[ Page 605 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia (Bill M-203) Mr.

Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 605

Oral questions

Alleged blacklist of public servants. Mr. King — 605

Meadow Creek Farms racetrack proposal. Hon. Mr. Williams answers — 607

Seatbelt legislation. Mr. Wallace — 607

Racing dates for proposed track. Mr. Macdonald — 608

Pemberton report on forest industry. Mr. Gibson — 608

Budget debate

Mr. Lea — 608

Hon. Mr. Davis — 612

Mr. Lauk — 617

Mr. Lloyd — 624

Mr. Kerster — 630

Mrs. Dailly — 633

Mr. Bawtree — 636

Mrs. Jordan — 638

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is a distinct pleasure for me to bring to your attention two distinguished guests from the province of Alberta. We are happy to have with us today, seated on the floor of the House, the Hon. Gerard Amerongen and his wife Betty. Mr. Amerongen is Speaker of the House for the province of Alberta. He is visiting British Columbia for a few days and he's here to watch our House in operation. I'm sure you'll welcome them.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a dedicated community worker from my constituency, Mr. Mack Leaming. He has with him his grandaughter, Michelle Wimshurst, and a friend of hers, Kathy Boyd. I would like the House to bid them welcome please.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to have in the gallery today some 70 young men from the Shawnigan Lake School. I am delighted to be able to have these boys here today, and I know all the other members share my pleasure.

This school recently celebrated its 65th anniversary, in provision of an alternative form of education in this province. I would ask the House to join in welcoming the boys and their instructor, Mr. Grass.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of having a constituent of mine, Liz Caldwell, and her friend, Sharon Watts, visiting here today from my constituency. I would appreciate a welcome to them.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague from the riding of Shuswap, I'd like the House to welcome some of the council members from Okanagan Regional College who are in the gallery. Unfortunately, we know of some who are coming, but our eyesight is so mutually bad we can't recognize the others. We will be seeing them later and we're sure they're the first of many delegations.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HUMAN
RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 203, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED BLACKLIST OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A question to the Premier: yesterday the Premier announced that an investigation would take place with respect to certain documents that were filed with this House and had apparently come from the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) office. I would like to ask the Premier what the terms of reference for that inquiry will be, who will be conducting the inquiry, and will the human rights branch be involved to ensure that the serious allegations that public servants are having their civil liberties abridged also be part of the investigation?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan for his question and his concern for the rights of people. I know he expressed those sentiments when other investigations were taking place; I just didn't hear them.

Mr. Speaker, the investigation is taking place under the direction of the Attorney-General's department. I have asked the acting Attorney-General, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), to hold discussions with the Deputy Attorney-General, which I understand he has done, related not just to the documents yesterday but documents from the same department that were tabled in this Legislature, or dealt with in this Legislature, last year. The scope of the investigation would discuss the security of the office and relate to such matters as they may find necessary in carrying out the investigation.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary. I want to thank the Premier for the information. I may suggest that he extend the investigation somewhat further with respect to security and investigate the circumstances under which a confidential telegram came into his possession.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your supplementary question?

MR. KING: Am I to understand then, from the Premier, that he is totally ignoring the serious allegation that public servants in this province are being identified by their political persuasion and being harassed? Is that being completely ignored in the investigation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 606 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, those three documents that were put together in some fashion, and are unrelated, as I suggested yesterday, are not a blacklist. I reject that. I also reject the way in which those documents were put together in an attempt to make them seem part of a package. As such, no investigation appears to be necessary, but perhaps an investigation into the way the member for Revelstoke-Slocan wishes to use this House might be.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier refuses to answer a simple question. Whether or not he agrees with the interpretation which I hold of the documents is not the question. I have made a serious allegation in this House, an allegation that public servants are being interfered with. I am simply asking if the investigation which he has ordered will embody that area of concern. All I want is a simple answer — yes or no — not a political statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to what I consider his frivolous allegation, the answer is no.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Will the Premier please explain to the House why all of the letter that was received in his office was not passed on — this is according to his own testimony in this House at 6 o'clock last evening — but was retained in his office for the use of his office?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It was retained in his office for the use of his office. It was an organizational chart which was marked with the political affiliation of certain of those public servants, when he could have had for his office use a completely clean organizational chart. Why wasn't that sent on with the original letter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, for the member who wasn't here yesterday when this took place, who wasn't present in the House as the rest of us were, a letter was referred on. An organizational document was kept in the office to look at organization because it was the only one we had as the new government. It wasn't kept as a political document. The member can quite clearly see a copy of it, at least. It was used for organizational suggestions, or apparent organization suggestions, by a member of my office. I see nothing unusual about that.

MR. GIBSON: I might just say in passing that the reason I wasn't here at that time was because I was in North Vancouver at a testimonial dinner for his former candidate in that riding, who is a man I admire more than most of the men on that side of the House! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your supplemental question?

MR. GIBSON: My supplementary question is this: how is it that as of January 9, the date of this memorandum, when this government had been in office for almost three weeks, his office had not had time to obtain a clean copy, an unpolitical copy, of the organizational chart of that department?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might direct it to the Minister of Environment, since the context of my question relates to one of the themes that the Premier developed in his comments last night, and that was the whole question of the integrity of civil servants and their living up to the oath of office. Since much of this issue seems to have been precipitated by a civil servant or public servant by the name of Klaus Ohlemann, who wrote the initial letter dated December 23, could I ask the Minister of Environment whether he has discussed this issue with Mr. Ohlemann and the propriety of Mr. Ohlemann initiating a political issue in the manner in which he did in this letter? Is there any anticipation that the minister will discipline Mr. Ohlemann?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to the member, I have not yet spoken to this gentleman since the incident was raised in the House. It is my intent to discuss the issue with him. I will also be discussing the propriety of such a letter with officials within my department, and we will be making inquiries. I might mention that in seeing the name on that correspondence — which is very difficult to read, really — when it was originally viewed, it was not my knowledge that this gentleman worked for the Ministry of Environment. I believe he is employed in the land service division, but at that time I did not know who this gentleman was.

MR. WALLACE: But you will pursue that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I will be speaking with him, yes, and I will be speaking with some of the other persons involved in the department.

[ Page 607 ]

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): A supplementary to the Minister of Environment: is it not true that since receiving the black-list memo a major staff reorganization has taken place?

AN HON. MEMBER: What blacklist memo?

MR. SKELLY: This is directed to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Is it not true that a major staff reorganization has taken place within the lands branch and, as a result of that reorganization, people who were labelled Social Credit on the chart have been given senior responsibility for critical positions, such as in the north of the province even though they have no experience in the north?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question offends against the directions we have for questions in question period, particularly if the question is offensive, contains epithet, innuendo, satire or ridicule.

Interjections.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Lauk, QC, followed by Gibson, QC. Oh, aren't they jumpy over there today?

MR. SKELLY: On that supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as a result of his receipt of that blacklist, have not some members in the lands branch been promoted to senior positions within the branch?

MR. SPEAKER: The suggestion, hon. member, of a "blacklist" is not a parliamentary term. If you will rephrase your supplemental question in other terms it would be acceptable.

MR. SKELLY: Since receiving the memo, has not a major reorganization taken place within the lands branch and, as a result of that reorganization, personnel who were labelled NDP on the memo have been jumped over and people labelled Social Credit have been given positions of senior responsibility, such as responsibility for the north even though they have no experience in the north?

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question, that is rather filled with innuendo, lack of names and so on, is no. If the member has any names of any people who, he may feel, have been given special privileges, I would appreciate them. But

I might also mention that the memo had no effect whatever upon any reorganization. The reorganization of the Ministry of Environment was necessary because, unfortunately, in a few previous years it had gotten out of hand.

MR. SKELLY: Is it not true that some of the people labelled NDP on that memo, who were responsible for sections of the lands branch, are paid less now than people working under them who, again, are labelled Social Credit on that memo?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: All the persons who would be mentioned on that list or reorganization chart would be subject to the provisions of the Public Service Commission and would be paid commensurate with their duties. Again, if you have any names or details, or amounts of money, please advise me.

MEADOW CREEK FARMS
RACETRACK PROPOSAL

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, yesterday during question period the hon. member for Alberni asked a supplementary question with respect to Meadow Creek Farms Ltd. The question was: has Captain Harry Perry of Meadow Creek Farms made application to the Attorney-General to establish a racetrack in the area? The answer is no. Such applications are not made to the Attorney-General. The establishment of racetracks is a matter for local government decision.

SEATBELT LEGISLATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Transport, in the light of the very substantial amount of correspondence that has been directed to MLAs regarding seatbelt legislation, if he would tell the House whether the matter is under reconsideration or whether he can assure many people in the province that, in fact, the government will reintroduce the bill in a manner in which the minister himself stated....

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill, no coaching!

MR. WALLACE: Hon. Premier, don't bother to coach your minister. Let him answer himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that MLAs....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member

[ Page 608 ]

for Oak Bay has the floor on a question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in trying to meet my responsibility as an MLA, I try to answer mail. But I can't answer mail if we haven't some idea what the answers are from the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: That minister stated in the fall that the legislation would be reintroduced, and I know he's just about to waffle and not give us an answer. Now is it or is it not to be reintroduced?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter of policy. There are several bills under the heading of motor-vehicles legislation to be introduced, and the hon. member will know precisely what they contain when they are tabled in the House.

RACING DATES FOR PROPOSED TRACK

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the acting Attorney-General whether or not a racetrack can proceed anywhere in this province unless the Racing Commission, which is under the A-G's department, grants them racing days

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a racetrack was a question that was asked. Whether they can have parimutuel betting is a matter for decision by the federal Department of Agriculture, as the hon. member well knows, following the establishment of racing dates by the Racing Commission. The question was: has application been made to the Attorney-General to establish a racetrack, and the answer is no.

PEMBERTON SECURITIES
REPORT ON FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: has he read the report on the future of the B.C. forest industry prepared for the government by Pemberton Securities, and submitted, approximately, in October of last year?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I didn't commission any such report. We get numerous reports. I'll check into it and see if I've received and read such a report.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, just before I begin, it's been brought to my attention that Alderman Marzari from the city of Vancouver has just come into our gallery, and I would ask the House to make her welcome.

Last night I was pointing out to the government and to the government caucus that they are not the only ones cognizant of the fact we are facing hard economic times and that there is restraint needed by all sections and all factions of our economy. We are all aware of that, just as members of the government have pointed out to us that we're not the only ones in this province, or the only political party, who are concerned with handicapped, or concerned with the sick, or concerned with the poor. There are people on both sides of the House also concerned with those areas. But what are the priorities of government?

First of all, Mr. Speaker, last night I said that every segment in our society should be concerned about restraint, that it is not only labouring people and tradespeople who should be concerned about productivity. It should be the professionals, the lawyers, the doctors, the small businessmen, the corporations, boardroom people. Everybody in this country should be concerned about the lack of productivity in all of those areas.

The opposition agreed with me last night that in every segment of our society there should be concern about productivity. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) yelled at me across the floor: "Because you're concerned about those areas, come on across the floor and join us. Because if you are concerned, then you have no right being in that other party" — that was the implication from the Minister of Labour.

I pointed out that each member in this House is concerned according to his conscience. We are all concerned on this side about the economy, the future, the need for restraint and productivity. But it also holds that if the members opposite in government agree with me that there is a lack of productivity in every area of our society, then there is a degree of productivity which is also commensurate in our society. In other words, sure, we're all concerned about productivity, but there's no one area of the economy that can be picked out as the dirty villain. Everybody in this society is responsible.

Productivity at the labouring and trades level is just as high as it is anywhere else in our society. That is a fact that the opposition over there — opposition to us, at least — seems not to understand. If we are going to be concerned about the future, economically and socially, then every segment of our society must be examined. If we are guilty of a lack of productivity in one segment of our society, they've agreed that it's in every segment of our population and our society.

What we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is this

[ Page 609 ]

budget, which I think reflects the attitude and the words of government. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the Premier, other ministers and backbenchers have gone throughout this province calling for the need for more productivity in the work place, more productivity at the plant level. They never talk about more productivity from small business; they never talk about more productivity from the corporate boardrooms; they never talk about more productivity being needed from the professionals. Only the working-class citizen comes in for fire under that topic from government.

This budget reflects those words and reflects those attitudes, because what have they done in this budget? They've said to the rich: "Get richer, but no more productivity. We're going to remove succession duties and allow you to get $30 million richer. And what about you working people? We're going to increase the amount of money that you pay into this budget. It's gone up to 80 per cent." Taxation from people is up to 80 per cent of the entire budget, while those other sectors in our economy, the private sectors, pay 20 per cent. It's 80 per cent from working people; 20 per cent from the other factors in the economy.

It's obvious from those figures, Mr. Speaker, that this budget does reflect their words over the past month; it does reflect their attitudes over the past month. There's only one single group in this society whom they want to hold accountable for productivity; they are only blaming one group for, perhaps, putting us into an area of not being competitive in the world marketplace. All of those attitudes and words are reflected in this budget.

They hammer senior citizens; they take away Pharmacare; they take away any amount of money that will do anything in terms of housing for senior citizens in this budget. Over the last two years with the prior budget and this budget they have hammered the working people over and over again with sales tax, with income tax. What about the other sectors in our society such as the coal companies, the oil companies and the rich? Let them go scot-free. This budget reflects their words and their attitude.

Mr. Speaker, I come from and represent in this Legislature a community which has been more adversely affected by the attitudes, the actions, the policies and administration of that government than probably any other community in this province. I have information from municipal staff in the city of Prince Rupert; I get this from the economic department of the city of Prince Rupert. There has been an impact study of the Can-Cel shutdown. That study indicates that an estimated 724 jobs will be lost in Prince Rupert because of the actions of that government, or because of the government allowing actions of Canadian Cellulose when they had the power, the duty and the right to stop those actions in an assessment appeal case.

I asked the Minister of Finance in a question period whether he intended doing anything about an assessment appeal that Prince Rupert went under. The city of Prince Rupert lost $784,000 out of its coffers because of that appeal.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that there is no conscience over there — $784,000 out of the coffers of Prince Rupert because that government failed to act in instructing Can-Cel as to the proper direction they should go in terms of that appeal. We can only hope that the appeal that's been launched in the Supreme Court of British Columbia will be successful on the part of Prince Rupert, because if it isn't, we're in even more trouble than we already are.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right. The assessment authority is also appealing, but also the very papers that were filed in this House by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) from the assessment board recommend section 24 of the Assessment Act be changed, and yet the Minister of Finance stands in his place in this House and says that government has no intention of changing that legislation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in a newsletter by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, dated January, 1977, They have a heading in here called, "Assessment Ruling." It says:

"Finance Minister Evan Wolfe told the Legislature that government will not interfere with the B.C. Assessment Appeal Board's ruling that allowed a Prince Rupert firm, Can-Cel, to avoid paying $784,000 in municipal taxes last year after the Pollution Control Board ordered it to implement costly pollution control measures. Mr. Wolfe also said the government has no plans to amend the section of the Assessment Act which permits corporations not to pay municipal taxes for taking certain pollution control measures. He added that any corporation ordered by a provincial board to spend money could use the same loophole. Prince Rupert council advises that the sum Can-Cel thus avoided paying in taxes now will have to come out of the pockets of local taxpayers."

Mr. Speaker, is that the cost-sharing plan with municipalities that was mentioned in the throne speech?

If it is, Prince Rupert doesn't need it, and no other municipality in this province needs it. This is a serious precedent which that Minister of Finance deems not fit to deal with. He won't deal with it; he says he will not interfere. He will not bring legislation into this

[ Page 610 ]

House to make sure that not only does Prince Rupert get some retroactive help in this case — if they lose that final appeal — but that other municipalities in this province won't come under this new cost-sharing programme mentioned in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a net loss of jobs in Prince Rupert, beginning last October and over the next year, of 525 jobs; 725 altogether, but approximately 200 jobs will be put into place by construction on the new mill construction site. That's 525 jobs. Mr. Speaker, let's do some calculations. I say that approximately $15,000 a year was the annual salary of those millworkers. There were 300 laid off because of a decision that that government allowed to take place. In fact, they had the responsibility to stop that and they didn't — 300 jobs, $4.5 million out of the economy of Prince Rupert because they didn't do their duty. On top of that, 225 more jobs were lost in the service industry in Prince Rupert at $10,000 per annum — another $2.25 million. So we have $6.75 million lost in the city of Prince Rupert because of inaction by that government.

Then we look at their taxation policies last year: $1,200 taxation directly into the coffers in Victoria because of that government's taxation policy. Four thousand families in Prince Rupert; another $5 million out of the local economy, for a total of $11.75 million out of the consumer-spending pockets of the city of Prince Rupert. It's not only the hardship of those people who have no money to spend, who are forced to go on the dole, because of the lack of action by that government. But, Mr. Speaker, we have $11.75 million out of the economy of Prince Rupert in one fell swoop. A town of 16,000 people in the last census...a community of that size with $12 million being taken out of the local economy by direct action — or lack of action — by this government.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the feeling of despair, not only among those people who have lost their jobs, but in the business community in Prince Rupert which knows that their economy has been entirely gutted by a government that doesn't care or doesn't know any better. Not only that, but with that mill closure, in 1977, between the hospital, the school board and the city of Prince Rupert, another $750,000 will not be in the city of Prince Rupert's coffers. Add that $750,000 on top of the $784,000 for 1976, because that government didn't tell Can-Cel to hold up until they could review the legislation of the Assessment Act, and we have another $784,000,

The city of Prince Rupert has recently had to lay off 15 employees because of no tax dollars coming in because of that government's lack of action or because of their action in taxation. Then on top of that, business tax — another $100,000 will not be going in to the city of Prince Rupert's coffers in business tax because of that closure.

The mayor of Prince Rupert has endeavoured to get in touch with this government to ask them why. Why are you doing this to Prince Rupert? Is it because you're ignorant of the facts? Is it because you're mean? Why? They don't even have the courtesy to inform the city of Prince Rupert why they've done it and what they plan to do now.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): What about Mesachie Lake?

MR. LEA: Never mind Mesachie Lake, I'm talking about Prince Rupert. I'm talking about a city that's been crippled by the taxation policies of that government. I'm talking about a city that's been crippled because of the lack of action in that government in directing Can-Cel to take its proper direction. I'm talking about a city that is going through economic and social straits because of that government. And they've got the nerve to stand on the other side of the House and tell me that as a representative of that city I should vote for that government's budget. Mr. Speaker, it's hypocrisy that they would stand in their place and ask me, as a representative of Prince Rupert, to vote for a budget that is crippling that city's economy. It's absolutely stupid on their part to expect that, and it's stupid for them to expect any member in this House to vote for a budget that would do that to any community. It doesn't matter, Mr. Member, whether it's your community or my community or his community. If you stand up and vote for a budget that does that to a community like Prince Rupert, then where are you? Where do you stand? Take your place and talk about it in this House!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Louder!

MR. LEA: Can't you hear me, Jim? That's right, you have to yell through some heads.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the transportation problems on the north coast, on which the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) will take no action.

For the last 50 years we've been negotiating with Ottawa for some sort of subsidy for this coast, like they get on the other coast, and with no success. The former Social Credit government had no success when that minister was in the federal cabinet. We had no success with the federal government when that minister was in the federal cabinet. I think he still agrees with the federal cabinet approach that it is not needed to subsidize west coast transportation — either that or he's had an awfully quick change of mind now that he happens to belong to another political party in another House.

Now what are they going to do? They say to the

[ Page 611 ]

citizens on the north coast and the central coast: "Why don't you just wait until we negotiate some subsidy dollars with Ottawa?" Another 50 years, Mr. Speaker, will they have to wait? Yes, there is no one on this side of the House and there is no one living on the coast who doesn't believe that Ottawa has a responsibility to pay up. What they're saying is: supply the service, negotiate later with Ottawa for the dollars.

Mr. Speaker, that government has the obligation to supply a much-needed service to the residents of the central coast and the north coast, and they are not picking up that challenge or responsibility because they're playing the old game of wait till we get dollars from Ottawa. It's a farce. They have an obvious obligation and duty to put in place a transportation service that will supply the economic and social needs of the coast. They have that duty and that obligation, and they're trying to sluff it off on Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, put the service in place, talk about the dollars later — because if history teaches us anything, we probably won't get the dollars from Ottawa anyway. What good is it, five years from now, saying: "Oh, I'm so sorry we didn't get the dollars from Ottawa, so we will do our duty now and put the service in place." Mr. Speaker, it is an old shell game that's been played by that party over a great many years in this province.

MR. KAHL: You recognize it well.

MR. LEA: When they don't want to do their duty they blame Ottawa. Now oftentimes it's not warranted. Personally, this time I believe their attack on Ottawa is justified; I believe the government is taking the right approach in trying to get those dollars from Ottawa. But to use that as an excuse not to put in place the transportation system that's needed now is just that, an excuse.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport for this government knows that; he's been in both cabinets, the federal and this. He knows exactly what the position of that government in Ottawa is. He knew it when he was there, and he knew we weren't going to get a dime. What is there that would make him believe that we're going to get a dime now? He was a British Columbia Member of Parliament in cabinet, and couldn't get a dime. What makes him think that as a member of this Social Credit cabinet he has more clout than he did when he was in cabinet? On second thought, Mr. Speaker....

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Maybe he does.

MR. LEA: Let's hope so, because he sure didn't have any clout when he was in that cabinet. You'll recall, during that federal election when that member didn't quite make it back to Ottawa, that the Prime Minister came out and gave him a pat on the back. He forgot to tell him there was a stiletto in it. Remember the campaign? He said: "Keep my riding in the federal cabinet." They didn't even keep that member and he was told by the Prime Minister.

Or is that the reason — that personal fight that's obviously gone on between the Prime Minister and the now Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications in this province? Is that the reason there's no headway? Should the Premier deal with this himself? Should the Premier deal with this and bypass his Minister of Transport? Everyone knows that there are bad feelings between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport in this province. So why send him down to speak to the Prime Minister down there? I don't know whether we're going to get any dollars or not, but I do know one thing: this government should never say to the people of the coast: "We will not do a thing until we have secured dollars from Ottawa."

Do it now. Everyone in this province, regardless of political faith, will back you up in that fight with Ottawa to get subsidized dollars for our ferry system. It crosses political lines. We want those dollars from Ottawa. We've earned those dollars from Ottawa. We have every right to those dollars from Ottawa. But that's a fight for another day. Why should the people on the coast wait for you to conclude that fight? Put the service in place. It is your responsibility and your duty to do it. The people on the coast will remember for a long time that you didn't act when you should have acted.

MR. SPEAKER: May I draw your attention to the fact that you're on your final three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do it, Jack.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, last evening and today, I've tried to outline that there are many overlapping areas of concern regardless of political party. There are people on that side of the House, we know very well, who are concerned for the poor and the downtrodden and the handicapped. I believe that on that side of the House, deep down, they know that we are just as concerned about our future economic life and our social life in this province as they are. They understand that we are also concerned about productivity in every segment of our society, and about being able to take our place in the world market places and be competitive with those products that we sell from this province.

We're not talking about that in this budget. We're talking about the fact that this budget does not reflect those views. This budget only goes after the poor and the working poor and the working people of this province, saying: we want you to pay more. We

[ Page 612 ]

want you now to pay up to 80 per cent of the total budget, and we're going to allow the mining companies and we're going to allow the oil companies, the coal companies and the rich to get off scot-free. They're going to get off scot-free while the poor people, the working people, people who don't have the same kind of clout as those corporate friends, people who are in small business, people who are not organized into trade unions, people who are in trade unions, don't have that same kind of economic clout with this government. This government's budget reflects them. It gives more to the rich and makes the poor pay more. Make the workers pay more. Make the small businessmen pay more. And workers, whether they're organized or not, pay more.

This budget, I think, is going to be a living testimony to the attitudes of a government that has only a now philosophy, and to hell with the future.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I'm heartened by the reaction of the press, of investors in this country and of the public generally to our new budget. It strikes a note of sanity in an otherwise troubled world. It's responsible and it's realistic in the inflationary, unemployment-ridden times in which we live.

One large area of concern to British Columbians is energy and I want to dwell on it today. It looms larger in our scheme of things than most realize. It calls for $1 out of every $3 being invested in this province. Its demands on our savings are likely to increase as time goes by. That's why I want to talk about our province's mounting energy requirements and the manner in which they will be met in the years ahead.

Our needs are growing. They are growing too rapidly. They are growing at a rate of around 5 per cent a year. That means doubling our provincial energy needs between now and 1990. It means a 100 per cent increase in energy usage in British Columbia in a decade and a half.

True, this upward trend could moderate somewhat. It could curve over; it could be trimmed back. Using sound conservation practices, we could cut our losses and have less wastage by using energy more efficiently, more effectively, in our homes, at work and on our highways. But I am talking about a matter of degree. I am talking about a 4 per cent per annum growth rather than a 5 per cent growth. At best, I am still talking about a doubling in our energy requirements between now and 1995.

This will take a lot of doing. Historically our growth rate, at times at least, has been as high as 7 per cent a year. Six per cent, in that context, is an improvement; 5 per cent may be the best we can hope for; and 4 per cent means measures of restraint, some of them compulsory and some of them harsh, aimed at curbing our appetite for energy in the 1980s.

Assuming that our best effort to conserve energy is successful, how do we cope with these mounting demands? We are going to have to invest many billions of dollars in power alone. We are going to have to spend a like amount in the search for oil and natural gas, on new pipeline construction, on refinery expansion and on better distribution systems.

And don't forget coal. Coal development calls for new townsites, new highways, new rail lines, new port capacity — big dollars in anyone's scheme of things.

If I had to guess, I would say that our future investment in energy will be running at an annual rate of around $1.5 billion a year in the 1980s. That, as I said before, is the equivalent of $1 out of every $3 invested in this province; it's equal to the dollar value of all the building permits issued in 1976. That's a lot of savings, a lot of equipment, a lot of effort, but it's the kind of expenditure which we will have to make if British Columbia is going to meet most of its own energy needs in the future.

The challenge we face in this province is more than financial. It is a resource challenge because we in this province are energy-deficient. We import more than one-third of our total energy supply. The gap, at least short-run, between our own supplies and our demand will grow in the years immediately ahead.

Our outlook for oil is disturbing, to say the least. It's our biggest energy item. But B.C. wells produce fewer than one-third of every four barrels we use in this country — less than one out of four. The remainder are presently imported from Alberta, and Alberta is having difficulty meeting Canadian demands.

Canada's reserve position, unfortunately, is deteriorating. Domestic production, Alberta and the north aren't keeping up with consumption in Canada. Ottawa is focusing, increasingly, on central Canada. Alberta crude is moving down across the prairies to Ontario and Quebec in increasing volume. Less is coming our way; less is being pumped over the Rockies and down to Vancouver. The TransMountain oil line is running at half its capacity now. Shortly, when the last barrels are shipped across to Washington state, it will be operating at one-third of its capacity.

We in British Columbia are being hurt by this. Our pipeline charges are rising while those to the east are being held in check by the growing volume moved to the east. Already the pipeline tariff to Vancouver is comparable to that of shipping, western crude as far east as Montreal. Economically speaking, we are being pushed out into the Pacific, away from our traditional source of supply, at least in pipeline tariff terms. In tariff miles, we are already halfway across the Pacific, whereas southern Quebec, with the help

[ Page 613 ]

of a federal pipeline subsidy, a new subsidy, has been pulled back to Sarnia, Ontario.

Geographically, the shift of western oil is eastward. It's being focused on the centre of the continent where oil prices, in the long run, tend to be highest anyway, where net returns to Canadian producers have been the best in the past. But today's problem is overwhelming. It is one of a shortage of Canadian supply. To give Montreal security, we are cutting off our exports to the U.S. Pacific northwest. We are reducing exports everywhere. This is exposing British Columbia to tanker traffic on the Pacific coast.

The situation is getting worse. Let me quote, for example, the federal government's recent Green Book entitled: "An Energy Strategy for Canada." Published in 1976, it says that our "dependence on imported oil could increase to the point where imports will satisfy between 40 and 47 per cent of our oil demand." That is by 1985; by 1990, the situation could well be worse. We could be — and I am talking about Canada as a whole — importing half of all our oil requirements principally from the Middle East. Some of these imports may be coming into, the west coast then.

Ottawa obviously is telling us that imports are inevitable, that the volume of foreign oil entering Canada will grow, that tankers will visit our shores in increasing numbers. Increasing numbers on Canada's east coast means shipments into ports which have long been receiving foreign oil. But on Canada's west coast this means tanker shipments for the first time since the early 1950s. At the very least, it means large shipments to U.S. ports nearby.

This is a bad scene. Economically it's unfortunate; environmentally it's a shame; and government must take most of the blame. Political intervention rather than economic forces have caused us to be import-dependent in this country. Tax policy and trade policy both have frustrated exploration and development in this country., They have moved us from a position of self-sufficiency to import-dependence. We were a net exporter of oil in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The outlook for the next decade is for heavy imports, particularly from the Middle East.

Really, we in Canada have lots of oil. Potentially, we have a great deal of oil. We have the tar sands, which alone contain more oil than the oil contained in all of the world's conventional oil pools combined. We have billions of tons of heavy black oil under Alberta and central Saskatchewan. And there are the conventional oil resources of the Mackenzie basin, Canada's Arctic islands, the Beaufort Sea.

But we've been short-sighted. We worried more about prices than production. We taxed away most of the price increase and watched production decline. Provincial royalties have increased dramatically. Export taxes have made sure that the price to Canadian consumers is far below world prices. The difference has gone to finance high-priced imports from the rest of the world.

Some of this money — some of this tax revenue — could have been recycled by industry. It could have gone into exploration and development on the Prairies and in the north, but it went instead to the OPEC countries. It was used to subsidize their oil so that its price, delivered to Canadian consumers, was brought down to our lower Canadian level. While our own domestic prices are rising, the gap is still there. We still have a two-price system. We still pay the Arabs more than twice as much for their oil as we pay our own producers here at home. I say our own producers, but oil companies producing oil in Canada turn roughly two-thirds of their income over to tax departments, federal and provincial, in Canada.

The real problem is that our costs here are high. They are far higher than the costs of finding and producing oil in the Middle East, in Africa, in South America, and even in parts of the U.S.A. I'm told that the cost of finding and developing a barrel of oil in the Middle East, for example, is of the order of 20 cents 20 cents a barrel. But we're having to go north much farther north — and battle with inflation.

Alberta oil which used to cost $2 a barrel to produce now costs $6 or more — not 20 cents, as it does in the Middle East. Tar sand oil costs $12 a barrel and up; Arctic oil is in the $15 or more category, so today's $ 10 price in Canada — protected price — isn't enough to build up Canada's oil reserves, to make Canada self-sufficient in the long run.

Inevitable results: Canadian production falling, imports rising; exports being cut off, including exports south of Vancouver to the U.S. Pacific northwest; Canada's coastal provinces having to import oil — British Columbia possibly for the first time in several decades; Canada falling willy-nilly into the grip of the OPEC powers, countries with lots of oil — low-cost oil — who, by acting in concert, already hold the fate of several western nations in the palms of their hands.

The situation with regard to our No. 2 energy source, natural gas, is better, if only by degree. It's much better in British Columbia. We have our own source of supply in the Peace River area, and if we play our cards right we won't have to be importers of natural gas, even from the Northwest Territories, for a long time to come. We can add to our own reserves. With a big increase in our exploration and development effort we can meet our own requirements through 1990 and service our present export obligations as well. Incidentally, our present export obligations run out in 1989.

But it won't be easy. We will have to match the field-price increases offered in Alberta if we're going to attract the capital we need in order to add to the

[ Page 614 ]

search effort in northeastern British Columbia. This is basically the pricing policy which has been followed in the latest field-price settlements in this province. Our rate of tax must be reasonable. There has to be an expectation of continuity; continuity in pricing, continuity in taxation, continuity in regulatory policies, if we are going to attract the billions of dollars which we in British Columbia need in order to maintain our self-sufficiency in natural gas.

It's still touch and go. We were lucky to get by in the winter of 1973-1974. Then water flooding in our fields, together with a cold winter, made rationing necessary. But drilling has picked up. The exploratory effort in British Columbia revived when the NDP government was defeated just over a year ago.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Wrong! Wrong!

HON. MR. DAVIS: Now it's accelerating under a Social Credit government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The search in our northern gas fields has trebled over the past 12 months. As a result, our reserve picture is taking on a healthy hue once more.

MR. MACDONALD: Because of NDP policy.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Socialists, Mr. Member, may think they have the answer for some things, but they don't produce when it comes to energy. They failed us in natural gas in 1972 to 1975, and even the thought of the NDP returning to power is enough to send shivers up and down the back of every thinking British Columbian. Our oil prospects are bad enough without being forced to become natural-gas importers as well.

MR. MACDONALD: Read the Energy Commission report.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Given political stability in this province, given economic sanity along the lines of the present budget, we can use natural gas a fuel price-leader in British Columbia. Already gas is showing the way — it's cheaper, by far, to B.C. consumers than competitive fuels are in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. It's also cheaper than fuel oil in the U.S. Pacific northwest. Let me give you a few examples: the city gates price for natural gas in Vancouver is 98 cents per thousand cubic feet; it's $1.50 per thousand cubic feet in Toronto; it's $1.75 in Montreal, compared to our 98 cents. Our border price at Sumas, B.C. — that is, gas exported south to Washington state — is $1.94, compared to 98 cents for Vancouver. It's more than $2 delivered in Seattle, Tacoma, Portland.

If these prices outside of British Columbia are high, we must also realize that they're rising faster than they are here in this province. You can be sure, for example, that when the National Energy Board reviews our export price in the fall we'll be asking the fuel-oil price equivalent for the gas we continue to export. The fuel-oil equivalent price is around $2.20 per thousand cubic feet today; it could be more like $2.50 tomorrow.

Northern gas — gas from north of the Arctic circle — is of more than passing interest to us here in this province. It will be a price-setter at the international boundary line. That's the price which users in the lower 48 states will have to pay for additional supplies from Alaska. It's a lot more than our present export price of $1.94 per mcf, the price we're charging now.

Canada can provide a land bridge over which Alaskan gas can move to the rest of the U.S.A. The best route, in my opinion, is the Alaska Highway route. It can provide us with a transportation corridor which we can use for highway and other purposes. But the arrival of Alaskan gas at the international boundary line can do more than that. It can relieve us of part, if not all, of our export obligations to the U.S. It will enable us to keep more of our own relatively low-cost, close-in gas for our own consumption. This way it will not only help us to improve our own supply position, but also maintain the price advantage which our consumers now, enjoy over users in neighbouring parts of the United States.

From natural gas I'd like to turn to the No. 3 source of energy, electricity. Here we're in even better shape, relatively speaking. We have a choice: we've got water power and we've got lots of coal — half of Canada's commercially proven coal reserves, in fact. We can build more dams and we can build thermal plants, or we can have a combination of the two. We can optimize our generation, our transmission and our distribution of electricity. We can keep our costs down and reap economies of scale. We can minimize our investment by running our hydro plants flat out in wet years and using thermal plants to meet our demands in dry years.

True, our power rates will continue to rise with inflation, but they won't go up as fast as power rates in other parts of Canada — certainly in other parts of North America. They won't go up as fast as they've been recently going up in Ontario, for example. No other province in Canada, no state in the United States, is as resource-rich, from a power-producing point of view, as we are. They don't have rivers like the Columbia and Peace, rivers where the key dams have already been built — and the rest, relatively speaking, is easy sailing. Nor do they have vast coal deposits like Hat Creek near Ashcroft. Potentially it's

[ Page 615 ]

one of the largest and potentially one of the lowest-cost sources of power anywhere in the world.

I could go on. I could list dozens of other sources of electrical energy here in B.C. Many of them have environmental problems. Some of them are too far afield — at least for the time being — but they're ours. They're within our ability to develop. They could be fitted into our big B.C. power grid in the future, and we don't have to call on other jurisdictions in order to make them work.

I've not mentioned nuclear power for good reason. It isn't of immediate interest in this province. It isn't of immediate interest because nuclear power is big-volume power. We would need vast amounts of energy continuously before nuclear power was economic in this province.

Incidentally, nuclear power coming from very expensive capital-intensive plants is vulnerable to high interest rates; coal-fired plants, being relatively inexpensive to build, are not. So as long as we continue to live in an environment of inflationary pressures and high interest rates, nuclear power tends to be at a disadvantage and our low-cost coal-fired plants, by contrast, will be cheaper to build, cheaper to operate and much more economical than the nuclear ones.

I'm not worried about supplying our rising demand for electricity in this province. I'm not worried about an 8 per cent growth rate for electricity through the '80s. Quite the opposite. I think that electrical energy should move up in our energy scheme of things. It should pass natural gas in a year or two. It should help us to replace oil: oil imported from Alberta and oil, some of which we may be forced, by lack of Canadian supply, to import from abroad. So the sequence will change. The emphasis will shift from one source of energy progressively to another. Oil may still be our No. 1 source of energy, even in 1990. But electricity — home-produced electricity — will be a close second. Natural gas, reliable as compared to imported oil, will be No. 3. And coal will be coming on. Along with the greater use of wood wastes in our forest products industry and the burning of garbage in our cities, we'll be better supplied in respect to energy then than we are now. But we'll have to use the latest and best techniques. We'll have to curtail our appetite for energy much more than we have done in the past.

Restraint in consumption, greater efficiency in use, less waste, more economy — these, too, are resources, but of a different kind. They are resources which can be mobilized with a view to holding demand down. Making our supplies of conventional fuel and power last longer is good from another point of view. It will cause less damage to our natural surroundings. It will use up less capital and be less demanding of our savings, too.

Conservation, the Science Council of Canada tells us, can pay off. Practised consistently, it can trim our provincial energy demands by 20 per cent in 1990. I'm not suggesting that we should go as far as some other countries have gone. Sweden, for example, has cut its energy growth rate in half. It's had to use Draconian measures, measures which 1, for one, wouldn't advocate for us to adopt here in B.C. But they have been effective and I'd like to list some of them for you this afternoon.

Oil-less, gas-less, coal-less Sweden uses both the carrot and the stick approach. The carrot takes the form of grants to homeowners, commercial establishments and industries. They get 35 per cent of the cost of installing more insulation in their buildings and 35 per cent of the cost of replacing old machines with energy-saving equipment of a later kind. Introducing new processes also involves at 35 per cent subsidy. Loans are also available for the remaining 65 per cent of total costs, on a low-interest, 10-year pay-back basis. This year alone in Sweden, the total budget grants and loans: $375 million.

The stick approach shows up in price hikes and a host of regulations, most of them to be effective this year, First as to regulations: the size and number of windows in new homes are limited, especially those with a northern exposure. Oil burners have to be inspected at least twice a year. Storm windows must be triple rather than double. Insulation must be retro-fitted in old homes, laid on a foot thick in ceilings.

There are other restrictions: temperature limits indoors; maximum speeds on the highways; lighting requirements lowered substantially; wasteful appliances banned; car sizes reduced; summer cottages cut off entirely.

As to prices: another 35 cents tax on gasoline. In Sweden it already costs $2 a gallon or more. Electricity for home use is a flat 5 cents per kilowatt hour, double what our people pay here in B.C.

This is rough treatment. I don't see us moving this far or doing things this harshly, certainly not as they have done in Sweden. But we have to move! We have to conserve energy, use our heads, persuade rather than compel, draw up guidelines for the design of new buildings, build them right, take advantage of solar heating where we can, switch to lower-grade fuels wherever possible, insulate our homes and save a third of our residential fuel bill in the process, drive smaller cars. In the future, we have to use rapid transit, buses, light rail cars wherever possible.

Everything we do should be screened from an energy-saving point of view. We should charge cars more and people less, relatively speaking, on all our public facilities, including the ferries. We should adopt utility rate structures that discourage waste and limit consumption. Old rate structures that saw the price of electricity and natural gas falling as

[ Page 616 ]

consumption increased are out of keeping with our times. More doesn't cost less any more. It costs more. And so our rate schedules should go up — trend up — not down. They should favour the careful uses of energy, the small customers, the conserver and the cost-conscious consumer alike.

Marginal pricing (that recognizes the fact that new dams cost more than old dams, new gas costs more than old gas and imported oil is more expensive than Alberta's oil of today) is on its way. B.C. Hydro's rates are moving in the right direction. And it's about time.

Inteijections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: For the information of the hon. member: the trailing rates have been raised in all instances and the initial rate maintained constant. So obviously that's a trend in the right direction. The shape of the curve is flattening and that's the way to go.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Our users need to be reminded constantly of our energy deficiencies in this province, of the fact that Canada is a have-not nation as far as fuel is concerned, reminded that unless we're careful we're going to be exposed to outside pressures, foreign currency pressures, foreign boycott pressures, external influences of a type and severity which Canadians have never experienced before.

The hon. members are all quite aware of the current shortages in the eastern half of this continent, of emergency measures that Canada is taking to help supply our neighbours in their moment of extreme need. But these short-run measures are a foretaste of some longer-term policies which we will have to focus on very seriously.

We in British Columbia should be doubly aware of the fact that the states immediately to the south of us have now harnessed all of their hydro-electric power. They don't have any oil or natural gas to speak of, their coal deposits are small or marginal so they are more energy-dependent than we are. So our short-term relations with them have to be judged in the longer-term context of good neighbourliness on the one hand and the need to limit our long-term commitments to other parts of the continent on the other.

Mr. Speaker, energy today is a bargain any way you want to measure it. You can do incredible things with electricity, natural gas and oil: you can do the work of armies for a few cents an hour; you can lift great weights and travel great speeds; you can do things that were inconceivable a few years ago in the twinkling of an eye. People spend energy and waste energy because it's so cheap, because it's so convenient and because it's there.

But cut your supply lines and our modern society and modern communities are helpless. Your house is cold, your office is closed and your industry is shut down. This is why the Scandinavian countries, for example, are building up year-long inventories of oil, filling empty mine shafts and building tank farms to reduce their short-run dependence on the outside world, on the Middle East.

We in Canada, with our great land mass, with our vast sedimentary basins, with our wide continental shelf, have, potentially at least, resources to burn. With a little effort, with sanity in our policies, we can have security of supply; with a little imagination we can be self-sufficient. But we have to be resourceful in every sense of the word.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a more definitive word about energy policy as it applies to nations as well as provinces, to small countries as well as nations of continental extent. The essentials are, in order of their importance in my mind: first, adequacy of supply; secondly, sound conservation practices; thirdly, pricing on a replacement basis, not on an ancient cost basis; fourthly, protecting the environment; fifthly, open planning wherever possible.

First and foremost, security of supply: it should be guaranteed wherever possible. It should be domestic, rather than foreign. As far as British Columbia is concerned, this means Alberta oil, not Arab oil. Hang on to western Canadian supplies of oil for British Columbia wherever possible. This energy should be proven up ahead of time. Its existence should be known, if possible, for years in advance and it should be predictable as to cost. This is the ideal situation socially as well as economically, given western Canada's broad resource base which is attainable in British Columbia.

Renewable sources, of course, are to be preferred over non-renewable ones. Water power, using this criterion, is preferable to oil and natural gas — so is solar energy — but together they can't meet all our energy needs. So coal, which happily is abundant in British Columbia, will be used here.

The second essential is adequacy of supply. This is really a matter of investments made ahead of time, using our own people's savings. Industries come to areas where the physical supply is not only assured but can be expanded as the need arises. Our energy industries are capital-intensive, hence the importance of investor confidence, low interest rates and a stable political environment. Without it an adequate supply of energy cannot be guaranteed in advance.

Thirdly, conservation is vital. It's linked to supply, on the one hand, and efficiency and use on the other. Losses must be reduced, waste eliminated. With sound conservation practice, a given resource will last longer — sometimes much longer. It will be more

[ Page 617 ]

effective, more valuable. Also, a conserver society tends to be a cleaner society, a healthier society, more fulfilling from everyone's point of view.

Conservation helps to protect our environment, but forward planning is important as well. Projects should be chosen with a view to their impact on our natural surroundings. Wildlife and recreational values must be assessed and must be protected. Offsetting measures should be taken if they are necessary. All environmental costs must be included in the price of energy. They are small, relatively speaking. We should treat our environment well by being generous in the investments we make in environmental protection surrounding energy developments in this province.

Energy should be priced right. It should be priced, essentially, on a replacement basis. Low-income users can benefit from low first-lock lifeline rates, but bigger-volume users should pay all the costs of today's supplies — the marginal approach, the new-dam-cost approach. They must pay for their consumption on a last-in last-out basis. They must pay enough for their fuel and power to offset inflation. This is a realistic approach to energy pricing. It's the only one we can use if we are going to have an adequate supply of energy in the future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there's the question of accountability: the public wants to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. DAVIS: The people need to know what's going on in the energy field. We all need to know what the alternatives are, why certain projects are selected, why costs are going up, what is happening to our natural environment and how we can conserve more fuel and power than we do. This is a job, in large part at least, for the British Columbia Energy Commission. This is why the commission will be holding hearings around the province, beginning in August. Our producers, processors, transporters and distributors of energy will be appearing before the commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Hydro?

HON. MR. DAVIS: B.C. Hydro will be there. So will West Kootenay Light and Power, Inland Natural Gas, Imperial Oil, the Council of Forest Industries and so on.

The commission will move from place to place. It will sit in different parts of the province, and consumers there can have their say. Local interest groups, undoubtedly, will show up. The public at large can attend. I hope as many of our people as possible will participate in these very important deliberations.

A year from now the Energy Commission will be, issuing yet another energy outlook report. It's already published two, but as public participation increases, this report will be more informative — it and the hearings themselves. The report will be more authoritative; it will be more useful. Not only will this information be helpful to members of the Legislature, but it will help us all to participate more effectively in the development of a proper energy policy in this province.

In this speech of mine, Mr. Speaker, I could have focused on our energy legislation for this session. I am only going to list it now; I'll describe it more fully as each bill is introduced. Here it is:

(1) An amendment to the Pipelines Act enabling the Energy Commission to deal with tariffs charged by all oil pipeline companies acting as common carriers in B.C.

(2) An amendment to the Power Act enabling grants to be made for rural electrification in areas served by investor-owned utilities.

(3) An amendment to the Energy Act which, as the Speech from the Throne indicated, will establish ways in which to keep prices down and at the same time ensure that small retailers of gasoline will continue to play an important role in the marketing of gasoline in British Columbia. As many members have noticed in the budget, the reduction in the tax on propane is from 7 per cent ad volorurn to one-half cent a gallon, in specific terms. In percentage terms the one-half cent a gallon is roughly equal to a 1 per cent tax, so the tax will be reduced from 7 per cent to 1 per cent, and that will be in line with the tax levied on oil products.

That's it, Mr. Speaker, as far as energy is concerned. There are several bills also to be introduced under the heading of Transport and Communications, and I'll deal with these at another time.

I think, from what I have said, that energy is important in our overall financial scheme of things. I think, too, that the budget and other legislation contains measures which will help us meet our energy needs in an effective way, without unduly damaging our environment. I am going to support the budget because it's sane, because it's sensible and because it does all these things.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Energy gave a usual resume of our energy needs in the province of British Columbia. I admire his intelligence greatly; he is a very, very intelligent man and he's able to couch the most outlandish statements about energy in a very smooth, glib, flowing language, and that's a very skilful approach, Mr. Speaker. I got the feeling in his speech that he was striking out at somebody — he was trying to resist or get loose for some change, some control from some powerful source or person.

[ Page 618 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Bob Bonner walks.

MR. LAUK: Bob Bonner stalks this chamber.

MR. GIBSON: Who appointed him?

MR. LAUK: Bob Bonner is the man who runs this province. Bob Bonner runs Hydro, Mr. Speaker, and he was striking out. You could see that there were little departures — very little, mind you — from Bob Bonner's philosophy, and I understand that you checked by telephone and okayed it with him — didn't you, Mr. Minister? Bonner's really running this province.

HON. MR. DAVIS: He's in Japan right now.

MR. LEA: That's why you made the speech!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: That was one of the most revealing comments I could have asked for, Mr. Minister. Did you check with his office? Bob was out of town, Mr. Speaker, so he ventured a little here and a little there.

Oh, thank you. You've just sent me a copy of your speech. It isn't autographed; I'll send it back.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I thought you could refer to it rather than imagine it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: There's his signature: "Best wishes, Jet Lag." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the energy demands of this province and the energy demands of the whole of North America seem to be a bottomless pit. The projections by Mr. Bonner and industry, which are one and the same, demand a premium growth rate, an uncontrollable growth rate, in the last quarter of this century. It has become a bottomless pit. But what Mr. Bonner is doing and what industry is doing is the old game. I was going to say "the old shell game," but it's the old Imperial game, the old Chevron game, the old Shell game. That game is self-fulfilled prophecy.

If you say that energy demands in the next 15 years are going to be 8 or 9 per cent, then industry will do its best to make sure that it is 8 or 9 per cent. They will consume, and over-consume, and over-grow at an uncontrollable rate so that eventually we are going to be in a disastrous situation as far as energy is concerned.

Nobody faces that issue over on that side of the House. Bonner backed down. He made a projection of 9 per cent and then he backed down. But before he did he appeared before the public accounts committee last year and said: "No, that's it. It can't go below that or British Columbia will fall into the hands of the...whoever. There'll be a disastrous breakdown in the economy," and so on. Yet less than a year later he backs down, he revises his estimates, because it is all political and it's all self-fulfilled prophecy.

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the Premier is not in the House because he said something during question period that should go clearly into Hansard. He said he will look into investigating the operations of the official opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding.

MR. LAUK: That's what he said. As he took his seat in question period he said he would look into the operations of the official opposition.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): That will take a minute and a half! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: He said so as the First Minister of this province. I am really shocked at that, Mr. Speaker. He is threatening not the opposition, but this chamber and the democratic system in this province. He is threatening to use the power of the state to harass and oppress his political opponents, his political enemies. We have filed in this House his "Nixon-enemies" list. I wonder how many other enemy lists he's got. I wonder how he is going to use the power of the state the way Nixon used the income tax division, the FBI and the CIA to harass and oppress his political opponents.

It is a destructive attitude, Mr. Speaker. If he hasn't learned anything because of Watergate, it's an even more shocking situation to me. Well, that is in Hansard. He should have to deal with that.

Inteijections.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm delighted that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is here, Mr. Speaker. As I went out for coffee he snuck up and made a speech last night.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He calls me "dumb-bell." Here he is, looking down on a poor little MLA trying to do his best, and he calls me names, Mr. Speaker. "Dumb-bell," he says. But talk about dumb-bells!

Now that he mentions it, the hon. minister stood in his place last night and said: "I am quoting from a press release, or rather" — cough, cough! — "a report, or maybe it was" — clearing his throat — "produced by someone in my department. It said the Grizzly Valley pipeline may go ahead."

By the way, you got the dates all wrong, but that's

[ Page 619 ]

ancillary. You always do that kind of thing; that's your style. That's part of the style. It was in July.

I got the report out and on one of the pages: "As possible northeast developments my department suggested the Grizzly Valley." It says: "Quasar proposes to build a pipeline in the area." That was part of the report.

The statement of the minister, which I was then, said:

"Lauk" — that's me — "concluded that the report was designed to provide the basis for knowledgeable discussion concerning possible courses for development in the northeast and should not be considered as an inflexible bureaucratic blueprint."

You got that, Jim?

MR. COCKE: He didn't think that far.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it was a vicious attack — while it lasted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tip-top.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've heard in this debate, and we begged the front benches to get up and answer while Evan was off back east. By the way, we should hear a report from him soon or I'll threaten that the public accounts committee won't pass his expense chits. I want to hear from him whether he slew any dragons back there. We heard just the faintest whisper of a report that he was even there, but we'd like a report from the Minister of Finance.

MR. LEA: Well, yes, but that's not Evan.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You couldn't understand it.

MR. LAUK: Sure, if you put it in simple language, Mr. Minister, we'll understand it. We'll listen carefully. But while you were away, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, you were spared an excruciatingly embarrassing time because, you know, some of your colleagues did get up and speak. Your seatmate, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the real Minister of Health, and the president of ICBC, stood up. He didn't answer any questions about the $272 million that the ICBC has squirrelled away — the rip-off because of outrageously high premiums on automobile insurance. He says it's the lowest non-subsidized government auto.insurance plan. Non-subsidized — at $272 million in what he calls short-term investments as of December 31, 1976? And premiums are now coming in a scant month-and-a-half later for 1977, which will take it up to $372 million, $472 million, or $572 million that the ICBC can squirrel away.

The big question that he didn't answer is: where is this money going to be invested? All of the diatribe coming from the front benches during this budget debate, all of the dredging up of the past and the old lies and mythology that they're trying to create in this province, and not once have they dealt with a problem that's facing the people of B.C. today — not once. Economic development, jobs, oppressive taxation on the working family — not once have they answered the charges of the opposition. A collection of cliches, homilies, half-truths, no-truths, and flim-flam; that's the kind of speech-making that the treasury benches can offer in reply to the opposition critique of the budget.

And the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — talk about classics! His speech, Mr. Speaker, was a monument to demagoguery, the zenith of self-fulfilled prophesy, and the epitome of self-deception. Demagoguery because his language was meaningless, shallow epithet based on the most startling ignorance ever displayed in this chamber — the silly, homespun nonsense descriptions of what socialists are supposed to be that we heard last night.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You'd better check Roget's Thesaurus.

MR. LAUK: We expected that the hotline callers from all over B.C. would be calling in and saying: "Big Jim, I agree with you. I just read the Marxist this and that, and I read Watchtower magazine and so on." You play to the most base ignorance of the minority of people that used to call you on your programme, Mr. Minister and you haven't changed in the slightest. That's why it's demagoguery. It's self-fulfilled prophesy, because when he was appointed to cabinet he claimed to know nothing, and in the last 14 months has set about to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. It's self-deception, because he really doesn't know how inept he is as an administrator, how hopeless an MLA, and how devoid of policy and how embarrassingly ridiculous a public figure he really is.

That speech, Mr. Speaker, was an absolute and utter disgrace, and that, linked with the blacklist, his hacking up and chopping up of the Land Commission and his response to reporters questioning him on these important items makes him an undesirable minister — a minister who should resign because he is incompetent to fill his office.

Now the Premier spoke yesterday. I notice today, Mr. Speaker, he was wearing his battle fatigues. Did you see that?

MR. COCKE: That was his suit — he got two for one with Allan Williams. (Laughter.)

[ Page 620 ]

MR. LEA: They got four of them — they didn't have change for a twenty.

MR. LAUK: I see. I understand they're going to get B.C. Hydro patches so they can get free rides on the buses while the senior citizens in this province pay more. Of course, they did give them free campsites.

He was wearing his battle fatigues, and I don't blame him, because he should be battle-fatigued. His government is riddled with scandal and incompetence. Their speeches are full of rhetoric and nonsense and do not apply to the problems of today. Never once....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Minister, you weren't here. You listen carefully. I am trying to give you a report of what happened when you weren't here.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've heard this before.

MR. LAUK: You've heard it. So the Premier has admitted to you....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier has already told him.

MR. LAUK: The Premier has admitted to you that he was speaking nonsense. Mr. Speaker, never once during the Premier's speech yesterday did he mention unemployment or the economy. He didn't mention the future of this province. He did not answer opposition attacks about the tax burden on ordinary people: $300 million more in personal income taxes in one year; a 38 per cent increase in one year. That's the biggest increase in personal income tax burden in any one year in the history of this province. Not once did he deal with that staggering increase, that staggering, oppressive burden on the ordinary working families of this province. Not once. And at the same time, having placed that extra burden on ordinary working people, he didn't talk about giving great tax relief to himself and the resource corporations, such as the budget is doing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's an incredible twisting of speech.

MR. LAUK: The facts are there, Mr. Speaker. Last year 25 per cent of the burden of the budget — look at the budget — was on resource corporations, and 75 per cent was on the people and people taxes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Twist, twist, twist.

MR. LAUK: The year before, the last year of the NDP administration, 30 per cent of the burden was on resource corporations. It seems that 5 per cent a year more of the burden of the budget is going to be placed on people, and 5 per cent less on resource corporations in this province every year. You figure out how many years we've got left before 100 per cent of the budget of this province will be on the ordinary working families and nothing will be borne by resource companies because the giveaway gang is back in this province.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): One year.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, of great concern to my riding in the city of Vancouver is what this budget has done to the city. This budget is a complete failure as far as the city of Vancouver is concerned. The Socred budget's complete failure to deal with revenue-sharing with the municipalities, and in particular with the city of Vancouver, is pure and unadulterated treachery, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Credit campaign promise during the last general election is a con on the voters of the city of Vancouver, a great many of whom relied on the promises of the Premier and such Social Credit candidates as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) himself, and the two gentlemen MLAs for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers and Mr. Strongman), not to mention the Liberals, G. and M. — Gardom and McGeer, the old gruesome twosome. Do you remember those promises during the campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as you know, if you are referring to other hon. members of the House, you refer by constituency, not by name.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. Vancouver–Point Grey, first and second. Now, these gentlemen, during the campaign, promised relief to the homeowner, revenue-sharing programmes and massive financial input from the provincial government into rapid transit. It was splashed all over the Vancouver newspapers. It won them a lot of votes, Mr. Speaker. I know that. I repeat, the Social Credit campaign promises during the last general election is a con on the voters of the city of Vancouver, a great many of whom relied on the promises of those candidates, not to mention that they categorically promised the relief of heavy property taxation for the citizens of Vancouver.

They cannot be heard to say that there is no money available from personal income tax or from the budget. The personal income tax alone, as I say, has increased almost $300 million. This is a greater increase than any other time in our history. We have an immediate transportation emergency. We have an absolutely oppressive homeowner taxation in the city

[ Page 621 ]

of Vancouver.

I will just refer to an article. I don't like referring to press clippings like the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) does.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hah!

MR. LAUK: It seems to me, if he didn't have a press clipping, Mr. Speaker, he wouldn't have a speech. He even takes out the old, yellowed press clippings from his files of three or four years ago. But Cliff Mackay of The Courier in Vancouver, on January 27, 1977, on page 2, said some very important things with respect to the attitude of municipal politicians, in particular in the city of Vancouver, to this government and their treachery.

The title of this article is...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table that document.

MR. LAUK: ..."Stop Licking The Hand That Strikes It."

"It's high time municipal leaders in B.C., including and especially Mayor Jack Volrich, got some fire in their bellies, in their financial dealings with the provincial government.

"The treatment given to the municipalities in this week's provincial budget is a shame and a disgrace and a breach of promise. Let them say so.

"To say that it is very disappointing, as Mr. Volrich did, amounts to groveling at the feet of t a harsh and deceitful master.

"We had received a commitment from both the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the idea of revenue sharing would be implemented this year."

Mr. Volrich mourned:

"This means we won't get it this year or next year under the present legislative setup" goes on the mayor. "I hope we will be invited to discuss this further with the government."

He hopes we'll be invited to discuss it further with.... Where was he last December — I mean a year ago last December? Where was he during that general election? Couldn't he read the papers? Couldn't his law partner tell him what the promises were? He says:  "Maybe we'll discuss it again." And, oh, tch, tch — another $8 million, $9 million or $10 million or $15 million on the city taxpayer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Will you table that?

MR. LAUK: It is treachery, Mr. Speaker. It is treachery. They knew they weren't going to do it.

MR. KEMPF: Was that "tch, tch" or "gobble gobble"?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table the documents.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Mackay goes on:

"Instead of hoping for an invitation, Mr. Volrich and his colleagues ought to be shouting from the rooftops, hammering at the doors and pounding the tables in Victoria. They won't get anywhere by licking the hand that strikes them. The whole history of provincial-municipal relations in B.C. proves that.

"Provincial politicians regard the mayors as a bunch of cringing and ineffectual cry babies, and so they will continue to be regarded that way as long as they lack the guts to stand up for their rights."

Well, it's not their rights; it's the rights of the people f these cities, and particularly the city of Vancouver.

The general tone has been that set by Mayor Volrich in his inaugural address earlier this month in is new city council:

"We can see the importance of our assuming a strong role of advocacy for the people of Vancouver in our dealings with the provincial government, yet at the same time it is important that our relations with the government be as constructive and harmonious as possible. We have seen in recent years so much progress being hampered, so much not being accomplished by reason of strained relations or lack of communication."

Can you believe that? In effect, the mayor was telling the council not to rock the boat, not to demand any showdowns, not to give a spade it's right name.

"The long-term result of his attitude is that the council is already resigned to increasing this year's general tax rate by at least 8 per cent on top of almost 10 per cent last year, for lack of the revenue-sharing promised by Premier Bill Bennett when he was campaigning. In addition, the property tax levied for school purposes will jump again this year because the Socred government has increased the percentage to be paid at the local level. This is directly contrary to the policy promised by the Socreds when they were trying to get power. Now here he is, starting his second session as Premier, without any attempt to live up to the commitments he made during his opposition days."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an article written by a reporter, a journalist, in the city of Vancouver, and he's not known to be particularly antagonistic towards the new administration — not at all. But he is exasperated, as so many of us are who live in the city, exasperated every time the Socreds are in power. For years they completely ignored the urban problems of the city of Vancouver. They laugh at us and they ignore weak and ineffectual city governments that

[ Page 622 ]

won't stand up for the rights of the taxpayer.

You take the transportation emergency that I touched upon earlier. Many businessmen and employees rely on the downtown core which provides some of the best services anywhere in the world for any downtown core, and this downtown core is being ignored by the provincial government and, in particular, this budget.

There is a crying need for some provincial government support for rapid transit in the lower mainland, leading to the downtown core of the city of Vancouver. To do anything less at this stage is condemning the downtown core of the city of Vancouver into becoming a mausoleum — nothing short of an archaeological digging. The transportation problems in the city of Vancouver have caused traffic jams and have clogged our streets so it's discouraging the people of the city and its suburbs from using one of the most magnificent downtown cores anywhere in the world. They can't do it by burdening homeowners with further land taxes and other levies; they've got to have senior government support.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the budget and the Social Credit administration's attitude towards the city of Vancouver.... I'm sorry that the minister isn't here because I don't like to go on general attacks without the minister being here.

This budget and the whole attitude of the Social Credit administration towards the city of Vancouver has shown itself to be chippy and arrogant. I should cite the most recent example, the PNE situation where they refused this new PNE board appointed by this government, and have reneged and welshed on the provincial commitment to pay rent to the city of Vancouver for the Pacific National Exhibition grounds. That's one chippy example.

They cut financial support to the provincial Assessment Authority, adding a further tax burden on homeowners in the city of Vancouver and in municipalities throughout the province. Chippy, arrogant! More property tax pressure, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) wanders aimlessly ribbon-cutting in everybody's constituency except her own and taking everything as notice.

The people of the city of Vancouver have been betrayed, Mr. Speaker, and I predict that the great majority of the citizens of Vancouver will not vote Social Credit again.

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again!

MR. LAUK: The NDP is the only party that represents the interests of all British Columbians. It is the only party that understands both the rural and the city mentality, that understands both rural and city needs.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, we saw that.

MR. LAUK: This Social Credit government for 20 years starved the city of Vancouver; this Social Credit government for only three years will try and do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I'm calling upon the provincial government to do three very basic, very simple, easy-to-understand things. It's a three-point programme for 1977. It shouldn't take any longer than a year to get all of these three points underway. It's not a fantastic programme, it's something within your means. It's something that you can understand and it's something that you don't have to get your hands in the cookie jar over.

I call upon the government to establish a public transit trust fund. You know, yesterday the Premier talked about a trust fund. The Premier announced a resource trust fund, a heritage trust fund. Do you know what that is? That's a Sam Slick excuse to once again starve the taxpayers of Canada's greatest city, Mr. Speaker, to once again sock away the profits of government eering and avoid providing the essential services to the city of Vancouver which were required yesterday, not tomorrow.

I call upon that government to form a public transit trust fund to be jointly administered by the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the government of the province, containing an amount not less than $200 million, initially provided by the B.C. government — and they can get that out of ICBC — so that we can start to relieve the business people of the city and the province and provide rapid transit to the lower mainland residents.

Secondly, I'm calling upon the provincial government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to stop stalling on the North Shore foot ferry — he's dragging his foot on that — and stop providing nothing but excuses for getting the foot ferry underway. I say it will work, Mr. Minister, but I suspect that you're dragging your feet in the hope that the concept will fail and you and your cronies can build that third crossing.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Oh, you have to have a pretty strange mind to say that.

MR. LAUK: Well, you've had a year and a half to get the thing going. I've heard nothing but excuses.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The sooner the better.

MR. LAUK: Traffic is clogging up. Every change in the plan for that foot ferry that I've heard from my spies in this gentleman's department...Mrs. Curtis.... (Laughter.) Every change he's made has been a change that seems to be designed to tube the whole thing.

[ Page 623 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. LAUK: Another self-fulfilled prophecy — it's a beautiful government. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) starts a rumour so that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) can spread it, and someone else receives it. You know, it's all a treadmill over there; it's all self-fulfilled prophecy. He changes the foot-ferry system at the foot of Burrard. You're dragging your foot.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What changes!

MR. LAUK: You've always got some excuse. The bus systems at either end of that situation.... In no way are you planning to take care of the foot traffic off those ferries.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong again.

MR. LAUK: Okay, are you speaking today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I've spoken on this debate.

MR. LAUK: Well, have you spoken on this? You haven't even mentioned the Burrard Street ferry.

MS. BROWN: No, he didn't mention it.

MR. LAUK: You know the one — Lonsdale to Burrard.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Good for you! Excellent!

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Burrard Inlet ferry.

I suspect that they are trying to sabotage the concept because it's an NDP concept, just as they tried to sabotage every other thing that we had planned or started. For example, northeast coal: in the press releases, all the Minister of Economic Development has done is to change the name from Lauk to Phillips.

MR. KEMPF: You're going to have to change your researcher. You're wrong every day.

MR. LAUK: Then he says it's a Social Credit idea. The announcements by the Minister of Mines the other day were just.... Well, they were hilarious. The Calgary Kid did it again. I mean, he starts announcing all of these great developments in mining, all of which were announced by the previous administration and he says this is showing great progress. Well, let me predict something for you which is of great regret to me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker: exploration companies in mining are going to be closing down this year and next year. They're going to be shutting down and exploration will be going down in mining, But let's not be too fretful about that.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It is? Yes. That's right. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else. These exploration companies do nothing but stake claims. That's all they do. They've got a couple of engineers in the field, they do this and that and they tap around with a hammer and they do a little shoveling here and a little shoveling there. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are only about 20 or 25 mines that are operating in the province of British Columbia. There should be more. The real jobs to be provided in this province are by producing mines, not by standing up here and hoping one month to the next that exploration investment is up or down. That's all a bunch of nonsense and sooner or later, I hope you realize that.

As I was saying, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is dragging his foot on the foot ferry. And I do hope that he has something to say about that soon, because we want that ferry in operation and we want adequate planning for the distribution of those passengers from either terminal and parking facilities and all of that. We want that in this House. And I hope the minister will report and he can do so in his estimates.

Thirdly, I call upon the provincial government to immediately host a province-wide conference of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. government, with some federal attendance, to deal with the crisis of financing in our municipalities. Out of this, a revenue-sharing formula should be produced this year for the 1978-79 budget. There is absolutely no excuse for this government to make the clear and unmistakable promises to share the costs of financing our cities, and then completely, with treachery, turn around and ignore that promise. I say to them that this is the year that should provide the formula, and implement it next year. They should have at least two or three points of the income tax in this province provided to the cities and the municipalities of this province.

HON. MR, CURTIS: You were the government that didn't trust local government. How can you stand there and say that? You didn't trust local government.

MR. LAUK: We were the government that started resource sharing in this province. We were the first

[ Page 624 ]

government in Canada to provide revenue sharing from the province to the municipalities and this government is treading water.

You know, if I hear another complaint or another whimper from the Municipal Affairs minister about how he couldn't find this memo and "gee whiz, we had too many secretaries in that office..." What he should be concentrating on is fulfilling the promises of this new-found party to the people of this province. That promise is revenue sharing. That promise has to include sharing the points of personal income taxation with the municipalities.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You were a government that didn't trust local government and couldn't work with local government.

MR. LAUK: Oh! Would you listen to that? Mr. Speaker, this is what this minister calls working with municipalities. Do you want to know what he calls working with them? "Stop Licking the Hand that Strikes Us," says Cliff Mackay. That's what he says. He wants guys like Volrich in there to bow and scrape to the Victoria government and do nothing on behalf of the city taxpayer. That's what he calls working with provincial governments. I say that's nonsense and there are mayors and aldermen of the cities and municipalities of this province who will stand up to you, Mr. Minister, and will demand that you fulfil your promises. And it's absolutely disgraceful the way you pretended to be doing something, by coming in here and complaining about paper clips, when you've completely avoided your promises to the people of this province. No doubt about it.

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

MR. LAUK: I would sooner be on my last three minutes than like that administration which is on its last legs. You know, Mr. Speaker, one more proposition about the Grizzly Valley pipeline. Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd. has submitted figures to the B.C. Energy Commission, As late as January, 1976, those figures were again submitted by Westcoast Transmission. They clearly showed on the face of them inadequate gas supplies for the building of a pipeline — January, 1976. Second fact: the branch of petroleum resources in the Minister of Mines' department must, by statute, have the seismic reports and other survey reports done by B.C. Petroleum, with respect to the new, so-called surveys and the so-called new reports of reserves in the area. I demand, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that that minister table those seismic reports and that information in this House. Table that information in this House! Otherwise I say it's a hoax.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You said Quasar gave the information.

MR. LAUK: The minister now says Quasar gave the information. The Premier says B.C. Petroleum gave the information. Get together over there! The Premier said B.C. Petroleum had supervisors in the field. Not true! Quasar provided it.

What a bunch of rubes! Do you think Quasar doesn't want to build a pipeline? Do you think Westcoast Transmission doesn't want to build a pipeline? Look at their tax position: if they don't build a pipeline they'll be paying 10 per cent more tax next year. They'll build a pipeline from nowhere to nowhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carrying nothing.

MR. LAUK: When are you people going to smarten up? You're not equipped to deal with big business. You are small-town kids — a bunch of hokey. They go and settle in the M.E.L. Paving case and now they've got a line-up around the block because they saw the biggest suckers in the world. P.T. Barnum was right about the Socreds: there is a Socred born every minute. (Laughter.) But, fortunately, there is an NDPer born every second.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not good.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have completed your allotted time.

MR. LAUK: I have so much more to say, Mr. Speaker, but you've been so attentive, and I appreciate that. I thank you for the opportunity of rising in this debate, and I must indicate to the House and to yourself — I know you will be very very saddened to hear this that I will not be voting for the motion in support of the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, before I start today I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming two visitors from Prince George. One is an old-time resident of the city and an old-time friend of mine, Mr. Bill Hiller, and the other is Jim Frey from the Carnage Committee, the group that's been so active on the seatbelt legislation. I'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. WALLACE: What about the seatbelt legislation? Tell us more.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, as the MLA for Fort George I take great pleasure in speaking in support of the budget presented so capably by the Minister of

[ Page 625 ]

Finance. I'd like to commend the minister, both for the reorganization of his ministry and for the realistic, sensible budget the minister has proposed for the coming year.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the accomplishments of the Minister of Finance in making available quarterly reviews of the province's finances and in maintaining responsible fiscal control of all the sectors throughout 1976 deserve the appreciation of all our province's taxpayers and citizens. With the establishment of an auditor-general later this year the people of British Columbia will be further assured that the revenue of our province is being responsibly allocated, as directed by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the estimated budget of $3.9 billion, which represents a 5.9 per cent increase over last year, reflects our government's continuing concern regarding restoring our province's economy to a pay-as-you-go policy on operating expenses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LLOYD: This budget also reflects our government's concern for the social, educational and health priorities of our citizens with allocations of 65 per cent of the total budget being directed to these ministries. I'm sure my constituents will be pleased to learn of the $70 million increase in the highways allocation. This substantial increase will allow the Ministry of Highways and the Public Works to continue a badly needed upgrading and rebuilding programme on highways throughout the province. This programme of reconstruction not only resulted in safer and more passable roads, but also created many new jobs for the workmen since the programme was accelerated last summer.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in seconding the throne speech, my riding has a great number of secondary and rural roads of poor standard and in need of rebuilding. The city of Prince George requires priority consideration for rail and highway overpasses as well as additional bridges over the Nechako River to update our traffic circulation in relation to the tremendous growth that our city has experienced. Therefore I am pleased to endorse the budget's realistic allocation of funding to the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see our continuing commitment of some $2.5 billion of the total budget for education, health and human resources. My constituents will appreciate the increased funding for health care and the emphasis that has been placed on improving ambulance services through the province. I would request the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to give particular attention to increasing the staffing and improving the ambulance service available at Prince George. Our region has no back-up ambulance service from an adjoining municipality or town, so it is only through the efficiency and dedication of our ambulance attendants that a safe level of service has been maintained.

Two other programmes our hospital requires are a radio-isotope. facility and a renal dialysis unit. Regarding the radio-isotope unit, the Prince George Medical Society has requested that consideration be given to purchase a computerized axial tomography scanner. This will enable the doctors to check for brain damage from serious head injuries without operating on the patients or being forced to send them to Vancouver for examination.

MR. WALLACE: How about seatbelts? Then you might not need it.

MR. LLOYD: I would feel that this programme should have a high priority because of the geographical location of Prince George.

I understand that Kamloops, Kelowna and Trail all have radio-isotope units. There has been a good deal of community support for this unity and a goodly portion of the funds could be raised locally. Similarly, the request for a renal dialysis unit is of long standing. This would enable persons with kidney failures to be serviced in this community rather than being forced to move from their homes and their employment to be serviced in Vancouver.

Another major concern of the Prince George Regional Hospital Board is the disparity in the per diem rates allowed by the B.C. hospital programmes for our hospital operating costs relative to the lower mainland hospitals. I fail to understand the rationale of how our hospital, with higher transportation costs, heating costs, snow removal and other expenses, can be expected to operate on a lesser per diem rate. I would hope that this matter could be reviewed shortly as it is of prime concern to our community.

Mr. Speaker, while mentioning ambulances and emergency-care services in Prince George, I automatically think of the Carnage committee and their recommendations for an effective preventive programme to combat death and injuries. In the brief which the Take the Car Out of Carnage Committee presented to the former administration, the Carnage committee stressed several areas where government action would greatly reduce the death and injuries on our highways. These recommendations concern tougher penalties for the impaired driver, the compulsory seatbelt legislation that Mr. Wallace is concerned about, mandatory driver training prior to licence, stricter police enforcement and a vehicle test centre for Prince George. Other priorities were the highway upgrading and rebuilding and the driver-education programmes in the schools. Of these, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Carnage committee will be pleased to see the stricter impaired-driving penalties which will be forthcoming in this session.

[ Page 626 ]

Regarding the compulsory seatbelt legislation, I am hopeful that all members of this Legislature will support this legislation when it is again brought forward. I am sure the data and the arguments presented by the Carnage committee clearly indicate the desirability of this legislation. The highway upgrading and rebuilding of the shoulders which has been taking place last summer will be appreciated by all the drivers throughout the province,

Some of the driver-education programmes the Carnage committee mentions have been instigated in certain areas of the province. The Carnage committee's recommendation concerning enforcement relates to the understaffing of the traffic departments, and the Attorney-General's ministry should review this situation with the RCMP when establishing policing requirements. In my riding the district detachment covers from Pine Pass to Tete Jaune, some 320 miles of arterial highway, and it is felt that additional staffing would lower the accident frequency with the resultant saving of lives and money.

Mr. Speaker, concerning the recommendation for a vehicle test centre in Prince George, the Minister of Transport has indicated his willingness to have the motor carrier branch investigate the feasibility of co-ordinating a vehicle inspection branch into the ICBC claim centre in Prince George. If it is not practical to co-ordinate these programmes, I am hopeful that the motor vehicle branch will establish a high priority for the Prince George area. The British Columbia Automobile Association, in the regional district of Fraser-Fort George, has advocated the establishment of a test centre in Prince George since 1970, so I am sure the Carnage committee's request has the backing of our community.

Mr. Speaker, the next concern in my riding, and a concern I feel that you share as your riding is of similar size, relates to the consideration of the logistics of the larger ridings in the province. When government is establishing policy in distributing the provincial funding, or establishing governmental department strength, consideration must be given to the matter of logistics, such as the distance between the major population centres and the adverse travelling conditions due to both the weather and road construction standards. The Fort George riding suffered a far greater impact than was noted on Vancouver Island or in the lower mainland communities due to the provincial staffing restrictions not only in the public health field, but also in the Highways department personnel, Forest Service, Public Works, Human Resources and land inspection, where the regions to be administered are so vast and alternative municipal services are not always available to cushion the provincial cutbacks.

If B.C. Is to realize its ultimate potential, then development and utilization of our natural resources must be encouraged. Prince George and the other major growth centres must receive specific consideration for their contribution to B.C.'s development and economy. Our government must assist to develop health, educational, recreational and cultural facilities in strategic centres outside the lower mainland area to encourage our potential labour force to relocate where jobs will be created.

Similarly, our smaller communities throughout B.C., like Mackenzie, Valemount and McBride, must receive specific attention to ensure provision of primary medical, educational and recreational facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would feel that potential development of the enormous coal reserves north of Prince George should emphasize the priority of establishing the amenities that today's citizens expect. Residents of the interior and northern British Columbia compare the $25 million subsidy that Vancouver Island residents received through the B.C. Ferries system and the $36.5 million transit subsidy paid last year through the B.C. Hydro for lower mainland transit service to the niggardly transit subsidies and other grants to the northern communities. Our government must realize this imbalance and redirect provincial funding on a more equitable basis, with special regard to our frontier resource communities' needs.

The transit system in Prince George will no doubt benefit from the financial and planning assistance it will receive from the provincial Transit Authority, but not to the same extent enjoyed by commuters in the lower mainland where more favourable weather and more concentrated places of employment make possible better utilization of transit systems. The residents of our smaller communities are unlikely to benefit from transit subsidies due to long distances between these communities throughout the northern half of the province. It is very likely that improved air services would be far more valuable than a transit system.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Alberta has embarked on a programme of upgrading their airports and their air control systems. As the province of Alberta has the controlling interest in Pacific Western Airlines, they will undoubtedly use that corporation to upgrade their air travel services throughout their province and the Northwest Territories.

In a similar manner, improved float-plane facilities and the provision of better landing strips would very likely be of more benefit to the interior of the province than transit subsidies for bus travel. I will be working with the other northern and interior MLAs to review the possibility of improved air travel scheduling and services throughout the interior.

Mr. Speaker, a matter of great concern to my constituents is the continuing increase in the air-fare rates over the past few years. We feel that since Prince

[ Page 627 ]

George to Vancouver is one of the more lucrative runs of the Canadian Pacific Airlines, consideration should be given to maintaining a reasonable fare rate. I would think any further fare increases would price air travel out of the reach of many of my constituents. I would ask that this situation be reviewed very carefully.

I share the concern of the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) regarding the price charged for gasoline in the north and interior of our province. I find it particularly hard to accept the high price that we pay in Prince George, where we have a refinery located in our city. I must say I share the major oil companies' reluctance to have government involvement in the pricing or distribution of gasoline.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LLOYD: However, unless some more realistic price structure is adopted throughout the province, I feel that in order to maintain the viability of living, working and travelling throughout the interior, we must request a more realistic price structure.

Another matter which we must be aware of is the problem of getting emergency repairs for a car travelling remote stretches in the interior. Some of the smaller owner-operators are being forced out of business by the self-serve gas station outlets. I think we must pay careful attention to the problems facing these smaller businessmen to ensure that a proper level of service can be obtained throughout the province.

I'm also disturbed by the 10 per cent subsidy which we pay to equalize gasoline prices across Canada. I would feel that this is another national policy decision which our Premier should attempt to have removed in negotiations with Ottawa. It is difficult to rationalize when we, who live next door to Alberta, pay the same tariff as Montreal, which is 2,400 miles from Edmonton.

If Ottawa feels one price for gasoline is fair across Canada, then the east should pick up a greater share of our tariff for freight on all our products coming west or going back east that are shipped by the CNR. It has long been contended by Mayor Moffat of Prince George, by the manufacturers of mill equipment and by the forest companies along the CNR line that the CNR freight rates, both from the east and return, are grossly unfair.

We will never promote viable secondary industries, nor will our province receive our proper compensation for our forest resources, as long as the federal government, through exorbitant CNR freight rates, can tax or control the financial feasibility of western industry. If we are to continue subsidizing their gasoline in the east, then I think it is due time they picked up a larger tab of our freight bill. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern regarding the proper conservation of energy, especially over the last few years as petroleum and natural gas resources have dwindled. Part of the fault seems to lie with the federal government taking too much in the form of taxes and not leaving the oil companies enough for further exploration and development of wells. It may seem sensible to some people to suggest that all oil and gas should be priced at world prices imposed by the oil-exporting cartel controlled by the Arabs, but I believe that we first have to consider the competitiveness and viability of our own industries.

The budget speech has outlined many of the problems facing our resource industries because of the higher costs in all sectors — wages and operating expenses. Therefore to increase the price of fuel to the world price would put us in a far worse competitive position yet. If the conservation of our oil supplies becomes particularly critical, I would feel a rationing system would be desirable instead of attempting to control consumption or raising the price beyond industry's or our citizens' ability to pay.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably imperative that we look at all forms of energy which are available to us in British Columbia. We are very fortunate to have over half of Canada's proven and commercially recoverable reserves of coal in British Columbia. We also have an immense capability of hydro power. B.C. Hydro is studying the feasibility and the safety of nuclear power, and there have been ongoing studies relating to the use of hog fuels and waste from the forest industry to convert into electric power.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has many options available to look for the production of energy, including the construction of a pipeline from Kitimat to Edmonton, or the Alcan pipeline. Either of these pipelines would supply part of our needs or alternately make it possible for us to use more of our own reserves within our province.

While British Columbia has all these options, Mr. Speaker, there are important environmental considerations that must be reviewed to decide on the development of energy sources which are least destructive to the environment. The proposed McGregor diversion project of B.C. Hydro has raised a great deal of concern in my riding. But before discussing that project, let me review briefly the alternatives as I see them.

As I mentioned, nuclear power has been considered by B.C. Hydro. I feel that it is very important that this energy source should be reviewed in a calm, rational manner. Canadians have been exporting their technology in nuclear power development for some years; eastern Canada has been utilizing nuclear power plants for some time.

Since this programme is subsidized by all Canadian taxpayers, and also because recent modifications to

[ Page 628 ]

the nuclear plants appear to make them safer, I think it is important that we do not rule out nuclear power completely for British Columbia until we have fully studied all the ramifications associated with that programme.

Mr. Speaker, the Hat Creek coal-fired thermal power project of B.C. Hydro has many studies proceeding at the present time. The public information booklet on the Hat Creek project, which was issued by B.C. Hydro in July of 1976, clearly outlines the detailed feasibility and environmental studies that are ongoing. It also makes particular mention of the terms of reference, and states that these are not necessarily fixed and may be revised as the study progresses. The report states that there are a total of 10 licences or permits which will be required for the approval of the Hat Creek project by the provincial government agencies, and that present scheduling calls for the detailed environmental studies to be completed'by September of 1977.

In regard to the generation of electrical power, from hog-fuel conversion plants, many studies and reviews of this have been made over the past few years at different centres such as Williams Lake and Kamloops. There have been new developments in the technology of waste-fuel conversion facilities which offer encouragement to this type of project. The city of Prince George, due to problems in locating suitable landfill sites within reasonable hauling distance, has expressed interest in a cooperative development that would burn municipal garbage and utilize hog fuel and other sawmill wastes from the plants located in the Prince George area.

The B.C. Development Corporation has been reviewing the latest methods and technology related to these plants, and, Mr. Speaker, I am very hopeful that the results of these studies will prove that these hog-fuel conversion plants are viable. Our province is wasting a terrific amount of energy in waste-burners throughout the interior of the province, especially during the present depressed pulp market, as a large amount of chips are being burned or dumped at a complete loss to industry and to the economy of the province.

The B.C. Energy Commission should also review the viability of these hog-fuel conversion plants, as it may be found to be desirable to subsidize the capital costs of these plants in order that they may utilize the tremendous amount of energy presently being wasted.

We have discussed the alternative forms of energy. I would now like to turn to the B.C. Hydro proposal for the damming and diversion of the McGregor River. As I mentioned previously, a good deal of concern about this project has been generated in my riding. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has related to this project several times in the House and outside. I believe it is regrettable that only the negative aspects of the proposal have been publicly aired, while the beneficial results that could come from this proposal have not been publicly stated.

Before I go on further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clearly state that I am not an advocate or supporter of this project. Still, I believe it is essential that everyone should be prepared to consider all the aspects of this project in a calm and rational manner, and reserve a final decision until they have studied the positive as well as the negative aspects. We must compare this project with the many other alternate sources of energy I have discussed earlier. There are a good number of the public completely opposed to nuclear power generation. I am sure there are people who will be concerned with the quantity of error related to the thermal-coal-fired generating facilities, and there will be people concerned with the fly ash and the smoke related to the hog-fuel conversion plants.

Mr. Speaker, a concerned environmental group in Prince George, called the McGregor Action Group, has rallied considerable opposition to the McGregor diversion, and any further damming below the Bennett Dam and the Site 1 dam on the Peace River. I feel a strong reaction to this proposal is probably quite understandable in our area of the province. To the west of Prince George the Kenny Dam, located on the Nechako River, was dammed as a source of power for the Alcan smelter at Kitimat. Northwest of Prince George, at Mackenzie, we have Williston Lake which dammed the Parsnip and Finlay Rivers for power generation at the Bennett Dam. Southeast of Prince George — the other end of my riding — at Valemount is the Mica Reservoir. Of these three major projects, probably the Mica reservoir had the best salvage and debris cleanup programme. But even that reservoir has several miles of debris accumulated in the arm nearest Valemount, in the old riverbed of the Canoe Valley.

The Kenny Dam project had no appreciable programme of cleanup or salvage before the flooding took place, which backed the waters into Tweedsmuir Park. Later, efforts were made to salvage some of the timber from the barges, but it was a fairly insignificant programme.

The flooding of the Williston Lake Reservoir was preceded by quite an extensive logging programme, as well as the falling and chaining down of vast acreages of unmerchantable timber. However, due to the enormous size of that reservoir, and the lack of sufficient lead time, it was impossible to salvage the forest reserves of the entire basin. Consequently, Williston Lake has thousands of acres of drifting timber which jam waterways and make boating extremely hazardous. The sawmills located in Mackenzie have endeavoured to extract the timber of saw-out quality, but still immense rafts of driftwood choke the lake.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I say it is

[ Page 629 ]

very understandable that people in my riding have no particular enthusiasm for dams or the reservoirs that they create. A terrific amount of wildlife habitat has been flooded for power generation, and quite often this was the best agricultural land available. Undoubtedly, mineral resources and forest land have also been lost below the floodwaters.

A comprehensive, co-ordinated programme involving the B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Forest Service and Alcan Aluminum in the Nechako reservoir, special funding from the provincial and even, possibly, from the federal governments should be established to clean up this flood debris and restore the environmental health to these man-made lakes. A comprehensive restoration programme would be a giant step towards restoring public confidence among the outdoor lovers and concerned citizens of the interior. As those lakes enjoy exceptional fishing, a spin-off result of the cleanup programme would be benefits realized for the tourist industry.

I understand from the B.C. Hydro people that they spent something like $1 million in the past year on cleanup, and are planning in the next fiscal year a $2 million programme. But when you consider the size of the reservoir even that doesn't make a very big dent in it. I would hope to see a realistic programme take place on all three of these lakes.

Mr. Speaker, because the Nechako reservoir, McNaughton Lake and Williston Lake have had limited restoration programmes, and because many new residents in my area are familiar with the flooding on the Columbia and the Kootenay Lakes, I am sure they have very definite feelings regarding dam construction and the resulting flood basins. In any event, my constituents have very legitimate concerns regarding further flooding, and I share that concern.

My only request to the McGregor Action Group and the other environmental groups, wildlife associations, recreation groups or concerned individuals, is that you reserve your final decisions until the studies are made public and everyone has a chance to study all the aspects of the proposal, together with the design and the modification of the dam, which could allow the achievement of such lasting benefits as flood control on the entire Fraser River. I would agree that unless this could be achieved by possibly diverting the water both ways at certain times to avoid excessive flooding in the Parsnip watershed at flood stages, and to allow sufficient water at critical times of the year back into the Fraser watershed to protect the salmon, or for any other reason that may be desirable, then the project should be re-evaluated.

There has also been concern expressed, Mr. Speaker, that the intermingling of the watersheds — the Arctic and the Pacific — could result in the possibility of biological damage, and I don't think that concern can be overlooked. I am merely stating that I think it is very important, in this time of energy crisis, that we study all the alternatives available to us in a clear, calm-minded manner.

A positive aspect of the programme which seems to have been down-played considerably so far is the flood control aspect. These studies were not carried out under the B.C. Hydro direction, but were the responsibility of the former Fraser River board. The original studies were published in 1963 and called the System E plan, which included eight possible dam sites on the upper Fraser and the Thompson, including the McGregor River. In early 1970 the joint advisory board for the Fraser River, with federal and provincial government representation, began an overview of the environmental impacts of System E, and the updated report from these has been submitted to the water resources branch of the Ministry of Environment. This report has just been completed and is under review by the deputy minister before proceeding to the Environment minister (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the cabinet for their review.

As these latest reports are confidential until released to the general public, confidential even from the MLAs and other Crown corporations, I am somewhat surprised that certain people would boast of having access to these documents. Mr. Speaker, I would feel that the chairman of the McGregor Action Group, in his position as assistant planner to the city of Prince George, would realize the need for the confidentiality of these reports until such time as the administration and government have had a chance to review them. I am therefore a little surprised that they are demanding the immediate release of all these reports, and quoting information that was contained in confidential reports.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, there will be adequate time for review of all these comprehensive reports on the McGregor project by any concerned group, particularly because of the interest and concern that has been expressed by so many of the public in my riding.

The population of my riding has had a dramatic increase over the last 10 years, due to the establishing of four pulp mills within my riding, plus many major sawmill complexes made possible by adequate supplies of power. I was somewhat surprised to note in the 1976 annual report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority that the Peace River project is responsible for over 50 per cent of the electrical power generated in our province. The proposed McGregor diversion project would increase that annual production by approximately 3.18 billion Kilowatt-hours of energy, utilizing the present Bennett Dam site, and Site 1, which is under construction. As far as the concern expressed by the environmental groups for Sites C and E on the lower Peace River, while I agree these are part of the same

[ Page 630 ]

proposal, I am sure they would be subject to individual consideration and judged on their own merits at a later date.

I am convinced that B.C. Hydro, in the interests of good public relations and being a good corporate citizen of our province, will extend every cooperation possible regarding informing the public of all the repercussions of the McGregor diversion. I am also convinced there will be ample time for a fair hearing by all before the final resolution is decided. I am sure a lot of communities along the Fraser River will be very interested in the flood control aspect of the proposal.

While it would be important to Prince George, since half our downtown city lies below the floodplain level, it would not be as critical as in the Lower Fraser Valley, where another flood as damaging as the flood of 1948 could cause more than $400 million worth of damage in a single flood, not to mention the subsequent loss of wildlife, domestic stock and possibly human life. I think it is, therefore, very important that politics stay out of the decision on this particular project. I think it is very important that everybody consider the benefits, as well as the disadvantages, of the McGregor project before a final decision is reached.

While we may condemn Hydro for many of its floodings of our rivers, it is obvious we would never have had the industrial expansion in our province without hydro power generation. We have many young people entering the work force every year, as well as many unemployed in the province. I think it is very important that we consider every alternative for the development of energy resources to create new jobs and opportunities for our citizens.

The province of British Columbia has a very challenging future. We have some major problems facing us at this time. We must overcome these problems if we are to realize our destiny. I would ask all our citizens to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this realistic budget.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in debate in this House, especially to so many empty seats. But I do, nevertheless, take great pride in rising on behalf of the people of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and electoral area B, to support this budget debate.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hawaii.

MR. KERSTER: Aloha. On behalf of my constituents, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all members of this assembly well in 1977, and that includes even the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). Hopefully, however, it will not continue to follow its present course in this House, and hopefully all members will contribute to a constructive and a productive session.

Before I go into some detail on the budget and my great constituency, I would like to reflect on some of the events which have found their way to the floor of this assembly during the opening frolics of the session.

The hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson)...I was going to say something nice about him. I'm still going to say something nice about him, even if he is absent. He made an excellent point when he said in his throne speech reply that it's the idea of these sessions for the opposition to question and to criticize the government. He said it's their job. He said it's their duty. He's right. Both he and the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) somehow manage, at least most of the time, to maintain a high level of criticism in their debate, in the traditional fashion of members of the loyal opposition — loyal opposition — constructive criticism, not distortion, not obstructionism laced with contradictions.

I thought he got his point across rather well to the official opposition when he reminded them that they were no longer government as a result of their distortions. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to continue to remind them of this, with the hope that they'll substitute distortive opposition for opsimathy.

Most government members approached this session determined to refrain from heckling those members opposite, so as to raise the level of debate in this House to the standard expected and deserved by everyone in this province. Mr. Speaker, this has been a tremendous test of self-restraint. I believe most government members now realize that whatever hopes we had of the official opposition elevating their level of debate have been hopelessly shattered, with the exception of a few of those members.

Now, here's one example. Parts of what Graham said today, I think, he honestly believed — and that's one of the few occasions he really has believed what he said in this House. I congratulate the member for Prince Rupert for portions of that.

But one example was a nearly three-hour long vaudeville act by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) during the throne speech debate, that he obviously felt was filled with all of his old wit. Well, Mr. Speaker, credit where credit is due. Even though it wasn't completely witty, it was most certainly half-witty.

Now the press reviews termed it second-rate, and said that British Columbia deserved more quality from the opposition leader and all members of the official opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, he ignored that constructive criticism, and last Friday he attempted another comeback. I haven't seen the press reviews on

[ Page 631 ]

that particular situation, but they've got to be beauts. Mr. Speaker, that second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) criticized the budget with all the vast knowledge of the skilled economist we know him to be. He's a graduate — cum laude, too, I believe — of the school of Drano economy.

Mr. Speaker, we know that that expertise almost wrecked this province but luckily — and again credit where credit is due — he realized his folly. He realized his money tree was dying and he called in the tree surgeon, his former Minister of Agriculture. He said: "You save the tree and I'll look after the bull shipping." (Laughter.)

Granted, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the press critics do give him points for this in their reviews, he does some pretty terrific turkey imitations. Do you remember that "gobble, gobble, gobble" routine he did last Friday?

MS. BROWN: That's real parliamentary stuff right there!

MR. KEMPF: It's coming from the other members right now.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, would you please protect me from that disorderly member? Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to make a point.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members.

MR. KERSTER: Do you remember the "gobble, gobble, gobble" routine last Friday? Well, Mr. Speaker, I almost expected some hon. member to stand up and congratulate him for being bilingual. But nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I will say it is refreshing to hear that hon. member address this House in his native tongue.

HON. MR. MAIR: Turkey talk!

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech clearly identified the positive direction this government will take in 1977. It emphasizes their priorities of health, social programmes, education, revenue sharing, law and order, community of property and urban transit, to name just a few.

AN HON. MEMBER: Community of property?

MR. KERSTER: This budget not only demonstrates that our government has brought government spending under control; it emphasizes restraint in all sectors. It emphasizes and supports the goals outlined in the throne speech. It's a positive budget for all positive British Columbians and a sign that our province is recuperating under sound, responsible, accountable management. Although the opposition has attempted to distort again and nurture more gloom and doom, British Columbians are looking and seeing through that smokescreen. This budget is conscious of every British Columbian's needs and desires while realizing that the socialist theory that financial largesse of the public purse for political popularity's sake will only lead to the ruination of this great province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the opportunity last year, because there was a by-election going on, to speak about my great constituency. I would like to spend some time reflecting on the past year's progress in that area. Some of the things, hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), I might have said last year in the response to the throne speech debate might not have done anyone any good in that particular by-election, and that's why I did offer him the courtesy of leaving out the fact that the constituency of Coquitlam has been very sadly neglected for a number of years under that former MLA.

I'm blessed with a very diversified constituency comprising people of many races from all walks of life, and the cooperation of so many of these fine people has assisted me in my job immeasurably. Those who have assisted realize that I represent everyone in the constituency, regardless of political affiliations. You know, I'm proud, I'm darn proud that my constituents, by and large, have put the needs and the desires of our community ahead of their partisan politics.

MR. KEMPF: Hear, hear!

MR. KERSTER: For this they are to be very highly commended. This past year has seen visits from several ministers who came, looked, listened, responded to problems with positive solutions and many projects. Some of these may seem very small to some of you people opposite, but they're not small projects and not small problems to the people who are affected by them: street-widening programmes, curb-and-gutter programmes, traffic lights where there were tremendous dangers to seniors and to school children and so forth.

MR. LEA: Thank you very much.

MR. KERSTER: You're very welcome. I'm glad that you're listening, hon. member, because it's the first time that you really have paid any attention to anyone in this House except yourself, and that's when you're reading back your own speeches which, you say, flow back to you like music.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

[ Page 632 ]

Please address the Chair.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, some people said the Lougheed Highway project through our constituency was an empty promise. Well, I'm very proud of the fact that the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who seems to be getting congratulations daily in this House, acted swiftly to alleviate one of the worst traffic messes in the lower mainland by approving this major project which is going ahead.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: I'll get you right after. I received a note here. I shouldn't read it but, well, I will join the hon. member for a cigarette later.

Although this project is a welcome relief, Mr. Minister, we realize the solution lies in developing other forms of transit, and I applaud the initiative of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), whose foresight will result in a transit authority to explore, recommend and achieve solutions in this area. I also congratulate this minister for his attention to many problems experienced by those people who own homes in the Meadowbrook development, but lease the land.

To relieve the inequities of this ill-bred scheme, the minister has now authorized me to act in a liaison capacity in the negotiation for the sale of this land to those who wish, and have the right, to purchase and own the property their home sits on. I'm very proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that those negotiations will begin as soon as preliminary discussions can be arranged with the residents of Meadowbrook and senior officials of the Municipal Affairs and Housing department to work out the most beneficial purchase programme possible for these fine people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KERSTER: Just to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of what kind of programme that was, for a $29,000 unit those people were forced to pay yearly lease rental for land that that home sat on — the home they paid $29,000 for — of $864. On top of that there were taxes of over $500.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. KERSTER: Now where does a man who owns a home valued at $29,000 on a piece of land that he owns pay any kind of lease-tax combination of $1,364-plus? It's just ridiculous, and it's something that's going to be squared away very shortly.

You know, we have many complex problems facing our constituency due to rapid growth planned in the very near future. We welcome this growth, since we recognize that we have a responsibility to accept our fair share of affordable housing and to make it available to people of this province. I would point out, however, Mr. Speaker, that this projected growth is only acceptable if the necessary health services capable of servicing a greatly increased population, proper recreational facilities and highway-transit services are coincidental with this development.

Now the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has considered this problem as has the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and they're acting to provide solutions before it's too late. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, we look forward to continued cooperation in this regard, particularly in the northeast sector, which is going to be a boomer as far as development is concerned.

I was deeply concerned that our proposed health-care facilities would fall far short of the present needs of our constituency, let alone our projected rapid growth. We have over 103,000 people living in that area now, but we have no hospital. Our projected growth up to 1981 is 150,000 to 160,000 people. Now the hon. Minister of Health recently announced a 75-bed acute-care facility with an additional 75 extended-care beds, and announced the fact that it would be built. It's no secret to him or anyone else that I don't believe that these are adequate medical facilities for our growing community. I am, however, extremely encouraged by recent meetings with the minister, and appreciate his genuine interest and concern that our community has an appropriate medical facility.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is to be congratulated for decisive actions regarding the R.C. MacDonald School construction programme. It has satisfied a very definite need for such a facility in another very rapidly growing sector of our community.

The opening of the Douglas College annex at Essondale was also a welcome addition, offering additional educational opportunities to residents of the Coquitlam and Dewdney constituencies. I'm sure my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), shares my appreciation of that very fine project.

Mr. Speaker, environmental problems are of considerable concern to my constituents. I congratulate the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) for his interest and assistance in working to resolve a problem that's been long standing in our community, one which has all but destroyed what once was one of the finest steelhead and chum rivers in this entire province, the Coquitlam River. His actions and the expressed desire to cooperate by the new Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon.

[ Page 633 ]

Mr. Bawlf) in enhancing this Coquitlam River are also very much appreciated.

The hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) cannot go unmentioned. Our court facilities, as he is well aware, are suffering the pains which accompany rapid growth in any community. He moved swiftly to assist us in family court staffing problems; he resolved that problem. He's acutely aware of the need in our community for expanded court facilities. We appreciate his continued interest in the Coquitlam constituency.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has responded to constituency needs through grants to associations and societies who offer services to the handicapped, seniors and others, which otherwise would not be available in our area. Our thanks to him, with a reminder that one or two small assistance programmes would be welcomed by me to assist the Port Coquitlam area women's centre in its endeavours to resolve a multitude of problems facing women in our constituency.

I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not express my disappointment and the express disappointment of many of those people I represent in this parliament, in the withdrawal of funding for the Conference on the Family. The importance of this study is optimum, and no price can be put on it. This province can only be enhanced by united families, just as this country can only benefit from a united family of provinces. I urge the minister to reconsider funding — maybe restructuring and redirecting, but nevertheless funding — the Conference on the Family. You know, his interest and his willingness to discuss this problem — and we have had extensive discussions — are also very much appreciated. I'm sure we'll find a solution to that problem.

In conclusion, my congratulations to the three new ministers on their appointments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KERSTER: It certainly shattered the myth that all car dealers get to the cabinet.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is not here today. Somebody dubbed the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) "Mr. Chips." I want to dub the hon. Minister of Agriculture "Mr. Roots" because he's down in the root cellar. I certainly hope that they move him up to more appropriate office space very shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to recognize four very hard-working individuals and groups in my constituency: His Worship Jack Campbell, the mayor of Port Coquitlam and also the recently elected director and chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, along with members of his council and their municipal staff; His Worship, Mayor Jim Tonn, mayor of Coquitlam, his council and staff; His Worship Mayor Norm Patterson of Port Moody, his council and staff; and Mrs. Verna Barrett, director of electoral area B, and her staff. The cooperation shown me by these individuals and their assistants during my first year in office has been invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, this same appreciation is extended to members of the provincial civil service who, at least as far as I'm concerned, have been unselfish in their efforts on our behalf — something I think that should be recognized by every member of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, without seeking to repress the good humour of the chamber and certainly without trying to reflect on the previous speaker's speech, I would like to refer to May, 18th edition, where it says at page 418: "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language, and this is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate." I'd recommend the same to all members.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have taken my place recently on the amendment, so I certainly do not intend to become too repetitious in speaking to the budget. But there are a few points that I would like to have on record, and which I hope some in the government side may give some attention to and perhaps be able to persuade their cabinet colleagues that there may be some value in listening to the opposition on some of our concerns with this budget.

I listened very carefully to the Premier's defence of the budget when he spoke on the amendment yesterday and I made some notes on his speech. One particular thing I noticed, and wrote down as I was listening, was that the Premier said that this budget was a budget for this time. Mr. Speaker, I would have to contend that it's the wrong budget for any time. Yesterday I went through in some considerable detail the reasons why we were so concerned about this budget, and the fact that it has no philosophy behind it which will help bring about an economic recovery to this province. I noted that the last speaker suggested that we were on the road to recovery. Well, Mr. Speaker, when we find ourselves in a situation in this province today, after this government has been in office for 15 months, with increased cost of living, high unemployment rate — going higher day by day — I do not see how that member could possibly stand in this House and say that we're on the road to recovery.

This is our major concern. We had all hoped when we came to this Legislature that we would find something in the budget which would point to the fact that the government had finally decided they had made some serious mistakes in their heavy taxation on the people of this province. We had hoped to find

[ Page 634 ]

some imagination and some hope for the businesses of this province — some incentive. Yet there is nothing, Mr. Speaker. We've gone through this budget; we've debated it for a number of days, as well as the amendment, and we still fail to find any hope for recovery in this budget.

Now when the Premier was speaking he also made a statement which I really feel must be challenged. He stated that this will not be a year of tax increases in this province, despite the fact that almost every other jurisdiction in Canada is imposing tax increases on the people of their provinces. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has completely misled this House and the people of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. You're not, imputing any improper motive in suggesting that the Premier misled?

MRS. DAILLY: No, I'm not imputing improper motive. I'm trying to say that unless at a future date the Premier retracts the statement he made, I would have to say that the statement made was misleading. If I can back up that statement I just made as to why I say it was misleading, Mr. Speaker: he stated — and we can see it in the Blues — that there would be no tax increases for the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, let's just take the education budget. Let us look at what has happened financially in the area of education in this province under the Social Credit. There will, no doubt, have to be increases in the property tax for schools all across this province. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) already announced that the basic mill rate set for this year will be set at 37.5 mills. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in 1975, the basic mill rate set by statute was 26.5 mills. Now the school boards have no appeal against the basic mill rate, as I know Mr. Speaker well knows and well understands the finance formula. So this basic mill rate has gone up by 40 per cent. The school boards are caught in that rigid basic mill rate. They can do nothing about it. I want to repeat that it now has gone from 26.5 mills, and under this government to 37.5 mills this year. On top of that, when we look at the educational budget, we note that although the overall expenditures for education have gone up by 10.9 per cent, the direct grants to the public schools amount to 6.8 per cent. And yet their average budgets are coming in at 9.5 per cent. The school boards of this province have been responsible.

They have in the face of inflationary costs, many of them the responsibility of this government and their own policies, tried very hard to bring their budgets within line. Yet they find a direct grant that looks as if it is working out to approximately 6.8 per cent. So what are the school boards going to be faced with, Mr. Speaker? Undoubtedly they are going to have to impose higher taxation on the local taxpayer in their areas. So I am simply pointing out that to suggest that there will be no increased taxes for the people of British Columbia is not correct.

MR. COCKE: Absolutely false!

MRS. DAILLY: On top of that, we find that the municipal authorities have just found out that they are going to experience a $3.1 million boost because of cutbacks of government grants to the B.C. Assessment Authority. Therefore, if we take the lack of financing given to the school boards by this province and the move by the government on cutbacks on the government grants for the B.C. Assessment Authority, once again — I want to repeat — the local taxpayers of this province under the Social Credit government are going to be faced in some areas with some very enormous tax property rate increases. And this is the government that said when they were campaigning they were going to move towards a removal. Yet they've been in office. This is their second budget and instead of any retrenchment of taxes, we see a further increase on the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back again to my own riding of Burnaby North. In speaking before, I did mention my grave concern that this budget holds very little hope for the people of Burnaby North (the riding I represent) that their lives are going to be improved. And this is another thing I find rather shocking, Mr. Speaker: that the philosophy of this government does not seem to be that they have any responsibility to improve the lives of the people of this province. They keep suggesting, over and over again, that it is up to each individual to pull up his socks and help the province get on its feet. That, of course, is a complete difference in philosophy between the Social Credit and the New Democratic Party.

As I said before, I think your campaigning literature was obviously false. Members of the government over there now, you did not give the impression when you were campaigning to the public and to the people who supported you that once you came into office you would simply take your role in government as administrators, set priorities, and then leave it up to the people of the province to pull us out of an economic recession. This is not what the people expected when they voted for you. They are becoming increasingly disenchanted and the effects of the policies of the Social Credit government are being felt more and more every day. I think that unless this government makes some major changes and listens to some of the points brought up by the opposition, we are in for a very, very critical time in the history of British Columbia.

I believe there was a picture in The Daily Colonist

[ Page 635 ]

recently, the sort of picture I don't think we've seen in any newspaper since the days of the Depression. The picture, Mr. Speaker, is a picture of two young men in sleeping bags. Where are they lying? They are lying in front of the Canada Manpower office on Fort Street.

MR. KEMPF: Have you given me their names yet? Come on, I haven't had a name yet.

MRS. DAILLY: They are lying there — first in line, it says. They are sleeping in their sleeping bags all night so they'll be first in line next morning for casual labour postings at the office. They say they spurn welfare and they want to work.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

On the other side of the House we continually hear about the laziness of many of the young people and our Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has certainly given the impression abroad that there are a lot of people in this province who don't want work and who just want welfare. Mr. Speaker, this is not true.

This picture is, I think, a condemnation, far more of a condemnation than any speeches we can make in this House, because when was the last time we saw men in sleeping bags lining up so that they would be first, in line for a job in the province of British Columbia? In the Depression days was the last time. Yet this is the government where their members are standing up and saying in this House that we're back on the road to recovery. And if they don't say that we're back on the road to recovery, they say: "Never mind, we are a responsible government and we have to run this government efficiently. Let's forget about the people. Let's show a balanced budget, and that is our main object in being government."

In the district of Burnaby we have a number of senior citizens, as most of our members do in their ridings, and I was really disconcerted to see that the budget for grants-in-aid, for special-care homes, has no increase at all this year. Yet this is the government which has always said that we believe in people working for themselves; we don't believe in just giving handouts — we encourage people to do so much for themselves and then we'll assist them.

Now the grants-in-aid for special-care homes, Mr. Speaker — to remind the House, for those who forget what it was for and what its purpose is — are community-sponsored, non-profit societies set up for the purpose of creating self-contained housing accommodation for elderly citizens. That budget shows no increase whatsoever and I know in my own riding there is a desperate need for this.

We are also concerned in this government not moving, from what we can see, in too strong a direction in the creation of community recreational facilities through assisting the municipalities. Now from the fact that in these two areas we see no movement from this government, no increases, it becomes quite apparent that this government is not giving any encouragement to the municipalities of this province so they can create projects that will put a number of people to work and also produce housing and other facilities so everyone can partake in the enjoyment of them.

There is nothing in this budget, Mr. Speaker, to stimulate the economy. When we hear people get up on the other side and say that they have listened to the opposition — as the Premier and others did last night — we have heard no concrete suggestions. We have presented a number of them from this side of the floor, but quite obviously the government has made up its mind that its role is to continue to be administrators, setters of priorities, but their role is not to stimulate this economy, or do anything about restoring business and investment in the province. We see no sign of it anywhere.

We have the quote from the Victoria mayor. This afternoon I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) call across: "A very fine mayor." What did Mayor Michael Young have to say about this budget? He accuses the Socreds of waste and complete failure to stimulate B.C.'s economy. This is the mayor of Victoria. He said that the government was obsessed with trying to run a neat little ship at the expense of the provincial economy Then he, too, refers to President Jimmy Carter. A lot of people are alluding to Jimmy Carter in this House, I suppose not only because he's a new president, but because everyone's rather interested in the new moves he's taking in restoring the economy of the United States. He refers to Jimmy Carter, and what does he say, Mr. Speaker? He says: "Jimmy Carter has done more for the citizens of that country than the Socreds have done for British Columbia in a whole year, and he has just assumed office." The mayor lambasted the government's claims of restraint, pointing out that his own city.... In talking about restraint he says that with a 5.9 per cent increase in the budget they are looking at reducing their budget, or at least holding it to last year's figures.

So the municipalities are trying to be responsible, and the school boards are. Yet what are they getting from this government, from their attempt to cooperate and be responsible? They are simply getting hit harder each year. Every year they're getting hit in every direction, yet they have attempted to cooperate with this government. They were a new government, and yet the minister who came in as Minister of Municipal Affairs — well respected, with his background — now we find has created, through some actions of his government and perhaps of his own.... There is beginning to be a

[ Page 636 ]

serious question about whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs is now for these municipalities to the extent he said when he first came in. He has suggested to us that we did not cooperate with the municipalities, and that is absolute nonsense.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What did I say?

MRS. DAILLY: We made major changes to aid and abet the financial base of the municipalities. But I have watched this Minister of Municipal Affairs since he came into office, and I have yet to see any major move that has been taken by that minister to assist the municipalities in their present financial problems.

Now I appreciate the fact that he is only one member of cabinet and that he has to go along with the decisions that are made by Treasury Board and by the rest of his cabinet colleagues. But I do hope that when the minister's estimates come up he will be able to show us that he still has a concern for the municipalities and will be able to tell us what he is doing for them to improve their financial base. Because to date, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, you have been a disappointment.

I don't wish to just pick on you, Mr. Minister. We could go through a number of ministers who have been grave disappointments. May I say, Mr. Speaker, they are a disappointment because it is obvious that they are unable to get across their points of view for their own departments to the Premier. The Premier is the one who is making the decisions. His financial decisions are a disaster for this province. Each one of you who sits there in cabinet and allows this policy of non-stimulus to the economy and increased taxes to continue.... I don't know how many of you are going to be staying in the cabinet.

HON. MR. MAIR: I can't stand it. It's too much for me!

MRS. DAILLY: Obviously, if you are staying in the cabinet, it means you are either not fighting, Mr. Minister of Consumer Services and Corporate Affairs, or you don't care about the people of British Columbia.

There are other areas in my own riding of Burnaby North which really concern me. I mentioned yesterday the matter of health care. I mentioned the matter of ambulance services, the lack of homes for senior citizens and the inept handling of housing in Burnaby.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier has come in I just want to finish off my remarks by saying and repeating to him that.... He said it was "a budget for this time." It is a wrong budget. It is a disastrous budget, and that's why we're opposing it.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I'm very happy to be able to rise in the House this afternoon and support this budget. I find myself in a peculiar position, Mr. Speaker, in that I must agree with some of the things that the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BAWTREE: That doesn't happen very often. One of the things he said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, is that for the last 25 or 30 years we've been living in a fool's paradise, thinking that every year we could get more than the last year, every year we could have higher wages, .every year we could have higher profits and higher fees for the professional people. I agree with him, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say that we make too many demands on our society but have wanted to do less and less in return. Unfortunately, when he carried on with his talk today, he didn't continue in that very enlightened vein, and I couldn't agree with what he had to say this afternoon.

But these demands that are made by our people on our society, Mr. Speaker, take many forms. We have people who feel that they are sitting pretty on a lakeshore or with a nice piece of view property. They're making great demands on our society, but they don't really want to see anybody else come in and share that little paradise with them.

I do agree with the member for Prince Rupert that we must give greater consideration to all our fellow men. I do not agree, however, with that hon. member or any others who have inferred that this government is picking on just one segment of our society.

MS. BROWN: They're picking on all of them.

MR. BAWTREE: It is said that we were picking on the labouring people in this province. It is inferred, as that group over there has stated so often, that no other group is having to make any sacrifices. Let's just talk about sacrifices, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about the high taxes that were imposed by that government, by the NDP government, on our manufacturing community, high taxes that were higher than they could afford.

MR. COCKE: Like what? Name one.

MR. BAWTREE: The super-royalties, just as a very good quick example, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: What are you talking about?

MR. BAWTREE: First of all, the high taxes laid on our forest industry made them sacrifice the upgrading and modernization of their plants. The high taxes made many of our sawmills and pulp mills

[ Page 637 ]

uncompetitive compared with the others around the world; the high taxes forced many of our marginal mines to be uneconomic and forced so many of them to close. These are just a few of the penalties and sacrifices that were imposed on our manufacturing community. They didn't seem to understand, Mr. Speaker, that as they taxed those businesses out of existence the jobs went also.

Let's talk about sacrifices for the investors in this province. There are some investors who have had no return, or a very inadequate return, on their shares in the last few years. Another thing that doesn't seem to be understood, Mr. Speaker, is that you can't force people to invest their money where they don't want to invest it. You can't force them to invest if there is no return. Not only must our investors have a return on their money that they are prepared to put into the industry; they must also be able to hand it on to those who have worked so hard alongside them — their children. I'm very happy to see that the succession duties and gift taxes have been changed in this province so that those people who have built up a business will be able to pass it on to their children.

This government does not want to be the only investor in this province. He does not want to be competing unfairly with the private sector and, therefore, we must phase out, over a period of time, those operations that compete with the private sector. We must make sure that there is a reasonable return on investment; otherwise it will not take place in this province.

MR. COCKE: Hydro first?

MR. BAWTREE: Investment will go, as it has gone over the last few years, to other places — the U.S. or Alberta.

MR. COCKE: And it started this year.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, come on!

MR. BAWTREE: It is now coming back to this province as they see that we bring responsible budgets into this province.

MR. COCKE: Oh, no, it's not. You take a look.

MR. KERSTER: It's time for your brain transplant.

MR. BAWTREE: And speaking of taxes, Mr. Speaker, we must make sure also that the people of this province get their money's worth for the hard-earned taxes that they pay out. A very good example has been the Ministry of Human Resources. I'm very happy to see that he has eliminated 30 per cent of those able-bodied single people who were on welfare and are no longer on our rolls as a burden on our taxpayers.

I would like to see an inquiry, research, done into the massive proliferation of boards, commissions, societies and committees that we have going on around this province right now funded — at least in part — by the provincial taxpayer. I suspect, in many instances, the taxpayers are getting a very, very poor return on their tax dollars. I think that many of these groups could be eliminated and nobody would even miss them.

I would now like to say just a few words about the budget and the money that has been allocated within the budget, Mr. Speaker. Hospitals are up to nearly $1 billion now, up 11.4 per cent — more than a quarter of the total budget — and I believe we can't keep this up. There's no way that any society can keep up these sorts of increases year after year. I recommend a greater emphasis be put on home care and that there be less rigid lines between the various levels of care. Our facilities that we have built should be able to accommodate a greater variety of cases, a greater variety of care, and in this respect I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that we could do with some home care in the Enderby area where we do not have any great amount at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good luck.

MR. BAWTREE: Oh, we'll get it. I'm sure we will get it.

MR. KEMPF: He said home care, not psychiatric care.

MR. BAWTREE: In the Ministry of Highways and Public Works there have been a lot of complaints from the opposition that we are not providing any jobs in this province, that our budget has failed to provide jobs. I disagree with this completely. The $70 million for road construction projects will provide jobs in this province and, equally as important, we will get something for those tax dollars. The previous government, as we have heard it mentioned in this House several times in the last few days, shovelled the money out of the back end of a truck and they thought as long as somebody picked it up they were providing jobs.

However, speaking to the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), I would like to remind him that there are one or two little details we have not yet completed in my riding — and I do know that lie is very busy. One of them is the bridge at Enderby, which needs to be replaced very badly, and also we have a few roads away over on the other side near Kamloops, in the Pritchard area, which could also require your attention, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 638 ]

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, about the Department of Highways and Public Works is that they still seem to have a great tendency to think that one of their jobs is to plan the total province. They're the ones who should be looking to see how the subdivisions take place. I believe the message has not got all the way down, and to all the people in the field to indicate to them we are now back in the business of building roads, and it is not necessarily up to them to decide where all the subdivisions take place.

In the field of Education, again the increases are very great — nearly 11 per cent up over last year. I would suggest that we seem to be having great difficulty in delivering a continuing amount of education to the people of this province. We seem to be putting in more and more money, but we don't seem to be getting the same return for the dollar invested that we would like to see.

I certainly welcome the core curriculum. I think it is going to be a great asset to this province. I was very happy to see that the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) spoke in the House yesterday and said that the core curriculum will be in place by September. I know many of the parents in my area will be happy to have this statement. I know many of them will be happy to see the monitoring of our educational system but, as in every department, there are some problems, and I would just like to point out one to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister of Education.

The Okanagan College seems to be having great difficulty in financing all the programmes that are required in my area. Salmon Arm, it has been indicated, might have some programmes cut back. I believe this would be a very retrograde step. The adult education programmes in that centre are providing a very great and needed service. I believe we must make every effort, and I know you will, to continue with this programme.

The North Shuswap School on the north side of the lake: this is a growing community and needs a greater number of courses for those grades attending there now so they do not have to travel the 50 miles or 60 miles into Salmon Arm.

I believe that the budget does address itself to the problems facing this province at this time. It does address itself to the need for greater job opportunities, partly because we are encouraging private investment back into this province who are the ones, in the final analysis, who have to provide the jobs. We are doing it through our Department of Highways, and we are providing many millions of dollars to the Department of Labour to provide summer employment.

Investment is probably the most important thing that can happen in this province, and we are encouraging this. We are bringing about accountability. We are returning a great deal of accountability back to this province.

The budget is not one of those that has escalated greatly over the previous years — 5.9 per cent is a modest increase and a responsible increase. I believe that with the cooperation and best efforts of all the people of goodwill, of all political persuasions, this province will be once again the envy of all of Canada. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support this budget.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I don't want to sign in as George Kerster's voice, but as you can hear, while I've been looking forward to taking my place in this debate, I am the happy recipient of a healthy case of laryngitis. I've been advised that it's contagious and its cure is silence. I wouldn't want to wish to spread the contagion around this chamber, Mr. Speaker — you might envision these hallowed halls and the impact of the silence of 54 members: no Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), no Comox (Ms. Sanford), no North Vancouver–Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis). (Laughter.) It would be a marvellous day. I intend to condense my remarks for that reason. My apologies to the minister. That does bring to mind Hydro, though.

In condensing my remarks I would like to pinpoint two or three things to which the people I represent feel — and I think many of the people in this province feel — are important to address ourselves, recognizing that financially these are extremely difficult days and therefore that makes them emotionally difficult days for all the people, and that is the subject of B.C. Hydro.

Our Crown corporations in British Columbia traditionally were matters of great pride to those who helped support them and utilized their services, and to those who worked for them. That pride has withered away and today we find all our Crown corporations, rightly or wrongly, under attack and question. I believe that the time will come when we will once again be extremely proud of Hydro. We once again will be the envy of North America and many other jurisdictions because of what Hydro can provide for us — the energy which the minister talked about earlier, and the power.

We are very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to be in British Columbia today. We don't suffer from brownouts. People are not cold because of a lack of hydro power, and that came about by good planning. Nonetheless, this isn't to say that everybody loves Hydro, or that everything Hydro does is right. I feel that the people, and Hydro itself, would benefit greatly from establishing an eagle eye, if you want to call it, over Hydro and our other Crown corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[ Page 639 ]

MRS. JORDAN: If Hydro is going to increase its rates, there may be very just reasons. But if we could bring them before the public, through an inquiry, through a rate review board or through a structure somewhat similar to the old PUC, then I believe Hydro would benefit because people would better understand what its problems are and what its costs are.

I think we have to examine whether Hydro is, in fact, leading in terms of its contributions to its employees, its benefits, its costs in relation to other jurisdictions and other utility companies in North America. If it isn't leading, then we should stop saying that it is.

I think that there is ample opportunity to look at ways of cutting costs on hydro. I might facetiously ask if we really need our meter readers running around in big cars. Perhaps bicycles are better. Perhaps a motorcycle or perhaps a small, mechanized unit — there are some that require less energy in terms of fuel and less in terms of operating cost — would be more efficient. I am sure there are many ways that Hydro could be made more efficient. I also feel that the people then would have more confidence than they seem to have in what Hydro proposes to do. I don't feel, in suggesting this, that this in any way condemns this Crown corporation. But all of us are, and should be, subjected to scrutiny, and Hydro is no exception.

I would like to mention another subject, Mr. Speaker, and that is housing in British Columbia. Without being repetitive, I'd like to commend the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I think he has done an excellent job in a very short time.

It was a very complex muddle, to say the least and be the kindest, that he inherited. I believe, as I watch his programmes evolve, that this government will be very much in a position, in two or three years, of having met its commitment of providing the opportunity for affordable housing to most of the people in this province. And for those who can't afford it, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will be handling that problem in a very successful way.

Along with housing, Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a sticky mess out there. It's the people — not a large percentage, but certainly a noticeable percentage — who are getting stuck. That is in relation to incomplete contracts when they buy a new house and legal complexities arising from misrepresentation — perhaps not intentionally — by contractors, by housing sales people, or just through misunderstandings. HUDAC introduced a programme of housing warranty in British Columbia that is of a great benefit. But I fed that it is not having the impact that it should be having. I would urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair), and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to work with HUDAC, to not interfere with the programme and to not make the programme compulsory, but to give it the impetus that it needs, so that the public can be aware of what it offers. What is the advantage of building a house that's been constructed by a contractor who is a member of this housing guarantee programme?

As I say, I don't think it should preclude the right of anyone to choose who they wish to build their house. Nor should it preclude the right of any responsible person going into the construction business, whether as an individual, a small company or a major corporation. But it should let the people be aware that in all parts of Canada today, and certainly at a time when housing is at a premium, when prices are high, we tend to attract fly-by-night operators. Mr. Speaker, we have them in North Okanagan, and they are around this province.

One of the unfortunate things that happens when you try to deal with CMHC on a house that has been improperly constructed, and you can pinpoint the contractor, is that CMHC advises the contractor to repair. the house, he doesn't do it to satisfaction, but they continue to lend him money to build another house. I feel very strongly that we should make representation to the federal government, so that where someone building houses for public use does not meet his commitments to everyone's satisfaction, or reasonable satisfaction, he should not be able to finance new projects. I believe that if the government did come into this programme, then people would get a greater appreciation and they would benefit.

I'd like to make another reference, Mr. Speaker, to the removal of succession duties in the budget. I see that the former Minister of Agriculture, who has a penchant for red, is in the House. I must say, with the greatest respect, through you, Mr. Speaker, that either that gentleman — and member and former Minister of Agriculture, and former Minister of Finance — didn't understand his own legislation, or he deliberately clouded the issue, because under the legislation imposed by the NDP, the adjustments to the Succession Duty Act, a farming producer's wife could not inherit that farm without paying succession duties. And only one child could inherit that farm. And then they could only do so if they were resident on that farm and they operated it for 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, picture if you will, without transgressing on the bill, a producer and his wife who built up a farm. He's 42 — and dies, and they have a child of 7 — would you believe, a farmer of 42 with a child of 7? That wife cannot inherit that farm, nor can that child because that child is not of legal age and cannot operate that farm.

I'll save the rest of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, until the bill because I can see you are getting a little uncomfortable. But please, through you to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), don't distort the

[ Page 640 ]

truth. I would challenge any member in the opposition to go out into any part of this province — go into any agricultural community or where there are small family businesses — and oppose the removal of the succession duties. I challenge you, and I certainly challenge that former Minister of Agriculture to go to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture meeting and oppose the removal of succession duties, and to give the same story to them that he gave in this House the other day.

Mr. Speaker, the budget is a difficult budget. I think it's a responsible budget, and I think in accepting this budget the people of British Columbia place their trust and confidence in this government. But I think, as one minister said, while we can't legislate morality and we can't legislate many actions in efficiency and prosperity, we can, as a government, make it very clear to all sides — to management, both large and small, to the professional, to those in responsible positions within the unions, whether it's labour or professional — that accountability, responsibility, restraint and increased productivity and efficiency in management go hand in hand and must be part of the overall demands of all of us.

The burden simply cannot and must not be placed too heavily on any one segment of society. If labour is to hold steady in its demands and to increase its productivity, then management — in the interest of harmony and confidence — must be prepared to make the same benefits and the same sacrifices to be sure that their own benefits do not exceed reason, that new efficiencies brought into industry and small business will not necessarily increase their profits, but will increase their capital for reinvestment in their business, that it will help promote sales by making their products more competitive without fanning inflation and that just possibly there might be a price reduction in those products which would benefit our people.

I feel Mr. Speaker, that small businesses, with the greatest respect, must also examine their own operations. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) could make a great service available by having expertise, practical business people, $1-a-year people, who would make themselves available to small businesses upon request, who would go in and examine those businesses — their cost of production, their billing procedures, their purchasing procedures, their sales procedures — go out on the trucks with the crew, if it's a service industry. Is it operating efficiently? Is it right to have two men on the job where one could be sufficient? Then that business itself, and the employees of the businesses, could take advantage of very knowledgeable advice which they well might not be utilizing now. This in itself could help reduce their overhead and, as I say, make their business more efficient, offer greater service, and perhaps reduce the price of some commodities and services.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) said the other night in referring to the problem of outcosting our products even for ourselves, I would suggest briefly that we've outcosted our elves in our own services. More and more people are saying: "I can't afford a plumber; I can't afford an electrician." I don't mean to single them out, but this is the case, and in the interest of all of us — management, I'm sure, would wish to do this, and if this expertise.was available it would be a great help.

I think this brings to mind the comments by the member for Burnaby who follows suit over there of amazing all of us by feeling that you simply measure a programme by the number of dollars you put into it. The larger the amount of dollars, the better the programme. There seems to be no sense of dollar value over there — no sense that many expensive programmes are sloppily administered, are out of date, or in fact could be made of much more service to those they are supposed to benefit.

I've listened very carefully through these days and not once have I heard those members suggest where this government should be cutting back in this budget. Not once have I heard them criticize the cost accounting that's gone on by this government, the effort to make every tax dollar we are spending on behalf of the people bring service and value to those people. It's a mentality that would just lead the people of British Columbia down to a golden path of poverty, and it's an irresponsible attitude.

Mr. Speaker, just to address myself to the constituency in brief, in spite of the difficulties of this year, the people of the north Okanagan see that our share of the budget will bring great benefits to our area. Specifically, we see money for Highways 97 and 6, and believe that this will bring jobs. I'm not announcing it tonight; I've announced it several times and I think we'll wait until the work is completed, Mr. Minister.

We're pleased to see that our new health unit is a priority item with this government. This is going to benefit our people, it's going to help provide jobs and it's going to increase service. Our new intermediate-care home has been approved.

Mr. Speaker, we think in a way it's going to be the year of the college, not in terms of more and more money, but in terms of making our college more meaningful to the people in all the region it serves in keeping with what colleges were originally conceived to do — that is, to serve the interests and needs of a community in terms of job creation, cultural interests and academic interest.

The weed problem in Okanagan Lake is paramount in everyone's thinking. I would just like to say on that subject that we appreciate the work that has been done by all involved. We hope that the special

[ Page 641 ]

committee set up by the minister will report soon on 2,4-D and that any of these reports will be brought to the public for their examination. Mr. Minister, we want to assure you that we want rational thinking and we will support rational thinking. We don't want any sort of fly-by-night, stop-gap measures which might lead to further complications of the problem. I believe that when the decisions are made, no matter how difficult they are or how emotional they are, you'll have the support of the people of the North Okanagan.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many good things going on in the north Okanagan I think I had better not mention any more. People will think that I've had more than my share!

I would like to say in closing that the people of the North Okanagan are not really laughing all the way to the guidelines; in fact, Mr. Speaker, many of them aren't going to the guidelines. We have wage settlements that are below the guidelines. We have restaurants and businesses who are now cutting back their prices to do their part in support of this government. In fact, I think not many of them really liked the budget. I'm not sure all of us really liked the budget, but like us, they respect it.

They appreciate what the government is doing and has to do; they appreciate the fact that the government is strong enough to stand up and do it and be counted. They're a little bit tired of politicians who refuse to face facts, and who would, either through perhaps ignorance and a lack of understanding of the serious monetary problems we face and their ramifications, or through evasiveness, continue to try and mislead the people, continue to try and perpetrate a false philosophy that can't survive.

My goodness, Mr. Speaker! Really, it is a time of great prosperity in North America. Even the poorest have benefits over other poor in other parts of the world. Surely, if at this time we, as mature adults and responsible citizens, can't shoulder our own responsibilities and help solve the problems that we helped create, then we certainly can't expect our children to do so. They'll have their problems, and the least we can do is not create more for them through our inability to face our own responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting the budget and in respecting the budget, as I said, the people also place their trust in this government, trust that it will put the government's house in order administratively and in productivity, and that there will be long-range planning forthcoming, and that the government....

MR. COCKE: Do we pray for that?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, you created the mess. You'd better start praying, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, they ask that the government be sensitive to the fact that tightening the belt is harder on some than on others, and that when the time comes these hardships will be recognized., Frequently they're the smaller groups; frequently they're the more silent groups. I'm not speaking just of those who have been referred to in previous debates, but of the working poor and those who have been prudent and are just above the margin where they can receive any sort of assistance. But what we understand, and what that side doesn't understand, is that pouring more and more money into the economy isn't going to improve the problem. All you're doing is taking more and more money out of their pockets. What we have to do, and what this budget will help do, is see that the current dollars that people have and receive will buy more.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget and I believe the people I represent support it. They believe that this government is responsible in financial terms, in human terms and in moral terms.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear the hon. member for Nanaimo on a point of order I must recognize.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the member for North Okanagan referred to some remarks of mine about succession duties and farms. Either she misquoted or misinterpreted or something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: I'd just like to make the correction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has a right to make a correction if he feels that he's been misquoted.

MR. STUPICH: She did say that family farms could not be passed on to anyone other than a child. I have a letter from Mr. Fields of the probate and succession duties branch:

"Where the family farm qualifies as the family home no duties are payable, no matter what the value, on any portion thereof which passes to those members of the special beneficiary class, which includes husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, great grandchild, son-in-law or daughter-in-law."

With respect to what she said to the effect that someone would have to be farming for 10 years prior to the estate being passed on, and she pointed out how difficult this would be with a 7-year-old

[ Page 642 ]

child....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. Before you continue further I think you should realize that what you have to do in correcting another hon. member's statements is to refer to something that you have said in the House and he or she has misinterpreted — or you feel that the hon. member has misinterpreted — in his or her delivery. Now did you, in fact, deliver such a speech during this debate?

MS. BROWN: She made a mistake. She made an honest mistake.

MR. STUPICH: During the course of my speech in the budget debate, I did point out that succession duties to farms were already relieved by this legislation. With respect to the estate being passed on to children, the requirement is that the child continue to farm for 10 years after receiving the farm, not 10 years prior to receiving it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Fraser moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.