[ Page 449 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Freedom of Information Act (Bill M-202). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 449

Oral questions

Public service gratuities. Mrs. Dailly — 449

Restriction on off-work activities of public servant. Mr. Gibson — 450

Safety of Site I dam. Mr. Wallace — 451

Farm income assurance payments. Hon. Mr. Hewitt answers — 451

Share purchases in Quasar and Cheyenne. Mr. Lauk — 451

Matter of urgent public importance

Closing of Cedarhurst Private Hospital. Mr. Cocke — 453

Mr. Speaker reserves decision — 453

Routine proceedings

Tabling reports

Department of Education 105th annual report. Hon. Mr. McGeer — 454

Universities Council of British Columbia second annual report. Hon. Mr.

McGeer — 454

Debtor Assistance Act and Trade Practices Act: directors' annual reports. Hon.

Mr. Mair — 454

Budget debate

Mr. Mussallem — 454

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 458

Ms. Sanford — 463

On the amendment.

Mr. Nicolson — 468

Mr. Lea — 472

Mr. Cocke — 478

Matter of urgent public importance

Closing of Cedarhurst Private Hospital. Mr. Speaker rules — 479

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome three young constituents from the municipality of Richmond. In the gallery today are Mr. Tyler Caviglia, and two of my sons, Robert and Brent.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): In the gallery today we have a former colleague, the former MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, Colin Gabelmann, and I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, from the far-flung north, the riding of South Peace River, down to watch his MLA in action, is Bill Close from Dawson Creek, a many-time candidate for the NDP. I'd like the House to welcome Bill Close.

Introduction of bills.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill M-202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

PUBLIC SERVICE GRATUITIES

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the hon. Provincial Secretary, with respect to order-in-council 3729. It states that Mr. Broadbent served under section 2 of the Public Service Act and therefore was not entitled t o a gratuity; however, the order-in-council did award a gratuity equivalent to section 49. Is it government policy to award such gratuities to all persons serving under section 2?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is asking a question of policy. I will take the question as notice and look up the order she refers to.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if the decision to award this gratuity was not a matter of government policy, I would appreciate it if the Provincial Secretary would advise the House on what basis this gratuity was allotted and on what basis it was computed.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume the hon. Provincial Secretary has heard the question, which she has taken on notice, along with the supplementary.

MR. KING: She did not say that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am stating a question, hon. member.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to know who took it on notice — you are the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: When one of the hon. members or cabinet ministers takes a question on notice, it's not really proper at that time to ask a supplemental — they can come when the answer comes back to the floor. Now the supplemental came. I assume that the hon. minister heard the supplemental as well as the rest of the members of this House, and I presume she will take it into consideration at the time she brings the answer to the first question.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has obviously misunderstood the question. It's the Speaker's duty to point that out, I would think. It is not a question on what is going to be future policy of government

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not a matter of discussion. The question was asked, and a supplemental.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would seem to me that your attitude is not becoming to a member of the Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. While preserving the decorum of the House, it's the Speaker's duty to listen to the questions that are asked. A question that is taken as notice does not

[ Page 450 ]

necessarily mean that a supplementary is even in order. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) raised a supplemental, even though it's technically out of order. He was listened to by the members of the House. I presume that the minister has the right to answer the original and the supplementary, because they're there for everyone to know. They're not only heard by the members of the House but they'll be in Hansard.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the rules of the House do not oblige a minister to answer a supplementary unless the minister has acknowledged understanding and undertaken to give an answer. This is not the case with respect to the supplementary I asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister wish to take the supplementary on notice — whatever?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the whole subject related to order-in-council 3729, as asked by the member for Burnaby North, and the subsequent question that was raised by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, on notice.

RESTRICTION ON OFF-WORK
ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC SERVANT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Environment. As the minister is perhaps aware, Mr. Bob Bierman, who is an occasional political cartoonist for the Times, works as a technical assistant in his department. His job, according to his superior, is one that is in no way privy to sensitive information. According to reports, he was told recently by the deputy minister of the department to stop his cartooning work, under authority of a little-used section of the Public Service Act. I would ask if the minister was aware in advance of this instruction.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In answer to the question from the Member, the answer is no. Also I might add that the deputy minister today has informed me that he did not tell Mr. Bierman to stop cartooning. Perhaps the House will permit me to elaborate somewhat more on this issue. The meeting took place on January 17 between my deputy minister and Mr. Bierman, at the request of my deputy minister upon recommendation by the chairman of the Public Service Commission. A letter to my deputy minister from Mr. Richardson, the chairman, says in part: "Our file does not indicate that Mr. Bierman has complied with section 50 of the Public Service Act, which requires the approval of the commission if remuneration is received from another employer." Mr. Richardson says: "May I suggest that you see Mr. Bierman and ascertain that he did draw the cartoons and that he received a payment. If so, then point out to him that he is contravening section 50 of the Public Service Act." This was done at the subsequent meeting.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker: Because of the extreme importance of the freedom of the press, section 50 of the Public Service Act makes provision for such activity with the permission of the Public Service Commission. It is my understanding that there is a good deal of what one might call "moonlighting" going on, irrespective of section 50 of the Act in any case. I ask the minister if he will make representations to the Public Service Commission in order that such permission should be given and Mr. Bierman might continue his political cartooning which he has done for some years under several governments.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I may advise the member that Mr. Bierman has not made any such request, to my knowledge. My understanding, from my deputy minister, is that he was advised by Mr. Bierman at the interview that he recognized he was in contravention of this section of the Act and that there was a possibility he could resign his public service position, as he prefers his outside occupation. We have been advised, by way of the press, that Mr. Bierman may seek such authority from the Public Service Commission. We certainly will respond to a request by the Public Service Commission — Mr. Richardson or his designate — to offer an opinion relative to this situation. But I believe the deputy minister will be making representation to the commission if requested.

MR. GIBSON: My understanding would be in these kinds of cases that the deputy naturally acts under the instruction of the minister, and I would ask the minister to assure this House....

Intejection.

MR. GIBSON: I hope it's a valid supposition or we have no control over this government, Mr. Premier. I would ask the minister to assure this House that if there is a request. for such permission to the Public Service Commission, the minister will positively support that request.

HON. MR. NIELSEN I Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the member may appreciate and allow the opportunity for myself and/or my deputy minister to investigate the circumstances of the situation before making any

[ Page 451 ]

commitment in advance.

SAFETY OF SITE I DAM

MR. G.S. WALLACE (OAK BAY): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications responsible for Hydro: in relation to some of the statements which have appeared in the press regarding construction of the dam at Site I on the Peace River, can the minister inform the House whether the statement made by inspectors that they have had difficulty obtaining adequate core samples from which to judge the safety of the construction is a valid complaint? If it is, what measures are being taken to ensure the inspectors can obtain adequate samples and decide whether or not the dam will be safe?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I can't give the House that assurance right now, but we're looking into it and I'll report as soon as possible.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I accept the minister's difficulty that it may not be possible at this time to give that assurance, but it is quite clear that in some 60,000 cubic yards of concrete there is some real uncertainty as to how much honeycombing effect has taken place and, in the light of recent dam disasters elsewhere in the world, it seems to me to be a matter of extreme urgency that the people of British Columbia get some assurance as soon as possible. On that basis, can I ask what response B.C. Hydro made to the recommendations of one Chalres Farris who, I believe, is a concrete-plant designer from Washington state who was asked to assess the problem and make recommendations?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There has been a report in the press, a response from top management from B.C. Hydro, but I'll make further inquiries and get further details as to their answer.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the minister doesn't seem to be really up to date on what I would consider to be a very urgent issue. Can he tell the House, then, if the responsibility for the faulty workmanship — wherever it lies — has been determined? Is it the fault of the concrete manufacturing plant of B.C. Hydro or is it the shoddy workmanship which has been reported to have been carried out by the contractor, Atkinson Commonwealth? If it's shoddy workmanship, will B.C. Hydro be suing for recovery of the extra cost?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as I endeavoured to indicate earlier, the entire matter is under investigation and when responsibility has been attached to a form or an individual, this will be reported to the House.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE PAYMENTS

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have answers to questions that were asked of me on January 25. I would like to respond to them.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked what will be the total money payable for farm income assurance in 1976. We do not have the final data for that date, hon. member. We won't know that until late 1977, when the final crops are in.

A question was asked regarding how much is being paid on 1976 claims to date. The answer is $4,114,417.33.

Another question was asked: how much is presently owing on 1976 programmes? Again, we do not have the data until all the crop is disposed of.

Another question was: what are the dates of individual programme payouts? The programme payouts are made when the documentation is submitted by the agriculture industry.

The fifth question was: what schedule was used for the dates of individual programme payouts? There is no schedule used. It is on submission.

Finally, the question: are you on time with farm income assurance payments? The answer is yes.

SHARE PURCHASES IN
QUASAR AND CHEYENNE

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): To the Minister of Economic Development: did the minister discuss with anyone the advisability of purchasing shares in Quasar or Cheyenne Petroleum prior to December 2,1976? The minister, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker....

lnterjection.

MR. LAUK: The question was ruled in order; the minister declined to answer. I wonder if he will answer today.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, evidently the lawyer from Vancouver Centre doesn't understand plain English. I stated in the House that there was an inquiry going on into this matter and that I would answer questions to that inquiry in this regard if and when I am requested to do so by the judge in charge of that inquiry.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister intending to give evidence before the judicial

[ Page 452 ]

inquiry?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should give that lawyer a few instructions in the law. I will if requested to do so.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is usually the practice in this House that when a minister quotes from a document or a letter, that minister asks leave of the House to table the documents. In response to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) quoting from a letter from Mr. Richardson, I would ask if the minister would table the document in the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Minister of Agriculture, as I recall, answered questions.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. It's the practice of this House....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, it would be a correct procedure, I presume, for the minister, who is quoting from whatever source, if he desired, to ask leave to table it. But I do not see that it's proper for another member of the House to ask leave on his behalf.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the House for leave for the minister. I am standing on my feet on a point of order. The point of order I'm taking, Mr. Speaker, is that it is the usual practice of this House that when a member quotes from a letter or a document, that letter or document is filed with the House. That's the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister is quoting from a public document. Quite often it is his alternative or prerogative if he desires to file it or not. If he's quoting from information or from communications with him that might have been personal or confidential, he is not required to file them with the House. If he desires to, that's something for the minister to decide, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Has it not been the practice of this House that when a minister or member quotes from a letter or a document, that letter or document is filed with the House?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. It's a matter, hon. member, that we have citations in May, 17th edition, and other citations that would indicate that a minister may file with the House papers if they are state papers and he cites from them. But it certainly does not apply, according to May, to private letters or memoranda, and I would have to really take your point of order as notice and see exactly what the situation is in this particular instance.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House could be satisfied if I made a suggestion that the letter to which I referred contains other information that I believe would not serve the purpose for which it was asked today. However, in that I made a statement from this letter from Mr. Richardson, if the House would appreciate a similar letter from Mr. Richardson attesting to that section which I quoted, I would be most pleased to ask Mr. Richardson to arrange this. However to satisfy the nosiness of some of the members about a matter dealing with an employee of the provincial government — I don't think that it would add to the case. If they would like to have this information attested to by Mr. Richardson, I would certainly make that request from him and it would relate to the information that I offered to the House today — if the question is that they doubt Mr. Richardson made this statement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this rule — and I appreciate you wanting time to determine the practice in May and Beauchesne on this particular rule — the reason for this rule is to ensure that the House is totally informed. Someone may leave with the suspicion that someone asked Mr. Richardson to look into this matter, and, indeed, that may be referred to in the letter that the minister is not prepared to file. To allay that suspicion I suggest that the rules of the House be followed and the whole letter be tabled with the House, as is the practice.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on, this point I would like to make a brief quotation from May, 18th edition, page 421, which bears directly on this point.

[ Page 453 ]

"A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House unless he be prepared to lay it on the table."

Continuing, Mr. Speaker, with the citation:

"This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested, and when the objection has been made in time it has generally been acquiesced in."

I would argue, sir, that the proper context of any remark requires the tabling of the entire document and I would argue as well that a letter from the chairman of a commission to a minister of the Crown must be either a dispatch or a state paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for your quote from the 18th edition of May. It's similar to the quote I was using — from a different edition, that's all. I'll reserve my decision on the matter raised and certainly will bring a decision back to the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps because of the eloquence of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) I would be very pleased to table the letter in question, if I have leave of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to adjourn the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, and I have that matter here before me.

MR. SPEAKER: State the matter, please.

MR. COCKE: I have just learned at noon today, Mr. Speaker, that the Cedarhurst Private Hospital has informed their employees and their patients that they will be closed as a hospital as of March 4. Since the government has found it beyond its ability to care for the needs of senior citizens in B.C., particularly respecting intermediate care, and therefore the Cedarhurst hospital in Surrey, caring for patients between the ages of 75 and 90, shows the trend that is growing in the province and the closure of other hospitals may be imminent, it is important that this House debate this matter immediately.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member for New Westminster, in dealing with your motion for urgent debate under our standing orders, I'm going to defer my decision without prejudicing your right or the right of this motion, if in fact it's found to be in order, but it is the type of a motion that requires more than just a few moments and a glance or two at it and I'd like to defer the decision until I've had the opportunity to consult the authorities we have available to us, namely May and Beauchesne, and determine as quickly as I can and without in any way prejudicing your position with respect to a debate, if in fact it is found to be in order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that during that interval if we enter into a debate in the House — that is, the debate on the budget speech — this then loses its position?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't take that interpretation, hon. member. Either the motion will be in order and found to be proper under the rules of our House, or it won't be. This is what I have to determine in consultation with May and Beauchesne, and it will take a little time to do that so all I can say to you at the moment is that, without prejudicing your right with respect to the motion.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding from reading Sir Erskine May that in an application such as this, the Speaker is to determine only if there is a prima facie motion to go before the Legislature — meaning on the face of it.

MR. WALLACE: Thanks very much for explaining it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: And I wouldn't think, Mr. Speaker, that an in-depth review is required in this case. But on the face of it: is it in good time; is the issue general and concerning the entire province and so on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If there was some consideration that had to take place with respect to evidence and so on, I would say that we would be in a position of considering the motion on the basis of whether it was prima facie or not, but that is not particularly the test right at the moment. It's not something that's before a court, or evidence or anything of that nature. It's a matter to determine whether the motion is in order or not. That I intend to do. I reserve my decision, which is certainly not an unusual practice in all Houses in Canada. As soon as I can, I will bring back the decision on it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a further point of order: could you not also take in consideration the reading from Sir Erskine May, made by the first member for Vancouver-Capilano, to include all documents as well as what has been tabled as an incomplete document?

[ Page 454 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll take your remarks into consideration.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tables the 105th annual report of the Department of Education and the second annual report of the Universities Council of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Mair tables the director's annual report pursuant to the Debtor Assistance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31,1976, and the director's annual report pursuant to the Trade Practices Act for the year ended December 31,1976.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign! (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's quite plain to see that the opposition must have been privy to the fact that I would be speaking today, and consequently it would rip them asunder — to wit, the long debate that ensued on these matters of order. However, I do not intend to rip them asunder today. I didn't think they would be abetted by our ministers, but I'm glad they took up all the.... In fact, as far as I'm concerned, they could take up the rest of the afternoon.

MR. COCKE: That's not what you told me this morning, George! (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's always a great pleasure to me to stand in this House to take my part in the debate, even if it is just replying to the hon. Whip on the other side (Mr. Cocke) whom I see every day, not always with pleasure.

It is very important — and some make light of it — but to me it is an honour to be here with a large and dedicated group of people that does the people's business. It's always remarkable to me. The Sputnik may even circle the earth and some may land on the moon, but I think the most sacred trust we have is doing the people's business in this House. Sometimes I fear for the system, but it's the best we have. I congratulate all the hon. members for the part they've taken.

This is the second year since this government climbed out of the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility. But today it is easy for anyone to see — anyone who would wish to look — that we have a new look, that today we move on a solid foundation. Today a government is planning for the future; today we no longer squander the assets of the public. We have the good look. No longer does fear stalk the land.

I remember full well just two years ago when we wondered what was going to happen next. When would the axe fall again? But certainly now the public knows the road we're on. They know that we're on the sure and the safe way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I wrote this myself. The hon. member asked who wrote the speech. It had not been written even to this day; it's being said as it goes. (Laughter.) There's no speech, for the record.

MR. WALLACE: You can tell!

MR. MUSSALLEM: "You can tell!" I will write the hon. member for Oak Bay off my list.

AN HON. MEMBER: No Christmas cards for you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No more Christmas cards for him!

The road is still a rough road, but the road is there.

There was no road before. This province is out of the swamp and on solid ground. Rebuilding a province torn asunder by experimenters was not an easy task.

If we'll stop to think and to understand, it is not a new thing that happened here in the past, during the regime of the previous government. It was an old and tried experience that happened in many countries of the world. When the socialists take over, disaster ensues. When the experimenters try new ideas without foundation, in fact we are in trouble.

We were in trouble. England, Italy, Russia, China — take it where you will. It's the same story, the same way. Rebuilding a province torn asunder is not an easy task, but this budget, which I support, which we all support, and which hon. members opposite should support, is the instrument that is taking us further into success.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not in his place today, said clearly: "Those over there are a bottom-line government." Well, I'm proud that we're a bottom-line government. I want to tell you this: if there's no bottom line there'll be no other line — there'll be no line at all — and that is the socialist way. They do not believe in the bottom line — give anything to anybody who puts his hand out. That's the wrong system, because we're not giving anything to anyone; we're taking it out of somebody else's pocket and giving it away.

I do not wish to go into all these things except to say that this system of giveaways has come to an end in British Columbia — fairness to all and favours to none.

[ Page 455 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Strike some committee!

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for Nanaimo said we had a downturn in 1976 because this government was in power. Well, anybody with a modicum of intelligence — and I have great respect for that member, but he has to do the best he can with what he has...(Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We like his red suit.

MR. MUSSALLEM: must realize, and realize fully, that when a $100-million overrun on human resources, a $181-million loss on ICBC, and a $54-million ferry loss, just to mention a few, were pumped into the economy in one year....

MR. LAUK: Where are the jobs?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Why, there had to be jobs everywhere. But what created jobs was deficit financing — no bottom line. That's what we stand for: we stand for fiscal responsibility. There was a turndown in 1976 because we had to take up the slack of the wreckage of the previous government.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That party came to power — and it has been said before — with the coffers full, with the money in hand, with people ready, and the government had planned for a time like 1976, but when 1976 came the money was squandered.

MR. LAUK: Deliver your own speeches, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I am being heckled by an hon. member. He says: "Make your own speeches." Well, what does he think I'm doing?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You know!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Now I'm going to give you just an idea, if you'll listen to this for a minute, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: What about now?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Just listen! I'm talking about now! All right, you asked me to talk about now; I'll talk about now.

The hon. member for Nanaimo further said: "What a terrible thing! You leased our ferries to some eastern corporation in Toronto and bought them back."

MR. LAUK: You sold them and leased them back.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We sold them and leased them back. All right, put it any way you want. What's the difference?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the difference!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Keep quiet! Hon. member, keep quiet! (Laughter.) He couldn't take it. He had to leave.

The fact is the government recovered $49 million. What a beautiful deal! Why can't they understand it? The government recovered $49 million for these ferries, paying interest at the rate of 7 per cent, and can re-purchase these ferries in 18 years for 17 per cent of their present value, and with ferries kept up like they're kept up here, they'll be as good then as they are now. We just got $49 million for nothing! It was a very good deal, and yet they'll take this and say it's a bad deal. How can it be a bad deal? Now the reason it was a good deal is because at that time there was a loophole in the federal tax system that allowed these people to make quick recovery of certain profits that they were gathering, but it only deferred them, and these loopholes are blocked.

The hon. member also said that small business failures were up in 1976. Of course they were up! They were up because the first to suffer in a downturn is a small business, but the small businesses are now coming back to British Columbia.

I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . The federal government has a plan of this nature but I do not think we have it in British Columbia — not directly. I would like to suggest to the hon. minister that we should have a plan for the small businessman — not the one who wants to borrow $500,000 or $100,000, but the man who can employ one or two people and needs to borrow $25,000. We should be encouraging small businesses in British Columbia. Small businesses are the backbone of this province — are the backbone of any country. We always think in terms of big business — in other words, hundreds of employees — but that's not where the employment is. Half the employment in British Columbia is in small businesses.

If we look after the small businessmen, the small businesses, the province must succeed, and I commend to the hon. minister that he look into this very carefully and be prepared to take a little risk now and again. There's nothing wrong with taking a risk — nothing wrong at all. If you lose a dollar or two now and again...well, if you lose $1 and gain $4, it would be a very successful project. I know many small businesses that are unable to open, unable to start. They have great ideas but no way of getting $25,000 or $30,000 to get themselves on the road.

MR. WALLACE: It might upset the bottom line if

[ Page 456 ]

you take a risk, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, it does not. That's the great thing about private enterprise — they take risks, and the bottom line gets wrecked occasionally.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, but you're telling them to take risks with public money.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, no. You don't take risks when you win four out of five. That's not a risk. When you can win four out of five, that's no risk.

MR. WALLACE: I've never won four out of five.

MR. MUSSALLEM: There's nothing to it. Where there is private enterprise, the people prosper. Where there is reward for effort, jobs are created. Where the individual is unfettered by government and government interference, the future of the people is assured. The highest standard of living is by our system of free enterprise. The lowest standard of living is under the socialist system because when the socialists take over there are one or two bosses at the top and the rest become the serfs. The heavy hand of socialism has squashed and defeated any nation that has taken it up — Russia, China.... Russia buys wheat from Canada and the United States.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): They can't even feed themselves.

MR. MUSSALLEM: China does the same thing; can't feed themselves. Russia, once known as the breadbasket of the world, have left only the basket — no bread.

Social Credit is private enterprise, and that's what it stands for. The experimenter will not, must not, have returned. The experimentation with the public fund has got to be ended. We must be developing on the solid system of fiscal responsibility.

NDP — New Democratic Party — why did you ever use the word "democratic"? It is a masquerade. Why don't you have it the "New Socialist Party"? Why not use that for a term? A masquerade.

You see, the socialists cannot ever come out with the true facts because when they do, the people see through it. Although I hate to admit it, the best thing that could have happened to us was to be defeated in 1972 — isn't that a hard thing to say? — because it had to come some day, but it will never return. The people saw — the public could see — what socialism give us: disaster at every turn.

I would like to address myself to the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . I want to suggest to the hon. Minister of Education....

MR. WALLACE: Pat, are you listening?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you, Mr. Member. Yes, is he listening?

MR. WALLACE: Always ready to help.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I suggest to the hon. Minister of Education that a new status be given to learning in British Columbia — that we take away the high-status standard of the university-educated person.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Every mother wants her son or daughter to go through university — you have heard the term so often — because it has status. We do not have sufficient status in the vocational system, and we will never have status while the department is run the way it is run today, Mr. Minister. What we need is a deputy minister in charge of vocational training. What we need is to bend our efforts to give status to vocational training.

The system we have today is oriented to research, and research is not everybody's bag. Only 20 per cent of our children will go to university, but our whole system is oriented to them. Our whole system is oriented to 20 per cent of our students, and that is a tremendous mistake, and I hope the minister will take that into consideration.

We have to have a deputy ministry that is able to further and expand vocational training. We have to get vocational training out of the hands of the unions, with respect to the unions. But everybody must have a skill; whether they use it or not, they must have a skill. There are so many skills so easily available — the construction trades, mechanics, electronics, refrigeration, business machines, appliance repairs and clerks.

The hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) said that when he was out of a job and 19 years old, he became an interior designer. Oh, wouldn't it have been beautiful if he had been trained for that! He may not have become a minister, but at the same time it's the idea of having a training for something, and every child should be trained to be able to do something and it will never happen under the present system.

The great disaster in our educational system, in my opinion, happened in about 1965 or 1966 when that horrendous thing called "new math" descended on the educational system. I think that was a disaster. Now that could be debated by some, but I think it was a disaster. We must give status to the practical arts.

Recently we have heard, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has been in the fire over the cancelling of cases over 180 days.... Maybe it should have been, be that as it may. I do not know the facts and will not comment on that point. Although the

[ Page 457 ]

Attorney-General is not here — I understand he is not well, but perhaps he will be with us tomorrow — I would like to say that one thing we have been missing in our system is lay judges. Our justice system went out of control when we got rid of the lay judges.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Attorney-General, we need lay judges back in the system, not to handle the large cases and not to handle the technical cases, but for the 80 per cent of the cases that are non-technical. They can be disposed of in a day. That's what we need. We need to get back, and give people justice, because justice withheld is justice denied.

We give legal aid. What a mess! Just ask me, I say it. I hope I'm right, but to me, any time I've come in contact with legal aid it's been a mess. We are going to put out $12 million to protect a drug syndicate. Yet we have no money for a mother that should have appealed her case when she was charged with assault because she was protecting the same mother's children, while she was in a drug stupor and mistreating her children. The sister-in-law came over to protect the children, and in protecting the children she had to hold the mother back. The mother charged her with assault, and she is right this day on probation. Now her lawyer, I will admit, was not very good or wasn't prepared. But that case should have been appealed. She didn't have $1,000 for an appeal. Do you call that legal aid? I tell the Attorney-General: there is something wrong, very wrong. There is no time to delay.

A farmer had his truckload of tomatoes seized by the marketing board. He is, in my opinion, definitely right. His civil rights were abused. Can he get to court? No, he can't get to court. He can't get legal aid because it's not there for him. Yet we have $12 million for drug pushers. There's something that has to be wrong. I'd like to know where it is, and I criticize the department for allowing this to happen. I'd let those people have fast justice. For years our courts will be tied up. You call it justice? I call it the antithesis of justice.

I have to compliment the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for his suggestion of light rail transit. I tell you, that is one of the things that we need, certainly in the Lower Fraser Valley. It is needed now. I'd like to also mention, while I'm at it, that the bus system that is travelling is very good, but the buses are running too often. There are not enough passengers in those buses that travel up the valley. Either we have to encourage more passengers or run less buses. But the whole thing would be solved by light rail transit. Get those buses off the road. The Fraser Valley is an ideal place for this operation. I compliment the minister for what he is doing there.

Now we all have compliments for the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), no less from me, except for one thing — he hasn't done anything in Dewdney yet. But he's going to. Mind you, he's done things all around Dewdney and that's good because it helps Dewdney. I thank the hon. minister for what he's doing, and I'm sure the time will come.

Mr. Minister, Dewdney needs the completion of the Mission Bridge very much. That bridge was built while I was MLA in the previous administration, but I was not here when it was opened. I was defeated that time, but the bridge was planned to be completed. The bridge never was completed. Now that's an eyesore and it's a mistake. That bridge took first prize in competition for all over North America for design: modern design and functional design. The bridge stands there, both ends uncompleted. Mr. Minister, I urge you, for the little it would cost, that the bridge be finished. I understand the minister and I thank him for the fact that there's a new Albion Ferry in sight, although he has not given me the word yet. But I am told there's a possibility of a ferry that will carry more passengers and sort of alleviate this bottleneck.

I urge the hon. minister to consider the plea of Agassiz to rebuild their portion of Highway 9. I think that Agassiz has been promised this for the last seven or eight years now. I do believe there is something in what they say. Even if it can't be done in one year, if the ministry could make a start, I think it's fair. Because when they first agreed to build Highway 9, the municipality had to accept 10 per cent of the cost. Their percentage has escalated in intervening years in any case from $17,000 to $96,000 for the same job. It is a heavy drain on the municipality. It is needed, and I hope and pray that it will be given good consideration.

But one of the most important issues is that we have a town in the Fraser Valley, my town of Haney, that is absolutely strangled because all the traffic goes through there — very busy traffic, on a four-lane highway, not a freeway. The town is actually strangled by the need for the bypass. There's a natural bypass there, Mr. Speaker. I trust that the minister will give this real priority because it's a shame to see a town strangled because of the excessive traffic. It's very important.

There's one strange thing that always happens in Maple Ridge on the north side of the Fraser River. It's an unusual thing. People talk about the Fraser Valley, but always in government — not only this government but previous governments — they forget that in a valley you've got to have two sides. But when you talk about the Fraser Valley, immediately to the mind of everyone concerned it is Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack — that's the Fraser Valley. When there are any government offices to be established, when there are government

[ Page 458 ]

appointees to be made, when there are new things to be constructed, they always think in terms of the south side of the valley. Now it's time that we reversed that, hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

Two job-finders appointed for our side, for example — this is just an aside — are both from Langley. Well, that's okay. I don't care where they come from.

I don't care where they come from, but you should remember the north side of that valley. I've got an idea that you can leave it the way it is. I can solve it right now; the minister responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) can solve it. Now he's standing there looking at his papers. Let him hear this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the hon. minister responsible for ICBC that I can solve a problem for him. I've been making problems for him up until this time, but this time I'm solving a problem. He needs a headquarters building. If I say to him he should build that in Maple Ridge, he'll say: "Why? Out there?" Now he hasn't said that yet; I hope he doesn't. "Out there?"

Well, I'd like to tell the hon. minister that they have the land there that ICBC bought for a claims centre. I don't know what they're going to use if for, but it's certainly not going to be a claims centre. That's the place for the ICBC headquarters building.

You say it's too far out. Well, the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has built a beautiful four-lane highway all the way. Let's use Simon Fraser University as a centre — it's not any further from there to Maple Ridge than it is from Simon Fraser to where the new hospital is going out in Point Grey at the university. It's central to the population area, Mr. Minister. People should get out into the country a little bit.

This corporation is not going to be as big as it was. That's the place for a headquarters building, the right place. Give our towns a lift. The traffic in the city, the congestion, is too much. We've a four-lane highway out there. Give the towns a lift. The towns need that, Mr. Minister. Get the centre of government out of the city.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) a matter that was brought to my attention this morning. Senior citizens, in most cases, are required by law to have a medical examination each year. Unfortunately, they are not all well off, by any means; in fact, most of them are not well off. When they go to get this medical, it costs them $10. A government should pay that, and I'll tell you why. If any corporation required a medical examination of anyone within the corporation, the corporation would pay it. Government is requiring this senior citizen to take an examination to maintain his licence, so the government should pay the bill. I think that's an injustice that I'm sure hasn't been noticed before. I appeal to the minister to take this into consideration. That is very important, in my mind.

Mr. Speaker, these things are not big, but they're the little things. The little things are the important things — not the big, mighty things that move, but the little things that you can do for little people. That's what this government is good for; that's what this government can do; that's the opportunity we have today — to do things for everyone. That has always been our policy, as you may have noticed in years past. We shouldn't talk too much about the past, but all the things we did were directed wherever we could to the individual.

It is an honour for me to stand here again and say how much I appreciate the course the government has taken in this budget, how much I am pleased to see that British Columbia is again on the track to prosperity, and that fear no longer stalks the land.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me — the hon. Minister of Forests.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say, you're the one with the hair!

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): I am the one with the hair — a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take my part in this budget debate, but before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to the new ministers who were recently appointed: the new Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf), the new Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and, in particular, Mr. Speaker, to the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who takes over responsibility for an industry which is very dear to me. I understand from very good sources that the people in that industry feel that it is in very good hands and are looking for a very prosperous period over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) made remarks last week to the effect that various ministers had been misleading the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) when he prepared his revenue estimates for next year. He suggested that we were not giving the true facts to that minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the revenue estimates for the forest industry, which is my responsibility. Last year we had revenue estimates in excess of what we are actually receiving, Mr. Speaker.

Our estimates for next year are based on a very

[ Page 459 ]

realistic look at what we think is going to happen in the forest industry. Our estimates for next year on revenue are very, very close to actual revenue which is being received this year, and this year has been quite a good year for the logging industry, a reasonably good year for the lumber industry, and not too good a year, unfortunately, for the pulp industry.

Next year, it is estimated that there will be an increase in exports from our lumber manufacturing industry. That Leader of the Opposition asks: "Why, then, is your revenue not up dramatically?" The reason, Mr. Speaker, is that although we expect to export more lumber next year, we do not expect to harvest any more trees. We had a terribly good year this year in harvesting and we do have a large inventory of unmanufactured logs, and even though next year we export more — and I truly hope we do I – we will not harvest any more because it would be very difficult indeed to harvest more trees than we did this year. The excess in exports will be taken up by inventories now on hand. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that our revenue estimate for stumpage for this year, for the year 1977-1978, is about $50 million, which is exactly what we anticipate receiving during this current fiscal year.

Most of the revenue sources have minor variations from last year, all of which are very logically and easily explained. Timber licences, for example, next year will return us approximately $500,000; last year it was $560,000. If the members will look over the last number of years, they will notice that timber licences each year returned slightly lessening amounts of revenue, and that is because these are temporary tenures from which the timber licence revenue comes and, as they are cut, they return to the Crown.

Eventually there will be no revenue from this source because by that time all temporary tenures will have returned to the Crown.

I have mentioned timber sales. Mr. Speaker, timber royalties, we estimate, will be up somewhat next year — by about $1 million. The reason, again, is very easily explained. Timber royalties are royalties collected on private land and on some of our temporary tenures. These particular areas have the best-quality wood, and when we get into good lumber markets it is quite natural for industry to move into these good stands of timber.

Other revenues for the Forest Service, Mr. Speaker, are almost identical to what we received this current year. I'm sure that were the member who asked these questions last week willing to think a little, perhaps, he would find these revenue estimates are very clearly explained. Our government has a rather unique way of budgeting: we determine what amounts of money we will be receiving from the various tax measures that are in place in British Columbia, we set our priorities, and we do our best to be sure that the revenue which we collect from the taxpayers of British Columbia is spent to their best advantage. The previous government, on the other hand, seemed to have a different way of doing their budgeting: they would determine how much money they could possibly spend and then expand their estimated revenue to suit the expenditures which they hoped to have. It was very unrealistic budgeting, Mr. Speaker, especially when they did not collect it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very, very happy indeed to support fully this hold-the-line budget given by our Minister of Finance. Very shortly after this budget was brought down I had the pleasure of speaking to the Truck Loggers' Association of British Columbia, and shortly after that again to a prominent service club in Vancouver. Both of these organizations, Mr. Speaker, are made up primarily of businessmen — large businessmen and small businessmen — the people who create jobs in British Columbia by investing their capital in our province. These people were all very happy with the fact that finally, at last, they could see that governments were getting their pending under control. They could see, Mr. Speaker, that if government spending was not limited, if it kept growing, more taxes would be required and a greater impost would be placed upon their businesses, and their businesses again would be in a less advantageous position with their competitors in other countries. The succession duties, too, were very good news to most business people in British Columbia. Now they don't have to start thinking about liquidating their business as they grow older and near retirement. They know that their families will be able to carry on with these businesses and maintain the employment provided by these businesses in British Columbia.

A very good friend and constituent of mine in the Nicola Valley has a ranch. This ranch has been in his family for four generations, and each generation has added to the value of that ranch and the agricultural community of British Columbia. This ranch has grown and is a good industry, employs many people and adds tremendously to the agricultural community in the Nicola Valley. During the term of the previous government, this ranch was on the block. They wanted to sell it out and move to Alberta, for they couldn't see any way that they could carry on under that type of a government and they couldn't see any way that they could maintain that ranch if they had to pay the tremendous succession duties that would be required when the elder member of the family passed on. They are happy now, Mr. Speaker, that that ranch will stay in British Columbia, in this family which has developed it from wilderness into a very viable operation.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the only person available to buy that ranch, if it were put up for sale, would be the government. Once again, one more piece of our industry would be under the hands of government

[ Page 460 ]

and one more piece of the life of British Columbia would be controlled by government. That is not the system that built our society and our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, inflation has been one of the most devastating culprits in our ability to compete in world markets over the last number of years. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that the biggest single contributor to inflation has been uncontrolled government spending.

MR. COCKE: And uncontrolled government.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we know that the more governments spend, the more they must collect. And the more they collect, the less competitive our businesses become and the more the people of British Columbia must pay in taxes and the more they must demand in wages.

MR. COCKE: How come you collect more and spend less?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: But, Mr. Speaker, our inflation, our hold-the-line budget, is a demonstration by this government that we want to keep taxes under control. We don't want to add any further impost on our industry to make it even less competitive than it is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty per cent increase last year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Other factors in the inflationary cycle have been a high world demand for all of the commodities produced in the world and, of course, oil price increases by the OPEC countries have been a significant factor.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Another very significant factor has been a high cost of labour in British Columbia and in Canada. The high cost of labour, Mr. Speaker, was brought on by inflation. No one will ever answer the question as to whether labour increased because of inflation or whether inflation was caused by high increases in the cost of living. That question is not important, Mr. Speaker. The thing is that labour increases did add to inflation and are a very significant part of it.

The leap-frogging that took place among various labour unions was not good for our society and it helped to drive our industry further into a less competitive position.

Mr. Speaker, our loggers, our miners, the working people in British Columbia, generally work very, very hard. I've been involved in mining operations for my entire life in British Columbia, and during the last year I've made several visits to our forestry operation. The people who work in the bush and who work in the mines generally work hard and deserve good wages. But our society supports too many non-productive people. Government bureaucracies get overloaded with non-productive workers who must be supported by those few who do produce. A good example, I think, Mr. Speaker, was the recent modifications of the sidewalks out here in front of the government buildings. This work took place over a number of weeks, to make it possible for wheelchairs to be moved onto the curb. Whenever I walked past, there would be one man running a jackhammer and three or four men standing watching him. Mr. Speaker, our society cannot afford this type of waste.

This sloppiness, this bureaucracy, this non-productive section of our society, is not limited to government. Business, too, has to smarten up, for the bureaucracy of business, and especially the larger corporations, is almost as bad as the bureaucracy of government. They must trim the fat and the inefficiencies from their operation in order to make us more competitive. Our labour force, Mr. Speaker, does deserve good wages, but I know that they are responsible people. There are good people in labour leadership and there are good, responsible people in the ranks of labour. They know that their jobs depend upon us remaining competitive.

Government spending, Mr. Speaker, was touted by the former government as being the surest way of permanently solving our unemployment problem in British Columbia. Government spending can have short-term effects on unemployment, and it can help over the very short haul, but only if the spending is used to produce assets for the people of British Columbia. You just can't have spending for spending's sake.

I'm very happy to see that the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has $180 million in his budget for capital expenditures next year. These highways will provide services for people in British Columbia which are solely needed. They'll provide transportation for our citizens and transportation for our industry.

I was indeed happy when Coquihalla Highway was announced because this highway happens to ride up through the middle of my constituency into the constituency of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair). But this highway is not being built for Kamloops or for Merritt; this highway is being built for all British Columbians, and for all of Canada for that matter, for it is a way of getting our products to market, and we must provide every efficiency and every economy in getting our product to market so they can more effectively compete on world markets.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to building the Coquihalla

[ Page 461 ]

Highway, the minister is upgrading the Fraser Canyon Highway to provide improved transportation for the development of the north of British Columbia, and the Hope-Princeton Highway to improve our transportation efficiency to the southern part of British Columbia.

Government spending can help in the short term, providing it provides an asset to the people of British Columbia, providing it improves our efficiency in transportation. Producing goods and services, though, at competitive prices is the only way we can permanently improve the job situation in British Columbia and permanently increase the prosperity which we have had in this great province.

I think we should really get back to some basics of economics when we speak of job creation. In order to create wealth, which is the only way of improving our system and our society, three basic ingredients are required. One is an efficient, productive, hard-working labour force. Mr. Speaker, we have this in British Columbia: we have an efficient, productive, hard-working labour force.

We must have resources. Mr. Speaker, we do have resources in British Columbia; British Columbia is blessed with bountiful resources. But a third ingredient is required: we must have capital. This has not been forthcoming to British Columbia in the past few years. It hasn't been coming because over the last few years the climate to attract capital in British Columbia was destroyed. Capital could not return an investment to the investor because of actions taken by government, because of general world economic conditions and because of unrealistic policies brought about by a government that thought the only thing you had to do to increase revenue was to increase taxation.

Mr. Speaker, you can increase revenue by increasing taxation for a short time. But if you continue to increase taxation, soon you decrease revenue. This government was left with obligations that had to be fulfilled, and when we increased taxes last year it was to fulfil obligations made by previous governments — obligations made without any thought as to where the revenue would come from to fulfil these obligations.

Our budget this year has been kept to a very modest 5.9 per cent increase. This is required to reduce taxation of our industry and our working people in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The grinning member on the other side is probably not capable of understanding this basic lesson of economics. Mr. Speaker, that member does not realize that we must have labour, that we must have capital and we must have resources.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly draw the members opposite under control? They seem to have become infested with a case of verbal....

MR. COCKE: Of what?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Never mind — a verbal ailment.

Mr. Speaker, if any of these three ingredients is missing — whether it be labour, whether it be capital, or whether it be resources — we shall have no creation of wealth in British Columbia: we'll have no jobs; we'll have no profits; we'll have no taxes.

The resources in British Columbia are managed by the government. Capital is managed by the investors and the managers appointed by the investors. Labour is managed to a great extent by labour unions, and to lesser by unorganized labour. Mr. Speaker, all of these factors of our society must work together cooperatively if we are to avoid a further decrease in British Columbia's ability to compete on world markets.

The world does not need the products we have to offer in British Columbia: they don't need our copper; they don't need our coal; they don't need our forest products. We don't produce enough of these to affect world markets. Markets are set by pressures over which we have no effect, really, because we are a very small contributor on the world markets in which we compete. The only way that we can get control or get a part of those markets which we need is to be competitive. We must be competitive.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a very well-known labour leader in the United States made a very profound statement. He said that the worst sin any corporation could make was to not make a profit. That man very clearly recognized that if there were no profits, there would be no wages, and if there were no wages, there would be no revenue in taxation for government.

The previous government thought profit was a dirty word, but I say profit is an essential ingredient in creating wealth and prosperity in British Columbia. Profits are necessary to justify the capital investments,

I was very happy to read last week that the profits of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Weldwood Corporation and British Columbia Forest Products Corporation are up substantially this year. I think that's a beautiful thing. They are almost up to the point now that you could get from a term deposit or a savings account from a bank. If these profits continue to go up, perhaps they will get to the point where we can once again attract capital back to British Columbia. That has to happen.

[ Page 462 ]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite look at our budget and say, "We don't see any jobs in there"; they look at our throne speech and say, "We don't see any jobs in there"; they look at our legislation and say, "We don't see any jobs in the legislation." It is beyond the power of this Legislative Assembly to legislate prosperity in British Columbia; it is beyond the power of this Legislative Assembly to legislate jobs. Prosperity and jobs can only be created by the cooperative hard work by all of our society. You cannot legislate prosperity. Great Britain tried it; it didn't work; many other countries have tried it, and it doesn't work. The only way that we can have prosperity is by hard work, that same ingredient which built our province into what it is today.

The Pearse report was presented to British Columbia about two months ago. It will be a very important guide to the establishment of future forest policy in British Columbia. Within four weeks of the time this report was released, I had placed a forest policy advisory to work to analyse the over 380 different recommendations made by the Pearse report. It's a terribly complicated, complex report, and it has great implications for the future of the forest industry in British Columbia, but our government will not take any knee-jerk reactions to this report. We will not rush into it and start implementing any part of that report until we have studied very carefully what effects there will be.

There will be changes in regulations, Mr. Speaker, as the year progresses, to make our forest industry more competitive. I hope by this time next year we will be in a position to introduce a new Forest Act in the Legislature, but we are not going to do any of these things without a very close, careful assessment of what the results will be. The committee which I have established is working long hours and working very hard. They will come up with proper recommendations to be then approved by our government, which will have the effect of improving the economic viability of our forest industry.

Our jobs and our government revenue all depend upon a healthy, viable forest industry. It's often been said that 50 cents of every dollar produced in our economy comes from that industry. When I was involved in the mining industry I didn't believe it, but I do now. It's an important industry in British Columbia, and we will be making changes as the year progresses.

My colleague from Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was critical last week of the fact that the coastal logging guidelines are still in place, and are not being changed. Well, they are going to stay in place. The guidelines aren't going to be changed, but the method of enforcing the guidelines is. These guidelines are guidelines; they're not hard and fast rules. They were introduced in 1972 as guidelines. The following government became overzealous in their enforcement of these guidelines, and they became rules. In many cases, the degree to which these rules were enforced was very detrimental to our forest industry.

Dr. Pearse very clearly points out in his report that the enforcement of the size of cut-backs on the coast had the effect at times of increasing two and three times the amount of logging road that was required. He also very clearly pointed out that the most environmentally damaging part of forestry operations was road construction. Those guidelines became rules and were enforced to such an extent that they became completely unrealistic. The Forest Service is now under instructions to make every guideline a site-specific decision so that we do not have a blanket rule that is imposed equally throughout the province. These guidelines were meant just to guide the decision-making process and not to become rules.

Mr. Speaker, a great clamour arose shortly after the Pearse report was released for immediate redistribution of all timber-cutting rights in British Columbia. Dr. Pearse pointed out that over the last number of years there had been quite a concentration of timber rights in the hands of a relatively small number of companies. Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service and the present government of British Columbia will not allow any company, whether it be a large company or a small company, to sit on timber values in British Columbia if they are not required for the efficient operation of their industry.

At the same time, any company that is making good use of the timber rights that they hold for the benefit of British Columbians will not have this timber taken away from them because it is their lifeblood. No one can embalm timber or will be allowed to embalm timber. But those who are efficiently using it to create jobs and opportunities and taxes and profit in British Columbia will be allowed to continue to use it. That is the way it should be, Mr. Speaker.

The competitive position of our forest industry has been referred to quite frequently in the media lately — by governments, by editorial writers, television, radio — and it is a problem. It is a tremendously large problem in British Columbia. For example, the wages and benefits for one particular company in British Columbia rose, from 1970 to 1974, between 78 per cent and 87 per cent, while their competitors in the United States, in the same type of an industry, rose by 35 per cent to 45 per cent. I'm not going to argue whether or not this increase in wage was justified. But what I am trying to point out is that our wage rates going up at a more rapid rate than our competitors puts our industry in a less competitive position. We must be competitive if we are to continue to exist.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

[ Page 463 ]

B.C. coastal logging costs in 1970 averaged $31.40 a cunit for this particular company. In 1974, the cost was $67.74 a cunit. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we continue to allow our cost to increase like this, there is no way that we will be able to remain competitive. There is no way that we will have jobs, or opportunities, or taxes, or profits.

The capital investment required to provide the tools for our working people has fallen miles behind that of our competitors. Our competitors are making a much more substantially acceptable profit in their areas of operation than is possible in British Columbia. They are making enough profit to constantly retool their industry, to build new and modern and efficient plants, while in British Columbia, our average return on investment in the forest industry in the last few years has been less than 6 per cent. That is not sufficient money to attract and maintain the capital or to provide the capital to modernize our coastal sawmilling industry that so sorely needs modernizing.

The taxes in British Columbia, composed by Canada and the province, total about 52 per cent in the forest industry. Our competitors in the United States, in a similar industry, pay 38 per cent — another competitive disadvantage. But we do have advantages as well. We still have one of the best softwood forests in the world. We still have the most inventive, ingenious, hardworking work force. We have people who are willing to compete and innovate and make use of our forest. We must encourage this, Mr. Speaker, if we are to remain competitive.

Another example of why we are losing our competitive edge is that capital cost of constructing plants....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in 1970, the cost of building a 750-ton bleach kraft pulp mill in the interior of British Columbia was $80 million. That same plant today would cost more than $300 million. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the sale price of bleach kraft pulp did go up by about $200, but the cost of operating that plant went up by about $218. So we are having less and less potential for profit to pay off rapidly increasing capital expenditures which must be made to keep our industry in business.

Mr. Speaker, we must all hold the line. This government must hold the line. We are doing this by presenting a hold-the-line budget such as we have done. We will keep government spending under control and do our part. Labour must do its part, and I'm sure it will, by lessening its demands upon the economic pie of our industry. And industry, I'm sure, will respond and are doing so. We have had announcements lately that certain companies are investing millions and millions of dollars, perhaps not to create new jobs, but at least to maintain the jobs we have now. Industry, I'm sure, will do its part if they can see that their capital can earn wages just as our workmen earn wages.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that no legislature in the world can legislate prosperity. It is only by setting examples and creating the proper environment that we can have prosperity and jobs in British Columbia. It is for this reason that I fully support this hold-the-line budget.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): It's a pleasure to take my place in this debate on behalf of the residents of beautiful Comox constituency. Before I begin my remarks this afternoon in relation to the budget....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we're getting some feedback here through the system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There appears to be some music coming through the speaker system. Perhaps those who are at the controls might check it.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It's called: "We Shall Overcome." (Laughter.)

MS. SANFORD: Is it your phone, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it's not my phone. Perhaps we could just have a bit of a recess until we determine the source. Perhaps at the ringing of the division bell, members may wish to return to the chamber. We'll try to determine the source. I'm sorry for the interruption, Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD: No problem, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

The House took recess at 3:46 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:59 p.m.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if this was maybe a government plot!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD: Could it be a government plot? Are they afraid that this amendment that we are going to propose today is going to pass? Could it be?

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the Minister of Forests and he made some comments to which I really would like to respond. He was carrying on, during most of his speech, an attack against the working people of this province, an attack that has been started by the Premier and carried on by other cabinet ministers and people in the back bench.

[ Page 464 ]

Today he spent over half his speech reinforcing the impression that this government is trying to create out there: that is, that the working people of this province are overpaid, that they are not carrying their share of the load and that things have to change. They are carrying on this campaign because there are so many contracts that are coming up for negotiation this year. They are setting the stage early, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that he mentioned over and over again was that we have to become competitive in this province — that is, we have to keep salaries down so that our products will be competitive — and the main emphasis was on salaries, Mr. Speaker. But, at the same time, the cost of living that working people in this province face has gone up under this government's administration — up in almost every field, whether it's income tax, sales tax, ICBC, ferry rates — you know that whole long list. And here he is supporting this budget, attacking working people who are going to be asking for an increase, supporting this budget that does absolutely nothing to reduce the taxes to put some money into the economy. I don't understand that Minister of Forests. On the one hand he talks about several people standing around on a job watching'one person operate a jackhammer and he condemns that. In the next sentence he says that we have an efficient, productive work force. He's not even consistent.

The other thing that he said is that we can't legislate jobs and we can't legislate prosperity? Why can't governments create jobs? There are all kinds of job-creation programmes that have been carried on by democratically elected governments all over this country. But, no, this government — hands off. You can't legislate jobs. That's a no-no.

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating is a meaningless, misleading millionaires' budget, and I would add the word "lousy" as well. It is meaningless for those who had hoped that the inequitable 7 per cent sales tax would be reduced. It is meaningless to those who had hoped for some expansion in the intermediate-care programme. It is meaningless for women who look for expansion of day-care services. It is meaningless for those who have children who are emotionally disturbed or who have learning difficulties. It is meaningless to the seniors, to the handicapped and to all of those who are looking for work in this province. For all of them, it is meaningless.

It is misleading as well, because it deliberately underestimates the revenues for the nefarious purpose of a millionaire coalition cabinet. The government wants to build up a surplus so that it can buy votes at the next election with the surpluses that they've built up by handing out various goodies to the electorate. That's what they're up to, Mr. Speaker.

I ask you: Where is the virtue in a $40 million surplus when services are cut and old people are asked to pay more? Ferry rates have ruined the economy of Vancouver Island. The inequitable 7 per cent sales tax still remains in effect. The Conference on the Family has lost its funding. And 92,000-plus people are out of work. And on and on. What is noble or admirable about further cuts in people programmes, underestimating revenues and building up greater surpluses, except to serve their own needs — those who sit on the cabinet benches over there?

Millionaires' budget, Mr. Speaker? I won't comment further on the windfall given by this budget to them, because many speakers on behalf of the official opposition have expressed very adequately my views on that subject. Lousy budget? It's a lousy budget because it will do nothing for people, do nothing to stimulate the sagging economy or to provide work for the 92,000-plus who are out there looking for jobs. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is right — it is Machiavellian malevolence.

I would like to comment on a few specifics within the budget. The sales tax cut on mobile homes, except on the building materials used in the mobile home, is a good thing. It'll help people in my riding, many of whom are turning to mobile homes as an answer to their housing needs. But it is regrettable that the sales tax on all building materials used for homes was not removed, because that was promised during the election campaign by those who now occupy the government benches.

The $50 increase in the homeowner grant to senior citizens would be a good thing, Mr. Speaker, if the government was not going to take more than $50 away from the seniors through ambulance service increases, through Pharmacare cost increases, through cuts in their GAIN programme and through cuts in their senior citizens' housing programme, to say nothing of intermediate care.

The one other comment on specifics in the budget I would like to make relates to propane gas. I think the removal of the sales tax on propane gas is a step in the right direction. It's especially gratifying for me, Mr. Member, because it was on June 29,1976, that during question period I asked the Minister of Finance a question in the House on this. At that time I received an answer from the minister. I would like to quote just the last part of his answer, as reported in Hansard on page 3243. The hon. Mr. Wolfe, in responding to my question about the inequities of the sales tax on propane gas, said the following: "Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, we'll be happy to review the matter. I wasn't aware that there was any discrepancy where propane tax was concerned." He wasn't aware — he has since looked at it.

About a month later I wrote to the Minister of Finance and reminded him of the question I asked in the House. I received a letter from him in August and I would now like to read into the record the letter I received from the minister at that time.

[ Page 465 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you table it?

MS. SANFORD: Certainly — be happy to. Mr. Speaker, the letter I received from the Minister of Finance, following my questions on the review of propane gas tax, is as follows: "I have now had an opportunity to review the matter of application of the social services tax to the purchase of propane...."

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: What is the matter with that member? Call him to order. He's always out of order.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to read that again, Mr. Speaker. There were too many interruptions from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot). May I read it again?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Comox has the floor. Perhaps we could give her the courtesy of our listening.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"I have now had an opportunity to review the matter of application of the social services tax to purchases of propane. The tax also applies to other fuels, namely electricity and natural gas. If the tax were to be taken off propane, it follows that it would also have to be taken off these other fuels. This involves a considerable revenue to the province. The points set out in support of the removal of the tax from propane are appreciated, and they will be retained for consideration prior to the next session when any changes to the present tax laws would be made."

Now, Mr. Speaker, if in August the minister said, "If the tax were to be taken off propane it follows that it would also have to be taken off these other fuels," then why doesn't it apply in January? I've looked very carefully at the budget speech; I can't find anything anywhere that says the sales tax will be removed from either Hydro or from natural gas. But in August it followed that that would have to happen. I'm wondering if perhaps I've missed it. Maybe the Minister of Finance, during debate on the amendment which is to be proposed today, would be able to advise me as to what has happened between August and January, or at least perhaps he could point out to me where I've missed it in the budget.

The student employment programme funding, Mr. Speaker, is totally inadequate. The first year this programme was introduced, $30 million was set aside. The second year, it was $20 million. While this year's programme reflects an increase from last year's $9 million, the $15 million included in this programme, I predict, will not meet the needs of students this summer because there are going to be so many of them out of work. There will be students all over this province who are unable to find work and will not be able to continue their education because of inadequate funds in that student programme.

Mr. Speaker, it is the fiscal stupidity of this government over here that will result in students not being able to get back to school again next year. All the time they're going to be building surpluses while students are not able to get work and are not able to continue their education. Mr. Speaker, that's shameful.

I want to express to this House the feelings that I had when I was appointed labour critic for the official opposition. I want to tell the House that I have to confess I felt a little ill at ease because there is no portfolio in this province that means so much to the people of B.C., and to express my misgivings at assuming the role of critic over a portfolio that has, in the recent past, been so ably administered by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). That member, Mr. Speaker, reminded us during the last session of that particularly heavy load carried by the Minister of Labour. He reminded us that in the field of labour relations the first requirement is to show that there is a neutral referee — a referee that is not only neutral, but known to be neutral. He reminded us, Mr. Speaker, after pointing out that there is no political mileage to be gained from that post, that we could not possibly gain from the kind of confrontation that ensues when neither party has sufficient faith in the referee to respect that referee and his rules. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan was beyond any intelligent dispute, an outstanding Minister of Labour, a man who, when presented with opportunities to turn his post to partisan political advantage, refused to do so, reminding everyone at every turn that taking political advantage of industrial relations disputes was a dangerous thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, the Employers Council respected him for that. The present minister, upon taking his post, expressed his admiration for that. Labour organizations, though they did not often say so, admired him for that. We had in B.C. a tough, able and neutral Minister of Labour. People recognized that. However difficult labour relations in B.C. might become, we had a tough, courageous, neutral referee.

And so, Mr. Speaker, despite our general disappointment at losing the election, we were happy on hearing at the end of 1975 that the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) would take over that vital portfolio. We thought of him as a man of considerable intelligence, courage and sensitivity. You know, he always seems to be on top of the situation. He seems self-assured, although we do know that he has a short fuse, Mr. Speaker, and loses his temper on occasion. We've seen that

[ Page 466 ]

happen in this House many times.

We did expect, under that minister's guidance, a new strain of paternalism to creep in, but we didn't expect anything more serious than that. So, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express our disappointment today at learning otherwise: learning from the way in which he has handled the Workers' Compensation Board; learning from the legislation he introduced last year that he had no intention of being, much less appearing, neutral; learning from his participation in debates that he would not blush at being associated with the most squalid hucksterism — even of his own government — as evidenced in this budget; and learning finally that in doing all of these things he wasn't even following the dictates of his newly found right-wing extremism, but merely taking orders from the Employers Council. Mr. Terence Ison, in his report just released, confirms our conclusions and reinforces our disappointment.

Mr. Speaker, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound assumed his portfolio on December 22, 1975. So far as we know, very little was done over the holiday week immediately after that. Some time very early in January, presumably, the minister got his orders from the Employers Council to fire the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board despite the chairman's submitted resignation. He did not advise the chairman of the criticisms that had been made against him, nor did he invite a defence from that chairman. He lacked the courage, Mr. Speaker.

When the chairman properly and truly predicted the chaos that would ensue, including, by the way, the ludicrous reference in the Ross report to excess rental space and including the difficulty that firing would add to the recruitment of a new chairman, the minister did not flinch in his resolve to carry out the orders of the Employers Council. What a sordid, shabby piece of business, Mr. Speaker!

MR. LEA: Workers of West Vancouver arise!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it has now become clear why it happened. In a letter dated December 31, 1975, that is included in the report on the Ross report just submitted by Terry Ison, a consortium of employer groups told the chairman that they had selected someone to do a review of the board's operations and that he should be entirely happy to treat that reviewer as "independent." In a letter dated January 20, the chairman did what any honest, intelligent chairman would do: he pointed out that it would be entirely improper for the board to agree to a review conducted by a consultant chosen by a lobby group, and a lobby group, moreover, which begins by asserting its pecuniary interest in the matter. That letter, Mr. Speaker, presumably came into the hands of the Employers' Council about January 22. On January 27, four days later at most, the chairman was fired in a fashion that is absolutely unprecedented and the minister gave the Employers Council what they sought — a report favourable to their interests.

The minister chose Ross and Associates because he knew that Ross would do a report favouring and protecting the employers because Ross had done a similar report for Alberta and for Ontario on workers' compensation. Their conclusions were predictable, Mr. Speaker. The minister got what he was looking for: the "boss" report. The taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, should not be asked to pay for this report.

We understand that the Employers Council has recently been over to see the minister again, this time on amendments to the Labour Code — the code that this minister used to praise. I wonder what Labour Code changes we'll see as a result of that visit.

MR. LEA: The Bill Bennett amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have here a sheaf of newspaper clippings — a whole sheaf of them...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table it!

MS. SANFORD: ...which illustrate the incompetence of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to fill any ministry, in my view. At best, Mr. Speaker, they show a record of ineptness parallelled only by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his efforts to sabotage ICBC. These are records, Mr. Speaker, of the chaos that this minister has inflicted on the Workers' Compensation Board, and they include records of the suffering that B.C. families have undergone in order to satisfy that minister's lust for power, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MS. SANFORD: Let me give you a few examples. For instance, on November 7, 1975, a workman in this province was injured. His claim was accepted and he tried to go back to work but found that he could not work, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, his claim was rejected. He appealed in March 1976, the hearing was held on May 6, 1976, and, Mr. Speaker, to this date there is yet no decision about this particular case.

MR. KING: Justice delayed.

MS. SANFORD: Another one: injured March 22, 1976, appealed the decision on June 28, 1976, the date of the hearing September 24, 1976; Mr. Speaker, no decision yet.

MR. KING: Is he on welfare now?

[ Page 467 ]

MS. SANFORD: Well, this particular one that you just referred to happens to have run out of UIC payments and is surviving right now on some money handed to him by Canada Manpower so he can get some retraining.

On June 30, 1976, another worker was injured. He appealed on June 29, the appeal was heard on October 7, and, Mr. Speaker, there is still no decision. I have a whole list of them here! What is happening to all of these workers while that minister has done virtually nothing to improve the situation at the Workers' Compensation Board?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's destroyed it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, if you want to know why these people were forced to suffer unconscionable delays in awaiting ICBC benefits, read this report by Terry Ison. If you want to know how much the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was willing to pay for power, Mr. Speaker, read this report. If you want to know how much the present Minister of Labour is prepared to do in the pursuit of neutrality, read Terry Ison's report. Mr. Speaker, if your stomach is strong enough, if no tale of gutlessness on the part of a minister of the Crown can sicken you, read this Ison report. Read it!

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to read just one small section out of this report to give you some idea of what has happened under that minister. I'm reading from page 14 of the report:

"Instead of proceeding with the selection process, and permitting an orderly transfer of responsibility to a new chairman, the new Minister of Labour made decisions that:

"(1) Commissioned a government inquiry to be made by a company that was unqualified for the purpose" — incompetent — "and that produced a superficial report without having made any proper inquiry.

"(2) Failed to provide a chairman of the board with the protection, that any chairman had a right to expect of any Minister of Labour, from the lobbying of those whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the people intended to be protected by the legislation.

"(3) Left the position of chairman vacant so that the board became leaderless for a year, with consequential damage to the staff morale.

"(4) Delivered a gratuitous insult and financial loss to a public servant and, in so doing, took the risk of jeopardizing the prospects of obtaining a new chairman of high qualifications and ability by making the position look suicidal.

"(5) Brought the planning and development work of the board virtually to a standstill.

"(6) Brought the implementation of new programmes to a standstill without even bothering to ask first what the new programmes were, what the health hazards or other problems were that these programmes were intended to resolve, and what results they were expected to achieve.

"(7) Lost valuable staff to the board.

"(8) Made it clear throughout the board that job security at the senior levels depends upon appeasing the most powerful lobby group rather than reaching decisions by reference to the law of the province, and insofar as the law so describes, according to one's own judgment.

"(9) Sterilized, to a significant extent, the effectiveness of the independent boards of review that were established under the 1973 amendments.

"(10) Created the risk that the board would revert to its old practice of violating section 55 of the Act by refusing to implement, or minimizing the significance of a certificate of the medical review panel that reached a conclusion more favourable to a worker than opinions held of the board."

MR. KING: A scathing indictment by someone who has respect for academic integrity.

MS. SANFORD: It goes on:

"(11) Would deny the new chairman the opportunity of coming into the board as a going concern, and confront him instead with an almost impossible backlog of decisions of various kinds."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon, members, the member for Comox is having difficulty collecting her thoughts. Let's give her the courtesy of listening.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not having any difficulty collecting my thoughts.

"(12) Would determine public confidence in the board, in particular by creating a skepticism about whether the enforcement of health and safety regulations would continue, thereby undermining the incentive to compliance."

Terry Ison also says:

"If the Minister of Labour now wants to mitigate the damage that he has done, and seriously wants to be constructive, he could well (a) issue a public statement dissociating the government from the P.S. Ross report, and (b) see if he can find an able lawyer still willing to take the job, appoint a new chairman, and give him the authority to get on with it."

Mr. Speaker, that's directly out of the Terry Ison

[ Page 468 ]

report.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Find another lawyer — he said "a lawyer" — that's what he wants.

MR. KING: He wants fiscal integrity and fortitude.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in his own defence the minister has just said Mr. Ison only wants another lawyer appointed. I don't care whether he's a lawyer, or what position or what particular background he has as long as he is effective, has some integrity and gets appointed quickly, Mr. Minister. It's over a year.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What do you know about integrity? You used to be a Liberal!

MS. SANFORD: Did you say Ison did not have any integrity, Mr. Minister?

MR. BARRETT: That's what he's implying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: You just said that we want someone with integrity, which wasn't present in the last chairman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, so that we can....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members! In order that we can restore some order to the House, perhaps we could observe a few of the basic rules of the House. I would ask the hon. member for Comox to address the Chair, because to address other members directly across the floor is to provoke the kind of response we are hearing here today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. The Minister of Labour is getting quite twitchy at the moment, and I am afraid that I am responding directly to him on occasion. I apologize for that.

Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment in this debate, it isn't just the point that the Employers Council, having ordered the Ross report, should pay the nickel or dime, or whatever is the price of that wretched piece of political pamphleteering. It isn't just the fact that in this budget the government includes $30 million for rent — and I don't think people have spoken out on this yet — which falsely inflates both government revenues and expenditures. It isn't just that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has increased his real expenditures by $11 million by that artful device of charging $11 million for rent, a device that is leading the people of British Columbia to believe that he is spending a lot more than he is.

Nor is it only the fact that virtually every minister of the Crown has participated in that same guile. Mr. Speaker, it isn't just Arthur Weeks and all the mess surrounding the Grizzlygate. It isn't just the recent revelations about the BCR, which show that this government will pay any amount of taxpayers' money to cover up alleged fraud. It isn't just the well-illustrated fact that this government is pursuing a fiscal path directly opposite to what it knows is in the interest of the B.C. economy, and pursuing it for its own political gain.

Mr. Speaker, it's the people of this province who should get something from that government. The money shouldn't be salted away into the provincial coffers to be used at election time by this gang of hucksters. It should be used for people!

Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the following: that the motion that "Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply" be amended by adding the following:

"but this House regrets that in the opinion of this House the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make provision for the fiscal and human betterment of the majority of the people of the province, particularly in respect t o taxation, investor confidence and employment opportunities, and does not protect senior citizens and the handicapped from the effects of inflation."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion appears to be in order and the proper signature is here.

On the amendment.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, as is customary for the seconder, I will make a few comments on the budget speech in general, as I will lose my place in the main debate.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate and join others who have congratulated the three new cabinet ministers. I mean that in all sincerity. However, I don't think that one can help but notice that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has already surprised everyone by exceeding his predecessor in the area of being uncommunicative and raising the alarm of people in the agricultural industry to the point that he's now doing the impossible — he's making his immediate predecessor look good. But, as I said in all sincerity, I wish all three of those

[ Page 469 ]

members the very best of success in their ministries, all three of which are very important.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there has been comment and a lot of observations made about the millionaires' Monday budget. I think that it has been revealed that there have been serious underestimations of revenues. While on one hand the Minister of Finance, during his speech, pointed to increased activity in various areas such as forestry and mining, at the same time his estimates for revenues were down very seriously from the previous year. It can only lead one to assume that this is a government that is going to play politics, that is going to salt away money and build up phony surpluses and, at the same time, is going to deny people of the proper levels of services which are required. It will not address itself to the measures that have to be taken in view of the problems of unemployment and increased inflation.

I would like to say that I did welcome two moves, and shared the concern of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). Last April 27, during the estimates of the Minister of Finance, I also pointed out that users of propane and butane gas must pay a 7 per cent sales tax, whereas fuel oil is taxed on an entirely different basis of 0.5 cents a gallon. The tax on propane amounted to about 4.22 cents per gallon compared to the fuel oil, which is 0.5 cents. So there was a tremendous disparity there: it is about five or six times as much.

So there was a tremendous disparity there — it is about five or six times as much. It was made even more disparate by the last move of the last session when the government increased the sales tax from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. And it's people who live in rural areas that have to use propane or butane because the services of the piped, natural gas lines do not reach into those areas.

Another thing in the budget which I do think was commendable was the move to remove sales tax from the sale of mobile homes. When I first commissioned the Audain report on mobile homes in 1975, I was pleased to see that this was one of the recommendations, and I am pleased to see that this is one of the recommendations of that report that the government has moved upon.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like also to bring to the attention of the government that while we here in British Columbia are enjoying unseasonable weather — good weather this winter — it has resulted in considerable savings in terms of highway maintenance costs, sanding, clearing and snow removal. At the same time as this is happening, and we're realizing a saving on the one hand, there has been a disastrous effect on one very important industry — the winter tourist industry for the ski hills in the southern part of the province.

The ski hill operations, I think, fall generally into two categories in this province. We have the privately owned enterprises, such as the Grouse Mountain resorts, Whistler, or Last Mountain in Westbank; or we have the community, non-profit enterprises such as one of the most famous, being Red Mountain in Rossland; Baldy Mountain in Osoyoos — through you to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ; also our ski hill, Whitewater, in Nelson; also in Fernie and in Kimberley. We have these community-owned, but nonetheless important to the tourist industry, facilities. As I say, these are nonetheless important tourist attractions and they've been promoted by Pacific Western Airlines and they've been supported by their local tourist accommodation industry. I daresay that in most of these communities the motel operators have, by taking out either no-interest long-term debentures or low-interest debentures or with donations, promoted and supported these facilities, because they realize that it's very important to their winter operation.

Because of the high level and the variety of these facilities in British Columbia we are able to keep British Columbia dollars here in the province in our tourist industry, as well as attracting skiers from outside of the province. Skiers have found that they don't have to go to Sun Valley or to Aspen, Colorado, to find a challenge in keeping with their level of expertise or interest in skiing. Winter vacations in British Columbia can be as good an escape as the sunny climates of California, New Mexico or Arizona. People can ski B.C. They can keep their tourist dollars here and we can also attract people from outside the province. I'm glad to see that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) agrees.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Have you read the amendment?

MR. NICOLSON: To the member for Vancouver South, Mr. Speaker, I might — through you — make an aside that when the seconder speaks on the amendment to a budget or throne debate, he is allowed to make his main speech as he would be losing his place in that debate.

Many ski hills have lost out this year because of the lack of snow during the major revenue period, and that is in the Christmas holiday. Even today, hills such as Red Mountain in Rossland have only the poma lift and T-bar operating. They have three full chairlifts — their major facility — shut down. Instead of operating seven days a week, as they normally do, they are operating only two days a week.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Red Mountain? Red Mountain

[ Page 470 ]

built that third chairlift last summer, and it was counting on this year's revenue to start repayment. I might point out that Red Mountain is not in my riding. This is a general problem throughout the province. Kimberley is virtually shut down. Fernie and Nelson, on the other hand, are in full operation. But because of the late start, and because of the adverse publicity that said that due to the lack of snow we have a general disaster as far as skiing is concerned this year, people have not inquired about skiing those areas. So places such as Fernie and Nelson are not being fully utilized, despite the fact that one would expect to the contrary when there are so many snow-starved skiers.

The full effects of this winter will not be known until next year. There will probably be a drop in season ticket sales that will become evident next December, based on the experience of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Travel Industry has recognized the value of this industry and has promoted it through the quarterly magazine, Beautiful British Columbia. Also, special ski brochures have been distributed through the Ministry of Travel Industry. I would urge that the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), along with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), embark on what I would suggest as a starting point a five-point programme.

They should identify all the ski hills that are presently in full operation. This could be done tomorrow very quickly.

They should launch an information campaign to promote the facilities at such places as those in the north that are in full operation, such as the ones I have mentioned: Nelson, Fernie, Salmo. I believe Vernon would also fit into that situation. They're presently being under-utilized because of the misinformation that is about. I would say that such a campaign could be launched by Friday.

I think that the B.C. Development Corporation should contact all of the privately held operations, including motels, in order to identify areas where financial difficulty is anticipated and investigate means such as loan guarantees or low-interest loans in cooperation with the Small Businesses ministry of the federal government under the direction of the Hon. Len Marchand.

Also, in co-operation with the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, the minister should contact all the non-profit community-owned hills and identify the areas in financial distress.

Fifthly, I would suggest that they allocate funds from consolidated revenue for a community ski hill emergency relief fund, to be established in consultation with the affected areas, with grants to offset loss of operating revenues as established by some auditing process. I would propose that such grants be established on some dollar-matching basis whereby the local community must raise perhaps one-third of the established deficit.

I feel I must point out that I own a debenture in one of the affected hills which I have disclosed, lest there be any controversy over this and someone goes to read what my holdings are. I would pledge that if the government acts upon this suggestion, I would make a grant to our ski hill by forgiving one-half of my debenture, so that I would certainly not be accused of profiting by any such move. So I am obviously not acting out of self-interest.

I would point out to those ministers, through you, Mr. Speaker, a letter which just came today. It was addressed to the Premier. It is from the Ram's Head Inn in Red Mountain. It says:

"I would like to draw attention to a very serious plight that tourist establishments such as ours are in this year over lack of snow in British Columbia. The Ram's Head Inn is a small, family inn business that has only been open one year. We aimed at providing accommodation for skiers at Red Mountain and also to get some passing summer travel and tourist trade.

"So far this year Red Mountain has been unable to operate. Consequently our bookings have been cancelled, and business has been practically nil. We have a Federal Business Development Bank loan on which we are unable to pay interest or premiums, plus, of course, the operational costs which are constant: insurance, et cetera.

"Is there any possibility that the provincial government could help in any manner so that we could continue in business?"

Mr. Speaker, that letter came just this morning after I had prepared most of the remarks which I made on this subject. I think it points out very much the problem which exists. I can say that there certainly has not been a winter like this since 1962. It is not a normal circumstance. Even a great number of ski hills which do have snow are not being used or visited because of general misapprehension that there's only snow in a few parts of the province.

I'd also like to comment on a few concerns which I have. You know that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has tried to dismiss very lightly the 180-day ruling. He's tried to say that it's not too important. I'd like to point out one particular case which happened in the courts in Creston. This is from an editorial from The Creston Valley Advance. It asks the question: "Has Justice Been Equally Done?" It says:

"Three young men were arrested in Creston and charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking after RCMP had seized a marijuana cache last March. All three

[ Page 471 ]

appeared in court charged with identical offences, and all three were remanded without plea until they could obtain legal counsel.

"The three without legal counsel entered guilty pleas to the charges and elected to be tried by a magistrate after they had been s advised of the serious nature of their offence. All three were remanded in custody until they again appeared in court May 11 for sentencing.

"However, one of the three, between the second and third appearance in court, had obtained legal counsel. When that man appeared in court represented by counsel, he was allowed to change his plea to not guilty and his trial date was set for July 20. Meanwhile, the other two were sentenced to six months in the Kamloops Correctional Institute, but the other one was released on his own recognizance.

"On July 20, the charges against that man were withdrawn, although he had been charged on the identical count as the others. The Crown having flown in as witnesses the two men serving their sentences, accompanied by a sheriff, and having flown in a police witness from Vancouver, did not submit any evidence in the case.

"The question asked is why? This is what the community wants to know because the police, although they had tried, had been unable to locate the accused to serve the necessary certificates of analysis as he had moved from his previous address, apparently leaving no forwarding address. It has since been learned that the accused moved to somewhere in the Vancouver area. The prosecution felt that service of the documents just prior to the court Tuesday morning would not be accepted in the court as a reasonable length of time prior to the trial, and the charge was withdrawn. This conclusion was drawn from the study of similar cases laws."

Do we sympathize with the two subjects who did not change their plea and did not get legal counsel, or do we congratulate the person who did? These are the types of things with which I think the community is very upset, and the minister seems to be going in the absolute opposite direction to what people are trying to say.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is suppressing information which, if released, would indicate that a shoplifting and crime epidemic was rampant in the province during the last year. I would further say that he knows that we now see organized crime in communities such as Kamloops, Prince George and, I would say, even in Nelson. There are organized gangs — and I'm not referring to the old-fashioned TV-type image of gangs. This isn't a Mafia or any other such thing. This is a fact, and it's not being revealed: there are organized gangs operating in the small towns of British Columbia, involved primarily in drugs and in other areas. It is no longer just some little user who is supplementing his income and his need for his habit by purchasing drugs and selling them to friends. There is actual intimidation, there are beatings going on, and this type of thing is rampant. There is a powder keg out there.

I think it was Judge Bewley who referred to the silly computer and that it was responsible for all the fuss over the dismissal of charges. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot more information on that silly computer, and I call for this government to release information which is tabulated monthly under the title of the criminal justice monthly report. I call for them to release the police crime ratios; I call for them to release the incidents of crimes, particularly property crimes which are related to drugs and other types of dependencies.

Last year during the estimates of the Attorney-General I spoke at length on the report on impaired driving and alcoholism compiled by the Justice Council of Nelson. I said that the government is a pusher of alcohol, it is an enforcer of the regulations and it is a doctor in terms of having to deal with the problems. The Attorney-General, I must say to his credit, recognized one of the recommendations, and that was that we step up the roadblocks and that we not just hold them during the Christmas season, but hold them all year around. But I have also said that the overservicing of patrons is a very serious problem, certainly in the Nelson area and, I believe, in most parts of British Columbia. I wonder what would have happened in one incident I'm going to relate if the Attorney-General had stepped in and done something about the overservicing of patrons — the forced feeding of beer into people.

Just recently a young man about 23 years old and another young man of 29 years old, with a family and children — both of whom, I believe, had overindulged — got engaged in an argument in a Nelson beer parlour. They called each other out. They went outside. A fight ensued. A young man was beaten to death and he's left a widow and children. I'm not going to comment on details of that as it will be before trial, but one can only speculate on what would have happened had the Attorney-General followed my recommendations last year to consider — it was his department at that time, and is now the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Services and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) — that that department is the pusher of alcohol, this very dangerous drug.

Would that young man be alive today if there had been a crackdown on the overservicing of patrons? It

[ Page 472 ]

may or it may not have occurred if there had been more temperate drinking. Of course, how many people would be alive today if they were to have followed, and not just talked about, increasing roadblocks, particularly if they were to increase them during the weekend periods that I identified as causing 50 per cent of all traffic fatalities?

I have referred to organized crime, and I say that it exists not just in Vancouver but has spread to the smaller towns of British Columbia. I say it's about time that we became realistic about this, that we stop hiding it, that we recognize the danger for what it is.

Now I would like to get to some of the points contained in the motion. The other evening we heard the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) get up and talk about so-called cuts in his budget as if these things didn't exist, as if services to people were not being cut by that ministry. In my riding of Nelson-Creston we have a resident home for the mentally handicapped children and adults called the Doctor Endicott Home. Last year, because of budget cuts enforced by that minister, they had to lay off nine equivalent full-time employees out of a total staff which is now 35 permanent and 15 part-time employees. The effect of that was that they virtually had to eliminate their recreation programme. Two or three years ago I had the pleasure to watch some of these young people participate in Operation Trackshoes, a trackmeet for persons with mental handicaps and physical handicaps from all over the province, held here in Victoria. I also took them out to lunch at the government cafeteria. That programme has had to be virtually eliminated — their recreation programme.

They now are concentrating on what they call survival skills, and that is money management and cooking. The adults who graduate and successfully complete these programmes go out into the community; they don't spend the rest of their lives in an institution. The objective of this is to get these people back into the community. Some of them have apartments and some of them are married. But the staff load is barely tolerable. They have had to discontinue 10 adults from the Cresthaven boarding facility — people who are being funded through the Department of Human Resources but who have no programme to occupy them during the day. They are in these boarding institutions and going absolutely nowhere.

If you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, one class got up to a ratio of 26 to 1. This was a craft class. Mr. Speaker, if you have a science lab of normally intelligent high school students, a 26-to-1 ratio is getting up toward the maximum. These are for mentally handicapped and one of the class ratios in crafts got up to 26 to 1. In woodwork shop, in which there are power tools and in which you need a tremendous amount of supervision, classes got up as high as a ratio of 16 to 1. Mr. Speaker, 24 to 1 is considered safe in a high school, but in this institution, in the Endicott Home, they had to raise their ratio to 16 to 1. Now by eliminating those 10 people from the boarding home, from Cresthaven, which is another institution, they have reduced those ratios to 20 to 1 and 12 to 1, and it still isn't safe. There still is a tremendous responsibility placed on the instructor, and it is certainly a responsibility that nobody should be expected to bear.

There are four or five handicapped adults who come in daily. There's no funding for them. The Endicott Home is carrying those people. There's no problem if they are of school age. For school-age children there is a programme, there is funding, and class sizes are reasonable. But for the adults, and for these 10 boarding-home people, I think it is an absolute disgrace. There is a cut — a tremendous cut — in services in this one area.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of assistance to the handicapped and the elderly, this budget has been a great failure.

The other day I tried to get some information concerning when the Larsen-Bristowe report on intermediate care would be made public, and I have a brief here. On June 2, 1976, a letter was sent to Ms. E. Bristowe, and this brief was presented to the cabinet by the Creston and District Health Society, which is a society dedicated to promoting intermediate care in the Creston area. They have been in touch with us, and indeed I have assisted them in purchasing some property which we hoped would form a basis for building an intermediate-care institution.

But coming up to date: coming back to last June, 1976, furthering their efforts a letter was sent to Ms. E. Bristowe requesting information and support from this new government. A prompt reply was received on June 10, informing them of a study of long-term-care programmes for the province to be conducted during the summer months. Dr. Larsen and Ms. Bristowe offered continued assistance in that letter. A letter was then sent on September 14, addressed to Dr. Larsen, requesting a meeting in response to their concerns, and through that, by the time they met with cabinet, there had been no reply.

I was sent a copy of this, along with the following letter from Rev. Haverstock, the president of the health-care society. He said that they were glad they had a chance to meet with the Minister of Human Resources eventually — that was at that meeting — and they were informed that his ministry, together with the Ministry of Health, was to hear from the Larsen-Bristowe report and jointly make decisions regarding intermediate care across the province in the month of December, and they had received no reply.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that would just perhaps be one area in the province which is seeking intermediate

[ Page 473 ]

care and which is having that response. But when we were in Alberni just a week ago we got the very same information from that area — that they had been promised some action following the receipt of the Larsen-Bristowe report in December, and still we haven't heard from them. What this government has done is effectively put intermediate care into a holding pattern for over a year. They have delayed and delayed and delayed. I say it is the time to stop hiding behind reports, time to table that report and get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he hasn't cut programmes. The minister has made one of the most, I think, heartless and thoughtless cuts to a group that did so much for this country, and which has been treated most shabbily. I am referring to the cut in the soldiers' dependent children grant. It was an Act first enacted in 1948; it was amended in 1959 and, yes, it was repealed in 1974, but the grants, under those very same guidelines, of $250 a year to the dependents of war veterans of the Second and Korean Wars continued to be made by the Ministry of Human Resources in the year 1974 and in the year 1975, and they would have been made in the year 1976 had it not been for the decision of that minister to discontinue the grant.

They say: "Well, you know it's down to only 100 children — there aren't too many veterans of the Second World War who have dependent children attending school." But I say that if it was valid and if it was a token of appreciation to those who gave so much during the Second World War, if it was valid in 1948, why have we forgotten about them in 1976 and 1977? I call for that minister to reinstate that grant. In fact, that grant has not been increased in dollar value, I believe, since 1959, so it is in eroded dollars. It isn't even as significant as it would have been in real buying power. But at least that $250 per year should be reinstated and it should not be discontinued.

Certainly the repeal of the Act was to make it only more administratively efficient to dispense it from the Department of Human Resources rather than to continue making it through the Department of Education. It was never the intention of our government that it should be discontinued, and I think the minister should very much reconsider that.

So he says that there are no cuts. Mr. Speaker, this government has taken a very heartless attitude, and I suppose that if there are going to be any horizontal lines, one of them has to be the bottom line. There has to be a bottom line. But a slavish adherence to this, and the callous attitudes which are permeating, are totally unacceptable to the official opposition.

I want to read a letter, and this is from one of the field people, a financial assistance worker of the Department of Human Resources. It is addressed to a lady, and it says:

"You recently began receiving spouse's allowance, and also received a lump sum back payment. Due to Mincome issued to you for the same period, you must reimburse this department $688.50. Please make your certified cheque or money order for $688.50 payable to the Minister of Finance and send it to this office."

Mr. Speaker, people who are receiving Mincome and who did, admittedly, get a back-dated payment — a lump sum payment from the federal government because there was some mix-up in delivering them their spouse's allowance — are in no position to make a lump sum repayment of $688.50. That was the terse little response. This is the attitude that's out there, and that's the thing that is frightening people. But that isn't the worst thing that this outfit has done. I know of two gentlemen who suffer from multiple sclerosis, one of the most debilitating diseases — and let us pray that none of us in this assembly should ever fall victim to it. These two gentlemen live together. They share the same problem, and one of them is most advanced. He should be in intermediate care. He should be in the intermediate care that that Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) should be getting off of his backside and getting out and building. But he was sent a letter, and he was told to come in. Before they would send him his monthly cheque, they were going to withhold his cheque until he came into the office and gave an accounting of himself and his income. That man hasn't paid income tax in years. They could have checked that; they have access to the Ministry of National Revenue files. They know what his income is.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): They don't.

MR. NICOLSON: They certainly do. They get their computer tapes, and you better do your homework, Mr. Member. That's how they compute the Mincome.

I see I'm on my last three minutes, Mr. Speaker, and that's fine. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear it. A man suffering from multiple sclerosis was told: "You get down to this office, or else you won't get your cheque." This is a heartless government. Those are the orders that are going out, and I'm sure that they would be pleased to provide some details to these two gentlemen. Neither one of them had a car. This man couldn't walk down there. My constituency's secretary drove out there, took him into the office, and he submitted himself to the grilling of these auditors who are finding so much fraud.

I'd like to just say a little bit about fraud. You know, if his full-time inspectors can only find $70,000 worth of fraud in welfare in the Surrey area

[ Page 474 ]

in three months, I could say that I have brought a reasonable percentage of that kind of an amount to the attention of the Minister of Human Resources. He doesn't have a monopoly on concern. Nobody wants to see a good programme abused, because they know that it jeopardizes it for everyone. When such things come to my attention, I will bring it discreetly to the attention of that minister.

But for him to get up in this House and inflame this attitude that attacks everybody receiving social assistance, that makes it so that a person who's been delayed by the Workers' Compensation Board, who's been disentitled illegally by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, must go in as the last resort to get welfare — when it turns his guts to have to go in there — I say is wrong. I say that's what's wrong with this budget, and that's what's wrong with the philosophy of this government. Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I think I'd like to review the amendment briefly, just so everybody has his memory jogged as to about what it is we're speaking.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I didn't know for the last 40 minutes.

MR. LEA: I of course, support this amendment. The amendment reads:

"But this House regrets that in the opinion of this House the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make provisions for the fiscal and human betterment of the majority of the people of the province, particularly in respect to taxation, investor confidence, and employment opportunities, and does not protect senior citizens and the handicapped from the effects of inflation."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Copycat! Copycat!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that there's anyone in the House who, in a quiet moment of reflection, wouldn't admit that what this amendment points out is, in fact, true: that the taxation policy of this government has hurt some people in our society and it's helped others. There is no doubt that the taxation policy has helped others. We have to find out, by examining the budget, who is helped and who is not helped.

We know that senior citizens have not been helped. There are cuts in the amount of dollars toward senior-citizen housing. We understand that senior citizens are not going to be getting their drugs free of cost after this session of the Legislature.

So we know that everyone is going to pay more tax in this province except the chosen few. Who are those chosen few? Those chosen few are among a small minority in this province called the very rich.

Even more important, Mr. Speaker, we have to examine the reason. It's obvious that a government which brings in this kind of budget is expecting to get a certain amount of flak by those who've been hit, and hit hard. But they are willing to take that kind of flak, and you must ask yourself why. I think that to answer that question you must go back before the election of December, 1975, and examine how this coalition government has come to be. Who are the people involved in making the decisions? What are the factions within that government?

There are only two ridings that are particularly helped by that legislation that has come in: West Vancouver–Howe Sound and Vancouver–Point Grey. Those two ridings are the only ridings that have been helped to any considerable amount by this budget. Who are the people representing those ridings? The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) have for years, both in the Liberal Party and in this new coalition, represented the very, very rich in this province — not only emotionally and intellectually, but, in fact, because those people live in their ridings.

Why would a party like the Social Credit Party, which had its very roots with the working people of this province, as did our party...? For years we've had our followers; the Social Credit have had their followers; those people who were not considered to be the ordinary citizens in this province voted provincially for the Liberals time after time after time.

Now we see a coalition cabinet. What was the deal, Mr. Speaker? What was it? What was the offer that made those three Liberal members walk across the floor and join their hated enemy, the Social Credit? What was it? What made them throw ethics to the wind? What made them throw integrity to the wind?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It was me? (Laughter.) If it was me I'm very glad, because finally, Mr. Speaker, it made people like the Minister of Labour show his true colour — crimson pink — when he is being attacked for the kinds of things that are hurting people in the Workers' Compensation Board.

We got the word through the back door, up through the grapevine: "Relax environmental standards on industry and Workers' Compensation Board directions from government to industry. We'll go back and bargain with those workers. We want looser environmental standards. We want the workman in this province to work under conditions that we wouldn't ask animals to work under in some cases in some of those plants."

[ Page 475 ]

What minister was put in charge of doing away, in effect, with the Workers' Compensation Board? A Liberal! What minister was told: "You're going to triple car insurance"? A Liberal! What minister now is being asked to cover up the sins of a former Social Credit government? A Liberal!

Who do they represent? I will tell you who they represent. They represent the elitists in this province. Because the Social Credit had to make a deal to get those three people on their side before the last election, the Social Credit supporters in this province are going to pay the price — working people, small shop-owners, the small businessman, the handicapped. All of these people over the years have in good faith supported the Social Credit Party, only to find out that they are now dealing with a very insensitive, elitist Liberal Party which is saying: "Do what we want or we'll walk out. Where will Social Credit be then?"

Where is the Attorney-General these days?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's sick.

MR. LEA: I'll bet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is so! Don't say that!

MR. LEA: Sick of what?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: He's sick of having to come into this House and face day after day questions about the old social administration that he has had to get down into the mucky Social Credit history and attempt to make look good.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: This is not a place for us to be nice; this is a place for us to speak the truth, whether it's nice or not nice. This is a place to speak the truth. When I look across the floor, Mr. Speaker, at those people who left their integrity and their ethics behind to run across for political opportunism, to do away with the Workers' Compensation Board, to do away with the people's car insurance programme, then I say it's about time that nicety left and we got down.... Do you know what nicety is? It's standing around Liberal parties talking in flowing, dramatical terms about "them."

Mr. Speaker, do you think they've ever seen an ordinary person close up? Have they ever been out there? The Minister of Education hasn't made a free-enterprise dollar in his life — not one, except maybe in the stock market.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: But has he ever worked for one? Has he ever gone out there and worked and tried to make some money, like the rest of us all had to do? No wonder he can go on television and not suspect for one moment that the average family in this province may not have $300 or $400 sitting in the bank to pay for car insurance.

We're looking at an attitude of government, a government that had the chance to come into office, to look at the economy, to take a look at the future economy of this province, and come clean and say: "Yes, we are going through an economic recession. The international economy isn't great, and probably over the next few years we're not only going to have to deal with the economy with a pocketbook approach, but with a compassionate approach to try and get everyone through what is, and is going to be, a difficult period of time."

They had the opportunity to do that, but they actually sucked themselves in. They were so intent on making the former government look bad that they doctored the books.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't have to make you look bad!

MR. LEA: They brought in two budgets last year. Which was the true one? They brought in two. When you look at their record of government, it isn't a very heartening thing to see. There isn't anyone in this province who doesn't agree that the first budget you brought in as a government was a revenge budget. Everyone agrees to that. You may live it down, you may not, but it was a revenge budget. And what's this one? A budget that is going to mean that the sons and daughters of at least 11 Social Credit MLAs are going to get more money through succession moneys than they would have before. That's what it means. Who else did it help except the rich? Who else?

Now the Minister of Finance went on television and said: "Look, there have been studies done to show that removal of the succession duties will help the economy of the province." The next morning the reporters went up to the Minister of Finance and said: "Can we have the studies?" Being true to form, he said: "What studies?" I'm asking the Social Credit government that if there is any study at all that points out to them that there should have been removal of the succession duties, he table it in the House.

MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, I believe that Bills 11 and 12 are already on the order paper and, therefore, the discussion would be out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Afraid of the truth, eh?

[ Page 476 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in responding to the point of order, it's true that there are two bills on the order paper and I would therefore just caution the members of the House not to delve in detail into the matter of estate tax or succession duties or gift tax. However, I don't think that prevents a member from referring briefly to the matter in debate, except that we are on an amendment and it must be in relation to the amendment that's before the House at the present time.

MR. LEA: You're right, Mr. Speaker, and I only meant to refer to it briefly.

But what is the real problem? Why do we get two budgets that not only appear to be, but are, hard on ordinary people and help out the rich? Why do we do that? I don't think there's anybody in this House, or anybody in this province, who would suggest or even hint that the Minister of Finance would purposely do that — unless we're talking about the real Minister of Finance and not the one who only goes by name. The real Minister of Finance in this province is the Premier. I would be willing to wager that you could go into the Minister of Finance-in-name-only's office any day of the week and not find a paper on the desk. I'd also be willing to wager, if it could be proved, that he only read the budget speech probably for the first time a few minutes before coming into the House, and then he just had to skim through it and read it. I don't think that the Minister of Finance had any input into that budget whatsoever. That budget was drawn up by the Liberals and the Premier, all of whom have something to gain because they are from the very rich.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): You should know!

MR. LEA: I don't think the Minister of Finance would hurt anybody intentionally if he were, in fact, the Minister of Finance, which everyone in this chamber knows he is not. The Premier is the Minister of Finance. The Premier has managed, Mr. Speaker, to divest himself only in appearance of all responsibility. The Premier says that Crown corporations are not responsible to the government. He said that they are appointed and they will make those decisions and they're not responsible to the government — no responsibility for the Premier there. Now we have a Premier who won't even stand up in the throne debate and defend the very debate that he put forward — wouldn't even stand up!

Did you notice that when he first came in he had all of those nervous things under control, that he wasn't doing the sort of things he was last year? There was none of this. Everything's calm. But as we got into the throne debate he found out that the people in this province weren't going to swallow it holus-bolus. Then all of a sudden he's nervous — but not nervous enough to get on his feet.

If there's any one phrase that will describe that cabinet — because they are of different political faiths and because the Liberals are in charge — it can only be likened, Mr. Speaker, to a wagon train moving west. As each minister gets into trouble, they set it on fire and push that wagon over the cliff and they circle somewhere else. When did they ever stand up and defend one another? When the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was in trouble last year, the Premier ran out with his tail behind his legs. He didn't defend him.

Any minister who gets into trouble will not be defended by that Premier because when you're burning, he's going to have the rest of them over, just on the other side of the pasture, circling the wagons. He appoints an executive assistant to the Minister of Economic Development's department. As soon as there's a little trouble and that man has to resign, he doesn't even know him. And yet we have proof that the executive assistant worked in his office. He said he didn't know him. Does he know the Minister of Finance?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he have a branch plant?

MR. LEA: Did the Premier approve the budget? If the Premier approved the budget, let him take his place in either this amendment debate or the debate proper and defend the budget. I don't think he's got the guts. He didn't have the guts in the throne speech, and I don't think he'll have the guts on the budget debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Intestinal fortitude.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you in debate just now used a word that is not parliamentary, with reference to another hon. member of the House. You have suggested that you did not think the Premier had the guts. That is an unparliamentary term and I'd ask you to withdraw that phrase.

MR. LEA: I certainly shall, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the term "guts" and say he has no courage, no intestinal fortitude,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you know as well as I do the rule which says that you cannot do indirectly that which you are not permitted to do directly. Unfortunately, it was your choice of words in the initial instance that made it unparliamentary and you must withdraw that implication because you cannot now do indirectly what you had previously

[ Page 477 ]

tried to do directly.

MR. LEA: Well, let's put it this way, Mr. Speaker: he's rather shy. (Laughter.) He's a shy, reticent man who appears to be afraid to take his place in the debate in this Legislature. He hides behind his ministers. He won't get up and defend them when they're in trouble. He runs out the door and appears to have no intestinal fortitude and appears to have no courage. He lets them just go out there and take it on their own and run, Now if that isn't what appears to be a lack of intestinal fortitude, then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what does it appear to you? A Premier who won't defend his own ministers when they're in trouble. A Premier who won't get up and defend the throne speech. A Premier who, I wager, will not get up and defend this budget.

MR. KING: He'll phone his dad.

MR. LEA: Oh, he won't phone his dad. I think there's an open line. But I'll tell you, when he picks up that line, I'll bet you his dad tells him: "Son, think for yourself. Don't listen to those Liberals. They're our hated enemies. They've hated us for years and don't trust them now, because in the long run you have to get rid of them. You have to get rid of the Liberals. You have to make this a strong Social Credit Party again." For the sake of the people in this province, I hope the son follows the father's advice because, Mr. Speaker, give me a good old Social Credit Party any day rather than that conglomeration of political opportunists of the first order. Look at them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Williams for Premier.

MR. LEA: They keep a member like the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who served in a former cabinet and who, I believe, has some compassion for people, out of the cabinet. Why? For the very reason that she may have had compassion for people she doesn't go in the cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hope you will appreciate the fact that we're on the amendment — we're not on the main debate — and that the amendment has to do with the alleged failure of the government with respect to taxation, investor confidence, employment opportunities, and does not protect senior citizens and the handicapped. Please, in your remarks — which would be acceptable in the main debate but cannot be allowed in this debate — keep to the subject matter.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to point out that because of the control by the elitist captains of industry over that cabinet, we're going to have a lot more handicapped in this province from industrial accidents than we've ever had before, because there is a minister who has been charged with destroying all of the good work the previous minister and the Workers' Compensation Board put into effect. That's what I'm saying and that's part of the amendment.

Now what can you expect from a government and a political party that have allowed themselves to be taken over by people who not only appear to, but in fact do, represent downtown Howe Street in this Legislature? — the three Liberals! Where is the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) today? The Attorney-General is not here.

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't been here for a week.

MR. LEA: He hasn't been here for a week. Why is that? You know, the days are ticking by, Mr. Speaker. That is a member who used to stand in this House when he was a Liberal member and go after every government, Social Credit and NDP alike, for bringing in this kind of budget — so did the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and so did the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). They were against it then; they are for it now. But they're only for it now because they can slip in little things that will help their friends, like the succession-duty removal and the gift tax. Can you tell me any Social Crediter or any NDPer who would give more than the $10,000 gift to their wife or husband? Not one! Only the Liberals — they're the only ones who can afford it.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister of Agriculture laughing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're humorous, that's why.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this year, can that minister afford to give a gift of over $10,000 to his wife?

AN HON. MEMBER: He can now.

MR. LEA: Can you? Yes, I'd like you to answer it — just shake your head. And you're a Liberal! You're a Liberal and you can't afford it. But you're not a downtown, white-shoed, dance-hall dandy Liberal, are you? (Laughter.) You're not one of those city-slicker Liberals; you're a country Liberal — and there's a big difference between country Liberals and West Vancouver–Howe Sound–Point Grey Liberals. A big difference.

What we're seeing, Mr. Speaker, is a Social Credit Party being ruined from the inside by a group of people who only are trying to treat one constituency with any amount of fairness, and that's the super-rich in this province. Only the super-rich.

[ Page 478 ]

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Oh, what's going on over there, Mr. Speaker? What's going on? You know, only a party as vicious as this coalition has turned out to be could bring in a budget that is mean and vindictive. What's going on over there now? I'm afraid for the people of this province, because now over there they are vying for leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: They're doing a little vying for leadership. They have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who, when he was a Liberal, said he wouldn't mind being Premier. But I don't think he's the danger. The danger — to the Premier, that is — is from the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: The Minister of Labour is the ambitious one. The Minister of Labour will do the Employers Council's bidding because he knows in doing so that he will get the backing for the leadership of that party. He knows that if once and for all they are going to destroy Social Credit, they have to take control of the city. They know that the city is going to be the part that is going to mean Social Credit is going to go down the tube.

Look at those rural members — the old rural members — who have been Social Credit for years. Where do they sit? The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was in the previous cabinet; if he had been in this cabinet there would have been a fight about this budget.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but he's not a Liberal.

MR. LEA: He's no Liberal; he's not there. I cannot believe that this budget would have been brought in if the member for Skeena had anything to say about it.

What about the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)? What about it?

MR. BARRETT: They even took her chairmanship away.

MR. LEA: That's right, because she's a rural member, Mr. Speaker, and would not have stood for this budget if she'd had anything to say about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I redirect your remarks to the amendment which is before the House, and which really has nothing to do with the line of debate you have been proceeding to use in the last few minutes?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with you because we are looking at the reason for the budget in the first place. The reason for the budget in the first place is because even though they went to bed together, they don't eat at the same table. When was the last time any Social Crediter was ever invited to have dinner at the Liberal's place? I bet that hasn't happened yet. They'll sit in the House together, they'll join political arms around one another, but how often do they meet socially? Do you think they ever do that? I bet not, because most of the backbenchers can't afford the club dues. Can't afford them.

So what we have over here is a group of people who haven't surprised me in the budget, because what do you expect from a coalition of opportunity? They're just a coalition of opportunity who are going to ram cabinet decisions down everyone's throat, including budgets, including throne speeches, including scandal. What are they prepared to do to hang on to power?

MR. LAUK: Watch your backs!

MR. LEA: They've already climbed into bed with their enemies to get power. What do you think they'll do to keep it? They'll do anything to keep power, and that means that in succession duties they've guaranteed a few campaign gifts for next time, Mr. Speaker. You've got to leave the rich some money to pay off, and they intend to go around and collect on that. That's what they intend to do. They know that Social Credit still has a somewhat firm place in the rural areas of this province, but they know they're down the tube in the city without the Liberals. Every time those Liberals come into cabinet and say: "You've got to do this...." Mr. Speaker, do you think it was the Liberals that finally demanded, and stuck to their guns, on having an inquiry over Grizzlygate, or was it the Socreds?

What's going to happen now? Was it the Liberals who insisted on the succession duties being removed? Was it the Liberals who said in concert with the Employers Council: "We'll dismantle the Workers' Compensation Board and be damned to the workers"? Was it the Social Credit? I don't think so. I believe it was the Liberals. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that as long as that coalition of opportunism, people who forgot their ethics, who forgot any standard of propriety in terms of political leanings, exists, those people will do anything to get power and do anything to stay in there. They'll walk over top of the present Premier. You can laugh, Mr. Premier, but you know very well that they didn't even want you in the first place. You just happened to be there as the inheritor and they removed the succession duties for you to get elected, didn't they?

[ Page 479 ]

MR. BARRETT: Down the track.

MR. LEA: Down the track, and you're going to have a hard time, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, holding all that together, because every time that they force you to bring in a budget that isn't palatable to the ordinary people in this province, every time they force you to pick up the scandal of the former Social Credit government and run with it, every time that they force you to make decisions that Social Crediters wouldn't make, you're going to go further down the tube. I don't mind seeing that, Mr. Speaker, but what bothers me, and members of this opposition, is that they're going to take the people of this province down the tube with them. That's what's going to happen. The people of this province are going to have to pay more and more and more to ensure that those Liberals stay in that cabinet. Every budget that's brought in is going to be a budget for the super-rich and against the poor, and against the working poor, and against the workers, the middle class, against shop owners, small businessmen, because they represent the elitists in our society. That's why the Premier, Mr. Speaker, even feels a little guilty about meeting with the captains of industry. He won't even meet with them openly because he's a rural member too, and he knows that the power in that cabinet from downtown Vancouver are his hated enemies, the Liberals, whom he had to marry to get government. I'll say one thing for them, Mr. Speaker: he made them sign cards; he legalized it.

There they are, bringing in the kind of budgets that hurt ordinary people. For what? So you can sit over there in cabinet benches, Mr. Speaker, and look good, think you're good, and help the rich; so you can build up an imaginary budget, so that you can underestimate the revenues and overestimate the expenditures in this budget and hurt handicapped people, hurt the elderly. You're actually going to sit over there, Mr. Speaker, and love those jobs when you know you're hurting people? Some of you know better. Some of you don't. For those of you who know better, examine your conscience, because you do know better.

There are people over there — the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — yes, you too — who know better. When you go back to your ridings you know what they're saying about this budget, and yet you allowed those Liberals to do it to you? Remember what the Liberals used to say about you, Madam Member for North Okanagan, when you were Social Credit and they were Liberal? Remember the speech by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — how much he hated the Social Credit and attacked you personally? Now he's over there in cabinet and you're down there in the back bench, almost to the door?

Are you going to allow, Back Bench, those Liberals to make decisions in your cabinet that are going to take you down the political tube and, not only that, hurt the very people that you have sworn to represent?

MR. BARRETT: I remember what he said about you one day. Shocking!

MR. LEA: I remember it, too.

MR. LAUK: And now they've rotated.

MR. BARRETT: He wouldn't touch you with a 10-ft. pole, he said.

MR. LEA: Now they sit over there. And who are the Liberals in bed with as a cabinet to bring in this kind of budget? The federal Liberals!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: I will close by making a prophecy. I say that the next Attorney-General will have some influence in making sure that the next appointment to London to take Mr. Strachan's place will be Dan Campbell.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: I further prophesy that the man who brought the Liberals into the Social Credit fold, Paul Manning, will be brought into the government of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: "Find a safe seat!" He's going to be brought in as an appointee by that government. I want everybody to mark down these words. Paul Manning, the Liberal hack from the Prime Minister's office who helped bring the Liberals into the Social Credit fold with the help of Arthur Weeks, will be appointed by this government within the next year. Within the next year Paul Manning will be appointed to this government, and the Liberals will have even a stronger say in what's going to happen in this province. That's what's going to happen. Dan Campbell will go to London and Paul Manning into Intergovernmental Relations and then the Liberals will have it all their own way.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Listen, backbenchers, because that's what's going to happen. Paul Manning is coming in. If the Premier thinks that I am not prophesying the future correctly, he should just shake his head no. Just shake your head no, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 480 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't do it, eh?

MR. LEA: It is guaranteed within a year that Paul Manning, who brought the Liberals in, will be working for the Social Credit government in Victoria. The day he is appointed I'll stand up in this Legislature, if we are in session, and tell you why.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the Calgary Kid, eh?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the allotted time on an amendment of this nature.... It appears to me that my interpretation is 30 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think if you look at the standing orders, page 17, the limit is 40 minutes. If we were in Committee of Supply, it would be 30 minutes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're in the budget debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: But we are on an amendment, which is really the main motion at the moment, until it is disposed of. The way I interpret the rule, I believe that the members are entitled to 40 minutes if they so desire.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that I strike terror into that poor member's heart. (Laughter.) He thought possibly that he could get an argument going and we could get the old clock to move around to 6 o'clock.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I'll adjourn at 6, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to talk for a moment or two about this amendment that we have on the order paper. I don't quite share my colleague's opinion of that old Socred government. They were almost as bad as this new one, Mr. Member. The new government, of course, has the added dimension of having these bright boys, these shining blue-eyed creatures from Howe Street. Still, the old government was in a similar direction when it came to their treatment of the ordinary people in this province. Mr. Speaker, that's what this amendment is all about — the ordinary people in this province.

It's interesting that in my mail this afternoon I got two pieces of paper: one was a report to the MLAs — we all got one today, I am sure — from the Mining Association of British Columbia; the other was a letter — page after page after page of indictments against this government for the things they are doing to the little people in this province. Who was it from?

It was from the First United Church, a church that doesn't go around singing its own praises like so many humanitarian groups do. I'm not suggesting that some of these others who do spend a lot of time in self-glorification aren't doing good work. But this First United Church in Vancouver that I know well is one of the most socially conscious groups that I have ever run into in my whole life.

Mr. Speaker, what are we hearing in the report to the MLAs from the mining industry? They say, "We are drooling" — and I am paraphrasing — "over what you are doing for us now. But we want more! We want more from you."

AN HON. MEMBER: Poetic licence. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they have been given an awful lot, considering that the ordinary people in this province were given nothing much more than a kick in the pants from this government: older people and people who, by virtue of some form of disability, are actually squeezed almost to death by this new budget and by the new Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). No wonder my old colleague sitting down there on the end practically walks out of this House in tears when he thinks in terms of what's occurred to the senior citizens and the disabled.

That's what this amendment's about. All we ask is a declaration from that other side: "We're going to be fair." All I'd like to hear in this House is a backbencher get up and begin to question the leadership that's being given British Columbia at the present time.

MR. KING: Cyril did.

MR. COCKE: Cyril did.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's down the tube.

MR. COCKE: Cyril did, therefore jeopardizing forever his possibilities of ever entering that rarified atmosphere of that Liberal cabinet.

MR. LEA: They won't even answer the phone next election.

MR. BARRETT: He can make it back if he joins the Liberals, then the Tories, then he can get in.

MR. COCKE: That's it. He's got to do a double-whammy instead of just a single-whammy.

MR. BARRETT: And then repent.

AN HON. MEMBER: And talk to Paul Manning.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, let me quote. First I'm

[ Page 481 ]

going to quote the mining industry. I just want you to contrast these two industries.

"The Minister of Finance has proposed to eliminate corporation capital tax as it applies to the mining exploration companies. At present, the capital tax is applied to money spent investigating ore bodies. A company may only be in possession of worthless holes which have been drilled into the ground but is still required to pay a tax, removing a sort of taxation. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation excludes development costs which are also represented only by holes in the ground."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they're still beefing. Will you ever be able to satisfy that group? No matter what you do, I contend you'll never satisfy the mining industry, which by virtue of years and years of experience, we have found, want more and more and more. They've always been divested of participation, oddly enough, by the federal Liberals. Then they sort of crept out of it a little bit, and now we're getting into it in the province of B.C.

Let me contrast that, Mr. Speaker. This is the letter from the First United Church. I'm positive that every person in this room got a copy of this letter. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend it as nighttime reading tonight, particularly for people in that cabinet over there.

"We offer the following comment and recommendation on rates: We would firstly wish to emphasize that the present policy of denying equal payments for single persons and couples under 55 is most discriminatory. Most in these categories are unable to work, with little or no hope for eventual self-sufficiency."

Mr. Speaker, certainly I don't want to read all of the letter. I just hope that everybody in the House will read this letter. What they do is compare the situation for all the different categories of people. Let me say this. I want to just use this particular area for the moment:

"Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act. On rates for handicapped persons with dependants, or those 60 years or older, is also discriminatory and penalizes those persons by reducing income assistance from 12 per cent to 28 per cent...."

We understand now what the Minister of Finance was saying when he said there has to be a tightening of the belt. Whose belt? Not his! He's a millionaire, Mr. Leader. He gets some advantages that we're not going to talk about today, Mr. Speaker. But I think we all know, in the back of our minds, what advantages he's going to secure as a result of some moves by this government.

Mr. Cocke moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have now had an opportunity to consider the matter raised earlier today by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), pursuant to standing order 35. Before proceeding further, however, I would like to commend to the House an earlier ruling appearing in the Journals of 1975 at page 225, wherein the Speaker stated: "It is desirable, and according to accepted practice, that the member ask the opinion of the Speaker before raising the matter in the House, as the Speaker should be apprised of proposed proceedings."

However, on the merits of the present application I note that the statement offered by the hon. member refers to information received that a certain private hospital will be closed as of March 4 — the year is not stated, but I would presume it would be the year 1977. The statement goes on to allege: "The government has found it beyond its ability to care for the needs of the senior citizens, " and "...the trend that is growing in the province and the closure of other hospitals may be imminent."

May, 16th edition, page 369, sets forth a number of special restrictions on adjournment motions. Among these restrictions are that the issue must be a single, specific matter, must not involve hypothetical circumstances and must not import an argument. The present matter fails because these restrictions have not been avoided.

Furthermore, the motion is refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity for debate will occur shortly or in time. The House has not yet completed the budget debate, during which the matter raised may be discussed, nor the estimates, which will provide further opportunity for discussion. I suggest you see the Journals of 1975, page 225.

Thus the matter raised does not comply with the prerequisites indicated, and accordingly the scheduled business of the day cannot be set aside pursuant to standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.