you are to be highly commended for the job you have done in your first year. I was pleased to learn that your budget balanced in your first year as minister. That also proves that a car dealer has what it takes.

Our Minister of Finance has made an excellent start in his second budget, the one covering 1977-78, by removing the succession duties and the Gift Tax Act. Investors will be coming into the province of British Columbia and reversing the trend of investors leaving. I am sure that he will see many new commercial and industrial developments opening up in the very near future. Mining and exploration companies will return. New investment capital will again help to create new jobs for our people.

I have received many letters from my constituents with regard to the tax on propane gas. I am sure that those users who rely upon propane gas will be delighted with the reduction of the tax from 7 per cent to 0.5 per cent. This will mean a saving of

[ Page 410 ]

approximately $34 a year through this tax reduction. The total allocation of $180 million for highway construction will certainly create many jobs. I am sure that the Minister of Highways will be spending much of this in my riding of Kootenay on bridges and highway construction.

I am sure that the allocation of $15 million for the youth seasonal employment programme will assist more students than before in all areas of British Columbia. I know the students in my area will be pleased with this announcement, as there was just not enough work for them last year.

The change in the Corporation Capital Tax Act to allow mining companies more flexibility in writing off exploration expenses will be a great boon in my area. This will create more investments and more jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the reduction in sales tax on mobile homes used for residential purposes is a move in the right direction. An estimated saving of $500 per home will be much appreciated by those who are buying mobile homes.

Our senior citizens will benefit with an increase in the homeowner grant. They will now receive $430, an increase of $50. This is positive action by a government that cares.

I was happy to note that community recreational facility development has been given an additional $8 million for the forthcoming fiscal year.

The Economic Development budget is up by 18.5 per cent to allow an expansion of export development activities, which will lead to increased job potential for the people of our province.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a tight world economic squeeze where restraint must be the watchword. It is my firm belief that this is the right budget at the right time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. HADDAD: The coming year will be difficult, make no mistake about that. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to this House that this budget is the foundation on which we will build a better province for all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, much has already been said about the removal of succession duties and gift tax, the main thought being: robbing the poor to pay the millionaire. Let me tell you that this is hogwash. The removal of these taxes should have been done years ago. In my opinion, the investment dollars that have left this province, on account of government's greed for taxes from investors, should have remained in British Columbia. Had this happened, I am sure that our unemployment figures would be at an acceptable level, even with the increase of population.

Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts in regard to B.C. Hydro. The continual high increases of electrical rates are hard to accept when you consider that the power is developed by water generation. Qualified people in my constituency are well aware of the waste in productivity in the work forces of B.C. Hydro and are continually informing me of this. My constituents want B.C. Hydro more accountable to the people of British Columbia. I would like to suggest to our government that more public information be given to the people of British Columbia before huge amounts of money are committed and large borrowings are made. And then the rates are raised to cover the loan. This neglect has been made by all past governments.

I am also informed that B.C. Hydro is continuing with feasibility studies of the diversion of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River. The people of the Kootenays are very much opposed to this for many reasons.

Briefly, this will cause unacceptable ecological and social disruption. It will also cause higher water levels on the Columbia River between Canal Flats and Golden and lower levels downstream on the Kootenay River. Depending on the volume of water diverted, diversion could be expected to flood wetlands between Columbia Lake and Golden that are used by waterfowl as nesting grounds, the village of Athelmere, some summer cottages, sawmills, and portions of the CPR tracks beside the Columbia River. These might have to be relocated to escape flooding. Water pollution problems in the Kootenay River, downstream from Canal Flats to below the United States border, could be aggravated by the reduced flow, since the Skookumchuck pulp mill and Cominco mining operations at Kimberley both discharge waste to this river.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a tight world economic squeeze where restraint must be the watchword. It is my firm belief that this is the right budget at the right time. The coming year will be difficult, make no mistake about that. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to this House that this budget is the foundation on which we will build a better province for all of our people.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I'm shocked at such a short speech from the hon. member from Kootenay, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long is yours?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, about 15 minutes.

I'm pleased to take my place again in this budget speech. I spoke briefly in the throne speech debate, but I neglected to congratulate the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) on his election to post of Deputy Speaker. He did such a fine job last year, Mr. Speaker, and I know he'll do a good job this year, so I congratulate him.

[ Page 411 ]

Other speakers have congratulated the government for budgetary measures that we are now debating, and they said they are proud of the budget speech. Well, I can't see much to be proud of, Mr. Speaker: penalizing of the poor, our handicapped, our senior citizens and just about all of the working people in this province. There's not too much to be proud of, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

I think I'll take a bit of the time of this House to discuss a few constituency items, like highways, and I'm pleased to see the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in his seat today, this afternoon, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, when we were the government we had started a programme of reconstruction of Highway 101 up the Sunshine Coast leading to Powell River. In any event, for some unknown reason that highway project came to a sudden halt last year, the year of 1976. My constituents would like to know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, when that project is going to start again. I know that there are no contracts being called or let. I know that your budget is being increased significantly this year. So I'm asking you now, on behalf of my constituents, to upgrade and to continue the reconstruction of 101 up through theSunshine Coast to Powell River.

I would like you as well, Mr. Minister, to consider the upgrading of some of the major sideroads that have been neglected in the last year.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, we did a good job in three years. We got a lot of work done in my riding, Mr. Minister. For the first time in 26 years we got some work done in my riding — a reasonable amount in the three years that the NDP were in office.

In any event, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister that your department look at some of the major sideroads in my riding.

I understand that all of the hospitals in my riding are feeling the pinch because of government cutbacks, Mr. Speaker. The health of our people in this province is of prime importance. If the health of our people is going to suffer because hospitals do have to cut back because of this government's fiscal policies — I don't think there's anything that can be said about that except that it's shameful.

There will probably be a 5 mill increase in school taxes again this year in all of my school districts. This will amount to a total of $56 million throughout the whole province. An increase in taxes that should be paid by the provincial government. Once again, the heavy burden of taxation is being placed on the people and the individual taxpayers, instead of being applied where it should be, Mr. Speaker.

There's another matter, Mr. Speaker, that is of great concern to a number of people, and that is the availability of Crown land. We have literally thousands and thousands of acres of Crown land in my riding, Mr. Speaker. But the problem is that, first of all, people don't know where to apply. You know they can apply for a piece of land. But 90 per cent of the time when they apply for a piece of Crown land — after waiting up to two and a half years for their applications to be processed — they're finally rejected. Ninety per cent of the applications are rejected. So I'm suggesting that the Department of Lands move into the 20th century and computerize the system that they have over in that department. Now I'm not necessarily blaming the people in that department because I know that they do not have the staff or the facilities. But I am suggesting a computerized system where all departments or all agencies, such as municipalities, regional districts, Health, Highways, and any other ministry that has to rule on an application, will have that information at hand. People should not have to wait two and a half years — three years in some cases, but generally speaking two years — to find out whether their application has been accepted or rejected. The NDP government was moving in that direction, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that this present government seems to be going back to the bad old days under W.A.C. where there was really very little being done in this regard. Our government was moving.

Mr. Speaker, no discussion of the state of the economy — a discussion prompted by the presentation of the government's budget in this House — would be complete without consideration of the state of transportation, for indeed there is no economy without facilities for the movement of goods and people. Today I ask the House to consider the state of transportation in this province, to witness how it affects the whole economy, including the building and maintaining of strong, healthy communities. In particular I want to draw the attention of the members and the government to the relationship between transportation and the present serious economic troubles of British Columbia.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) described these troubles very well at the beginning of this debate in this House. No doubt every member of the House, on both sides, if allowed to speak from his own conscience and experience, could describe the troubles which beset this province today. Unemployment, bankruptcies, loan failures, rising costs and declining revenues are part of the real experience of all the people. Indeed, there is hardly a family in the entire province that is not touched in some way by these economic and therefore human troubles.

Previous speakers in this House have discussed the effect on the business community of Vancouver

[ Page 412 ]

Island as a result of fare increases — increases in some cases up to 200 and 300 per cent. The dollars lost to Vancouver Island, as a member pointed out earlier, were an estimated $65 million to $90 million — depending on from whom you are getting the figures. On theSun shine Coast it's $10 million to $20 million. Would you believe $10 million to $20 million in revenue — lost to businesses on theSunshine Coast, to those people in those communities?

A small-business operator, service station and restaurant operator here on Vancouver Island told me that during the peak month during the tourist season in 1975 he made slightly over $15,000, which was fairly good for him in that type of business. But in 1976 he lost money and he blames it on the direct increase in fares on the ferries.

On Vancouver Island the occupancy rate is down by an average of 10.5 per cent. This last summer it was down over 20 per cent — after fare increases. Four years ago the occupancy rate was 80 per cent for December; this year it was 60 per cent for the month of December. Hotel beverage revenue is up only 2.5 per cent; food is up 3.1 per cent for the year. The problem is that their costs have risen well over the IS per cent, for a net loss of 12.5 per cent in beverages, and 13.9 per cent in food.

I think in this House we are all aware of the effects of the ferry fare increases, Mr. Speaker, so I won't dwell on that. What I am now requesting of this government and the minister — and I'm glad to see he's in the House — is for an immediate 30 per cent reduction in ferry fares. I think if we went that route, we would stimulate the economy in areas, primarily Vancouver Island and theSun shine Coast. An immediate 30 per cent decrease in fares — I would very much appreciate it if you would consider that proposal, Mr. Minister.

I wish to take a minute, while the minister is in the House, to discuss another problem. It's not an overall, big problem for the whole province, but it is a problem that affects my riding, and it's to do with rescheduling on route 3, Horseshoe Bay to Langdale.

The people living in that area, Mr. Speaker — right up to Powell River — are not too happy. While we are pleased that the Queen of New Westminster has replaced an older vessel, the fact of the matter is, because the bigger vessel was put on — and the minister tells us that it is capable of handling the anticipated traffic in the area — the schedule was changed, and changed quite significantly.

The minister said on January 17 that people are happy with the service. The ferries are better, is what he says. I am reading from the Victoria Times. But let me see what the people say. Here is an article, dated December 15, which appeared in one of the local newspapers — five weeklies in that area. I'm quoting from the Peninsula Times, Mr. Speaker:

"Local opposition is growing to the new B.C. Ferries schedules for Howe Sound. Under changes, effective December 13, several sailings have been completely eliminated, and the departure times changed for others.

"Two larger vessels are now serving the Sunshine Coast, and the ferry corporation maintains that these are adequate to maintain passenger demands."

I must agree at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the two vessels to date have met passenger demands; it's the scheduling we're talking about now. Here is what's happening to people, and I want you to listen to this, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, if you would because I'd really like you to know what's happening to the people in that area at the moment.

What has upset most people is the elimination of the 7:40 a.m. commuter run from Langdale to Horseshoe Bay. Now people working in Vancouver will either have to catch the 6:45 a.m. sailing — which means they'll have to get up about 5 or 5:30 in the morning — or the 9 a.m. sailing, which will make them late for work. As the 6 p.m. return sailing has also been cancelled, most commuters will wait until 7:30 p.m. to get back home, which means that they don't get home until — at the earliest — 8:30, many at 9 if they live farther up the peninsula.

The Lower Gibsons Merchants Association has decided to send a letter of protest. At the last association meeting, Bill Edney, of Ken's Lucky Dollar store, told the other members that his produce trucks used to catch the 7:40 morning ferry and return at 2:40 in the afternoon. Now, he says, they will spend hours sitting in ferry lineups due to poor connections. His sentiments were supported by Robert Christopher, president of Peninsula Transport Ltd. Christopher said: "Reduction in service will mean later deliveries to our customers on the peninsula and add to the cost of transportation in that area." And he goes on to list the reasons why.

Sechelt Motor Transport Coach Lines runs the bus service between Powell River and Vancouver. Under the regulations of the Motor Transport Commission, they must give 30 days' notice to their customers before any change in schedule. "But," says Sechelt depot manager George Hopkins, "I was only informed on December 3 about the new ferry times." Not only that, but the bus line had 30,000 timetables printed after being told by the government last May of the proposed winter sailings. But what the Sechelt Motor Transport was told and what the ferries announced were different schedules. And this is a problem for them, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

People travelling by bus now from Powell River have an added wait of about one and a half hours at the Langdale terminal because of ferry connections across Jervis Inlet. I think you're familiar with the problem. In any event, I wish to draw this once again

[ Page 413 ]

to your attention and hope that you will take steps to improve scheduling on that particular route.

While we're discussing some of the problems on the ferries, Mr. Speaker, there's one other item that I'd like to raise, and that is the matter of the board of directors for the B.C. Ferries Corporation. At present, I think, there are six directors on the board, as you well know, Mr. Minister. You're a member. In fact I think you're chairman of that board, if I'm not mistaken. These people come from the lower mainland, West Vancouver and two from Vancouver Island. And that's fair enough. But there are vacancies on that board. My constituency happens to have, from Howe Sound to the Powell River area, between 45,000 and 50,000 people, a large tourist industry and quite a large business community. There must be one person who is capable of serving on that board of directors and putting forward the views of the people in my riding. You have received, Mr. Minister, correspondence from people in the area suggesting just what I have suggested: that somebody from our riding be placed on the board of directors. You have received correspondence from the business community, the chamber of commerce, the regional district and others. And I hope, once again, Mr. Minister, that you will seriously consider having someone. If you need a recommendation I've got a couple of names I can give you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at some specific cases of unemployment and some of the consequences of the current situation in regard to coast transportation problems. Let us look at a specific case in which unemployment and all the unhappy social consequences are only a symptom. Let us look at the case of 250 merchant seamen, citizens of British Columbia, people who have paid their taxes, built their homes, have honest ambitions for themselves and for their families — 250 seamen, Mr. Speaker, who are today out of work. They were employed until recently by Northland Navigation, a private company which operated on the coast for many years and was the successor to the old Union Steamship Company. Northland Navigation cancelled its service last year, laying off these 250 seamen and ending a service that extends back to the early history of our country, following a series of very sad events which I would like to review just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, here.

Northland has been able to maintain its service until 1976 because of subsidies paid to it by the federal government. As early as 1974, it was known that the federal government was anxious to get out of paying these subsidies, consistent not so much with a general policy of subsidization on coastal shipping, I believe, as on general discrimination against British Columbia. As has been noted widely, subsidies to east coast shipping are being maintained and are very hefty.

In August, 1976, the federal government announced finally and definitely that they were ceasing paying the subsidies to Northland as of October 31. Many of us recognized what this would mean to the many, many communities and people living in those areas — the central and northern coast of this province.

I wrote to our Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) on August 20, as soon as the federal government announced its withdrawal of the subsidy. I wrote to the federal minister, as well, on the same date, Mr. Speaker, and I received a reply. The minister did say that he had had several discussions with the Hon. Otto Lang on this subject, and that's really about it. He said that shipping is primarily a national responsibility.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, while I understand that shipping on this coast is primarily a federal responsibility, or that the federal government should have some responsibility in this matter, I firmly believe that a provincial government that was elected to represent the people of this province should represent those people property and perhaps provide alternative service. I know that negotiations are taking place, but negotiations in terms of federal subsidies have been taking place for many, many years — 30 that I'm aware of. Do these people on the coast have to wait another 30 years while negotiations are going on?

The Hon. Otto Lang replied as well. fie said that he would be pleased to enter into discussions with the provincial government. It goes on: "This is primarily a provincial responsibility, " when we just decided here that it wasn't necessarily.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, October 31 rolled around. Northland did terminate its service, and there was quite a hullabaloo. Some of the MPs representing the areas I'm describing — Mackenzie, Prince Rupert and North Island — were crying, "Sweetheart deals!" because of a private company's determination to try and provide service to the north and central coast. That company was Rivtow, by the way. One MP cried, "Sweetheart deals!"; another threatened to resign. I notice she hasn't, but she threatened to, in spite of the fact that the service is worse now than it was even two months ago.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, he's a cabinet minister — that's right.

What did the government do to create an interim service? Not much. Rivtow Straits, which said they could adequately perform the same service as did Northland, without subsidy, took over the routes formerly served by Northland.

In regard to the freight service provided by Rivtow Straits, this was an open tug-and-barge system. I don't wish this to be a reflection on the people in the

[ Page 414 ]

towboat industry. These are sincere, hard-working people. In fact, most of the goods that move up and down this coast are moved by tug-and-barge people. I know many of them well, and have had the opportunity to work with a heck of a lot of them. But the fact is that on that particular route, crossing Queen Charlotte Sound, there's no way a tug and barge could maintain a schedule. It's as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. So the result of that was that goods are arriving into these communities damaged, spoiled, rotten, unfit to eat and that type of thing. We're all familiar with that. There are many, many accounts in all of the papers about this.

Further, the Malibu Princess, a vessel that was designed for inland waters, was sent under subsidy to serve Masset and the Masset-Prince Rupert route, where the winds can blow up to 100 miles an hour. Everybody who knew the vessel and knew the waters agreed that that vessel was unsafe.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It was sent by the federal government but subsidized provincially for a time.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Lumba Lumba. Okay, I'll accept that from the minister, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't accept it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I think he may be right on that. I don 't have it in front of me.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, that terrible vessel.... It's not a bad vessel for inside waters, as a matter of fact — I've been on it — but out there it was definitely unsafe; people wouldn't use it. It was, in fact, a laughing stock. I understand it's been taken off that particular route now. It's still up there somewhere — nobody knows where exactly. It doesn't have a schedule. In any event, it's been taken off that particular route, and I'm sure nobody will miss it. But I suggest that that route will have to be taken over by an adequate vessel, hopefully in the near future.

The other vessel that was involved in all of this was the Lumba Lumba.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whata-whata?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Lumba Lumba, renamed the Bella Bella, and in Ocean Falls, referred to as the Bungle Bungle.

MR. COCKE: Lumba, lumba, bungle bungle — appropriate, however.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In any event, the so-called Lumba Lumba was supposed to provide a freighter service from Ocean Falls and Namu and Stewart, and other communities, down to theQueen of Prince Rupert at Bella Bella. Have you got that? Okay. Well, that didn't work out too well. People boycotted the service. It was of no use anyway. There was no schedule, no timetable, and people couldn't depend on the service. I understand now the vessel has been.... This service was subsidized partially by the provincial government. About $350,000 a year is what it would have cost had the vessel remained on that route, Mr. Speaker. I understand now that the minister has said he will not subsidize any of these routes any further until the federal government agrees to some sort of subsidy.

MR. COCKE: More bungle bungle.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I related this brief history of the Northland Navigation affair not only because it should be on the records of this House, which has responsibilities to the people of this coast, Mr. Speaker, but also because it is a case history of how government can fail people. Of course, the layoff of 250 crew members is not the only sad consequence of these events. The newspapers and radios have been filled with reports of hardship. There have been stories about the people of Ocean Falls not having turkey for their Christmas dinners because of the poor shipping service. There have been stories about people leaving Ocean Falls and other communities, and this is a real danger, Mr. Speaker. There are qualified people, skilled people, leaving Ocean Falls now because of transportation problems, and in spite of the horrendous unemployment rates in this province management people at Ocean Falls are having trouble filling those jobs that are being vacated at Ocean Falls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There have been many stories of inconvenience, and even danger to life, because of the withdrawal of the subsidy to Northland Navigation, and of the inadequacy of the makeshift replacement programme. These stories have not moved the authorities, either federal and provincial, who have created this situation. In their homes in North Vancouver and along the Rideau Canal there was turkey for Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to relate to the members of this House the type of situation that exists on the coast at this point in time. I receive dozens and dozens of letters, and many other members of this House have as well, but I would like to read one letter into the record, Mr. Speaker, which is typical. The gentleman, a Mr. Daylay, has done an excellent job of

[ Page 415 ]

outlining one trip to Ocean Falls on December 9:

"Dear Sir:

"This letter is in reference to my recent journey into the forgotten portion of our province which we refer to as the North Coast, specifically Ocean Falls.

"On December 9, 1976, at 6 a.m., my wife and I rousted our two children from their beds."

Oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, these people are starting out from Nanaimo on this trip.

"We stopped at Campbell River at about 10 a.m. to eat and do some shopping. We proceeded at 11 a.m. to Kelsey Bay, arriving there at 12:30 p.m. I was told upon inquiring about the departure time for Bella Bella that the ferry would leave at 4 p.m. On further information being supplied to the agent as to where Bella Bella was, he realized his mistake and told us that departure time was in fact 2 p.m.

"I was then informed that I must pack my baggage the length of the parking lot to a cart about 200 feet from the gate. Our luggage consisted of five suitcases and two boxes of Christmas presents. I was very glad I am not yet old enough to be susceptible to a heart attack.

"We boarded about 2:15 p.m., eight hours from Nanaimo. We required a stateroom as our children are only two years and five months old respectively. For nine hours we paid $20 for a room — the same price as Prince Rupert passengers who use the room for 22 hours. I must say at this point that the ferry personnel were very pleasant and as helpful as possible.

"Nearing Bella Bella at about 10:45, we were informed that we were to put on our life jackets and load into a lifeboat, which was to be lowered into the water."

MRS. DAILLY: Oh no!

MR.LOCKSTEAD:

"With a five-week old baby in my arms, I stumbled into this small boat amid a 40-mile-an-hour wind and rain. It was most difficult, uncomfortable, and dangerous. We were then dropped 20 feet and came to a sudden stop, hearts in our mouths and children screaming. Even the crew members were looking at each other. The one-inch knotted lifelines were uncoiling all around us and quite a few people were hit by the knots. We were then lowered to the water, at which time the bowline was released but the stern line was not. The lifeboat then swung around coming to a sudden halt below the bumper ring on the ferry. By this time, one of the lifelines had become tangled in the propeller shaft. After finally getting enough slack to release the stern line, they then cut the lifeline with an axe so we were finally free of the ferry, or so we thought.

"With the lifeline wrapped around the shaft, the boat had insufficient power to fight the wind. We bounced down the side of the ferry at which point the captain gave throttle to the ferry and we were forced away from the ship by the huge props. We then had to go across the wind to the backside of the wharf, thus disembarking on the dark and slippery wharf. Again the luggage — after packing it from the car deck to the top of the ship, then into the liferaft, up the wharf, up the catwalk and along the top wharf, we finally arrived at the hotel. Again we put out $26.50 for a room that we were to be in for about seven hours. We were, then told there would be nothing available to eat until 6 a.m., so it was back to bed and a very restless night.

"At about 8 a.m. the Lumba Lumba arrived" — imagine, almost on schedule — "I carted our luggage back down to the boat amid a 40- to 50-mile-an-hour wind and rain. The skipper stood by while I returned for my wife and children who had again been wakened at 6 a.m. After reassuring my wife that all was well, we headed back for the boat. As we approached the ramp my wife stopped, looked around, and said: 'I'm not going on that boat in this storm.' With that said we headed back to the hotel.

"We were informed that we had two choices: either stay for a week until the Lumba Lumba returned, or wait until the aircraft was available. All aircraft were grounded that day and were full the next day. We called relatives in Ocean Falls and they arranged to come and pick us up. We arrived in Ocean Falls at about 4 p.m. on Saturday, two and one half days after leaving Nanaimo. After being subjected to conditions that I, as a logger of 10 years, have never been subjected to in the woods, I am now very upset." — I bet he was upset.

"In conclusion to this lengthy letter I would certainly like to state that this mode of transportation, classified as a temporary situation, endangered the lives of my wife, my family and myself, and I insist that strong measures be taken to correct this unsuitable system.

(Signed)

"Mr. S. Daylay."

MR. COCKE: That's getting the province moving!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read

[ Page 416 ]

this into the record: if one could make proper connections on a trip to, for example, Ocean Falls, I'd say the minimum cost on a return trip would be $163, and it would be 68 hours.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker, I don't know of anybody who has made it in 68 hours return, going that route, or of anybody it has only cost the minimum amount, $163. It's usually much more for the return trip — usually somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 or more, plus many days of elapsed time.

MR. COCKE: They're prisoners up there!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right.

Before I leave this matter of the Northland subsidy, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is only fair I request on behalf of all residents of my riding, and indeed the whole coastal region, that the Minister of Transport and Communications table in the House all correspondence between the provincial and federal governments relating to the cancellation of the subsidy to Northland.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Acres report.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You don't have the Acres report — that's federal.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do you have the Acres report, Mr. Minister? I'd really appreciate looking at it, and so would thousands of other Canadians.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the tabling of all this correspondence because I would like to be content in my own mind — and I think I speak for more than just myself — that the termination of the federal subsidy was not the result of representations or misrepresentations by the minister or people in his office. I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the minister to please table these documents at his earliest convenience, perhaps tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to simply relate the unhappy events which have led to the serious problems on the coast, but rather, through you, appeal to the government to look more wisely upon the situation. Through you I ask the government not to view coastal shipping as a minor matter or a regional matter, or a matter that will go away.

Those on the other side of the House have been described as the "millionaires' club," and those on this side of the House as "socialist hordes," but in the banter of debate the difference in our backgrounds and our views on the world may be just that simple, but in reality, the hard reality in which people live, we have much in common. People look upon the government party and opposition parties in much the same light; they look upon us together to provide leadership, and, Mr. Speaker, I really haven't seen much leadership coming out of that side of the House recently — in the last year and three months, as a matter of fact. They look upon us to solve their problems and help them solve their problems.

Both the millionaires' club and the socialist horde recognize the importance of planning, co-ordinating efforts and rationalizing human and political endeavour.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are on your final three minutes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no kidding! I've just got started. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what: okay, I'll save some of that other material for a later speech, but I would like to make some positive suggestions to the government.

As I said before, I think there should be an immediate 30 per cent reduction in fares in the B.C. ferry system — and that goes as well for the Sechelt Queen, Mr. Minister of Highways, a vessel which is under the jurisdiction of Highways, but which tripled its fares last year as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: For an interim period, the "Queen of Prince Rupert," which sits idle and fully crewed for two days a week, should be routed to stop at Ocean Falls where the transportation system is very grave...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where they can dock.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes. ...and where they can dock during the off months, and should terminate directly in Vancouver and not at Kelsey Bay, Mr. Speaker. In the long run, there should be a major ferry facility to Bella Bella with roll-on and roll-off passenger-car and freight service. This should be connected to a feeder service connecting Ocean Falls and Bella Coola. And I should tell you right now that Bella Coola does not have any passenger service by water at all. Last October 31 they were cut off and there has been no replacement whatsoever to that community.

MR. BARRETT: Talk about separatism.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Recognizing that there are many smaller communities that must have adequate shipping and passenger service but are too small to be visited by large ferries, a new vessel should be bought or built that would give regular service — regular passenger, freight and vehicle service to all of these

[ Page 417 ]

other areas formerly served by Northland. I am thinking of communities such as Namu where there is quite a serious threat of economic depression because of the transportation problem. Two hundred people could possibly lose their jobs. I don't think they will this summer, but they must find alternate ways to transport their materials — the fish products — out of that community. They are faced with a real problem.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all members of this House will take notice of the grave situation that exists on the coast. One final piece of advice, if I may: I would ask this government, and particularly the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), to please communicate and consult with people. Try changes in ferry rates and schedules and transportation procedures. Consult with these people prior to making decisions, not after the damage has been done.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I rise in my place today to support the budget. The other night when the ex-minister of Labour (Mr. King) was up talking and making his speech and going through his selective-rea ding process that he implements in making speeches, I happened to have a newspaper clipping on my desk at the same time as he was reading it. He was talking about the economy, how bad it was and predicting the usual doom and gloom from that side of the House, and he came to a paragraph in the article that he was reading and he hesitated to read it. Only on prompting did he read a portion of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all, Lyle.

MR. KAHL: It was talking about mortgage payments causing lots of trouble around B.C. It said that: "Strikes are one reason" — this is by Philip Mills — "that we institute action while a strike is in progress. But when it's over, there are those who drop their mortgage responsibilities." Now that's very significant, especially coming from the ex-minister of Labour who was rather hesitant to let that bit of information out. So I decided I would do a little bit of checking and I looked back at some of the things that happened when he was minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled to find that during his term of office, according to Stats Canada, there were some 4,179,072 man-days lost because of strikes in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the Minister of Labour?

MR. KAHL: There were 4,179,072 man-days lost! If you apply a rough rule of thumb to the amount of money made per day, you end up with something like $167 million that workers of this province were not paid while they were on strike.

MR. LAUK: That's a rough rule of thumb.

MR. KAHL: Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, that we are starting to feel the effects of those man-days that were lost when the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was Minister of Labour, because those people didn't have that money in their pockets at that time and they are still trying to pay those debts — debts that were left behind like the ones that we were left. You know, in '75 the socialist opposition over there had the people of this province on a treadmill to oblivion, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I noticed in a local paper the other day that the president of the university was commenting on the budget. Mr. Petch indicated he was pleased with the allotment given the universities. Well, we're all pleased with the allotments, with the budget, on this side of the House.

We've heard a lot from the other side of the House on succession duties. They've hollered and yelled about the millionaires' club. We've heard every speaker on that side of the House who has tried to hammer that point across so that every newspaper person who sat up in the gallery and out in the hallway. ., . They tried to get that into every newspaper and every television and radio station in the province.

They quoted W.A.C. Bennett, who was the Premier of this province at one time. I believe that was quoted by the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich), the second Minister of Finance that they had over on that side. He talked about W.A.C. Bennett and the succession duties. He talked about what he said in 1967 and 1968, but he didn't tell us what he said in the Kelowna Charter in 1972, did he? (Laughter.) He didn't talk about that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about it! Tell us!

MR. KAHL: Mr. Bennett indicated that we should get rid of succession duties because we needed some investment in this province. That's what the removal of succession duties will do: it will bring some investment to this province, investment that was scared off by that side of the House when they were in government.

MR. BARRETT: Who brought in the succession duty?

MR. KAHL: In the Employers Council of British Columbia.... We heard a lot from the other side of

[ Page 418 ]

the House about some speeches of Bill Hamilton. This is "for immediate release on January 24, 1977," from the office of Bill Hamilton. He talked about succession duties and the gift tax. He said: "While we are pleased to see the removal of succession duties and gift tax, this will have little effect on the investment." But the point is that he's pleased to see the removal of them. "If the government intends to encourage private investment, this is a first step." His point is well taken.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a moment about something that has been talked about by federal cabinet ministers and by labour leaders in this province — mortgage interest. In an article in The Province, Barney Danson, the federal Urban Affairs minister, said Wednesday "he is toying with the idea of proposing that portions of mortgage interest payments be allowed as income tax deductions." He went on to explain that it should have a maximum of $1,000.

It's a programme, Mr. Speaker, that's implemented in every state in the United States; it's a programme that would encourage everyone in our province to own a home. We on this side of the House believe in private ownership of property. Mr. Speaker, it is something that would encourage everyone to do that.

Jack Munro indicated on a television interview not too long ago that we're the only country in the western world that doesn't employ that. I think it would be a very worthwhile project for us to undertake. I would recommend to the Minister of Finance that he look very seriously at that.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I've done a bit of research on in the last while.... I've met with a great deal of people and worked with six consultants from various parts of this province. We took a very careful look at the small-business situation in the province. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it's really not the best. I think we have an excellent opportunity to try to assist in a more realistic way the small businessman of the province.

There are many papers and many submissions available that indicate how many of these things can be done. The group of consultants that I met with.... We met with the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . We had a good chat with him; some very interesting discussion came out of this. I'm hopeful that you'll be able to implement some of these things.

We talked about better services to the small businessman: a one-stop shopping centre where small businessmen could go in and find out information about the types of businesses they might expand to, about the sources of finances, and interest. This would be a one-stop shopping centre, staffed by qualified people who would know and be able to sit down and counsel with any small businessman who came through the door. There would be a bank – an inventory of skills that would be available from that centre — where he could draw upon consultants that could give him some expert advice, take a close look at his business, tell him whether he's expanding in the right direction, give him some advice and some projections. This could be implemented very easily.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the ex-Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk)...

MR. LAUK: Careful!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. KAHL: ...isn't saying too much at this particular point. When I check through my notes...

AN HON. MEMBER: Pick on the big guys. Leave me out of it.

MR. KAHL: ...I find out that the same presentation was made on July 31, 1974, to the then socialist government. It was sent to the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce by B.C. Research — a Mr. D.A. King — and it talked about small businesses in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: When was this?

MR. KAHL: It talked about a small-business institute....

MR. LAUK: Give me the date.

MR. KAHL: Well, Mr. Member, I don't know why I should have to give you the date. You took all the files with you. It's in your basement someplace.

MR. LAUK: That's it! I resign! (Laughter.)

MR. LOEWEN: Stand up and say that!

MR. LAUK: Another John A. Macdonald. (Laughter.) Vicious attack!

MR. LOEWEN: Say that in the hallway!

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, through you, to the member who was Minister of Economic Destruction in his time...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: ...the date is July 31, 1974.

MR. LEA: Come on, get to the serious part.

MR. LAUK: Small business what?

[ Page 419 ]

MR. KAHL: I'll give you a copy of it. If you can't find the one in your basement, I'll give you a copy of this. It went on, and it had some extremely good suggestions. Mr. Speaker, when I met with the consultants who presented this, they said that to the date that I met with them, on October 8, they had not even received the courtesy of a reply.

MR. KEMPF: Ohhh! You don't answer your letters.

MR. LEA: Come on, Lyle, I'll buy you coffee. (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: No, no. That's the group that's so concerned about the small businessman in the province of British Columbia. They never did a thing — never did a thing for them.

MR. LAUK: Do you expect me to believe that? (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: You never did a thing for the small businessman except encourage some of us, I want to tell you, to run in the last provincial election to see that you were defeated as government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: If I encouraged you to run, please forgive me. (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: I want to tell you that I stand in this place today because I was a small businessman when those people — those socialists on the other side of the House — were in government...

MR. LEA: Okay, you've got that figured out.

MR. KAHL: ...and because of the lack of policies that they had to assist the small businessman.

MR. LAUK: We should amend the Elections Act.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, I want to turn now to the social part of the budget. I want to talk a bit about the Department of Human Resources, I want to talk a bit about prisons, and I want to talk a bit about the family court system.

MR. LAUK: Is that it? Is that the attack on me?

MR. KAHL: I want to quote something from the Colonist this morning that was said by the Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Noble. He's a dedicated public servant and a very excellent one, one with whom I've had the opportunity to meet and one in whom I have a great deal of confidence. Mr. Noble said:

"The new estimates actually represent an increase of about 9 per cent over what is going to be spent this year. Apart from overestimating this year's spending, there has been a shift of responsibilities and in funding in some of the department's programmes."

He goes on. The various department heads and directors commented on programmes. Bob Cronin, the director of residential and treatment programmes for children, said that he doesn't anticipate any decrease in services or staff layoffs. Marolin Dahl, provincial co-ordinator for day care also said that her programme hasn't spent a lot of funds, and she is not aware of any cutbacks. Yet from the other side of the House we heard comments about the cutbacks in programmes. But the senior civil servants who are implementing those programmes are not concerned, and I have every reason to believe that they are telling us the straight goods. Maybe the opposition members don't believe that, but I certainly do.

I was interested the other day in an excursion that was done by a group of people in the Attorney-General's department. John Ekstedt, for one, visited a provincial correction institute on the lower mainland, Oakalla. It was a very interesting experiment and, I thought, a very interesting day, certainly one that Mr. Ekstedt indicated was very worthwhile and will be of much benefit when making future policies for his department. But an interesting thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that he indicated the classic problem in the prisons is boredom.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should be here! (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: The programme content is slim and so is the staff to run the programme. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I share those same concerns with the members of that department. I want to tell you that in the Attorney-General's estimates I hope there are some finances available to look after those programmes and bring a more structured life for those individuals who are less fortunate than we are.

I want to tell you also, Mr. Speaker, that in The Province of Wednesday the 26th there was an article headlined: "Suicide Attempts" at the correctional institutes in British Columbia. I think that is something we must take a very serious look at and be prepared to spend a great deal of money in the preventive-type programme in prison reform.

I was interested to note that Dragan Cernetic, who is a warden, indicated that January, 1974, when he came to the prison he....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is he?

MR. KAHL: Perhaps he is not a warden, but the

[ Page 420 ]

point I want to make is not really what he does but the fact that in January of 1974 when he came there and started to build up a library, which should be a basic thing for every prison, he found in the library books that were 20 and 30 years old.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: That was in 1974 under the previous Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) . I was very interested to see that he did something worthwhile when he was Attorney-General. I listened very interestedly to his comments the other night, when he was talking. I am glad to see he is in his place; I think he is the first member for Vancouver East. There have been so many members — first, second or third — in Vancouver East that it is hard to keep track of them over there. But when he was talking the other night, he was talking about a poor woman who for years — for years, he said — had been beaten, and he was criticizing the Attorney-General's department for not doing anything about that. You know, Mr. Speaker, by his own admission in that statement he was telling us that while he was Attorney-General of the province he had not done a thing for her. Now that's what he said. He said he had not done a thing for that woman. Disgraceful! A disgraceful conduct from that first member for Vancouver East.

I want to talk a little bit about the family court system because I'm very concerned that the family court system in our province is very inadequate. Reading from an article written by Elizabeth Forbes, she is talking about the many people who suffer because of a lack of an adequate family court system — most of them, unfortunately, women with children. Most of them are on welfare because of the lack of services the courts provide in attempting to solve their problems. She indicates a number of cases here. She says: "Many women in Victoria are on welfare because their husbands refuse to pay their support." There is no enforcement of the child support. There are examples of human costs which result from inadequacies in the current system that we have. We, as members of this House — everyone, the opposition — must do something about this tragic situation. All these problems which cause inefficiency result in extra costs, not only to the government that supplies the court services, but also to the individuals who use it. And that's fundamental to the issue.

I worked with a group of people from my constituency in presenting a paper of some length to the Attorney-General on prison reform and some things that we could implement in this province. I won't take the time here to go into all of the ramifications of that; I'll save it for later.

In the social world, I want to ask the government of the day if they would take a second look at the Greater Victoria Activity Centre for the Handicapped and the financing of it. The thing grew like Topsy under the previous administration. The finances were promised and they didn't have the finances to give. In the last while we've given $150,000 to them but that's not enough. The building is nearing completion, and I know there have been commitments made by the board of directors to do what they can in fund raising; they promised that they would and I'm sure they'll do a good job of that. The Centre for the Handicapped is a very worthwhile project in the greater Victoria area. It's unique, perhaps to Canada, and it's indicated by some of the directors that it might even be the only one of its kind in North America. It's a forward step in providing opportunities for handicapped people in our society. I would like to recommend to the government again that they take a second look at providing enough funds to finish that project and open the doors to the handicapped people of the greater Victoria area.

I'll deal for a moment with education, and I want to talk briefly about some things I was very pleased to see. And that is the responsibility accepted by some of the members on the local Greater Victoria School Board — in particular, some of the new members who have some expertise in handling finances. They have indicated that, in the past, the board was careless. Things had better be different next time, Peter Yorke warned at a special budget meeting. And, he said, next year will be the year of the axe for those programmes that are not necessary, those programmes that cost a great deal of money and those programmes that really don't deal with the core curriculum, the thing that the hon. minister has been so concerned about.

I was also very pleased to see in The Daily Colonist this morning an article headlined: "It's Canadian First Now." Mr. Speaker, you might not remember, but in the first speech I made in the House I indicated that we should place more emphasis on hiring our own Canadians to teach at our universities. I'm pleased to see that Dr. Petch has implemented this type of programme at the University of Victoria, and I would encourage the other universities in our province to do the same thing. I was very pleased to see that Dr. Petch has instituted that.

The other day I received in the mail from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce a report on basic educational skills and how they relate to economics. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education has a copy of this and I hope some of those basic fundamentals are instituted in the core curriculum.

MR. COCKE: We all got one.

MR. KAHL: I was particularly pleased to see the summer-employment programme and the institution

[ Page 421 ]

of it. I had the opportunity to introduce some young high school students in the gallery today, and I was pleased to be able to talk to them a bit about the summer employment programme. I hope there's a great deal in it for them.

My good friend and colleague from Atlin (Mr. Calder) last night mentioned in his speech oil tankers on the west coast. I, too, Mr. Speaker, want to spend a few moments talking about that problem. I want to tell you that I am in agreement with what my colleague from Atlin indicated last night. I want to tell you that recently in my constituency a group of concerned people have been holding meetings regarding the tanker traffic that might or might not happen here on the west coast and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

I want to indicate to you what was indicated to me in a letter, the three objectives of what they call the Bluepeace organization. The three main objectives are:

(1) That there be no oil tankers to Kitimat.

(2) That ships and personnel to Port Angeles, if oil must go there, be of the best quality.

(3) That we must be well organized in case there is an oil spill in this area.

A group of volunteers and a bunch of bales of hay will not, frankly, be of any use to us whatsoever. When tankers are sailing the waters with eight million gallons of oil we must be prepared for that.

I want to tell you that 1, personally, am not in favour of oil tankers going to the Port Angeles area. If ever there's an oil spill in the strait, the winds and the tides will bring that oil to the coast of Vancouver Island, in particular to the coast around the lower end of the Island. That's of grave concern to me and to those people I'm working with in my constituency. We should take a very close look at these proposals that are presently being put forth.

Also, I received a very interesting article the other day. It talked about how to kill an ocean. It was written by Thor Heyerdahl, with whom I'm sure every member of this House is familiar. There's an interesting quote in it that I think deserves mention, and that I think is worth reading into the record. He said: "We treat the oceans as if they were not part of our planet, as if the blue water curved into space and beyond the horizons, where our pollutants would fall off the edge." I think that's very significant. I think it's time, Mr. Speaker, that we took a very close look at some of the things we do to our ocean. I think it's time that we have some very strong policies on this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment about some of the things that are of more local concern in my constituency. I want to talk about the bus service to the western community, which I've had the opportunity to discuss with the minister. I'm sure that he's doing his utmost to see that this service will be provided. I look forward to the service being implemented. I'm sure that, in his fashion, it will be done in a very worthwhile and efficient manner. I want to make mention of that because it's of great concern to people in the western community.

I want to turn, too, to something else that has become a great concern in the western community, Mr. Speaker — the mobile home situation. I was pleased to see in the budget the removal of a certain amount of tax on mobile homes; many people in my constituency were also pleased to see that.

I was pleased also to see mention made in the throne speech of the universal registration of mobile homes. I had the opportunity the other evening to meet with the mobile-home park owners association in my constituency. They're also very pleased to see that. It's a very worthwhile endeavour, and the minister who is responsible for that is to be commended for that move.

I want to talk about some of the problems in the western community that relate to the mobile-home business, and why I'm pleased to see a handle being put on this industry. Many of the individuals, or some of the individuals — I should really clarify that — who have been dealing in mobile homes have.... Because of a lack of foresight by the Capital Regional District in community planning there haven't been any mobile homes parks included in the community plans. It's very difficult to get space. Many people in the western community are without spaces for mobile-home parks.

MR. LAUK: Name one.

MR. KAHL: I think that we have to take — and we must encourage the regional board — a close look at this and do something about it. For example, in the last while in my constituency there have been two cases where the mobile-home park owner has decided to go out of business. The Landlord and Tenant Act really doesn't have any section in there designated as such for him to go out of business, so they give notice to all of the people who live in the mobile home parks — 18 in one, some 30 in another one. Mr. Speaker, there is no place for those people to go! We must — every member of this House — encourage all we can their local areas to plan and make provision for the mobile home parks. It's cheaper housing accommodation; it's accommodation that most everyone can afford.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must draw your attention to the fact that you're on your final three minutes.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: The members on the opposition side

[ Page 422 ]

of the House are pleased to see that my speech is coming to an end, just as I'm pleased to see that theirs also come to an end. Fortunately, there aren't as many of them over there as there are us over here so I don't have to listen that often to that side of the House, which is very gratifying, Mr. Speaker, very gratifying indeed.

I had wanted to talk about local government, in particular the Capital Regional District, but I don't have too much time to dwell on it, Mr. Speaker, other than to say that, frankly, in my opinion, the Capital Regional District — and I don't know if this is true throughout all the areas in this province — is really a third level of government that we could frankly do without. It's a third level of bureaucracy, of paper shufflers, that in my opinion we could do without. You only have to talk to many people who have gone down there, and been seated in the office and the next office and the next office, only to find out that they'll say: "Well, we don't really have any jurisdiction over that." A $10 million budget in the Capital Regional District last year for this.

MR. LEA: Dan Campbell set it up.

MR. KAHL: We don't need it. We need some good, strong local government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: I want to dwell for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker — about one moment is all I have left really — on a couple of things that were mentioned in the throne and the budget speeches in regard to highways. Mention was made there under the Department of Highways that we would get more passing lanes in the highway system. I look forward to working with the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — I'm sorry he's not in his place now — in regard to more passing lanes between here and the small community of Sooke out in my constituency.

I would also like him to take a close look at some road paving in the far end of my constituency. In particular, I have an excellent winter works programme for him in highways. This end of the Island is one of the few places where work can be done in the winter time on highways. There's an approximately 7-mile section that's very expensive to do but it's very necessary and must be done. I would like to recommend to the minister that that work be done within the next two or three years. Use it as a winter works programme to keep people employed in the province.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to only say that when I made my last speech in the House I indicated that we needed restraint at the bargaining tables. I think that I can say that again, today. I'm pleased to see that we have practised and shown restraint in our budget and I'm very pleased to stand in my place today, Mr. Speaker, and speak in support of that budget.

Hon. Mr. Curtis moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting petitions.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. SHELFORD: It is the petition of the Vancouver Stock Exchange praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907.

I move the rules be suspended and the petition of the Vancouver Stock Exchange be received.

Motion approved.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. STRONGMAN: It is a petition from the city of Vancouver praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

I move the rules be suspended and the petition of the city of Vancouver be received.

Motion approved.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: It is a petition from the Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia praying for the passing of an Act intituled Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977.

I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia be received.

Motion approved.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

[ Page 423 ]

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: It is a Petition from the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia.

I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia be received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.