[ Page 309 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Lockstead –– 309

Mr. Calder –– 315

Mrs. Wallace –– 319

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 325

Presenting reports

Special committee on select standing committees of the House. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 332

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

BUDGET DEBATE

(continued)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was, Mr. Speaker, very interested in the various speeches this afternoon. All of the speakers have done a lot of research, made their points well, and imparted a great deal of useful information to the people of this province, in my view.

But I was particularly interested, perhaps, in the speech from the Minister of Education, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) I remember that member as a Liberal leader in this House, and as a member of the Liberal party representing Vancouver-Point Grey before he was a cabinet minister. I was amazed at that member's defence of this particular budget. You know, as a new member, I sat in this House session after session and listened to that member attacking the Social Credit government during budget debates. In fact, he presented his own budget during those debates.

AN HON. MEMBER: It never balanced.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Now here we are - that member, in the government party, is defending a Social Credit budget. Here is a minister who has lost the confidence of the teachers, the BCTF. He has lost the confidence of the school trustees' association. He has taken away local autonomy, centralized education - more and more so all the time.

MR. BARRETT: He has no confidence in

Canadians.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He has no confidence in Canadians, as my leader points out.

MR. BARRETT: Bobby Sherrell, where are you now when we need you?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: How much is he getting?

MR. BARRETT: Eighty thousand dollars a year.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My God! I am shocked, Mr. Speaker. Worst of all, while the minister is doing all of these things, he is increasing the tax to the property owners throughout this province. I am absolutely shocked to hear those words coming from that member. Now back to the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing a number of items tonight. But I assure you I have no intention of going into great detail on many of these topics, which I will save for estimates. I would like to express an overview on some of these topics, and many of these items, that relate to my constituency. But I thought, perhaps, a few general words on the budget may be in order.

The budget promises some 10,000 jobs for the people in our province. If I could f find my notes, I would talk about that. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, I very much doubt that the people of this province will see 10,000 jobs out of this budget. Even if the government does, as they promise, make these funds available through the various agencies and levels of government, by the time it reaches the unemployed person in the community, I frankly doubt that there will be 10,000 jobs there. There might be 1,000. We might provide a few more jobs for people administering the moneys. But that's about it, in my view. I don't think that over the next year we'll see a direct return on these moneys that are going into that project.

In my riding we have at least 18 per cent unemployment.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: "A lousy government, " the member over there says. I'll get to you, Mr. Member.You just sit down and wait your turn; I've got a couple of goodies f or you. The Minister of Forests (Ron. Mr. Waterland) interjects from his seat, but he never gets on his feet.

At any event, there is 18 : per cent unemployment in my riding, Mr. Speaker. The official figure, through Canada Manpower, is about 11.5 per cent. But this does not include people who have given up looking for work: young people, many of them living at home; married native Indian people. About 11 per cent of the people in my constituency are native Indian people, and they're not included in these figures. They have an extremely high rate of unemployment, and I'm going to be discussing that too as I go along.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would term this budget, in terms of the government, as a survival budget. They are hoping to survive a few more months by lowering the sales tax by two points - thanks to the federal government. It's nothing to do with these people. These people have now, by lowering the sales tax two points, admitted that they made a mistake two Years ago when

[ Page 310 ]

they increased taxes.

MR. LEA: 1 don't know; they just put $10 a month back in everybody's pocket.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) this afternoon used the phrase, "They took a dollar to give back a dime, " but the figures I have here, Mr. Speaker, indicate that every time this government took $1.20, they were only giving us back a dime. Those are the figures I have come up with.

They have increased ferry fares, ICBC rates, sales tax - which they just reduced. But ambulance, hospital, health care - all of these item that they have increased, now they are giving the people back just a little bit of what they took away in the first place.

1 do have some proposals for, perhaps, improving the unemployment situation in British Columbia a little bit, Mr. Speaker. But 1 want to read into the record these figures which were just brought to my attention yesterday, I think, about one segment of our society. This is the building trades. I find here a list that was, I'm sure, correct or they wouldn't have given it to me.

We have boilermakers - 60 per cent unemployment; bricklayers - 7 per cent unemployment; carpenters - 36 per cent unemployment; electricians - 18 per cent unemployment; labourers - 42 per cent unemployment. And that's a significant figure,

Mr. Speaker, because the labouring field is where the unskilled and the young get their start, perhaps their first jobs. So you can see by this one figure - 42 per cent unemployment in terms of labourers in that field - that the job situation in British Columbia is worse than you can possibly imagine.

Another area has been mentioned in this House, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to discuss it because it is so vital to my riding and to most of British Columbia, 1 think, where we could create some jobs is in the area of forestry.

In Canada nationally, with respect to export income, forestry-related products were one and a half times larger, dollarwise, than agriculture; one-half as big as oil, natural gas and coal combined. That's just the lumber industry in Canada. British Columbia forests produce half of the national forest products total export income.

These figures, I think, perhaps were used earlier in this House, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure. But in 1976, British Columbia exported $3.5 billion in forest products; $0.8 billion in mining products, $0.6 billion in coal, natural gas and petroleum; $0.2 billion in fish, $0.05 billion in chemicals; $0.01 billion in apples; $0.007 billion in alcoholic beverages and $0.6 billion in all other products, for a grand total of $5.387 billion exported. The forest products industry accounted for 58 per cent of our exports here in British Columbia.

You know, faced with ever-growing competition internationally, Mr. Speaker, and countries with easier terrain and faster tree-growing climates, we seem to be ignoring some other startling facts. Half the coastal reserves are not now profitable to log. Eighty per cent of northern interior reserves are uneconomical to log, and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) seems to have left them so. Fifty per cent of the central interior and 20 per cent of the southern interior reserves are not now profitable to log. The uneconomical areas have become so due to their inaccessibility, the cost of putting in roads, smaller [illegible] of wood at the higher altitudes, slower growth at high altitudes and the shorter growing season in the north of the province. But we do have some remedies.

We have vast areas of lower slopes and valley bottoms which have excellent growth potential. These areas need intensive farm management, planting, thinning, preparation, and only then, by using the most advanced silvicultural methods known, will we have a continuous and truly renewable resource.

Another figure you might be interested in is that reports show that the average annual clearcut for the last six years has been 322,000 acres per year and that the average annual replant for the same period has been 131,000 acres a year, a massive shortfall of 191,000 acres a year. I know that in the budget the minister has said that we're going to put an extra $10 million a year into tree planting, but let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not good enough. I wish to endorse the member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich's) recommendation that we should be expanding right now, this year, by at least $100 million a year, and creating 20,000 new jobs in the province this year, reaping short-term benefits, but also gaining long-term benefits. Those trees properly planted, grown and harvested will yield benefits to this province for many, many years to come. While I hope to discuss this further in estimates, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the government right now: let's get started on such a programme. I am disappointed in that particular aspect of the budget, very disappointed, as will be most people in the

[ Page 311 ]

rural parts of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister of mine closures is at it again.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other things we might do in this province to assist the economy, and here's something I'm going to suggest right now. This government, in my view, has been ignoring senior citizens. I see no reason why we shouldn't give our senior citizens - and it's not giving them something; actually it's something they've earned - an extra $100 a month immediately to supplement the shoddy incomes that they're now receiving from this government over here.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yes, it's a millionaires' government. The millionaires are looking after themselves.

MR. BARNES: Would you buy a used carpet from that minister?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No way!

Mr. Speaker, if we upgraded substantially the incomes of our senior citizens, particularly those who are now just living -barely living - on a bare minimum....

You know, they are not going to put that money in the bank. They're not going to hide it in a sock or put it in a mattress. They're going to spend it; they're going to spend it on things they need. It would do a number of things. Certainly, I would think, it would assist the small businessman in every community of the province a lot more than the programme outlined by this budget that we have before us here at the moment, and would certainly make life a lot better for most of these people who are now barely surviving.

Just as a quick aside, Mr. Speaker, for some reason or another over the last couple of months particularly - and I don't know if it was because the budget was so long in coming down or what the reason is - I have had a large increase in complaints from senior citizens about receiving their GAIN, the right amount, the increases. I hope it's just some bureaucratic mix-up or whatever. But I do know that in the last while my letters in this regard have more than tripled and I hope the government will take note and check this out a bit.

Another area discussed in the budget is long-term health care, and I want to make it clear from the outset that I think it's a good programme. I wouldn't want you to construe the remarks I make as being against the programme. I think, properly implemented, it will be an excellent Programme, but it's got a long way to go before it is properly implemented. I wish as well, at this time, before I delve into this one area of long-term health care, not to direct my remarks to the people who work in the programme or to the directors of the programme at the local level. I happen to know because I have met with these people on numerous occasions in all of these communities. They are doing the best they can and they are in fact doing an excellent job under horrendous circumstances.

The area which I wish to take a few minutes to discuss now, I think, would be better explained if I quote from a letter that I have just received this morning from a programme worker on the Sunshine Coast. I think this will better illustrate part of the problem that I wish to discuss. I raise the problem at this time rather than under estimates to give the minister the opportunity to perhaps look at the programme prior to estimates coming up. This lady is a long-term health care worker. She is probably -working for $3 or $3.50 an hour when she works. Again, she is probably a single parent trying to raise children on that terrible, terrible income. That's something you might look into as well. How about getting a raise for some of these people who work so hard, people who perhaps could even make more on welfare but are too proud and would work if they have the opportunity?

I'd like to quote from this correspondence two cases that this lady had to deal with. It sort of sums up the thing for all of these people. She says:

"I would like to give you an example, Mr. Lockstead, of what I mean. We have a client who is 79 years of age. He is living alone, when even the assessment team admit he should be in a facility, but won't make any concessions to more hours of care. We have been giving him four or five hours daily, but this was cut back to a two-hour daily. The end result was that when he had to go into hospital because of his condition, which worsened.... He also, because he wasn't receiving the care, had taken to the bottle for a little bit of solace.

"I suggest that two-hour service, in this case, was of little help to that client. It was a waste of government money and a great frustration for the homemaker as she didn't have the time to do the tasks necessary to make the old man comfortable and less lonely."

[ Page 312 ]

What this means is that now that the government has cut back on services to particularly the aged and handicapped people in the homemaker service, they are simply not getting the service.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, the minister interjects across the floor. I want to assure the minister that I will make this correspondence, which I just received this morning, available to him with the proviso that the person who wrote this letter will not be dismissed from her job. She is scared.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Another example here is this long-term health care programme. I think I should discuss it because it is a serious matter to these people. I think it's a symptom of what's happening throughout the province. This is not just a constituency matter; I think it's something that is happening throughout the province, on the information I received from....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What I'm saying is: you're not providing the service in an adequate manner. Your assessment teams, for example, are, in my view, a waste of money. I think the people who should be assessing are the doctors, the people on the scene. I think the money you would save by doing away with an assessment team - which in itself is a horrendous programme - could go to upgrading the wages of these homemakers. That's what I'm saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On, yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to cite this example because I think it's important:

"I would like to draw your attention to another type of situation. We have two ladies who have severe arthritis and have to have everything done for them. They manage to feed themselves, with difficulty. They live alone - one is on crutches, the other is in a wheelchair. They are getting about 80 hours a month" -80 hours a month, I presume, of homemaker service .- "but were cut back to 46. 1 was acting supervisor at the time, so asked for a reassessment and the hours were raised to 64 monthly - a daily average of two hours. This is still not enough for Someone Who needs so many personal things done for her.

"I know that there are homemakers who are not marking down all of their hours as they cannot finish up in the allotted time and won't leave unfinished work at a client's." I happen to know this for a fact, Mr. Speaker, that many of these homemakers go out on their own time because they don't want to leave these handicapped or old, sick people in the lurch, and so are working on their own time.

I think this third paragraph is worth reading. She goes on to say:

"I would suggest that the government should have taken a leaf from another province's book and, instead of creating a top-heavy bureaucracy of assessment teams, etc., given the client's doctor the responsibility of assessing his needs. I am sure it would be a f air assessment and a great deal of money could be saved on assessment teams' salaries." And she goes into salaries; but I won't continue.

I think I made my point. I raised this question so the minister could have it prior to estimates. Hopefully there will be an improvement in the situation.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No hope?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess just about everybody expects me to say something about the increase in tobacco tax. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member asks if I'm going to quit now.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am not defending smoking and drinking. I know all that old stuff: you don't have to smoke and you don't have to drink. But I'll tell you something. I'll tell you what this increase in taxes to cigarette smokers and to booze drinkers is doing. It doesn't matter to these rich people over here if it costs them $5 a pack. They could pay $10 a pack. It doesn't matter to them. They could pay $50 and $100 a bottle for imported wines, while we peasants drink British Columbia wines.

What I am saying is that what you are doing is arbitrarily, once again, taxing working people, unemployed people, more than you are people with a lot of money. Somebody's got to speak up for the smoker and the boozer in this province and it might as well be me.

[ Page 313 ]

Now, Mr. Speaker, on to other matters.

I think assistance to the mining industry is mentioned in the budget. In fact, it goes on for some length about what the government plans to do. But, you know, this government, and particularly that minister - who is not in his seat at the moment; he was a few moments ago - go to great lengths at every opportunity to refight the 1975 election campaign. The fact is that under his tenure in office we've had more mine closures in this province than ever before in the history of this province, I think, except for possibly the Depression. But that's not what I'm going on about here this evening, Mr. Speaker.

What I'm on about is to do more with communications, I suppose. In the March issue of the B.C. Mining Industry News, which is not exactly a socialist newspaper or periodical, it says on the front page: "It's Cheaper to Import." That's the title of this little article. I'll just quote a brief item. "It costs between $5 and $16 more per ton to transport copper concentrates by rail from British Columbia to Noranda Smelter at Noranda, Quebec than to export the same concentrate from British Columbia to Japan." The fact is, that paragraph alone is a sad statement on the state of our relationship with the federal government and other provinces in Canada - when we can't produce copper concentrates and other minerals and have them smelted and processed in our own country. It is cheaper to import; that's a sad state of affairs.

But what I'm getting at here, I suppose, has to do with communication. This government should be pounding on the door in Ottawa; they should be holding meetings with their federal counterparts now on an ongoing basis. Reduce those freight rates, so that we in western Canada and British Columbia will have equal opportunity with those people living in the central part of this nation. I see the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) agrees with that statement. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I do put some blame on the government. We should be pressing Ottawa and we have a good opportunity now. I know that governments sometimes make hollow promises when there's an election in the offing but we might be able to extract a little bit out of this federal government call the election on Thursday - if they do.

While I'm on the topic of communication, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention one other item that concerns me a bit. Last month there was a federal-provincial conference on communications in Canada. It involved things like satellite programming, pay television, educational television, the use of cables -the whole gamut. British Columbia was the only province that did not send a cabinet minister, but sent a deputy. I'm sure the deputy is very capable; but I'm very disappointed in the government, and I hope to discuss this more under estimates as well. I think this government should be taking these items a bit more seriously. They are a serious matter, in my view.

Mr. Speaker, I am now going to discuss a subject which I have discussed once or twice before in this House. No, I'm not; I've got one more item here I want to talk about before I get into that. The budget that we have in front of us discusses revenue-sharing programmes for local governments. It's revenue-sharing to increase and provide more moneys for municipalities and regional districts. What bothers me is that the government overlooked one group of people in our society - a form of local government - and that is the native Indian people of this province. Now I know that these local band councils - and I have worked with them, certainly in my riding and in other areas as well, and they're not asking for giveaway programmes or cash grants - where these people have been given the opportunity to provide their own economic base in their various communities, have done an excellent job. Witness the Sechelt band, the Sliammon band, with its various projects, the Bella Bella band - all these bands in my riding -the Bella Coola band in its various projects. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the government has not seen fit to include the native Indian people of this province in a revenue-sharing programme. I do hope that when the bill is brought in, or whatever is done to provide this funding, the native Indian people of this province will be included in that programme.

One other item: I notice in this budget that we have a listing for local airports, assistance to local and small airports in rural parts of the province. I want to go on record right now - and I'm not going to dwell on this either, because I've got something else I want to talk about - in support of the construction of an airport in the mid-coast area of this province, as a member of this House discussed here the other day, but he didn't go into much detail.

I'm supporting the construction of an airport on Campbell Island at Bella Bella, which badly needs this facility. I know that the federal government is planning to spend some money in that area, and I request that this provincial government will make every

[ Page 314 ]

effort to assist the federal government in the construction and operation of that airport in the mid-coast area of the province, at Campbell Island.

One other item, and I hope this won't be delayed too long, is the matter of night Lighting for the municipal airport at Powell River. It is an item that they have been after for many, many years. The minister was on again, off again, just like turning a switch. The last I'd heard, he was on again. But now they are raising heck in the community because a lot of people there don't want night lighting and airplanes flying around all night, so he may be off again. But in any event, I'm supporting the project, and I hope it turns out to be in the best interests of the people of that area.

Now on to an item that I have discussed a few times before in this House. That is the matter of transportation problems on the British Columbia coast. I see the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries is not here at the moment, as is the Minister of Transport. However, I am sure they are listening intently somewhere.

On March 13 the minister responsible for the B.C. ferry system announced plans for some small improvement in transportation services on the coast. It is still a "wait and see" situation of what he is going to do, except that he did announce the construction of a ferry to serve from Prince Rupert to Massett. It is a small, positive step in the right direction. But as it says here in this article from the Ocean Falls Informer: "Transport Insanity Has To Stop." Do you know why they say that in Ocean Falls, Mr. Speaker? They say that there because on April I of this year -it was April Fools' Day, I think - the Queen of Prince Rupert stopped for the first time ever in Ocean Falls. However, at the end of this month, they are cutting Ocean Falls off their route.

Ocean Falls will not have any transportation whatsoever for five solid months this summer, a ridiculous situation - no water transportation whatsoever. The reason we are given is that it is three hours out of their regular run and they can't fit Ocean Falls into the schedule. But that is ridiculous. I happen to know that if they hired a few more people at Prince Rupert to service that vessel and shorten the layover at Prince Rupert, they could easily make up those three hours there and call in at Ocean Falls all year around, and create a few jobs at the same time. So here you have a situation where we have this big deal, announce the ferry service for Ocean Falls, go in f or one month and then cut them off for five months. Ridiculous!

I'm also concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the minister's announcement that the Queen of Surrey is not to be utilized in any way. This is a ridiculous situation. Here we have a very fine vessel that should be serving the people of this coast, and what do we have?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's growing barnacles.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's sitting there rusting, moulding. I'm suggesting to the government now....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right. It's a fine, $17 million vessel that would likely cost $30 million to build today. You're going to have to build some anyway.

So I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that that vessel - the Queen of Surrey - be readied for operation for the 1979 season. By that time the road to Port Hardy will have been completed. That vessel could then be put on a day run from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert every day. The Queen of Prince Rupert presently serving that route could be placed on a regular, up-coast route on a weekly or twice-weekly basis from Vancouver to the west coast to serve those areas. I am suggesting as well, Mr. Speaker, that for some time now the people in Bella Bella have been asking for a proper ferry slip, as it is now a regular stop for the Queen of Prince Rupert on its Tsawwassen-Prince Rupert route. I would hope that the government will give that proposal serious consideration.

I am suggesting as more of an overall cure that this government build some ships, perhaps a couple of new ferries which are now required and will be required. I can give you lots of good examples. but I will give you one now which the government, I hope, will consider. We should have a direct ferry service from Powell River to Horseshoe Bay on the lower mainland, bypassing the Sunshine Coast. That area is now served on Route 3 from Langdale to Horseshoe Bay.

Here is what would happen. Powell River is economically depressed at the moment, with high unemployment and....

Oh, I just got going-, it can't be.

MR. SPEAKER: It's time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting I have to save all this good material for estimates? I guess you are. Okay. Well, I'll carry on.

[ Page 315 ]

What I'm suggesting here is that I have no confidence in this government's budget. I think they've overblown it. Personally I firmly believe that it is a survival budget on their part. Quite frankly, I would not hesitate personally and I would be personally prepared to take on this government at any time in my riding on this budget in an election or otherwise. Let's go.

If this is the best they can do, let's take it to the people. Throw these guys out; get in good government and that will be the end of it.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the first time to participate in the debates of this session, I congratulate you on your elevation to Speaker of this assembly. I know that you will perform your duties equally as well as your honourable predecessors. I congratulate also the hon. first member for Vancouver' South (Mr. Rogers) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker. I have every confidence that he will successfully pilot the House through any difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to commend His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for his dedication to service, his sincerity and his statesmanship. Walter Owen was born in the community of Atlin and I'd like to refer to him as my constituent. I believe I have the support of every hon. member in this House in extending to His Honour and Mrs. Owen the best wishes now and always.

Mr. Speaker, would you believe that this particular spring session represents a milestone in my legislative career? It is the 25th occasion on which I rise in my place to speak on behalf of the wonderful and good people of that illustrious constituency of Atlin. In so doing today I say a special thank you to everyone in that large northern constituency for the faith, patience, confidence and support they have given me throughout all these years.

In reaching this milestone, Mr. Speaker, I requested a member of our legislative library to research back to 1871 for the names of hon. members who have served their constituencies and province 25 sessions or more. From the library research I found that 1 have joined an exclusive membership comprised of the f following seven honourable gentlemen. In alphabetical order they are: William Andrew Cecil Bennett, who served South Okanagan for 31 years; Lea Thomas Nimsick, who served Cranbrook and Kootenay for 26 years; Thomas Dufferin Pattullo, who served Prince Rupert for 29 years; Robert Henry Pooley, who served

Esquimalt for 25 years; James Hargrave Schofield, who served Ymir, Trail and Rossland-Trail for 26 years; Arthur James Turner, who served Vancouver East for 25 years; and a good old friend of many of us, Thomas Uphill, who served Fernie for 40 years. I believe this is the British Commonwealth's record.

If there are any corrections to be made, I would expect my friend James Nesbitt to make them.

I would like to say that in all my term of office, I have always considered myself a constituency man, and I'm quite sure a number here think likewise. As a constituency man in my term of office, I have continually advocated that from the billions of dollars in revenue derived from the development of natural resources in the Atlin constituency, the government must return public services to the northern people. Thanks to the steadfast and tireless efforts of my constituents and to the Social Credit government's recognition to provide urgent needs to the people, we have begun to realize public services in the north. Thanks also to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for its ongoing efforts to provide such services to the Indian communities in that northwest riding.

Many of these public services have been completed, some are under construction and some are under favourable review. Would you believe, therefore, other milestones I have witnessed, such as going from candles and oil lamps to B. C. Hydro in that large constituency, from moose trails to Highway 37, from midwife to air ambulance service and health clinics, from moccasin telegraph to telephones, from outhouses to flush toilets, from water hauling to water supply systems, from pack saddle to truck and airmail service, from tents and Klondike cabins to precut homes, from dog sleigh to snowmobile, from magic lanterns to television sets, from isolation to accessibility.

Regarding that accessibility, you listen carefully. I wish to say a word or two regarding its relation to the boundaries of the Atlin constituency. Mr. Speaker, the north-south direction of the Stewart-Yukon Highway 3 7.... I would like to say at this point, to the Minister of Highways, that I believe the change of name is in order. The Stewart-Cassiar term appears to be going out the window. In the latter part of my term of office, I have been promoting the Stewart-Watson Lake term, but I think your ministry should be considering very strongly that even though we know them by numbers

[ Page 316 ]

today, people still direct names to these highways. Highway 37 should be renamed the Stewart-Yukon highway.

This highway system has actually brought together our community problems - transport, communications, social and economic situations - into one common focus. This is what the north-south direction means to the people in that northwest corner of this province. The north-south direction of the Stewart-Yukon Highway 37 with its southern outlets at Stewart, Terrace and Kitwanga, has been most beneficial to the people in the B.C. northwest in terms of more favourable attention and solutions to their problems than prior to this accessibility. With the completion of the Highway 37 system, we, in the constituency, cannot see now why we have to depend upon an east-west direction - namely, the north section of the Alaska Highway. For instance, we cannot see why in the Atlin constituency we have to depend upon the far eastern provincial district offices at Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Prince George and Smithers to solve the problems of education, health, human resources, land, recreation and conservation, et cetera. We don't see why we have to depend on these communities that are located so far east of the Atlin riding.

[Mr.-Rogers in the chair.]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in my recent coverage of the Dease Lake-Telegraph Creek-Iskut districts I found that the people in these communities are unanimous in support of a government agent with headquarters at Dease Lake. In this respect, the new Highways district 53, centred at Dease Lake, is proving successful for the Ministry of Highways. This could be solved with the other ministries if the government agent was approved for Dease Lake.

The north-south direction of the Stewart-Yukon Highway 37 is definitely a road to resources. It is the way, Mr. Speaker, to northern development in the B.C. northwest, just as the north-south highway direction in the Peace River country is the way in its northern development.

The Atlin constituency boundaries, like many other constituency boundaries in this province, accrued from the early mining districts and situations. As such, they are historical boundaries. For this and many other reasons, the people within that riding do not wish the boundaries altered.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something about the budget that was presented yesterday. I wish to congratulate the government of British Columbia, the Premier and the Minister of Finance for sound management of the taxpayers' money. The budget may be termed a confidence-producing, forward-thinking, responsible and realistic budget. All of these terms demonstrate sound fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, in the past two years this government has had to introduce amendments and new legislation for tax increases in order to balance the budget. The government knew beforehand that it was not going to win any popularity contest by making such moves. But tax increases and changes had to be made in order to pull this province out of a deep, red debt, into which the previous New Democratic Party government had plunged the people and the province of British Columbia. The people of this province knew this, so what did they do? It is history, of course. They booted out the inept, inexperienced, incompetent socialist hordes, and, of course, Mr. Speaker, the people gave a tremendous mandate to the Social Credit government to do what was necessary to balance the budget, to bring back confidence, investment and sound government management to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to thank my hardy constituents and the people of this province for the major role they played in getting the province out of debt and in providing a comfortable surplus from which they now benefit, as they should.

During the question period today, the opposition attempted to ridicule the provincial government for reaching an agreement with the federal government regarding the reduction of the sales tax. All I can say at this time, Mr. Speaker, is that it is gratifying to know that such federal-provincial arrangements can be reached that would not only benefit the Canadian people, but indeed would strengthen Canadian unity. This is a far cry from the attempt of the socialists elsewhere in this country to break up Confederation. We seem to focus too much attention upon a nationality of this country when actually it is the ideology of a certain group of people that is creating disruption of our Canadian unity.

So much has been said about unemployment in the previous debate; and it will continue in this debate, and throughout the estimates. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we would like to be positive. We are talking about employment, and we are trying to do something about creating jobs. This job-creating budget will provide an additional economic stimulus in the Atlin constituency. I would like to keep very close to my constituency. I think

[ Page 317 ]

most members on this side of the House will be doing likewise. Who knows? Because of such meagre points being raised by the opposition and the lack of constructive presentation, they may run out of speakers, and in a few days time we- may call a vote on this debate. I f eel that those of us on this side of the House should take the time to interview some of the ministers about this job-creating programme, and try to get something more constructive for our constituencies. This is what I am doing. Like I said earlier, I have always been a constituency man. And I would like to refer the rest of my talk to the affairs of my constituency. I relate this to the budget, because the budget is pin-pointing assistance to small business, and assisting so many things that relate to the north that I am happy to be on my feet to review some of them.

I have asked myself: exactly what does this budget mean to me and to my constituents in that large constituency of Atlin? Like I said, the job-creating budget will provide an additional economic stimulus in the Atlin riding. It means that there will be greater employment opportunities there. Mr. Speaker, in the last two years there has been very little unemployment in the Atlin constituency. In my term of of f ice, these two years have been most active.

I would like to say at this point that all the people in the Atlin constituency wish to work They would like to have jobs. Because of their determination, they have jobs. I believe the rest of the working people in British Columbia have the same desire and opportunity. I wish to stress that, because we have very dedicated frontier and pioneering people, even now, in that riding. By golly, they go out and look for work. It is pretty hard to get work in the north. Any project that appears on the scene, they are there to apply f or work. I always wondered, in relation to what I say, just how many of those 109,000 people, that are supposed to be unemployed in this province, want to work. All I know is that, in my constituency, by gosh, those people go out and look for a job and they apply for them.

Perhaps the ministry that has provided most of the work in my constituency has been the Ministry of Highways. The Highways programme has provided most of the activity and work in the area. I'll have the members of this Legislature know, Mr. Speaker, that close to $40 million - part of which is the federal share for road construction in northern B.C. -has been allocated for contractual work and general repairs and maintenance on the Highway 37 system. That is a lot of money. That's a lot of work. It's a lot of programme. The approximate amount, which I have just stated, included an approximate $2 million contract to deck the four steel bridges on the Stewart-Yukon Highway 37: the Bell-Irvine bridge No. 1, the Bell-Irvine bridge No. 2, Devil Greek bridge and the Stikine River bridge. Mr. Speaker, this work is long overdue. The previous administration had failed miserably to complete the bridge projects. These bridges had broken-down wooden decks for years. Thanks to our dynamic Minister of Highways, my neighbour, the Hon. Alex Fraser, and his hardworking staff, we are now going to have four completed steel bridges at last.

This highway system is a very active highway. The announcement earlier in the year that the Cassiar Asbestos Corporation would be transporting asbestos southward to the sea port of Stewart has brought back a memory to me. During my first election campaign in 1949, it was brought to my attention while I was sitting in the lobby of a barrack hotel in the little community of Stewart - which at that time was one of the last of the Hudson Bay posts - that asbestos had been discovered at Cassiar. During that campaign I had very little on my books, it being my first time campaigning, and having been very rapidly put on the road. Therefore I had very little to say, because in the first place, I didn't know too much about the riding. But when this was brought to my attention, within 24 hours I had my No. I campaign subject, and that was to build the road to the nearest Canadian sea port - in this case, the sea port of Stewart.

Ever since that date I have on every occasion, whether it be in a campaign or on the floor of this House, advocated the construction of that road. The announcement by the Cassiar Asbestos Corporation to utilize the Stewart sea port is a welcome one indeed, Mr. Speaker. It could not have come at a better time in view of the coming closure of the Granduc operating mine. It would appear therefore that after so many years, I shall be a witness before fall to the export of asbestos at Stewart, the purpose for which that road was built.

I would just like to throw in a little item here to assist Stewart. I understand that there may be at least 60 truck drivers for the Arrow Transport company, the company that's going to transfer asbestos from Cassiar to the sea port of Stewart. I sincerely hope that at least half of them, including the asbestos dock crew, will become new residents of Stewart and thus continue activity in that community. Again, Mr. Speaker, because of the Cassiar Asbestos use of Highway 37 to Stewart,

[ Page 318 ]

and because the general traffic on that road has increased by 30 per cent, I would advise that the Ministry of Highways replace all of the smaller and temporary bridges along the way to Stewart. There are several of these wooden bridges that will not stand the weight of the new asbestos trucks and vans. Coming through there just about a month ago and just taking a close look at some of these bridges, I know that they will just not stand the increased weight and load that will be coming through that highway system. No doubt your ministry, the Ministry of Highways, has already taken note of this and it will do something about it.

I'm still relating all these subjects in my constituency to the keynote of the budget, which is employment. At the completion of these contracts, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Highways - and I stand corrected on this - are committed to paving Highway 37 as soon as possible.

The Highway 37 programme will indeed boost the economy, boost northern development and boost tourism. Certainly at its completion it will be a major supply line to Stewart. At this time I would like to again take an opportunity to thank my neighbour here, the minister, for the tremendous work already being done on Highway 37, and f or its construction plans in the next three years. There's going to be great activity here and a lot of work. I'm sure there'll be hundreds and hundreds of people that will appreciate the work that's being done in the B.C. northwest.

I would just like to add, before I sit down, two more interviews. I would like to direct my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . This was one of the highlights of my recent trip to the interior of that large riding, and it has to do with the people's wish and desire for a new school at Telegraph Greek and at Dease Lake.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I was in attendance at the opening of the school at Telegraph Creek, which the local people now wish to dismantle. Just a few weeks ago I stood with the council and the leaders of the community in the basement of this school, and I can tell you, I may be a layman when it comes to construction, but I, at that moment, wanted to get out of that basement because I can see that the foundations had decayed and almost any moment that school would collapse. The foundation is absolutely poor, and something just has to be done about this.

There has been a resolution passed by the village unanimously in my presence. Even though it was quite a hard winter when I was there a few weeks ago - the weather was fairly bad - yet I had a full house. Everyone at Indian Caska and White Caska and people down below came into that little hall that we have there and just packed the place, because they were interested to know just the position we're in with respect to the school.

Last winter, of course, they had a closure for several days - I think it was over a week - because of the lack of water supply. Their pipes had frozen over and it was just an emergency. We had to get through to Fort Nelson to get some of the staff to get down there and take a look. They did, and they immediately, with their engineers, installed a pump. I wish I had the picture here, but I'll show you later. It's a real engineering job. There's no solution to this thing. But I don't think it was of any help.

Again, 'with support, the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District has also issued or provided a resolution requesting that a new school be built.

If it is going to be of any assistance to you, I have contacted the Indian affairs branch regarding the policies where there are combined people in a community. Telegraph Creek is a good example, and there are many of these communities throughout Canada. I was given to understand that where there is a predominant Indian population - which accrues, therefore, to a predominant number of students in a school - and even though the school may be classified as public school or may be built on the reserve or off the reserve, because of the predominance of any population, by resolution of a provincial school board, the Indian affairs branch can provide the capital cost of building a school. I would like the Minister of Education to look into this point. I have checked with the Indian affairs branch in Terrace about it, and I think it is an avenue to approach.

I will go this far: I will support the local people in that it will be a complete waste of funds if schoolrooms were to be added on to this obsolete structure that we now have up there.

Now it seems to be in the budget. Why go any further? We do need a school at Telegraph Creek. And let's not debate the case of Dease Lake. Dease Lake is a coming community. I believe in a very few number of years practically every ministry of the provincial government will be established at Dease Lake. It is the most central point in the riding. Like I said once before on the floor of this House, it's the future Prince George of the north. I believe that in just a matter of months they may even decide that a government agent should be established at that central

[ Page 319 ]

point. The Minister of Education should take a good look at constructing a school complex at Dease Lake. I believe it's already in their books. It's just a question of the location. The location that your ministry had selected is just not the place to build a school. There is a cliff f and a lake, and it certainly would not be favourable for the school children.

Now the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing not too long ago set up sort of an advisory committee in Dease Lake that would create the local decision-making. That committee and the local people would like your ministry, the Ministry of Education, to proceed as quickly as possible to make another selection and build a school. There is an increase of population in Dease Lake: we're now up to about 300 people in that Highways camp and about 80 students. There is a loud cry from Good Hope Lake, from Telegraph Creek, from Iskut and from Bob Quinn Lake that if ever a school is to be constructed at Dease Lake, the ministry should consider a complex system similar to the school that was built at Aiyansh. That is considered a public school. This is another example where Indian Affairs picked up the tab to build the school. It's a similar situation, yet it's considered a public school. And they ask that residential area buildings be considered for this complex similar to Aiyansh for students coming out of nearby communities, who are going to a higher education. There is no debate that Dease Lake has to have the gradings increased right up to grade 12. That is absolutely possible. There are students in Atlin and other places who wish to go there. I think your ministry will have to consider this.

I welcome the announcement in the throne speech about rural air strips. There is where we really need them, up in that northern area. We have several air strips that were put in the area or initiated by voluntary labour. This is similar, Mr. Minister of Highways, to the Bella Coola situation. You should see that large area that was cleared at Atlin, done by a few local people, and we need to complete that area. This is one air strip that has to be looked at; the one at Telegraph Creek is just about finished. And then there's Dease Lake. My friend today was talking to me about this line. Mr. Speaker, you're a pilot. We're going to create another line - Burns Lake to Dease Lake to Whitehorse - and we would like to see a major work done at Dease Lake, even paved. By gosh, in my 25 years I'd like to land at Dease Lake in a government jet. I'd like to land on that strip when it's paved. I'll be around, knocking on doors about the air strips. 1 don't want any loud mouths either by the ministers or by the budget. I'll be knocking on doors about these air strips, Mr. Speaker, and the school. So I'll sit down.

MRS. WALLACE: There is nothing more exciting than to rise to take my place in debate at this hour of the night after a long afternoon session and well on into the evening session. However, I do want to make a few remarks about the budget because I have some very grave concerns about some of the things that are contained in the budget and some of the directions that this government has been taking us in the past and is still taking us.

In his presentation of the budget the Minister of Finance indicated that the budget was possible because of government's good management. Certainly in my opinion it does not demonstrate good management; it does not demonstrate good custodial care of public funds. I do not consider it to be good management for many reasons and I'm going to deal with some of those reasons, Mr. Speaker.

In the first instance, it is not good, sound, economic policy to dispose of capital assets and to apply them to current operating expenses. That is not sound business management, and that is what has happened. The special capital funds that were set up, including the fund for aid to developing countries, have been abolished and recaptured. The ferries have been sold and rented back at phenomenal costs, and wee will have the right to repurchase them at the end of the rental term, at prices that are far in excess of what they will be worth at that point in time. That is not good management, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not if they are used f ferries.

MRS. WALLACE: Used ferry dealers, right.

Another reason why I do not believe this budget to represent good, sound management is the multitude of overruns that this government has wrought in the last year. Good management does not have those kinds of overruns. I suggest that if we had a business government that was doing a job in managing the funds of this province, there would have been a different result from those very, very all-time high overrun that have been established in this last fiscal year.

Good business management, Mr. Speaker, does not allow an economy to stagnate, to go into decline, to have unemployment develop to practically epidemic states. That is what this government has done. They have sat on their hands with their high taxes, their increased assessments, their ferry fares, their ICBC

[ Page 320 ]

rates, one after the other, and taken dollars out of the consumers' pockets until we have gotten ourselves into such a downward spiral in this province that no amount of capital f funds recaptured and re-invested in the operating economy is going to bring it back up. They have sat on their hands and let us go into that declining position, and that is not good business management. Good business managers look ahead, they plan ahead, they see what is happening and they move to prevent it. They don't try to run in and fill the gap when things are in a state of complete chaos, which is where the unemployment situation is now in this province.

They are bragging and boasting about proposals that will, apparently, create some 10,000 jobs. That represents less than one-tenth of the unemployed in this province, Mr. Speaker - less than one-tenth! That is all there is to offer: 10,000 jobs. That is just a mere dribble that will not come anywhere near to filling the need for programmes with positive direction, to use up those people who are out there anxious to work. We have had it proven to us. They have come here; they have stood on the lawns of this Legislature telling us that they want to work. They want jobs. This is not the kind of programme that will provide the number of jobs that are required in this province.

It is not good business management, Mr. Speaker, to allow the small businesses in this province to go into bankruptcy. That is what this government has done. Just as we have had an epidemic of unemployment, we have had an epidemic of bankruptcies - 20 a day in Vancouver for the last several months. Over 250 small businesses and industries offered for sale in Kelowna; the same situation in Vernon. On the Island, the same thing prevails: failures, bankruptcies. Not because of the lack of trying, not because of a lack of incentive or a desire or effort on the part of those people, but because of government policies that have taken consumer dollars out of the pockets of the consumer and put undue pressure on those small enterprises.

The budget says that this government will introduce a package of incentives, "that the small business we encourage today will provide economic growth and employment for tomorrow." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the small businesses this government is encouraging today will replace the ones that they have forced into bankruptcy. There is nothing that is going to cake us ahead. We are hopefully going to catch up a little bit with this budget, but it is not taking us far enough. That is not good business management.

I am concerned about the forest resource. I live in a constituency where 90 per cent of our constituency return is from the forest industry. I toured with one of the managers of one of the logging interests just the other day, up into the mountains behind Duncan, behind Ladysmith and through to Nanaimo. It is a sad sight, Mr. Speaker. The logs are just not there. They are logging in an area that is uneconomical to log.

At the most, there are 15 years of logs left there, and that includes going right up on to the mountain tops; so there is nothing left. Sure, there's been some reforestation, but mostly natural. Some reforestation, too; but there is nothing there that will be cutable for years and years and years.

We have $20 million in the budget for reforestation - not enough, Mr. Speaker. It's been estimated by the foresters of the province that $100 million would be the minimum amount of dollars that would put the forestry industry into a reasonable economic position. This is not good business management, and I know it has not happened in two years; its been happening for a long time in this province. But this government has ignored the recommendations of the Pearse report, and has not moved forward in getting on with reforestation; $20 million is but a drop in the bucket; its too little and too late.

At the sane time, Mr. Speaker, we have this government proposing to build another pulp mill on Vancouver Island. We already have more capacity on Vancouver Island for producing pulp than we have market for it or logs to supply.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're against jobs.

MRS. WALLACE: That's that same old song: "against jobs!" You know, I am so sick of that, Mr. Speaker. The confrontation that this government has attempted to provoke between environment and jobs is ridiculous, and I am thoroughly disgusted that a government should take this attitude. The jobs that are produced by a pulp mill are very very minor, particularly the new thermal.... They are very minor.

What we should be doing, Mr. Speaker, is getting into other industries, industries that will use the total product. It is those manufacturing industries, the secondary and tertiary industries, that are labour-intensive. Those are the areas where we could create jobs, where we could use our total resource, and where we wouldn't be in this ridiculous confrontation as to whether or

[ Page 321 ]

not we're going to build a pulp mill in an estuary.

This government has seen fit to allow one of the few remaining timber resources on this island to be sold not to the highest bidder, but to a bidder who has, apparently, agreed to build a pulp mill. In the first place it's a pulp mill we don't need, and in the second place we do not have resource on this island to provide wood for that pulp mill...

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: ... and to allow a f friend of the government to buy one of the last remaining stands of timber on this island, when he was not the highest bidder, is nothing short of buying some kind of a scheme to provide jobs. They don't know how to provide those jobs, so they're stooping to that kind of an arrangement, where they are hoping to make a few short-term jobs by selling our timber for less than it's worth to a friend of the government, and then allowing him to put that pulp mill on a river estuary. At least, that seem to be the direction it's going. That seems to be the direction that we're going, Mr. Speaker, and I want....

Interjections. -

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could the members of the House please come to order?

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I don't like shouting over these unruly children.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, you're keeping an unruly House tonight.

I want to talk a little bit about the Cowichan estuary. I want to talk about what is happening in the Cowichan estuary, because in the long haul, what we do in our estuaries and our harbours does have a very, very important effect on the economy of this province.

We had an exhaustive study of that harbour in 1974. A report was brought in, a recommendation was made, and the minister of the day acted on that recommendation. The development of that harbour was proceeding on the basis of the recommendation of the task force and in consultation with the Environment and Land Use Committee. But since this minister has taken over in the field of environment and land use we have had a sinful desecration of that bay and that estuary. We have had a disregard of the regulations....

SOME RON. MEMBERS: When?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Everyone will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. Please allow the member for Cowichan-Malahat to continue uninterrupted.

MRS. WALLACE: It's very obvious that I'm hitting a sore point, Mr. Speaker, by the comments that are coming back, and it is a sore point. It's a sore point not only with this ministry; it's a sore point with the people of Cowichan--Malahat, I can tell you that.

We have had a second task force appointed, when we already had recommendations from a very broad-based, very far-reaching study - a task force that has been holding secret sessions, secret hearings, closed to the press, one individual at a time. I know, because I was there. I presented a brief and I was asked whether or not anything I said could be made public or whether it was secret, not to be divulged. That's the kind of investigation that minister is carrying on into our estuary, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of development that's going on in the Cowichan estuary so that he can use the results of that task force to base his allowing industry to go in there. I am convinced that the minister's mind is made up, that that's what's going to happen. I think he has an election promise or two to keep there, and he's going to sacrifice our estuary for that promise.

That estuary, Mr. Speaker, is one of the richest estuaries in British Columbia.

"In terms of variety and abundance of salmon species and the degree of utilization of fish stocks by commercial, recreational and Indian crude fisheries, the Cowichan is recognized as one of the most important rivers on Vancouver Island."

That's a quote from Bell and Kallman, 1976.

"The estuary has been the nursery ground for salmon fisheries for at least 9,000 years. With responsible treatment by us it will remain an abundant source of protein for thousands of years to come. Hastily made decisions to disturb this natural phenomenon can be disastrous to it."

Let me just quote you a few figures. The immensity of the fishery can best be appreciated by comparison with that of other major salmon-producing estuaries. These figures range from 1963 to 1975. The chinook salmon in the Cowichan-Koksilah - 7,700

[ Page 322 ]

average annual escapement; in Nanaimo, the Nanaimo River - 2,125; and in the Campbell River, 3,300. It is more than double in the Cowichan-Kiksilah than in any of the other rivers *

The Coho, the Cowichan-Koksilah is 49,700; Nanaimo, 4,300; Campbell River, 5,700. And this is the estuary they would build a pulp mill on, and a sawmill, and a shake and shingle mill.

Chum salmon escapement from the Cowichan-Koksilah is 62,300; Nanaimo, 35,000; and Campbell River, 5,300. This is the resource that would be destroyed by any further development on the Cowichan estuary.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What are we talking about in dollars, Mr. Speaker? In dollars, for the salmon escapement and the average return for the year 1976 for chinook, Coho and chum from the Cowichan-Koksilah we're talking over $3 million.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's the source of your figures?

MRS. WALLACE: These are from the federal Fisheries department.

In 1977 the commercial value of Cowichan-Koksilah salmon fishery for chinook, Coho and chum was a total of $5,486, 786. That's the kind of industry we would destroy, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk a little bit about Ladysmith harbour while I'm on this subject of river estuaries and the environment. That's another one, Mr. Speaker. A study had been made, a very in~depth study, of the environmental impact of the logging industry, of the various pollutants in that harbour, including the sewage. The oyster industry in that harbour.... It's one of the most ideal places for oyster culture, and yet what's happening? We had recommendations, but we were told that they were not economic, that we had to have an economic study. It's the environment versus economics.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is short-sighted if you look strictly at what today's return is. So instead of the implementation of that report we have instead a committee. And on the minister's instruction, this committee must proceed by consensus. In other words, to do anything they must have 100 per cent agreement. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees except the two representatives from the logging industry. They have a veto power. They simply say no, and nothing can happen.

Now we have the very strange happening of an economist being brought in. He has told us some rather interesting things. If I can find my clipping, 1 will read it to you. He says: "Simple arithmetic rules the harbour future. It is not the environmental concerns or the logging interests, but a simple mathematical equation that will determine the future of Ladysmith Harbour." Note he says: "It is not the environmental concerns or the logging interests...." But then he goes on to say: "The committee is confronted with a mathematical equation. If employment is to remain at the same level, log lease acreages must remain at the same level. Decrease lease area and you decrease employment." That means, Mr. Speaker, that the logging interests have won, if that is what you are basing it on.

There is apparently only one job. That is logging. There is no thought or consideration given to the kind of enterprises that could be embarked upon like sewage treatment plants, like dry-land sort to get those logs out of the harbour. There are so many things that need to be done that are far more job-intensive than simply logging. But no, we must go by that equation. The latest recommendation I have seen is that a great many more acres are going to be used up in that harbour in order to store logs. It is going to be increased rather than decreased. You can practically walk from one side of that harbour across to the other on the logs now. Yet that harbour was designated by the task force that reviewed the Island harbours as a multi-use harbour. What is going to happen to recreation there? What is going to happen to the oysters is more important. That bark, when it deteriorates, allow. a gas escapement that is very hazardous to the oysters. You get no seed; you kill your oysters. That oyster industry on Vancouver Island employs between 180 and 280 people a year. It brings in an income of $1.25 million. Yet for the sake of a little long-term planning, we're going to wipe that industry out. That is not good management, Mr. Speaker. That is not good management.

I want to move on to another aspect which certainly affects the budget - that is whether we deal with cures or whether we deal with prevention. 1 want to talk about two or three different things in that particular light. First of all, I want to talk about the Ministry of Human Resources.

You know, if you have a person that is able to develop as a person should develop, without economic confinements that make it impossible for that development to take place, you

[ Page 323 ]

produce a person who is better able to adapt to society, who will not be a misfit, who will be able to take his or her place as a full citizen. But if you don't have that kind of programme, Mr. Speaker, then the costs involved by the government of any jurisdiction in caring for that person, in making adjustments to try and cope with the misfit, are far more expensive than a few dollars spent to ensure that they have the proper kind of environment in which to grow and develop. Some of the things that are happening in the Ministry of Human Resources are just not creating that kind of environment.

You know, we have not seen a one-cent increase to the handicapped of this province since December 11,1975.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hogwash!

MRS. WALLACE: Not one cent. Two hundred and sixty-five dollars, Mr. Minister. It was $265, Mr. Minister, and you can't deny that. You can't deny that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You haven't got a clue. Check your facts. Dennis, she's wrong isn't she? Okay, then you don't know either. That shows how ignorant you are.

MR. COCKE: What are you talking about? You said it. You can't change that.

MRS. WALLACE: There has been no increase, Mr. Speaker, and you can speak with many, many people around this province who will tell you that. No increase, $265, and that is all it is. I had a case the other day; she is in receipt of a widow's pension: $66.93. She got a cost-of-living bonus of $5. She was also getting social assistance. And you know what happened to her social assistance? The minister knows . Mr. Speaker. Her social assistance was cut back by that $5.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right. She got the cost-of-living increase passed on on her $66 pension, bringing it up to the magnificent sun of $71. Then her social assistance was cut back by $5.

The Ministry of Health - again preventive medicine, not curative. You know a $1-billion budget for health. How much o; that is for preventative? Most of it is for curative, Mr. Speaker. And if we don't start moving in the field of preventive medicine, our curative programme costs are going to keep right on skyrocketing. But instead of that happening, the history of this government is nothing but cut, cut, cut. Cuts in public health nurses; cuts in speech therapists; cuts in people to assist the people who have problem with hearing. One after the other, all of these reductions, Mr. Speaker, and those costs are going to have to be borne, in the long run, by the taxpayers of this province.

The budget speaks of the high costs of the Attorney-General's ministry. It says: "The size of the increases is serious, and it's a serious concern to this government that increased resources are required to improve our capability to deal with criminal behaviour." That's strictly curative, Mr. Speaker. That's where those costs are showing up and we are having to pay them. It's high time we got down to the business of prevention in the field of Human Resources, in the field of Health and in the field of the Attorney-General because there are many preventive programmes that could be carried on in that field and that is the area we should be concentrating on.

And I think of one, Mr. Attorney-General, from which you have withdrawn funding and that's the Alternate School at Duncan. Our people in Cowichan are very concerned that that funding has been withdrawn. We are now left to the mercies of the Minister of Human Resources and w are not very sure that he is that reliable in that kind of funding. We would like to see you, Mr. Attorney-General, making your contribution there because more than 50 per cent of the students who are referred to that school are referred by the courts. We're doing a job for your ministry, Mr. Attorney-General, by putting those children in that Alternate School and helping them to re-assess themselves and to become active, good, contributing citizens. The success rate is something like 99 per cent. It's an excellent school; it's doing a good job. And you, Mr. Attorney-General, have withdrawn your funding from them. Now that is not the direction we should be going. When you express concern in the budget about the high costs of the Attorney-General's ministry in corrective measures, then, for goodness' sake, let's look at some of the preventive measures so those corrective measures can be curtailed.

I want to talk a little bit about transit, Mr. Speaker. The budget talks about transit; it says that new initiatives will be taken in the field of urban transit to prepare for necessary future expansion. That's very interesting, Mr. Speaker. I have a letter here from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Rousing, written to the chairman of my local regional board and it says:

[ Page 324 ]

"Your regional district is one of 29 jurisdictions which have expressed interest in establishing a transit system. If we were to proceed, there would be an additional requirement of 150 buses and an annual subsidy of $2.3 million.

"The present financial and legislative capacity of the transit services division of this ministry is clearly not capable with its existing responsibilities of handling this expansion."

That's dated March 13 of this year, and yet the budget is giving us all this double-talk about the new initiatives that will be taken in the field of urban transit. Certainly that's not happening, Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

We had a brief presented to our caucus the other day from the Crofton community centre where they're looking for transit. They have senior citizens out there. They have no rail transport; they have no transport of any kind; they're asking for a bus into Duncan. Those things aren't going to happen, Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and yet the budget tells us that new initiatives will be taken. It's like: I think I'm beginning to start to think about planning. That's about how close it is. That's not the kind of management that to me is good business management or good husbandship of the public funds of this province.

Senior citizen housing is really a great one. Last year, here in B.C., senior citizen housing was cut back from $10 million to $4 million. This year its increased from $4 million to $6 million. Do you know what the province of Saskatchewan contributes to senior citizen housing? Nine million dollars. We'll talk about Saskatchewan later, Mr. Speaker.

Another reason why this budget does not represent good business management is what its doing to local governments in this province. It's the same old dodge, shifting the debt to local government - to regional and municipal governments and to school boards. One of the things that has been very responsible for this is the new Assessment Act and the assessment of forestry land. The area of Lake Cowichan in my constituency is one that has been very severely hit by the new Assessment Act. It's estimated that the area could face a mill rate increase of up to 36 per cent as a result of the assessment drop. This particular area, Mr. Speaker, has a high percentage of forest land, as you probably are aware. The board has asked for the Premieres help. After a letter from Finance minister

Evan Wolfe failed to satisfy the regional board, they've written to the Premier, informing him of the large assessment decreases in the three regional electoral areas - $1.1 million in area B, $6.9 million in area F and $12.7 million in area 1. That is just reduction in assessment in three regional district areas as a result in the changes in the Assessment Act. It is estimated that that's going to cost the taxpayers of that regional district something like 36 mills.

I want to talk about the schools in the same area. They have the same problem. Those taxpayers simply cannot afford to make up that kind of difference. They have approached the government for some assistance and they've got no response. Mr. Speaker, it's just simply not good business management to shunt off the load of the cost of government onto small local governments and school boards and then say that you're doing a great job and that the economy is rolling again - it's nonsense.

I had the very interesting experience of listening to the Minister of Finance on the radio this morning, on CBC, and I was very interested in what he had to say. He called the federal programmes "gimmickry." He said they were for short-term periods. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that maybe it takes one to know one, or it's the pot that called the kettle black, because if there is gimmickry in the six months tax assessment, there is certainly gimmickry in this budget which says they're going to reduce the sales tax by 2 per cent and lets us think that that was provincial government funding, when really it's three-quarters from the federal government. Only three months will this government have to foot the bill for that sales tax.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: The budget does not say it's for ever and ever. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that if this government goes to the electorate and if returned to office, we'll see the sales tax go back up to 7 per cent.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the green light is on, meaning the lady only has about three minutes, so let's listen to her. Please proceed, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you. Perhaps you could ask Hansard to stop the clock while the very exuberant member from South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips) pounds his fist.

I give the minister credit for taking the

[ Page 325 ]

building tax off farms and small businesses, but it's one year only, Mr. Speaker, and that is gimmickry. It's the same kind of gimmickry that the minister is accusing the federal government of and it's not good business management.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak during the budget debate. As this is my first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this House, and also the Deputy Speaker, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, I would like also to take a moment to pay tribute to two people who were mentioned in the throne speech: a former member of this House, Frank Richter, MIA and Minister of Agriculture in the previous Social Credit administration, who contributed a great deal, I think, to the people of this province; and another individual who comes from my constituency, the late Morris Finnerty, who was also an MLA in this House and a former mayor of the city of Penticton. Those two gentlemen, I think, contributed a great deal to the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, having this opportunity to speak, I would just like to compliment the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) on a budget which, simply put, is a forward-looking budget and a budget that is the result of some sound planning.

I think if we look back, Mr. Speaker, to the beginning of this government's office, in 1976, we had nothing else to do but clean up a mess that was left to us - a deficit of $261 million - and we did it.

In 1977, 1 can say that this government set the foundation on which it was going to build for the coming years. We got government spending under control.

In 1978, Mr. Speaker, we are building for a better economy - not just make-work projects, which seems to be the fashion of the former administration, but assistance to the private sector, where the jobs can be created, where productivity can be achieved. Also, we are aiming towards the assistance of small businesses, the backbone of our economy.

Let's look at 1977, at the facts that are on the record - positive facts - because more jobs were created in 1977. As a matter of fact, the statistics at the end of February, 1978, indicated that there were 48,000 more jobs than a year before - 48,000 more people working in the province of British Columbia than a year before. British Columbia created 15 per cent of the new jobs in Canada, and, as has been mentioned before during the throne speech, the population of B.C. is only 11 per cent of the total population of Canada. That is a positive factor; that is progress, Mr. Speaker.

Another positive fact, which cannot be denied, is that the economy in B.C. grew by 4.3 per cent - real growth - compared to the Canadian average of 2.6 per cent. That indicates that British Columbia is under control, that the economy is moving. We said we would do it, and we have done it; and we'll move ahead again.

I don't know whether the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is against development or jobs; but the people of the Cowichan estuary area must be wondering whether she is looking for employment or looking for unemployment. But she did mention business management time and time again, and she touched on the overruns. If she had looked on page 15 of the budget, where it indicates the amount of money that was spent - higher expenditures than were originally budgeted for - she would have seen that there is money spent there for a long-term care programme which started on January 1,1978; $7.5 million additional dollars for employment opportunity programmes; $63 million for highway construction throughout the province; doubling to $12 million on expenditures for rural development under the agricultural rural-development agreement programme; $4 million for the first year of a f five-year programme to provide low-interest loans to small businesses; $7.5 million for development of the coal reserves in the northeast part of the province. Those, I think, Mr. Speaker, are what the member indicates are overruns. But there is a difference; there is a difference between overruns of that administration and this administration - the difference being that they never comment on the fact that at least we have the revenues coming in to offset those overruns.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was just going to comment on the last sentence of that paragraph on page 16, where it says: "The expectation, however, is for a revenue surplus for fiscal year 1977-78."

The members opposite have been talking about overruns. Indications are that we were

[ Page 326 ]

overspending, but, Mr. Speaker, they never say that additional revenues have allowed us to provide additional funds to stimulate the economy in this province. I think, to sum it up, the NDP policy is: when good times are around, the economy goes down, by their administration. Under the Social Credit administration, even in bad times, we are moving ahead through good management.

I would like to take a moment if I could, as MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, to mention a few things regarding my riding. In the southern Okanagan, in the Boundary-Similkameen area, we are very cognizant of the fact that we live in a delicate environment. The Okanagan Lake system throughout the Okanagan Valley is a drawing card for tourism and also supports our agriculture industry through irrigation. I would like to say to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) that I appreciate the time and effort and considerable thought that he has given to the policy decision on the sewage treatment plants in the Okanagan, the long-term planning to take sewage effluent out of the Okanagan Lake system. I would also like to compliment him on the research into the use of 2, 4-D in trying to control the Eurasian water milfoil in the Okanagan lakes and the approach that he has taken with regard to mechanical means to take the Eurasian water milfoil out of the lake system. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, he is aware of the possible effects of 2, 4-D on agricultural commodities and he is making sure, in the surveys that are being done, that careful planning, careful administration, careful monitoring be carried out in order there is no risk to the agriculture industry in the south Okanagan.

Mr. Speaker, we also have high unemployment in the Okanagan like other areas, but ours is somewhat seasonal. As you know, we have two major industries, one being the fruit-growing industry and the other being tourism, and our unemployment fluctuates considerably because of those two seasonal industries. But I would like again to compliment one of the ministers, the Minister of Economic Development (Ron. Mr. Phillips) in regard to setting up through regional districts the economic development co-ordinators who are working to attract industry which is compatible with the area in which they will be placed. I think that's an approach where we can work in the Okanagan Valley to bring in stable industry to help offset some of our seasonal unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot pass the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , because everybody compliments him. He certainly has brought a tremendous improvement to the highway system in the south Okanagan through local day labour which assists the local economy by hiring local contractors, local truckers, and it gives a little bit of stimulus to the small towns and communities in the south Okanagan Valley. I think it's an excellent program. I've got other roads which I will talk to you about later.

I also wish to compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in regard to the senior citizens housing developments that he has brought in to the south Okanagan area, both in Osoyoos and in Oliver.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things I think is important to mention - it has been touched on in the throne speech but it's worth repeating - is the amount of leadership, the type of leadership that our Premier provided at the economic strategy meetings for Canada. Mr. Speaker, we've all heard and seen the comments that were made at the federal House of Commons last night with regard to their budget, and strange as it may seem, they seemed to echo the words that were stated a few months ago in regard to the First Ministers' Conference in the fact that the private sector had to be assisted, and not the public sector, in regard to providing jobs. Mr. Speaker, the policies and programmes that I think this government and other governments in Canada, provincial and federal, are bringing into place really indicate the amount of leadership our Premier showed at that conference a few months ago.

MR. MACDONALD: No wonder we're in such bad shape.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I think B.C. has shown the way. It has shown the way in controlled government spending, it's shown the way in balanced budgeting and it has shown the way in encouragement to the private sector.

In regard to the budget for 1978-79, some of the positive moves there I think are important to mention, especially to small businesses. The corporation capital tax - the burden I think to small business is probably a minor tax item, but I know in my area there are a lot of motel operations that are concerned and in regard to that corporation capital tax. In many communities in my riding, motel operators have formed limited companies only to find that they are penalized under the Corporation Capital Tax Act and the increase of the ceiling from $100,000 to $500,000 will relieve them of that burden. For that, I compliment the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) .

[ Page 327 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the farmers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll get to that, Mr. Member.

I also think the relieving of sales tax in regard to new and repair production machinery is an important thing to help stimulate those small businesses, and also the relieving of the sales tax on farm equipment will assist the farming community as well.

One other area is the management training programmes for small businessmen, because, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems today, I guess, that the small businessman faces, as opposed to the large corporations, is that he can't go out and hire the consultants, he can't hire top-paid executives. lie usually has to do it himself ' f if he is the owner-operator of a small business, and the management training programmes which are being proposed will allow him to adjust to change and to remain competitive in the marketplace. I think that is a big move, Mr. Speaker, with regard to assistance for small business in this province.

The budget holds something, I think, for everyone. In the budget itself ....

AN HON. MEMBER: There's nothing of interest to the NDP.

HON. MR. HEWITT: There's a little bit there for them, too.

The budget proposes a dynamic programme which holds benefits for everyone in the province: the individual citizen, the small businessman, the big businessman, labour, the farmer - whoever has a stake in the future of this land. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, that pretty well sums up the sum and substance of this budget proposal.

It also deals with people programmes, because this opposition across the way has often commented that we're a bottom-line government, that we don't concern ourselves with people problem . Yet, when you look at the budget, you can see some of the things that are being done. If you recall back to the days when we first came into office, we said we would do those things when we could afford to do them. I think this is an indication that we have built that foundation and now we can do things that couldn't be done before because of the mess we inherited, Mr. Speaker.

We have got two major portfolios now, Ministry of health and Ministry of Education, that are spending in excess of $1 billion. Health for the protection of the people of the province, whether they be young or old; education to train those young people of today to carry on and to build a better province for tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at grants for independent schools, and that was a commitment we made during the election campaign.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has brought forward the SAFER programme. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that 1 had an opportunity to meet with a senior citizen in my constituency and deal with the SAFER programme in order that she would get some assistance. Mr. Speaker, when she got her first cheque, that lady said to me that with that cheque she was able to stay in the apartment that she and her husband had lived in for a number of years. After her husband had passed away, before the SAFER programme, and before she got her first cheque, she was making plans to move into a smaller apartment because she couldn't afford the rent. Now she is safe and secure because of that programme, and 1 compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on that.

Mr. Speaker, we're looking at the young people, too - the young newlyweds with families who are looking for their first home. The $2,500 for first-time homeowners, I think, is important, in that they have that assistance which will allow them to move into their own homes and to enjoy a lifestyle which all British Columbians should have available to them.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to these people programmes, which I've touched on because the opposition has often said wee don't deal with people problems, there is the revenue-sharing programme which will supply municipalities with significant increased funds to pay for local programmes within the municipality. As a former alderman of the city of Penticton, I can assure you that the municipalities in this province will welcome that assistance, because their tax load, their administration budgets, are getting heavier all the time.

It's nice to see some of the tax dollars, that the people from municipalities, small towns and communities, pay through the tax system, are finally getting back down to where they came from to assist the local people with their own tax dollars. That's a move in the right direction, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the surplus of $76.1 million, that surplus that we accumulated....

MR MACDONALD: No, you didn't. That's NDP assets.

[ Page 328 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Regardless of what you say, Mr. Member, let's look at what the budget says. The budget says that....

MR. MACDONALD: Tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It says, Mr. Speaker, that $76 million will be spent for industrial development programmes, for reforestation programmes, for summer works programmes, for mining development programmes, elderly senior citizens construction programme - are you against all those things, Mr. Member? Moneys are being put into the economy, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Where did the money come from?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, we're talking about budgets and dollars in the budgets.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, before the opposition get carried too far away....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please.

Before we can proceed we'll have to have some order in the House. Please proceed, hon. Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have reduced the sales tax f rom. 7 to 5 per cent, and, of course, the comment is: "Well . you raised it in the first place." I guess we have to say: "Yes, we did raise it in the f first place. We wouldn't have had to if you hadn't left us the mess you left us."

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't state in the bill before this House that it's for six months or nine months, which some of the opposition might have you believe. There's no termination in that bill that is before the House to reduce the sales tax to 5 per cent and.therefore, Mr. Speaker, this government is looking for an economy which can afford to keep the sales tax at 5 per cent. And the way that it is going at the present time, with the programmes we have, with the productivity in this province, let's hope that for many years to come it will be 5 per cent or even lower. At least we can do it, Mr. Speaker. At least we can do it.

I think I would like to touch on agriculture because the former Attorney-General, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , wanted to know if I'd talk on agriculture. Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech there was a large section dealing with the commitment to agriculture by this government. In the budget speech, it further elaborates this commitment. In 1977-78 we had a budget of $64.5 million for agriculture. In 1978-79 our budget now has increased to $72 million - an 11 per cent increase - to show that we are committing dollars to the agriculture industry in this province.

I don't think that the agriculture industry is any different than the total provincial programme, the total provincial scene. The budget indicates the planning and the efforts that have gone into the total budget for this province. I can tell you that the same approach has been taken in the agricultural ministry.

In 1976 we started with the Pearson report, which was really an economic overview of agriculture in this province. It was determined that we had 43 per cent self-sufficiency at that time. We determined that we could achieve a target of 65 per cent self-sufficiency by 1986. That doesn't necessarily mean additional lands being brought into production, but it means a better administration, possibly, of those lands that we have, better selection of crops and better use of the land base. We can determine where our potential lies in regards to the agricultural commodities that can be grown or produced in this province.

We found that our beef industry only produced 17 per cent of the red meat that is consumed in this province. We found that in our hog industry, we only produced 10 per cent of the hog meat that was consumed in this province. We have 100,000 head of cattle that go out of this province back east to other provinces to be finished - to be slaughtered and shipped back as carcasses.

We have commissioned a beef study in conjunction with the B.C. Development Corporation my ministry and the Cattlemen's Association to f find out how we can make better inroads into this industry in this province so that we keep those cattle here, we can f finish them, we can slaughter them, and, in effect, we can be more self-sufficient in that commodity.

That programme is well underway, Mr. Speaker, and we're also looking at tile hog industry. I'm hopeful we can achieve the results in both of those, which will help us reach our 65 per cent self-sufficiency goal by 1986.

We entered into an ARDA agreement in July,

[ Page 329 ]

1977, which was a $60 million ARDA agreement, a f five-year term. It's twice the size of the previous ARDA agreement. With that $60 million - $30 million from the federal government, $30 million from the provincial government - and approximately $26 million, which will be the contribution from the private sector, from the producer, we will be able, 1 think, to achieve a great deal in the agricultural industry in this province.

That ARDA agreement covers four different sections, Mr. Speaker. It touches on research and planning, training and market promotion. We have approximately $5 million set aside for long-range agricultural planning: where we're going; what our population growth is going to be; what our crop selection should be; project feasibility and evaluation. Again, proper planning ensures that when we move in a direction in regard to any project, we have proper analysis done before we get on the hook, not after we found we spent money. There are certain projects I think we could all harken back to....

AN HON. MEMBER: Swan Valley.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Swan Valley Foods will give you an indication of lack of planning.

There will be managerial training for our young farmers in order for them to better meet the competition.

We have a second section, which is a co-ordinated resource management programme, which deals with our potential in the beef industry. There is $22 million earmarked for that, for seeding and clearing, drainage and irrigation, in regard to the beef industry in this province.

We also have a section on primary resource development for $20 million, dealing with drainage and irrigation. That is an area which improves the resource development at the primary level. And there is another $39 million for support services and community development.

Those are the sections in the ARDA programme, the new subagreement, and 1 think they will go a long way to help the industry help itself.

We have taken the opportunity to move around this province. We've had three staff conferences so all the staff members in the field in the Agriculture ministry will have some understanding on that ARDA agreement so they can deal with the farmers and with the various commodity groups; so they'll understand what is available to them; and so we will be able to assist them in applying for assistance under this agreement. it's a long-term commitment, Mr. Speaker, a five-year commitment. In 1977, since the ARDA agreement was signed, we've had 138 applications come before us, so we're moving in the right direction.

Further to the planning process, we- entered into a food inquiry in the spring of 1977. The standing committee of agriculture was appointed and the food inquiry was commenced. It's interesting to note, I guess, that shortly after we had set up our food inquiry, Ottawa followed our example and brought forward their food strategy.

The food inquiry that we have is a two-pronged effort. One is the standing committee holding hearings throughout the province, and the other aspect of it is the research teams that work for that standing committee in dealing with the investigation process and coming up with facts and figures so that we can come through with recommendations from both the committee and the research team, which will set out, I hope, recommendations for the future policy of agriculture and the provision of food in this province. That committee and food inquiry dealt with the land base, production and marketing boards, and with the processing, distribution and retailing sector of the food chain in this province.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the results of that committee, on which you served for a time, will go a long way to giving us an indication - a game plan, if you will - as to where we are going in agriculture in the province. We have the funding to give assistance to the agricultural community.

In the past year, Mr. Speaker, a number of things were done and one was Swan Valley foods, which we finally disposed of. I can tell you it was a tough job. I can tell you that the Swan Valley Foods, the Creston plant, the famous plant that only was going to take a little bit more money to finish, still has not got into commercial production almost one year after it was sold.

MR. COCKE: You wrecked it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We didn't do anything to it, Mr. Speaker; we just tried to get it into production, and it still is not there on a commercial basis.

MR. MACDONALD: You bumbled it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, you bumbled. You bumbled back in '73.

Interjection.

[ Page 330 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: As a matter of fact, you've bumbled all along.

We talk about Panco Poultry, Mr. Speaker, as another Crown corporation, if you will. I just wanted to touch on Panco Poultry because it is the government's intention to sell it, but sell it as a going concern, Mr. Speaker, and to ensure that the jobs are maintained. But it's back to the private sector where it belongs. Government shouldn't be in the chicken business, and you know it as well as I do.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I think we're more the salvage crew. You wrecked it; we're trying to salvage it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Mr. Minister, it would assist us greatly in trying to retain some semblance of order if you would address the Chair, sir.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We've had some interesting developments. In 1977 we had delegations from Japan come to British Columbia to look at our purebred Holstein cattle. We've had three, I believe, shipments to Japan of purebred cattle, which gives us an indication that our purebred cattle herds are the best in Canada, the most productive. As a matter of fact they are 18 per cent higher in production than the Canadian average for the Holstein breeds.

We inherited, I guess, problems at the Egg Marketing Board level which have been since resolved, and I can tell this House that the Egg Marketing Board is working well, and working well with producer-elected representatives from the lower mainland, from the Island and from the interior, along with the board chairman appointed by this ministry.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did you see the egg people in your office?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, there wasn't any of that. No, I didn't touch them. We worked well together.

Mr. Speaker, I think the members across the way would like us to touch on farm income assurance. There were eight contracts in 1975. Since that time we have expanded it to 12 contracts. Although those members may comment about farm income assurance, we have met those commitments and expanded the programme, and all contracts will be honoured.

Mr. Speaker, one of those contracts - B.C. Tree Fruits - came up for its termination date at the end of 1977, and as a result, again with good proper planning, we had a review done of that programme by Dr. Hudson, and his report indicated some changes should be made. We did not accept all of Dr. Hudson's reports or his recommendations, and we still maintain the cost of production approach. Strange as it may seem to the members opposite, because you seem to indicate the contrary by your news releases, et cetera, the consultative process is still to be continued, hon. members. We are working with the farmers. We are keeping them involved. The only thing under debate, I guess, is the modifications to the programme, and those should be resolved in the near future, as we are carrying on meetings with the Federation of Agriculture executive.

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out that the Farm Income Assurance Programme is an ongoing programme. If the members opposite would read the throne speech and look at the budget speech closely, they will see that it is a commitment by this government to ensure that the family farm is protected against a depressed market situation.

The member for Nanaimo stated this afternoon that we budgeted $35 million, but he doubted if it would be spent. Well, I would tell you that every farmer out there would be quite happy if it wasn't spent. Because if it wasn't spent it would mean one thing: that they got a fair return from the marketplace, which they haven't got in the past. So it is there to assist them if the marketplace doesn't give them a reasonable return. But to say that it is there and it won't be spent is rather an interesting comment made by the member for Nanaimo. I'm just hopeful, and I'm sure the farmers are, that the market will give them a fair return.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on the trade and tariff board recommendations which were put forward a year or so ago in regards to fresh and processed fruit and vegetables. This province in 1977 and early '78 spearheaded a paper which was endorsed by the other three western provinces - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. At our Agriculture ministers' conference we pushed forward on that paper and had support from Ontario and from the federal Minister of Agriculture.

Just as recently as today, out of the paper, I happened to read where Eugene Whelan, Minister of Agriculture for Canada, has agreed to a greater tariff protection for fruit and vegetables becoming a basis for international

[ Page 331 ]

trade talks. I think that is an indication of how this province has gone to bat for the producers in the vegetable industry and the fruit industry. The instructions that have been given to the negotiators in Geneva - by the federal minister and by the federal government - are to work toward getting a better deal in the international trade agreement than we have had in the past for agriculture. And that is a step in the right direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. HEWITT: The other area that I think we can work well in is in market promotion, which we have expanded in my ministry, in trying to get the message across to the consumer about the B.C. home-grown quality product. If you will recall the little logo, I was talking to the former Minister of Agriculture from the previous Social Credit administration, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , under whose guidance that home-grown quality logo was designed. I can only tell him that we are going to push it and we are going to try and expand that programme to make more consumers aware of the quality products we grow in this province.

Not too long ago, Mr. Speaker.... Well, I shouldn't say not too long ago because somebody will make a remark about spending my vacation in the United States. But a year ago, I was in the San Francisco airport and I traveled their moving sidewalk. All you can see in a mural along the airport wall is agriculture in California.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for Prince Rupert, if he wished to interrupt, please do so from his own seat?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought he joined us, Mr. Speaker. We don't want him.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to get across is that I think we can advertise our products much better. I would like to talk to the minister responsible for ferries so that we would be able to take some of the space on the ferry system in this province and advertise B.C. homegrown quality products with murals or pictures on the ferries.

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of B.C. people and thousands of tourists who travel those ferries every year. They would be able to see the type of quality products we grow in this province and they would have an awareness of what quality products we have. I think we could help our agriculture industry a great deal if we promoted it in that way. A very small price to pay for that type of advertising. So if I can get the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's ear, I think I have made my point.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other programmes in agriculture that we are working on, such as the weed control programme in the cattle industry. The knapweed in this province is spreading at an alarming rate and we've expanded our weed control programme. We're allocating more money to regional districts in order that we can improve and stop the spread of knapweed in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I m running out of time. One of the problems we have in this province, and 1 guess in agriculture across Canada and the United States, is that we have a we/they syndrome. We always have the problem between the producer, the processor, the retailer and the consumer. The consumer says the price of food is too high. The retailer says that because of the marketing system, he's not getting a good deal. The processor says to the producer: "You're charging too much for your product."

1 notice again in the paper just as recently as today that somebody else is carrying out a food probe. The People's Food Commission will be carrying out this probe. I smile when 1 see the comment that is made by a Mary Rawson. "I am one of those people who thinks something is wrong with the food system, but doesn't know what it is." Mr. Speaker, that's not the type of approach we need to the food problem of this province. We have an agricultural committee that has done an excellent job, we've got a research team, and we will come up with the answers. We don't need that type of approach: "We think there is a problem, but we don't know what it is."

The consumers in this province have been getting a pretty good deal, considering that 13.8 per cent of their disposable income is spent on food within the home. That is considerably less than 20 years ago, and less than what the consumer in the United States pays. But 4 per cent of their disposable income is spent on food consumed outside the home. That is an indication of the type of lifestyle we are beginning to lead in this country. I would hope that more consumers would spend more time at home. In doing so, they would probably have better quality food, and also have a better family lifestyle.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are against the restaurant industry.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there is a good future for agriculture in this

[ Page 332 ]

province, and my ministry is dedicated to assist the farming community in achieving that future. Our whole programme is aimed at helping the industry help itself. I think that we can do it with the proper planning that we have done over the past year.

Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the budget in general, it is the third balanced budget that this government has had. It has controlled government spending; it has an attack on unemployment, which is something that every government wishes they can do; it has assistance to the private sector; and it doesn't just deal with make-work projects. It reflects the fiscal responsibility of this government. It reflects this government's awareness of its responsibility to the unemployed, to the small business, to the senior citizens, and to the farmer. In short, it is a budget, Mr. Speaker, that has something for all citizens in British Columbia. I'm pleased to support it.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm. moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented the report of the Special Committee on Select Standing Committees of the House, which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:53 p.m.