[ Page 403 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Shelford –– 403

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 405

Mr. Barnes –– 411

Mr. Davis –– 418

Mr. D'Arcy –– 420

Presenting reports

B.C. Steam hips Co., 1975 report. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 426

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SHELFORD: As 1 said before, this budget will do a great deal for the north country, and I'm certainly proud to support it. However, there is one area that I think we have to give further consideration to in the years ahead, and that's from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the government as a whole. They must consider improvements to the rate that is paid to welfare cases and those who are crippled, who can't work. I will deal later with those who can work.

This group who can't work are hard up, make no mistake about it. I have looked at some of the budgets of some of these people and, I must say, it makes me shudder to think on how my family could live on the amount of money they receive. Even though they are the best in Canada, I think we still have to give further consideration to this class, who through no fault of their own cannot work. We should all try, 1 think, for one month, and see just how it works out ourselves. I think we would get a real shock if we try it.

I would like to give the members one example, and I have quite a few because I went to visit quite a number of these people in my riding just before coming down, which makes it clear what they are up against. I won't mention the lady's name whom I am using as an example. This lady gets a total of $309.98, made up of the following: from GAIN she receives $158.51, and the reason she gets that is because she gets Canada Pension; rent allowance is $44.90 and Canada Pension is $106.49 - for a total of $309.98.

Now these are the actual bills she had to pay, and I would say the costs around Terrace are likely lower than in a lot of other areas. The actual bills she paid were fuel, $61.56; cablevision, $12.50; roof repair, $10; trailer payments, $134.86; and phone, $34, for a total of $253.90. Now I'll admit that some people could say that she could have cut out the cablevision and the phone, which may or may not be true. But this leaves a total of $56.08 that she had to spend for food, hydro, utilities and clothing. I don't know how she managed to do it on $56.08.

Now people who can work - and 1 believe this was brought in quite some time ago - are allowed $100 a month. I'm certainly not criticizing anyone, because our rates are better than any place in Canada. As things improve, we must do something in this regard. The $100 a month, they tell me, does not apply to handicapped people, and I would say this isn't fair. In my opinion, the minimum allowed should be $200 for both groups so that it gives them some incentive to improve their way of life. Now this would still only be around $500 a month, which, again, is not any too much to try and live on.

Those on welfare who are physically capable of work, I would say, should be found jobs. I think both federal and provincial governments should be looking at this far more seriously than what they are at the present time. There are many programmes that we see from time to time: Canada Works, Opportunities for Youth and all of these programmes. They do one thing. They bring dollars into the community, but the community and the country really get nothing out of it. The reason why I say they should get jobs is because I have had a fair amount of experience during the three years I was manager of the loggers' association in Terrace. Even if they have the opportunity to go to work, they can't cope with it for the simple reason that they get careless about getting up in the morning and they get physically unfit. This is one of the most important things of all. They have to get back into good physical shape; otherwise they are not able to go to work. I know what it is like from my days in the army. If we got into rest camps for a month or five weeks, everyone gets pretty soft. This is what is happening right through our unemployment community. As I mentioned during the throne speech debate, the increased forest program which is announced in the budget is certainly a step in the right direction, with a $10 million increase. However, even this amount won't be sufficient to take care of all the unemployed who are able to work and are not working. I would say it will take years to bring the management of our forests up to what it should be. I was looking over areas in the Skeena district which were logged nearly 20 years ago, and there are still no trees growing in these areas; it's a great shame when they are some of the best growing sites in the province. So we have a long way to catch up. Federal and provincial governments should work together financing this work; and make-work funding should all be funnelled into this area. I would further say that the pay on these make-work programmes should always be less than the normal rate, so that it encourages people to move off these programmes and into other work areas; otherwise people will always

[ Page 404 ]

want to stay there. This can be used as a job-training programme for many types of work: logging, machine operating, road building and many others. I'm convinced nearly all of our young people who can't find jobs would be excited to join such a programme of building for the future.

I know a number of young people in the Kitimat area last summer who were able to get jobs planting trees with EUROCAN; and I must say they were as excited as if they'd been given a $1,000 bill - just to be able to get out in the woods, plant trees, and really feel that they were achieving something and doing something for the future.

I think it is even possible that the older people - and some of those who are long-time welfare cases - would also like the idea of getting out into the woods where it is at least quiet and away from the hustle-bustle of the city. Another thing is that people who have nothing to do are inclined to create problems in society generally. I think such a programme would lower vandalism and various other problems, because people who get out and work and have to get up in the morning normally are not so energetic at night to go around and create problems.

Naturally a plan such as this would apply to both men and women, because there are just as many girls - or more - who are in our tree-planting programmes at the present time. I would say that no one should be forced to join; but, I think, when people are looking for help there should be a place for them to go where someone can say: "Yes, you can get a job planting trees." I know there are lots of economic problems that have to be resolved. They can be resolved quickly in times of war; but they also have to be quickly resolved in times of peace, when we have difficult times.

Ensuring good work habits so that people are able to move on to other programmes is one of the things that is most lacking in all of our job programmes at the present time. Youngsters are sent out with no supervision and their work habits become very bad before they ever really get in to the work force. I think this is very damaging to them all their lives. First of all we have to recruit some very good foremen who, of course, even have to have the power to fire someone if he consistently fails to show up on the job. The only way it will work is if the foremen are allowed to fire when someone doesn't come to work, and to show some initiative to get things done.

The last point I'd like to make is that I think one of the things we should be discussing in the Legislature at this time is, first of all, the reform of the Legislature itself, even though it's an awful lot better this year than what it was last year. The reason I say it is a good time to take a look at it is that, with an election coming up one or two years down the road - whenever it happens to be - all parties have something at stake, because everyone thinks he is going to be sitting on this side of the House. So I think all parties should be interested in legislative reform.

Our present system is certainly not held up in the eyes of the people out in the countryside. I think every one of us as members should be extremely concerned because the average person is inclined to think all parties are the same. "It makes no difference what I vote so I won't get out at all." Once this starts it can soon spread so that democracy itself disappears. I think all of us in this Legislature should consider reform as quickly as possible.

As I mentioned earlier, if we do it now, we could have it so it wouldn't come into effect until the next parliament. With redistribution already taking place and hearings being held at the present time, I would say we simply can't afford to have more members in this House under the same rules, or we'd be sitting here all year rather than six to eight months like we did last year. It is simply not good enough, where we have the cabinet tied up for months. After all, the cabinet are just the directors, the same as in a company. How long would a company function if their directors sat in the boardroom six months in the year, arguing against each other?

MR. BARRETT: Well, if they can't get together, it's not our fault.

MR. SHELFORD: Well, a company would certainly quickly go bankrupt. We do require change in this Legislature, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that we don't.

Members also can't serve their constituencies properly while far away from their constituents months at a time.

Until 1972 there was a device - not everyone liked it - and that was the night sessions which brought debates to an end. I'm not recommending that. For all that, it was a lot better than what we had last year. It was. Now what happened in 1972 was this system of night sittings. There were only about four in my memory over 20 years, which was not that bad.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on, Cyril!

MR. SHELFORD: Go back to your records and find where we sat to. 7 o'clock more than four

[ Page 405 ]

times, and then get up and tell me. Go back and look in your records and you'll find you can't find more than four sittings that went past 7:30 in the morning. I'm talking about all-night sessions.

MR. BARRETT: Your 15 minutes are up.

MR. SHELFORD: That's because you used half of it.

I would give credit to the former government; they did make a gallant effort at reform after 1972. Unfortunately the reform got lost in lengthy debates, so nothing really replaced the night sessions. There was a real good attempt made, and I give you credit for it.

Last year we got helplessly bogged down in lengthy debates which no one could control. I would say 80 per cent of our time in this Legislature is taken up by attacking each other and 20 per cent of our time normally is taken up attacking the problems of the people of this province. This is simply not good enough.

I would recommend that sessions should not last more than three months, and time should be so divided that all ministries have equal time for debate in estimates. This is where, I would say, the former government and also the former opposition failed as too much time was spent on one or two ministries and no time was left for others. This is where it broke down. It nearly made it, I think, at one particular time. I've discussed it with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and I'm quite sure he agrees with me. If you'd have just held your ground a little longer, likely we would have had reform back in 1973. It's unfortunate that it didn't work.

Naturally with some ministries, the debate would be shorter than the time allocated, but of course, once we had gone through all of the ministries, then we could go back if there was time left over and it could be used up in that manner.

MR. BARRETT: "Not a dime without debate!"

MR. SHELFORD: I've read it. That's why I said I don't think it's fair to blame any one group in this Legislature. I think we're all caught in a trap of our own making. I think an attempt for reform was good. Unfortunately it f ell short and, as I say, I don't think we should particularly blame anyone. We all get caught in a system of our own making, and it must be brought up to date before we get more members in this Legislature.

My suggestion would be that we set up a small committee of all parties to try and work out a mutual agreement. It has to be a mutual agreement or it simply won't work; we'll go back to what we had in 1973. It has to be by mutual agreement; otherwise nothing will work.

I would say that to carry this out it would be desirable.... I know that an awful lot likely won't agree with me, so we likely won't start off with mutual agreement in the first place. A small committee should be set up, because it was heavily loaded by government members. No matter who happened to be in power, it wouldn't work because the minority parties would say: "It's not good enough."

So I think we'd have to try and work toward a unanimous agreement; it would have to be reached by those people who sat on the committee. I would say a good place to start would be to get one member from each party, because if four people sit in on something like this, it really would be plenty. I'm convinced that there are members in this Legislature from all parties who could sit down quietly and say: "For the good of British Columbia we have to make some changes." Because that's the first thing we've got to accept - that we have to make changes or our system will go down the drain.

A person in this Legislature - and 1 don't know whether he's going to be here too long -who has done a great deal of study on parliamentary reform and parliamentary systems is the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) . I would even go as far as to say that we should recommend that he be chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't be here long.

MR. SHELFORD: Maybe he won't. I'm not trying to argue against any single member - maybe he's not here and maybe he is - but what I'm trying to get across here tonight is that we have to get together, we have to work out a better system before we have redistribution and bring another five or six members in here, which will only delay the length of time that this House sits. It's simply not good enough and the people in this province deserve something better. If you don't agree with what I said this evening, well, then get up and make a better suggestion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we continue with the next member, perhaps 1 could encourage you to, if you cannot be attentive, at least allow the chamber to be silent enough so that the rest of us can be attentive.

HON. MR. ERASER: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate you on your

[ Page 406 ]

appointment as Speaker and wish you well.

Also, my congratulations go to the Deputy Speaker, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , and I also wish him well.

I would like to also welcome the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) and wish him well as well, but not for as long as the others.

While throwing out compliments, I'd just like to make little comments regarding remarks made this afternoon from the members over there - from the SS gang over there -criticizing the Premier of British Columbia for running away. They didn't say where he was. He's at a very important meeting in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, at the Western Premiers' Conference. As one who has worked with him for at least four years, I've never seen him run away from anything. I might be biased, but I think he's the best Premier British Columbia ever had, and I might say his father agrees with that as well.

MR. KING: Did he authorize you to say that?

HON. MR. FRASER: Now I'll deal with these noisemakers over here, Mr. Speaker. I called them the "SS gang", and what that stands for is suspicious socialists. They're suspicious of everybody and everything, including themselves. They don't trust each other, they don't trust their leadership - and I can't blame them for that. The real leader is not in the House. He's their $48,000 man who calls the shots from the outside. I refer to the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Don't you mean $80,000?

HON. MR. FRASER: I am very sorry that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is not in his seat tonight...

MRS. JORDAN: Again.

HON. MR. FRASER: ... again. He's a very poor attender, I hope the Clerks are keeping track of that.

AN RON. MEMBER: He's playing squash.

HON. MR. FRASER: He's playing squash or he's out with the oatmeal savage, I think, tonight f rom over in Vancouver. I have news for him tonight - referring to the former Minister of Lands and Forests. He's after the first member for Vancouver East and he's going to get his nomination. All I say to that is that it was sure nice knowing the first member for Vancouver East, because he isn't going to be back in this House.

AN RON. MEMBER: The long knives are out.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like to deal with a member who has high criticism and no praise for anything - the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) - f or a moment. I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, whether he's going to be back. I was just up in his riding, and they haven't seen him for a long time.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: He was speaking here yesterday, and referred to the fact that the economy was terrible in the northwest sector of the province. I don't know haw he would know because he hasn't been up there. I found just the opposite when I was there. I was in Prince Rupert, I was in Terrace, I was in Smithers and I was in Granisle, and they really are full of optimism. Yet this member comes in here and says things are terrible. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that they've got him all lined up for a shoot-out and he'd better watch out for his former executive assistant taking over from him.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. FRASER: I was interested, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) supports this budget. He said he wouldn't support this government but he would this budget, and we need all the votes we can get. I thank him for that support. All the votes we can get in this House. The only thing is, Mr. Speaker, that he didn't say he won't be around here for adjournment because he'll be long gone into the federal election campaign.

I'm not going to say anything unkind about the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , except to say that I imagine he'll run in Oak Bay again, and I imagine the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is a little concerned about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is she?

HON. MR. FRASER: She's not here either. The press referred to the great run this member for Oak Bay made in the 1975 election. It was a great run, all right. The winner had 10,000 votes, the second one had approximately 10,000, and the Oak Bay member had 3,000. Well, if that's a good run, I guess it's

[ Page 407 ]

pretty good, but I wouldn't say so.

MR. SPEAKER: And now to the budget.

HON. MR. FRASER: Dealing with the economy and the riding I have the privilege and honour to represent, the Cariboo, the economy in the Cariboo is good mainly because of the activity in the forest industry. The forest industry is very strong. This past winter, when they do most of their logging, was probably the best winter they've had in the logging sector of the forest economy in my riding in the history of the Cariboo.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I've been home a lot more often than you have, Mr. Member.

I'm very proud of the interior forest industry as such, the Cariboo and north. They are modern and they keep on modernizing their plant. It's quite a difference looking at the coast industry and the island. I refer to the MacMillan Bloedel deal just lately, where this government had to go in and show them how they could operate. They were going to fold up, and, really, that's because of lack of investment in plant and not keeping modern. For that reason I'm doubly proud of the interior forest industry.

I would like to pay a compliment to my colleague, Tom Waterland, the Minister of Forests, who went in and helped with the IWA and the company and resolved that, so no jobs were lost. You know, the suspicious socialists, Mr. Speaker, had an answer to that: buy them out, take it over and let the government run it. Well, we don't buy that kind of stuff, because we've been trying to sell all the junk they did buy and we can't even sell it.

I might say, speaking for the Cariboo people...

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. FRASER: ... they don't want the government to do everything for them. They're individual enterprisers and they want to be left alone so they can do their thing and make a living without too much bother from big government of any stripe. They are fed up with the red tape that bureaucracy has brought them. All it’s doing is slowing them down and slowing the progress down in that part of our province and, as far as that goes, the whole province. They want government to do less and have less interference. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech announced government policy, and all ministries are to cut down on red tape. Government ministries, I'm sure, will follow that out. I would say that for Cariboo, that's the best news they've had in the Cariboo riding since the defeat of the SS gang over their in 1975.

MR. LAUK: You certainly have a way with words. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll get to you, mister, shortly. (Laughter.)

And now I'd like to deal a little with the highway program-ve of the past. I do not intend to deal with the current and the future tonight, but I would like to relate what has happened. First of all, we inherited a rundown highway system in 1975 and we were busy for a while patching potholes left by the SS gang over there, and we're not finished yet by a long shot, but we certainly are on our way.

MR. KING: You're just about finished.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan says: "You're just about finished." It was sure irony to listen to him yesterday asking for the Cape Horn Bluffs to be taken out. They had three and a half years as government, and what did they do about the Cape Horn Bluffs? About as much as he did when he was looking after the B.C. Railway in 1974 and 1975. Mr. Speaker, last year was the largest program in the history of the province regarding highways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Overruns!

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, we had overruns, and you know all about it. That's public information.

Statements have been made that this government believes in blacktop, not people. I would like to say that roads are for people. They're built by people, they're used by provided a lot of jobs in 1977, and that's what I want to deal with now.

I might also say it makes for safer roads and more economical transportation for the citizens of the province. We're working on all areas of the province, even Vancouver Island, where for the first time in the history of the province a decent road will be put in to Port McNeill and Port Hardy by the end of this year - the first time since they've been part of British Columbia. On the lower mainland, the Trans-Canada, highway 97 in the Okanagan and central interior, Highway 16 and the Hart

[ Page 408 ]

Highway, Highway 97 North....

Seven thousand jobs, Mr. Speaker, were created by the stepped-up highway programme in 1977. While it created 7,000 jobs, the highway programme is broken down as follows, and I imagine they'll question this. Being suspicious socialists, they don't trust anybody. There were 3,200 auxiliary employees added to the Highways ministry payroll last year; more than 1,500 operators of privately owned equipment were given employment.

I would like to concentrate on that for a minute. They were given employment as well as their machines. This was spread throughout the whole province. This filters down, because they're working into other levels of the different communities where we're working. I say to them over there who are being critical of supplying jobs: what's really wrong with that? Over and above that, 2,300 jobs were placed through the large contractors through the bidding process. They had 2,300 on their payroll because of the stepped-up highway programme. Last but not least, there were almost 1,000 students employed on the stepped-up highway programme last year.

What did we get for that, over and above creating jobs? Major highway construction - 30 miles of new two-lane highways on new routes were constructed in 1977. We're opening up the northern end of Vancouver Island, which I mentioned; completing a new link between Castlegar and Salmo - and I'll have something more to say about that in view of the ridiculous remarks made by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) in this House; and also roads in the northeastern part of the province. In addition, approximately 120 miles of existing two-lane main highways were given major reconstruction and 385 miles of highway were repaved. Twenty miles of four-lane highways were constructed, and over 30 miles of passing lanes on two-lane highways were completed and paved. Two hundred and eighty miles of existing pavements were seal-coated, and 129 miles of road shoulders were surfaced. A lot of work was done on lesser side roads through the day-labour programme on an estimated 1,500 miles of side roads.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to go back also to irresponsible remarks made.... I refer to Len Guy, the big wheel in the B.C. Federation of Labour, whom I understand supports the NDP, the SS boys over there. He, of all things, had the audacity yesterday, quoted in the press, to criticize highway projects. I think this man better take a reading from his membership, because all the people we had working there were all members that he is supposed to be the spokesman for. Is he saying that he doesn't want them to have work? That's what it sounds like to me. I say to Len Guy, or the people that he supposedly is the spokesman for, he better find out how they feel rather than shooting off about the highway projects that create jobs for his members and other people as well.

The SS group over there, Mr. Speaker, says we've done nothing about unemployment. I'm telling you what we did in 1977 and we certainly intend to keep that up. I'm getting just a little upset over the political pap that keeps coming from that side over there.

Now dealing with overruns, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on that. In relation to the Highways budget, as I said earlier, sure, we had overruns. That's public knowledge. But what did we get for it? We got an improved highway system out of it and we also created the employment that I have just mentioned to you. This is quite a difference from when they were government and they had overruns. At least we balance the budget when we have overruns. They ended up with a deficit of $261 million, and that's what we inherited when we took over government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As long as the House is in good humour, surely a little bit of repartee across the floor is enjoyable. But eventually enough is enough, and I think that's now.

HON. MR. FRASER: When we assumed government in 1975, we assumed a deficit of $261 million. That's audited in the books of the province. But I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when they assumed government in 1972, the cookie jar was full and overflowing with money. In a little over three short years, they emptied the cookie jar and left us with a lot of red ink. You know the famous overrun they had in Human Resources? Do you know how they explained that one away? It was a clerical error, Mr. Speaker - a clerical error.

I want to direct a few remarks, highways wise, to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . He's another of the absentee MLAs from that side who live in Victoria. I want to tell him what's going on in his riding, because I have also been there. I want to refer to the Salmo-Creston road that he was taking all the credit for, out to him out to him what is actually going on, because I know he

[ Page 409 ]

doesn't know, Mr. Speaker. That first contract on the almo-Castlegar cut-off was let in 1972. There was a contract let in 1974; a third grading contract in 1976; another contract for paving let in 1977. This is a new cut-off road in the province and shortens the distance so that the motorist doesn't have to go down into Trail. They cut across from Creston to Castlegar. But anyway, the road will be open this year, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, at a cost of roughly $13 million. While this member said that they did it all, in fact, they let, I believe, two contracts, with a value of about $3 million. The total cost to complete it this August, hopefully, is $13 million. So I just wanted to get the record straight there.

I also wanted to deal with the famous Taghum bridge, Mr. Speaker. It's really famous. I want to tell you what they did about the famous Taghum bridge. That is a real story that hasn't been told and I think it should be told, seeing that the ex-minister is here, even if the member for Nelson-Creston is not. But it has a great history, the Taghum bridge. I'm not going to go into all the details, but original work was done on trying to get a new bridge at this important crossing in 1968. Some work was done, but in 1974 a contract was called. The contracts came in over estimates, I understand, and that's fine. They cancelled the contract at a cost to the province of about $84,000, and they didn't get anything for it. But then, Mr. Speaker, rather than build the bridge where it should have been built, they decided they would build it in the wrong location. They let a contract for that and the citizens of the area got up in arms and they stopped the work. I just want to say that it has a great history, and the contracts for the complete structure on the right location are returnable to the Ministry of Highways and Public Works on April 19. They will be awarded to the low bidder and the Taghum bridge will go down in history. It has quite a history.

I might say that the MLA, for Nelson-Creston certainly had a lot to do with all those decisions. So I would like to hear his explanation of that mess that was created and nothing happened.

I'd like now to deal for just a moment with the B.C. Buildings Corporation that I have the responsibility for, and say that, dealing again with last year, we employed approximately 1,500 people, all under contract, and created work there. We intend to continue that this year.

Another thing I would like to say regarding BCBC is the fact that statements have been made that 500 jobs were eliminated by the transfer from Public Works to the B. C. Buildings Corporation. First of all, I would say that anything that happened there was with full agreement with the union that represents the workers; they have agreed to all that. I know that the workers know that, but apparently the members of the opposition don't. I want to emphatically tell you that no such thing happened. Five hundred jobs were not lost. Any jobs where people decided to go, that was their option, and if they took an early retirement option and so on, that was their choice, but they were given other options as well.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the noisy member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) doesn't contribute much on the floor but he's always yakking across the floor. He said it cost a lot more. Well, time will tell. That's your opinion that you can't back up with facts, and you know it.

MS. SANFORD: Alex, talk about porcupine pie.

HON. MR. FRASER. That member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) showed up late here after a three-hour supper, and then she's yapping from other than her own seat.

This bit of information I have now I would like to address to all members of this House in view of the fact that a federal election is coming up, and point out something that I'm sure citizens of this province do not know. I refer to the collection of motive fuel taxes from the motorists of British Columbia by the various levels of government, specifically the provincial government and the government of Canada. As we are all concerned about the high cost of fuel, I think this story should be told; I do not think it's been told before.

At the present time the B.C. government collects 17 cents a gallon for tax out of every gallon of gas. What isn't known is that the government of Canada collects 15 cents and a little more through excise tax. I would like to relate that into dollars: in the calendar year 1977, British Columbia - this is gasoline, diesel and propane - collected $152,271, 534. But, Mr. Speaker, let's look at Canada: they collected $122,266, 913 from the motorists of British Columbia.

I would just like to point out - the citizens of our province do not realize this -

[ Page 410 ]

that the government of Canada collects almost as much fuel taxes as the province of British Columbia. The highway system is the system it is earned from. Let's get the record straight. The odd MP that we send to Ottawa we do hear from once in a while. A few of the cabinet ministers are telling of the great help they are giving the province of British Columbia in sharing - the western-northern agreement is the one we have - the large sum of $5 million a year.

MR. LEA: Which I got.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, that's correct. You signed the agreement. It should be $50 million but it's $5 million. I might say this government is trying to get more funds out of Ottawa regarding this. We are not having any success.

I point this out: we have a federal election coming up. All you people are good public people. Ask all the people who are aspiring to be members of parliament what they are going to do to help British Columbia get some of their own money back - that's what it amounts to.

MR. LEA: We're all together on that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Very, good.

But I consider it a real ripoff by the government of Canada. I don't know where the money is going. I know what it was originally intended for. The 10 cents was to equalize fuel across the country. We British Columbians are good Canadians, but a lot of things have changed since the 10 cents was put on in 1975. It's about time we got a bigger share back.

I'd now like to deal with a few items in the budget and just say that in case I forget, I certainly support this budget. I realize that the opposition doesn't support it and I'm looking forward, when we have the division vote, to get them on the record in that respect. But I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , for bringing in this great budget for all the citizens of the province. I'd just add this comment: from my experience working with him, he can say no so fast with the nicest smile of any person I have ever dealt with. But he's sure an excellent Finance minister and has brought us up from debt to the position we're in where we're able to lower taxes and our citizens are relieved of the burdensome thing.

I would like to comment on the member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich's) observations. I think, again, the suspicious socialists get carried away with their own thoughts but I'd like to see a breakdown of the $1,200 or $1,300 that they say we have taken away from the people of British Columbia since we've been in government because, quite frankly, I don't believe it and I don't think they can back it up.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

This budget reduces taxes to our people by approximately $250 million. Yet, as I have pointed out to you, when you have a stepped-up highway programme, it creates employment. This budget provides again for further highway work which in turn will create more jobs in 1978.

The budget balances and we are also not increasing beyond the growth in the economy, increasing at roughly 9.8 per cent.

We have a new long-term care health programme that's probably the best in Canada and I want to congratulate the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for that. Also, he has a huge building programme that will contribute a lot to employment opportunities for our citizens this year as well.

We also have increased premium assistance for low-income residents in the budget. I noted earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I think everybody agreed the homeowner grant increase to our senior citizens, bringing it to $480, is welcomed by all of the members in the House.

There is increased financial assistance to young first-time home buyers. That will be recommended to the House later on.

And our revenue-sharing programme is the best in Canada for our municipalities. I'm sure this government shares more than any other province and they're also tied in to the future growth of the provincial revenues and the municipal budgets. Regarding the municipalities and the increased aid, I throw a challenge out to them. I wonder how many of them are going to reduce taxes because of the increase. I doubt very many, but I throw a challenge out to them that they had better be taking a look at least of holding their budgets in view of the f act of the increased help that this government is giving them. So I'm going to look with interest when I hear the different mayors in the province standing up and saying: "Oh yes, this and that, but we still have to increase your taxes 10 and 15 per cent." I suggest that some of them have sure got their priorities mixed up if that happens.

And we, Mr. Speaker, have just had another thing happen that I don't look very kindly on.

[ Page 411 ]

Responsible, elected people in the capital city are telling one thing that is not a fact and then our ministers have to get out and get a denial from them. These people better do their homework because we do pay full taxes and we are going to pay full taxes in Victoria and all the rest of British Columbia on buildings. And I don't know why they have to fuzz up the water with statements that are not facts. Particularly for the Victoria press, that's front-page news, and then it's in the legal section when the factual story comes out. They don't deal like that up where I come f rom and I don't think they should deal like that here either.

AN HON. MEMBER: You run the press up there, eh, Alex?

HON. MR. FRASER: Last but not least on the budget, because I guess my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but one thing that is not a big-money item but a great item - and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you're interested as well -is a programme to develop airports in remote communities. While the government of Canada is 1 responsible for our region and airports and where the main carriers fly - Air Canada, 1 Canadian Pacific and Pacific Western.... Where is the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) ? I want to say the same as the member for f Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) ; I want to say thanks for that donation that "Please Wait Awhile" made to our campaign in 1975, and we welcome p it from anybody.

A lot of this province, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is r te, and with a little additional support, with the communities getting involved, we can get extra lighting on strips, we can pave strips and bring the people in r te areas closer to civilization. I only hope that when this programme gets started this year it isn't all spent on airports like Nanaimo, which I don't consider too remote. I would like to see it spent in areas like Dease Lake, where they haven't even got telephones, let alone airports, and they haven't got hydro and they haven't got this and they haven't got that. I think they at least deserve a small strip where a plane could come down if in difficulty, and that happens quite often. 1

Mr. Speaker, where there isn't a strip, you know where they come down? They come down on our good highways. We now have a highway 1 system we are proud of - not ashamed of - and even the pilots know that. If they get into tough going, they land on the highway.

1 think that is a great....

DEPUTY SPEAKER, : That could be construed as an attack on the Chair, having landed on a highway. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, it's only small. That will develop later. It's a great thing for remote areas and I look forward to the development of that programme.

I just want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I support this budget and, while I know there is not going to be an election, I would sure love to fight an election on this budget.

MR. BARNES: I rise to oppose the budget f or a number of reasons, which I will explain. I've been prompted to not let the House forget that the Premier is not here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you say that?

MR. BARNES: Well, I was told that he doesn't like it when it gets too hot in the kitchen, so he's not here. I don't know. You can stand up and defend his reasons, whatever they are, but he certainly should be here. All last fall we could have been debating the budget to prepare ourselves, to avoid having to have interim supply. And here we are now, faced with debating a situation which is really a fait accomplis.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you on your ascendancy to the Deputy Speaker position, and to Mr. Speaker, who is not here at the moment, on his ascendancy as well. And to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , welcome to the bull pit, or the bullpen, or whatever you want to call it. I will say this:

I m not like those people who congratulated you from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I wish you good luck all the way, not half of the way like certain members I heard over there saying: "We wish you good luck, but not too much." That's the same way they deal with everything. They want to give the people just enough, but not enough. Just enough to keep them on the string.

You know, this coalition of opportunists, Mr. Speaker, tried to remove the threat of inflation in 1976 by using a hatchet. In 1976 they jacked everything up, raised ICBC rates....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Have you subdivided your and yet?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, will you call the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to order so that I can make my points?

[ Page 412 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members...

MR. BARNES: The minister of mine closures, I'm sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... you might recall that when the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was speaking, there was a considerable amount of banter across the floor of the House. As long as it is in good humour, we'll accept it. However, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is one of the members we have difficulty with at times.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Do you see what I mean? Do you see the good humour we have this evening? That's fine. I don't mind, because the minister knows there's nothing in the budget worth debating. It is the type of budget that is flim-flam; it's a game; it's a deliberate attempt to try and carry on the rubber-band plan. The rubber-band plan - do you know what that is? Stretch until it hurts, and then ease off. That's what you're doing. You're not fooling anybody, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources to restrain his comments across the floor.

MR. BARNES: You see, Mr. Chairman, when I suggested that the government tried to use the hatchet to stave off inflation from the heads of the people of British Columbia, I meant it. They did a lot of things they are now trying to correct with this budget, but we, whose blood is flowing in the streets, are being told that they are going to soothe that injury they created when they used the hatchet by rubbing our own blood over the wound. That's really what this budget is saying.

It was a bludgeoning budget in 1976. Things had to be tightened up. They were attempting to make it appear as though the New Democratic Party had been irresponsible fiscally, so they played politics then, and they're playing politics now. They have no way in which they can defend this budget. They aren't going to be able to pay for it and they are hoping that before 1978 is over they will have been able to con the people into believing that times are good, that the economy has turned around, and that they will vote for them. If they can get in again, then back we go.

Imagine saying that the social service tax will be permanently lifted. Why did you raise it in the first place? The argument, as I recall - in reading Hansard - was that across Canada we have a 7 per cent social service tax. It's about time British Columbia caught up. Now the Premier is saying that it is going to be permanently held at 5 per cent. How is he going to do that? Will you please, hon. member for Surrey, would you please contain yourself? I have something for you.

There's no hurry. I think the tone of my speech is in keeping with the minister's budget, which is - let's see - the British Columbia budget by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . I think that this budget, Mr. Speaker, is not a mismatch but a wolf's nest. That's probably what it is. I don't say it as well as some of my colleagues - like the finance critic - but you know what I mean. I'm looking at it from an ordinary citizen's viewpoint. There are a lot of things that are remiss, that should be in the budget and are not in the budget.

I would like to ask the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) if he has ever heard of the story of Jesse James. You know Jesse James was the old American folk hero who used to rob trains. He would tell his victims after he had taken all of their money: "Look, I'm going to try and make a getaway and, if you will be cool, I'll give you 10 per cent back." And you know what? He had some takers. There were some people who actually believed that they were getting a deal because he was going to give them 10 per cent of what he had robbed from them. Now, I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier is a reincarnation of Mr. Jesse Jam s' counterpart, Billy the Kid. I think that he is just as bad. He is trying the same thing. We said: "Take a dollar and give back a dime." We knew that was the Premier who said something about not a dime without debate. He was the Premier who tried to convince us that he was the true guardian of the public purse and was going to ensure that fiscal responsibility became the rule rather than the exception.

However, things are different now. He's the Premier; and we find that he's had a change of heart. He's saying: rather than debate the budget, we'll get rid of most of it so that we can balance it. We'll create a few Crown corporations and give them the responsibility of having a deficit of $200 million or $300 million. You recall - when he created the B.C. Buildings Corporation - he said: "Okay, we'll give them $200 million borrowing capacity, which doesn't have to show; we don't have to account for that. We'll put all of our people on the boards and make sure we can pay our campaign debts by hiring everybody." That's

[ Page 413 ]

right. They did the same thing with B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro has a deficit position greater than the budget of the whole province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name one of those people who were hired.

MR. BARNES: You know who they are. We've already had the minister admit who they are. Why is it that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is so jumpy? I don't know what's bugging you. Why don't you relax? You're supposed to set an example in this House, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, we know that that gang aver there are experts with gamesmanship, grantsmanship and political doctrine. All of a sudden, they're going to give their way back into the people's pockets. Isn't that an interesting statement? That's exactly what you're doing. You're going to tell the people that you own all this stuff, but need some cash. Why don't you let us give it to our friends for a discount; then we'll get some cash and we'll give you some services for a year. If you join our party, we can let you in on some of the contracts.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name one! N-q one!

MR. BARNES: Oh, you're too clever to let me find out. It's obvious that you're doing it. Look, let's face it. How did you get all that money you have? Did you get the money you have by being careless? You're a master at your game, and you know it, and so do the rest of you fellows. I don't expect to be able to find out. I think it's fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker, that they are having, while they are getting rid of a public service - and the minister who just sat down, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , who never made a statement about the tender procedure, never talked at all about how easy it is for friends to union-break and play games, those of $10,000 or less, on contracts....

He didn't say anything about what's going to be happening with all of those people who were working in public service. This has been mentioned in the budget. What's going to happen to them? What has happened to them? I'm just suggesting that this is a game that is being perpetrated upon the people of British Columbia at a time when things are not good.

I don't know what the minister means or the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) means when she says that tourism is on the upswing, and people are rushing and breaking down the border doors to get in and spend their money., You wouldn't know that if you were to talk to some of the people who are unemployed. They're trying to make people forget that these are not good. They are, in fact, worse than they were during the Depression; they are not good. If we are willing to admit, Mr. Minister of Finance, that there are 108,000 people unemployed, you can be sure that there are at least 50 per cent more who are not registered. How are you going to account for the number of people who have given up because of their lack of confidence in the ability of politicians to do anything other than give them rhetoric?

There was nothing in this budget that indicated there would be some new initiative in the way of creating an economic thrust. That this government has any more imagination than any other group of coalitionists who want to exploit the public with razzle-dazzle, rather than hard planning, responsible leadership and a willingness to commit themselves to solving problems .... That hasn't happened, Mr. Speaker. What has happened is the usual thing of raising taxes off the backs of the people; that's all. You know, all the revenue you are getting is coming off the people's backs. You found out too late through your miscalculations and through your advisers that if you put on too much of a squeeze, you would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. So what's happening now is that you do not have the kind of action in the work force that you need in order to generate the taxes that you need off their incomes.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, that's absolutely correct. Your revenues are down; they should be up. You're realizing that now. Why are you dropping the social service tax for purchasing certain goods in department stores down to 5 per cent from 7 per cent? You want to stimulate, although you're doing it on the back of the federal government. You realize that you've made a mistake. You made a serious mistake because you crippled this economy. It was booming far better than it is now when you came into power. If you want to use the same figures, the same source, that you used, there were 84,000 when we went out in November, 1975.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You'll get your chance to speak.

[ Page 414 ]

Speaking of the employed. You were bragging in the throne speech and in the budget speech that , we have 11 per cent of the national work force and that you were very pleased to announce that we have contributed to 15 per cent of the new jobs. Big deal! You tell that to that 110,000 who have not worked. I don't care how many jobs you say you're going to create - you say you're going to create 10,000 more jobs.

I remember Bill Bennett, the Premier, saying: "Work with Bill." He said: "We're going to turn around, and we're going to give everybody a share of the action." Is that happening? That's not happening. The only persons who are getting the action are you fellows. All of you are doing just fine, and you cannot relate to what it's like to be unemployed. You can't relate; you can't understand it, and quite frankly, I don't think you give a dime. I don't think you give a dime or a dollar for the people who are unemployed. It's pretty obvious when you lift succession duties and the gift tax - direct handouts to your friends....

Now you're trying to con the small businessmen into believing that you're going to do them a favour by telling them that they're going to get certain concessions and telling the farmers they can buy certain goods free of the 7 per cent tax. It's a con job. If you cared that much, why didn't you do it in the f first place? Why are you doing it now? I'll tell you why you're doing it now, because you know, just as Jesse James knew, human nature being what it is, that people have short memories, they're in a hurry, the pressure's on. You can always con them into something real fast, because they don't have time to think about it.

I'm hoping that maybe people have begun to think. I hope that those people who are unemployed are not sitting back, and are out trying to pass the word about what it's like. It's a very painful thing to be out of work.

That minister there, who is interjecting quite freely, is personally responsible for a lot of the woes out there. He thinks that he is very popular, because he's appealing to those people who are doing well. You hear them say it in the House quite of ten, on that side of the House: "Well, Mr. Speaker, after all, you know, not everybody is unemployed. We have at least 90 per cent of the people working, so we have some obligation to them." They don't those people have an obligation to the 10 per cent who are not working. The point is, we all have a responsibility to each other, and it's not good enough to try and disguise the picture by telling those who have that they should protect it, and trying to play games with the people who do not have, and giving them no encouragement. That's exactly what you're doing.

I think it's quite an audacious thing for this government, Mr. Speaker, to ask for interim supply, when it is personally responsible for the situation we have, to not call a fall session, to not at least come in the early part of 1978 so that we could get down to debating these questions. They come in two days before the fiscal year ends and they say: "Well, we don't have time to debate it. Let's have interim supply, and then we'll get on and discuss something that we've already got. "

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I can just interrupt you for one moment. In the budget debate, the debate is almost totally wide open except that we cannot discuss things that have already passed in this session. The only thing that has passed is interim supply. So if you'd just not refer to the interim supply bill, you'd be in order.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. That just makes my point. As I say, it's all over.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not that bill.

MR. BARNES: You've just put it together for me. We're discussing something that is all over, Mr. Speaker; I know that. This is the hopelessness of it all.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. I hesitate to point out to the Deputy Speaker of the House that the rule is that we cannot discuss something on the order paper ready to be or about to be discussed by parliament. But a bill that has been passed by the House can be discussed.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I have no problem with that. I know what the situation is and I think that the people of this House know, Mr. Speaker. I think also there are a number of people who are just waiting for the opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with a government that feels it has so much power that it doesn't have to indicate that it even cares about appearing to be democratic. Where we stand now is really a mockery on that system, and I mean that sincerely. When you ask for interim supply, there should be some indication that you intend to do unto others as you're asking us to do unto you.

[ Page 415 ]

Now let me ask the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Interim supply has passed and I won't discuss it, but there is an organization, Mr. Minister, in my riding, the West End Adult Day-care Centre. You'll get your chance in due course. You just take note of what I'm asking.

This organization operates on a very small budget; but just like the government, their fiscal year has ended too. They have no money. Now the government, if it were planning not to give us an opportunity to debate, at least should manage their affairs in such a way that they would be responsible and ensure that these organizations have some kind of indication as to whether the money is coming or not coming. But there is an organization that's not getting any money. They're operating right now in the red and they can't pay their salaries. They don't know whether they're going to get approval or not. That's your fault. That's just poor management. All that is is not planning ahead. You could have said: "You're not getting any money, " six months ago or three months ago. But you let them go right up to the end of their fiscal year.

They do not know anything; and right now we have a situation which we wouldn't be in if you didn't have all this power. You would not have any interim supply. But you took it, and we knew it, so we went along with it. But they cannot get it. Well, if they got it, they got it tonight, because they didn't have it this afternoon. Now we'll find out whether they've got it tomorrow. I'll be checking on that.

Also, there is the coalition of B.C. rape centres. Have they got theirs? Are they all right? I know you don't want to debate such a subject; it's touchy. I heard your comments before about women when you first cam into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: I love women.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I'm sure you do. You love them when they are in their place. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what we're looking at is a government which has looked after itself and has left a lot of people out there hanging in the lurch, not sure whether they are going to be able to operate or not. I think it's a pretty serious situation. I think it's one about which I would like to make my representations known. We know that we are going to win these debates; but we won't win the vote because that government has the power. It has been using it. But it has a responsibility, nonetheless, to 110,000 people. Somebody has sent me a note advising me that I should get on with the question of unemployment - which I intend to do.

This is a statement that came out in the Vancouver Sun of April 30,1977. I'm not going to do the whole thing but I wanted to read the headlines. "A Hopeless Life of Lost Savings, of Filling Out Forms and Never Hearing Back." That's the situation. I think politicians are going to have to stop playing with it and start solving it. If you had done something like that, we would have to give you credit that you really do care. But there is no indication that things are going to get anything but worse, despite what you are trying to say about how tourism is going to come in. With all respect to the hard work, it's not doom and gloom. It's fine for you to say that, Mr. Member for Omineca. "Doom and gloom, " he says, with 110,000 people looking for work.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Oh, you want their names. You're really sharp. You know, it's very difficult to talk to - this is really a very sad situation. It's like talking to the air. They don't care. I wasn't going to read this; but, you know, your mentality is incredible. I mean, you just had the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) stand up and say that we are all Canadians; and he was giving us this little bit about how we care for each other. He hasn't looked behind him. I don't know what you are. I don't know how you can talk like that.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I withdraw any imputations against the hon. member's reputation. We know what he thinks.

But you know, we can stand in this House and we get removed sometimes from what's really happening. But I think, every now and then, we should be reminded that this is a very serious business. That budget indicates that it is gamesmanship, grantsmanship, razzle-dazzle, not addressing the issues but confusing them by fast talk and glowing rhetoric. It is not getting down to what the real issues are. What we're trying to do is deal with human beings' lives. There are people out there on the other end of these statistics. These are not just figures that you can come in and recite and say: "Look, we're doing better. We're getting 15 per cent of the new jobs created nationally, in the province of British Columbia." Good deal. But who is saying anything about those people who are not

[ Page 416 ]

working? We're talking about people out of work, who are not millionaires, who don't even qualify for unemployment insurance in many cases.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the connection?

MR. BARNES: You know, there is a connection, Mr. Speaker. Did you know that there is a comparison between the increase in the incidence of rapes and inflation? That's right. Inflation has increased in 10 years about 100 per cent. The number of persons who are being victimized by desperate members of our society has increased almost 100 per cent in the last 10 years. In other words, in 1971 there were 100 rapes; today there are 171, or something like that. That's the same thing as happened with the dollar; there is a correlation. What we are saying is that you are feeding the greed by your irresponsibility, by not recognizing that the programmes that you are so proud of cutting -saying you're getting away all of the garbage and all of the waste and all of the superfluous whatever you call it - are people who were doing work.

You stood in here and said: "I believe in volunteerism." And yet you closed down one of the greatest, most successful volunteer programmes in the province.

The Vancouver Resources Board used a lot of people. Most of these people, many of them professionals, were giving, of their own time, services that they were getting no benefit from other than the satisfaction of helping their fellow citizens. You deprived them of that because you wanted central control. You wanted to be on top of everything, because you can only see the dollar - the bottom line. I know from your orientation, Mr. Speaker, that that's a state of mind that people get into in this society. I'm simply saying that it's costing us. You can believe it's costing us.

Maybe I'm not making the profound headline grabbers, but what I'm saying is very serious because I listen to a lot of people - a lot of them. It doesn't really matter to me whether I'm making the headlines or not. The thing is I care and I'm not in here to get rich, as you know, despite what the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) keeps chirping about land development, subdivision and so forth. I will tell you, as I told him, and I told the Premier three years ago: every bit of land that I have I'll be glad to sell at cost if any of you are willing to take it.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: There you go.

Now that should set that to rest. I don't need it. In fact, I even offered to volunteer it to the government, that they might be able to put it to some good use. All I wanted was my own simple investment on anything that I've got. I believe that that is going to have to start happening before we do something about the overweight that you fellows have on the other side of the House. I know you are not prepared to do it. I know that I'm talking into the wind. But that's going to have to happen sooner or later. It's up to you.

What do you think is the cause of the situation we have now - greed? What do you think the problem is today? It's not that , we're not rich or not wealthy, it's just that you are locked in, you are committed, you are not capable of solving the problem because you have too many commitments to your friends. You can't do it. You can't do both.

As soon as you came in here you got rid of the gift tax. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) knows what I'm talking about. Look what he did to that little lady in Kamloops in that mansion real estate deal. He did all right. He was proud of it. He said: "I would love to have a business deal like that where I can take $200,000 and buy a piece of property and sell it for nearly $1 million within two weeks. That's not bad. It was all pre-arranged. That's good business."

So what kind of hope have we, with people like you? are you going to look after my rights? I don't need any enemies if you are going to look after me. I'll tell you, I might be in real trouble.

I want to ask one other question about transit. We should all know by now - at least in the metropolitan areas - there is no way that you are going to make money from buses or transportation services. These things are just as important as health care to the community. In fact, it is the health care of the economy - a good transportation system. The better the system is, the less pressure there will be on the other values that a municipality will have - the land that is necessary for cars, with a high front-footage rate, and the costs to motorists who have to park their cars - who have no choice - who have to meet deadlines and who have to keep the system going.

I made a speech on this when I suggested that the government at least should keep in mind its responsibility to keep the economy healthy by not raising the ICBC rates. I didn't get a single whisper. No one seemed to be listening or caring. I said then that the public was also paying a hidden tax by driving

[ Page 417 ]

their cars, not only the tax on the gasoline, but the fact that they were taxing the transit system. They are indirectly supporting a transit system that doesn't exist. They do not have to drive their cars. They shouldn't have to drive their cars. But if they didn't drive their cars the system would be in real bad shape. We say: "Oh, well, they want the privilege of being able to drive their cars." Well, that's a con job. The point is the citizens should be able to demand that they get to their jobs and back because the jobs need them. It works both ways. But for some reason our society has convinced people that it's a luxury to drive their cars. That's a luxury that is causing a lot of grief. It's taking probably 20 or 30 per cent of most people's take-home pay, by the time they pay interest rates on the car they are driving and the depreciation on cars after a very short period of time. Most of you people over there know what I'm talking about. That's the way you make your profit, probably - the first day of sale. After that, things start levelling off pretty fast.

I would hope that instead of cutting back on transit services, in Vancouver particularly, there would be a thrust from the government to recognize the need for a transportation authority that would take the responsibility for utilizing new concepts.

We have people, employees of the transit union, who are aware of the needs f or these services, who would like to sit down with the government and work out a scheme whereby we can seriously start to solve at least a few serious problems instead of playing games in deferring them to the next elected government to deal with. There are a number of concepts that could be tried. They could be made to be equitable. They could be beneficial to all of us.

You talk about stimulating the economy, Mr. Speaker. I think this budget, flowery as it looks, will probably confuse a lot of people because they haven't taken the time or aren't given the information they need to know that, as the Premier has said himself, you don't get something for nothing. But you know, you would believe by this budget that that's exactly what he's trying to tell the people.

MR. BARBER: What company was he in when he said it?

MR. BARNES: I don't know. But I know he stood in this House and said: "You don't get something for nothing." He said: "We have nothing; we've got to tax you. Fine, okay, he convinced them. But now he's turned round and is saying: "We'll give you the taxes back. You do get something for nothing after all." Now what is he talking about? Do you get something or don't you get something? What is this?

MR. BARBER. Take a dollar, give it back.

MR. BARNES: When you look at the other end of all this giveaway, you don't see the action that's going to support it. You're wondering whether you're extended out on a limb, hanging up there. How is he going to pay for all this? Are the feds going to bail us out? They're in trouble themselves. They're trying to steal too, and here we're trying to ride on their coat tails. So I don't know where we are.

I certainly will say this in closing: I don't support the budget, although I have no objections to these quasi-benefits that the government says it is giving to the people. But I would just like to ensure that they are secure, that what we are doing is planning a strategy that we can support and it's not going to be one of those Jesse James deals where you rob the people and them give them a discount if they promise not to protest. That is exactly what you are doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Look, let me tell you. It's not going to do you any good to try and distort what I am saying. You have to say it to the people out there. You go out and tell it to the unemployed that they support it. It doesn't mean anything to them. Don't play any games with me, Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . I'm not interested in your games. You're in good shape. You're in real good shape, and so are your colleagues. But look, let's face it. There are over 100,000 people unemployed. What are you going to do about unemployment? I don't want to hear any talk. What about the people who are not working, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Chairman.... Mr. Speaker. He is the Chairman, though, you know, in the Speaker's chair. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: No, no, be nice. He's had a hard week.

All I am saying is that there are over 100,000 people out of work, and that's a serious situation. What are you going to do about it? If you were in an election right now, I'll tell you what you would say you were going to do about it. "Stick with us just a little longer. We almost made it. But this

[ Page 418 ]

time we promise you we're going to do twice as much. But, mind you, it's all relative. What we mean is that provided we don't have any new variables and factors coming into the situation to confuse the thing...."

You guys are good at playing with statistics. When you talk about 15 per cent of the new jobs in the province of British Columbia, you're boasting about it. You're going to bring in 10,000 more. We're still going to have 100,000 people out of work. Some game!

What I am asking you is where is your thrust, where is your planning, where is your commitment? What are you prepared to put on the table? What kind of speeches are you making to your colleagues out there who are getting $250,000-a-year salaries? What's Knudsen's. He gets paid in American funds. He's too smart. He's working in Canada but he wants to get paid in American funds because he knows where the action is and he knows what a dollar value is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes.

MR. BARNES: Do you know what that amounts to, Mr. Speaker? On $250,000, that's more money than we make here as MLAs on the inflation factor. That's right. We've got Robbie Sherrell who is getting $80,000. 1 just found out today that one of my constituents went down about his 1971 Ford that was stolen and he went down to report it. They said: "Well, we'll take a look at the book and see what you'll get on it." Now these are Canadian people who are supporting this Crown corporation, which is hiring a guy who.... Well, in all fairness, I only met him once. He had a smile like the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , and I got the message real fast.

With that, I think it is fairly obvious that I am not going to support this budget.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a few minutes about a subject which was referred to by the hon. Minister of Finance in his budget address and which I know is of interest to you, Mr. Speaker, because of your own background, namely the new B.C. air transport assistance programme.

British Columbians have used aircraft from the beginning. They were among the first to fly in Canada. Trans-Canada Airlines made its first commercial flight out here on the West coast. People like Grant McConachie started CP Air. Pacific Western was launched here, and so were the careers of many pilots and many airline executives who made their marks around the world.

Airplanes are a natural for this province. They hop over mountains, lakes and fjords with relative ease. We've a lot of tough terrain in British Columbia. That's why B.C. people so of ten take to the air. That's why we have as many small aircraft here as they do in Ontario, a province with four times our population.

Why, you might ask, has B.C., especially the B.C. government, been so slow in getting into the aviation business and supporting aviation itself?

Why wasn't it building airstrips and installing navigational aids as far back as the 1920s? Why didn't it use aircraft like highways and railways to open up the interior of the province, open up the north? Why did not it support the small private airplane owners, the third-level air carriers, more than it has done?

The answer isn't simply because it comes in several parts. Lack of jurisdiction is one. Aviation, essentially, is a federal matter. Lack of money, big dollars, is another. Large airports cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Then there's the mistaken notion that airplanes, especially small airplanes, are toys for the rich, not tools for the working man; not transportation for busy people, people creating jobs for others; not the essence of mobility, not the right vehicle to get the job done. They are. Small aircraft may be expensive, but in northern and central British Columbia they are a necessity. Up coast and on Vancouver Island they are often the loggers' way to work. In the Peace River area, they make our oil and gas development programmes possible. Out there they are often the only way in and out of the mining camps. They link our scattered fishing communities together and with Prince Rupert and Vancouver.

Ottawa, as I have already said, has all the necessary powers to deal with aviation. Air safety is federal. Air navigation is federal. Air routes are federal. Air fares are federal. The choice as to which airline f lies a given route is also a federal matter. So the provinces, including British Columbia, have tended to take a back seat in this area. They have left aviation to the federal government. As a result, local needs, which are often different needs, have been neglected.

Ottawa's preoccupation increasingly has been with international and interprovincial travel. It is jet-minded. It spends most of its money on jet airports in big cities like Montreal, Toronto and Calgary. It doesn't do much about small strips in out-of-the-way places. It's left the float-plane industry alone, all

[ Page 419 ]

alone.

Some of our small airlines have grown into big airlines. A few, a very few: Pacific Western is one of them. But those which haven't grown have really been left in a policy vacuum. The best routes, the busiest routes have gone to a few jet-equipped companies. The rest, the thin lines, the poor-paying lines, have been left to small firms, many of them lacking modern equipment, lacking the sophisticated management techniques which are part of the computer age. The equipment lack is serious. Many of our small airlines have to operate with planes which were built in the 1940s and 1950s.

Our radio network in northern British Columbia is World War II. Ticketing is by hand. So general aviation, third-level carriers, especially in this province, tend to be out of date. That industry is being starved both from a technological and a financial point of view. There's a gap all right, and our primary sector is being let down. The national and regional carriers are getting the cream; the small aircraft people are left with the skim milk.

How thin is it? Let me quote a few figures from the latest blue book on government expenditures. Transport Canada's capital budget for aviation last year was $127 million. Only $2 million was for small airstrips; $125 million was for big airports. Less than 2 per cent for general aviation for the small aircraft industry, the third-level carriers; 98 per cent for the big cities and international travel.

Clearly the provinces have to do something about this situation. They have to move in at the local level. That is what British Columbia is doing; that's what our $5 million programme this year is all about.

We're launching an air transport assistance program aimed at improving the ground facilities and navigational aids used by operators of small aircraft. Grants-in-aid totalling $5 million this year, hopefully larger amounts in later years, will be paid to regional districts, municipalities, airport commissions and provincial government agencies - those which put forward programmes for the building or upgrading of airstrips, airstrip lighting and the installation of beacons, wind socks, et cetera. Private individuals, groups, companies or societies which are not themselves eligible under the programme can, however, seek the support of a public body, join with them and get underway in that fashion.

In some instances, the provincial government itself may put in special airport facilities.

These could be used to speed up our air ambulance service, or aid in forest protection, highway construction, or other resource survey and development work. The applicant, in the case of municipal projects, is expected to make some contribution to construction cost. This can consist of cash, or be made up by way of volunteer labour, donated equipment, time or materials. Local authorities in this way will have a direct stake in each project, and an incentive to keep costs down. Payments will be made by the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications on submission of construction progress reports or invoices cleared by the ministry staff. Projects costing more than $50,000 may require early or interim financing. Payments for surveys, environmental studies, financial analyses and preliminary engineering can be covered by advances of this kind.

In all cases, the facilities must meet airport safety and other standards laid down by Ottawa. SO the federal Ministry of Transport has to be involved throughout. It has to be involved in each case. We will be relying heavily on its expertise, but we will also be arguing for a commonsense approach. The kind of overbuilding which has typified large airport construction should be avoided wherever possible and whenever possible here in B.C. We want the most we can get for our $5 million in 1978-79. So we'll be looking at the most cost-effective projects. We'll want to do more projects rather than less. Small projects, projects which make new transport facilities available in remote areas, are at the head of the line. They must go ahead, and they mil t go ahead first.

I have a few more particulars, Mr. Speaker. The typical airport financed under this program will have one runway into or close to the prevailing wind. It will have a minimum length of 900 metres and be at least 30 metres wide. Finished, it will also qualify for a licence from Transport Canada for VFR flying. Annual maintenance costs are to be borne by the local authorities, not the provincial government. Hence the importance of estimating airport upkeep and other continuing costs ahead of time. Airports, especially small airports, are rarely profit making ventures. Income can, however, result from aircraft landing, parking and tie-down fees; aviation fuel sales and land rental. These funds can accrue to the local agency, thereby helping to offset ongoing maintenance costs. A municipal airport committee, or preferably a local airport commission, should be set up to manage each of these small airport projects.

[ Page 420 ]

The province will meanwhile consult with a province-wide advisory body, whose membership will include representatives from the B.C. Aviation Council, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Primary Air Carriers, and other industry organizations.

As for action, 32 serious inquiries have already been received by our Energy, Transport and Communications ministry; eight formal applications are in; follow-up negotiations are in progress on four - they are Powell River, Bella Coola, Chetwynd and Mackenzie.

From what I've said, it should be apparent that ours is a co-operative approach, co-operative with Ottawa, with local government, with industry. British Columbia as a province doesn't intend to get into the airplane-owning business or the airline operating business in a big way. But it does want to break bottlenecks, to bring good and efficient transportation to people. It wants to open up remote areas and it wants to make it easier for our people to move about. That's what this programme is all about, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly support it. I also support the budget in its entirety.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, you are an indulgent man, and I would like to congratulate you on your elevation from there, to there, and then to there. Also, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) , who is the full-fledged Speaker, I wish to congratulate on his appointment. Also, I would like to congratulate the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) on his election. I would like to welcome him to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to talk about the budget. I would like first of all to make some notes about.... I see that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) is not in the House. I'm not going to talk about his remarks in the House. I think they've been dealt with adequately. But I wish to say that I'm very disturbed about two arbitrary actions of his in an administrative way: cutting off the free phoning service to both the rentalsmen's offices, and prior to that, although it received very little play, the free telephoning services to the Consumer Affairs offices.

Now the reason I object to these so much is because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they're discriminatory. Taxpayers in the lower mainland or greater Victoria have these services by dialing a number on their exchange rate; but taxpayers who live in Trail, or Telkwa, or Fort St. John, or any of the other communities in British Columbia - who pay the same tax rates - do not have those same services any more. And because the Rent Review Commission offices, the Consumer Services offices and the rentalsman's offices are few and far between in this province - and properly so; I don't think we need offices of these nature in every community - because of this there should be free phoning. I would only ask: is ICBC next? A feature of the Insurance Corporation of B.C., ever since its inception, has been that it takes collect calls in Vancouver from anywhere in the province; and I'm wondering whether this policy, as enunciated by. the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , is to be followed up with the Insurance Corporation of B.C. as well. Mr. Speaker, I note the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is not in the House; but I wish to point out that I would like to hear - when we get into his estimates - exactly what sort of funding he intends to make available for the regional colleges and post-secondary institutions other than universities. I know the budget indicates that the estimates are up by nearly 24 per cent. This is encouraging in itself ; although 1 have to point out that it does not compare that favourably with the increase in funding, under the former government, of 30 to 40 per cent. But what I'm concerned about is that, the other day, the minister - when he was speaking in this same budget debate - spoke in glowing terms of some new operations which he was commencing, particularly the Justice Institute, the Marine Training Institute, the Emily Carr College of Arts, and the Pacific Vocational Institute for trades training, and I'm wondering how much of this 24 per cent increase in college funding is going to go to these institutions, and how much to the existing ones. If that increase is to be spread out on new and expanded provincial operations, we can only assume that the existing post-secondary operations are going to receive little or nothing. Once again, the regional colleges of this province are providing a service, an educational service, a training service, and above all 1 think a social and cultural service, in communities which never had these kinds of service before. I consider it really not acceptable that the three major universities should be corralling most of the postsecondary students in this province, and concentrating them in the lower mainland and greater Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, just before I move away from education, I'd also note that I am concerned that there has been a cut in the budget of the amount allocated to student aid - a marginal

[ Page 421 ]

cut, but a cut nonetheless, and this is at a time when our enrolment in post-secondary institutions is expanding fairly rapidly. I'd also like to know when Bill 82, which was purported to expand the funding for regional colleges from 60 per cent provincial and 40 per cent local to 100 per cent local, is going to be proclaimed. It sounded very good last year; that section of the Colleges Act was supported by all members of this House, yet we f find, nearly a year later, that the bill has not been proclaimed. And the school districts of this province, in addition to facing a mill rate increase of over 3 mills, find that they are still paying 40 per cent of the operating costs of the regional colleges, when they were promised last year, by this House - by the support of every member in this House - that they would not be.

I would also like to remark - because the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. William ) is in the House, and trades training is under his portfolio - that I do have some concern that, both in the professional training areas and in the trades training areas, we don't always produce the kind of training and programmes which are appropriate to the employment opportunities that exist in this province.

Part of that is the fault of the government, part of that is the fault of the employers, not spelling out specifically the kind of occupational needs and requirements they have in their particular business, or in their area of government. I think it is totally inappropriate and terribly wasteful that some firms are having to go - when we have 9 per cent unemployment in this province - to Europe and the Far East to find the particular trades that they want, to find people with the appropriate training. I think it's totally inappropriate that the University of British Columbia is graduating people in some professional programmes, who on graduation f find that they can't even find work in the provincial government. The provincial government says: "Your qualifications aren't the ones we need, " and I'm thinking particularly, Mr. Speaker, of speech therapy and the hearing aid professionals who are being graduated from the University of British Columbia, who are not being hired by the Ministry of Health. They are being hired by the private sector, and they're being hired by government agencies such as the Workers' Compensation Board; but they apparently don't have the appropriate qualifications for the Ministry of Health. And I find that a total waste of the taxpayers' dollar, and somebody has been asleep at the switch on that one.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to follow up on something I've raised in the House before. And that is a matter now 10 years out of date, the question of the resettlement of individuals rather brutally removed from the lower regions of the Arrow Lakes, by the enactment of the Columbia River Treaty.

B.C. Hydro has, for a number of years now, been trying to make restitution and make property settlement with some of these people. They have never been able to get a settlement or subdivision plan past the various government agencies through the Ministry of the Environment. 1 gather now there is an inter-agency committee before the secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee. I would ask the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and any members of the cabinet who are on the Environment and Land Use Committee to act quickly and with compassion in this regard.

Many of these people who were displaced were third- and fourth-generation Canadians. Many of them are senior citizens. They were people who built the Kootenays, in many ways, and some of them, unfortunately, in the intervening period of neglect, have gone west, as they say. They have died off. I think it is just totally disgusting that this situation has been allowed to go on for 12 years now. I think these people must get the opportunity to return to the land that they were displaced from in 1966 and 1967.

It has been rumoured, Mr. Speaker, that there's going to be a new Forest Act in this province. Of course, we can't speak of bills before the House. I guess we can perhaps speculate on what they may be. But I certainly hope that there is provision in that bill for a major ongoing reforestation programme, not the kind of temporary bill funding that may or may not take place, as the Minister of Finance has indicated.

But in addition to the very low level of reforestation work that goes in this province, the estimates as tabled by the Minister of Finance show a further reduction in the amount of money going for reforestation; a further reduction in the amount of money being allocated for fire suppression; and particularly in such areas as field surveys and examinations, tending and thinning of existing stands, improvements of seeds, site preparation and the mere action of planting the seedlings themselves.

These are the areas that have been cut. I simply can't see any excuse for it in the context of what we have today with our first-growth timber nearly exhausted and our second-growth timber not having developed to the point where we can take advantage of it in

[ Page 422 ]

our sawmills, particularly in our veneer plants. I suppose the pulp industry can operate on sticks and twigs, but our lumber industry and our veneer industry, our plywood industry, is going to be in serious trouble unless we act now and act fast.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is in the House. I would like to compliment him on the increased allocation he has for emergency services in the province of B.C. I don't know exactly how it's going to work out in practice, but I would say it's very encouraging to see that kind of extra expenditure.

It does disturb me though, Mr. Speaker, to see that hospital operating costs have seen a marginal cut. I realize that some of the costs for acute care that hospitals were absorbing are now going to be picked up by the long-term care programme. But whenever we see an actual cut in operating moneys for hospitals, it raises the spectre, once again, of reduced staffing and increased per diem. I would hope that when we get into the specific estimates of the Health ministry, the minister can enlighten the House and the people of B.C. on what actually may happen in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, while speaking to the Ministry of Finance and the Finance minister, [illegible] say that I was somewhat disappointed that there was not at least a modest cut in the gasoline tax in British Columbia. We have seen an elimination of the gasoline tax in the province of Alberta. I don't think we can afford to go that far in the province of British Columbia, but there were a couple of pennies added on to the gasoline tax a few years ago with a view to absorbing some of the car insurance costs in B.C. It was never used f or that purpose. We are paying f or our car insurance at cost or above cost but those couple of pennies on the gasoline tax have never been removed. I suggest that that's double taxation. On that ground, and on the grounds of the action by the Conservative government in the province of Alberta - and it's rumored that there is going to be a gasoline tax cut in the province of Saskatchewan as well - I think it's entirely reasonable and appropriate, in view of our efforts to attract greater tourist dollars to British Columbia, that the very small loss in revenue to the general rolls would be more than made up by an increased economic development and increased gasoline purchases. I don't think it's inappropriate at all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's lower than any other province.

MR. D'ARCY: It's not lower than the province of Alberta, through you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to repeat my request to the Minister of Finance that he begin sending tax notices to the corporation which he's now responsible for - British Columbia Hydro - for the property that they have in their Columbia River Treaty dams and for the Bennett Dam on the Peace River.

Mr. Speaker, these dams have never paid a penny of taxes. The amount of tax dollars that they would pay, were Hydro to receive tax notices from the real property taxation branch, would hardly break that corporation; it amounts to less than 1 per cent of their total revenue. Yet it is rank discrimination against those communities which have Columbia River Treaty dams or the Peace River Dam, because British Columbia Hydro does pay taxes on all of its other property in the province, its other dams, its railroad rights-of-way, its office buildings and its substations. Once again, it's an outright discrimination against the West Kootenay and the South Peace River area. I think it should end and should end soon.

A further anomaly - and I simply don't see how a government that says it wants to stimulate and support the private sector can continue with this - is that private companies operating in the utility sector, distributing natural gas or generating power and distributing that power, are expected to pay full taxes as they do, Mr. Speaker. They pay full property taxes. The dams and power lines and substations of West Kootenay Power all through the southern interior pay full taxes, municipal and provincial, and so does the Inland Natural Gas Company. These are private operations; tax-paying operations. They pay corporation tax and property tax. They get no special allowances or special agreements, and yet British Columbia Hydro gets a free ride. I think it's totally wrong, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to make a few 'comments about railroad rights-of-way in the southern interior. I know we've heard a few remarks in the House lately, Mr. Speaker, about British Columbia Railway, particularly with reference to the northern part of the province. Of course, British Columbia Railway is another corporation which doesn't pay taxes. I was surprised that the Minister of Highways and Public Works from Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) did not make a plea for the communities in his riding that do not receive taxes from British Columbia Rail because, once again, the privately owned railways in British Columbia do pay property taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Ministry of

[ Page 423 ]

Finance should really consider a different type of property taxation for railroads in British Columbia. I believe that we would see f fewer branch-line abandonments and less concentration of rail traffic on the main lines if the province of B.C. collected property taxes from the railways based on the amount of traffic over a particular right-of-way, and then made 100 per cent grants in lieu of taxes to the various municipalities, so that no school district or municipality would be out the money. However, there would be no tax disincentive for a railway to continue to operate a branch line.

One of the major costs of operating a branch line is the property taxes. Whether someone is operating a packing-house in Osoyoos or a bulk plant in Nakusp or running a feed operation in the North Okanagan, the fact remains that people on branch lines in British Columbia businesses have trouble getting cars and they have trouble getting deliveries. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I and they believe it is deliberate policy on the part of the railways not to supply cars and to be late with shipments to anyone who is on a branch line, until they take their business elsewhere or close their operation. I think that the province of B.C. could supply an incentive to the railways not to follow this policy. It may be a radical concept, but I think the Ministry of Finance should have a good look at it.

Since the Minister of Highways and the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is back in the House.... I wasn't going to comment on this, but I found it rather interesting that he raised the question of what he called "a lot of junk that was purchased by the previous government." I happened to get an annual report of one of these "junk!' companies. I chose it in particular because they have an operation in my riding.

That company that that member described as "Junk!' generated, after full taxes to British Columbia, a net profit in 1973 of $12.3 million; in 1974 a profit of $50.9 million; in 1975 a profit of $27.5 million; in 1976 a profit of $21 million; and in 1977 a profit of $17.3 million. That's a total profit over five years of $134 million, or nearly $27 million a year - that "pile of junk!' that the former government acquired for absolutely nothing.

Also, some of the directors of that company would be interested to know that the Social Credit Minister of Highways from Cariboo thinks that they are operating a bunch of junk. Some interesting names: Donald Watson, Bertram Berkley, Alan Gordon, Ron Gross, Raymond Jones, Max Litvine, , John Spicer, Ira Wallach, and - what do you know! - Raymond Williston; he'd be interested to know that the government thinks he's running a pile of junk.

Mr. Speaker, the present government has been in office for 28 months now. I'm sure that if they had any corporate changes that they wished to make, they would have made them. I happen to think that this particular company is a very well run company. I happen to think that it is a very productive company. I happen to know that they have a work force that is loyal to the company and loyal to the province of British Columbia. No way do they run any operations that are made of junk. I think that minister should be ashamed of himself. They have a financial record to prove it that will stand up anywhere. It will stand up against the record of Weyerhaeuser or MacMillan Bloedel or IT&T or any other company operating in the forest industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, before I leave the Highways ministry, I would like to note that the capital expenditures in the estimates are down around 12 per cent f rom $180 million to $157 million. Mr. Speaker, I'm not too worried about that because under the present expenditures the estimates for capital expenditures don't mean very much. I know that and the minister knows that, and I think a lot of people in B.C. know that. Last year, there was budgeted $180 million, but we all know, according to the interim statements filed by the Minister of Finance, that the actual amount that will be spent will be'around $260 million. So even though there's $157 million in the estimates, we can assume that probably $250 million to $300 million will actually be spent.

I noted that the budget speech referred to increased expenditures on highways, implying that there was going to be more construction. According to the capital amount made available in the budget, there is actually less money available for highways and not more. However, I suppose that's politics and that we will have these things.

There was also a reference to a new highway which is going to be completed in my riding. I suppose if you have a good thing to announce, Mr. Speaker, you might as well announce it three or four times. But the completion that the Minister of Finance mentioned is based on contracts that he and the minister well know were let; one of them last summer and the other two last fall. What we are really having announced was that the contracts that have already been let were not going to be cancelled. I thank the minister very much for having that announcement made.

Mr. Speaker, I note the Minister of Mines has a somewhat beatific smile on his face. I

[ Page 424 ]

have a short comment about the Mines ministry. This is the question regarding the issuance or the filing of what I believe are known as 10-11 permits. While I have no direct objection to how these are being done, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that these are permits which a company files before it can explore on Crown land. They have to be circulated to the Forest Service and the Agriculture ministry, the water resources branch and, I believe, the fish and wildlife branch. They can file objections, if they wish, or grant approval.

Mr. Speaker, that may seem very well on the surface, but the problem is that there is a great deal of uranium exploration going on in this province, as I'm sure the minister well knows. There are no regulations regarding uranium mining in B.C. because, officially, the government doesn't permit uranium mining.

But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that in order to file a 10-11 form, you do not have to contact the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health, with their people in the field and their people here in Victoria, do not have to be advised, let alone have their approval sought.

Mr. Speaker, with the uncertainties and the difficulties surrounding the testing and the mining production for uranium, as have been experienced in other parts of the world and even in Saskatchewan here in Canada, I would like some assurance that he will get together with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and work out some kind of system where, when an exploration company is filing a permit to do this kind of exploratory work, not just for uranium but actually for any type of mineral, the Ministry of Health and the inspectors and the medical health officer in the local area at least be advised.

Interjection.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to any particular operation. The minister seems to feel that I was. I was referring to the fact that at no point in this province, whoever is looking for uranium, is there a requirement that the Ministry of Health be advised and the medical health officers and health inspectors have the opportunity to have a look at that operation.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is not in his place tonight. However, if he were, I would want to congratulate him on the Mobile Home Registration Act, and the administration of it, which I feel is an excellent statute. I gather it is being examined by other provinces and other jurisdictions, and I think it's a real step forward for the owners of mobile homes and for dealers in mobile homes and for the population of British Columbia at large.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in the estimates, though, I am rather unhappy to see a cut in the allocated amount for transit planning. It's been slashed by about 40 per cent. It is rumoured outside this House.... Of course, we have no knowledge of bills that may be introduced - but it is rumoured outside this House, a buzz in the UBCM and other municipal sectors of this province, that there is going to be a Transit Act or an Act pertaining to transit introduced this session. The province seem to have a little more substance rather than whim to it this time.

Mr. Speaker, not only that, but as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) told the House the other night, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has sent a form letter to 20 regional districts, in addition to some municipal councils as well, indicating that if they'll only wait until September, something good may happen. Now it seems to me that either the minister is expecting to get some rather large special warrants come the fall, or he's expecting to have a new budget, or perhaps some bill funding that may be in place by then. Really, the method of putting the vehicle in motion is not important. It is rather encouraging to hear that after two and a half years of promises we are going to see a bit of action in this regard.

This brings me to the case of transit deficit funding. I spoke earlier in my remarks about how the people of the interior and the north and Vancouver Island - people outside the metropolitan areas of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria - were discriminated against by certain actions of the government regarding the removal of long-distance telephone privileges.

Well, here we have another example, Mr. Speaker, where some municipalities in this province of B.C. have transit, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with the government providing the capitalization - that is the buses - and 50 per cent of the operating deficit, and the appropriate municipal authority or authorities picking up the other 50 per cent.

Now this comes from general revenue, Mr. Speaker, which means that all the taxpayers in B.C. are paying for this service, whether they get it or not. In addition, as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pointed out the other day, British Columbia Hydro transit operations in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria have a deficit of $60

[ Page 425 ]

million, which is entirely being picked up by the customer of that corporation, whether they be commercial, residential or industrial, when they pay their electricity bill or their natural gas bill.

Now, I have no objection per se to that particular procedure. There is no free bus ride, and everybody buys power and natural gas. What I object to is hydro-electric customers in Cranbrook or Quesnel or somewhere in the north country or in the Kootenays, where they have absolutely no transit services at all, having to pick up part of the bill for transit services in the lower mainland and greater Victoria. Because that means they are paying twice. They are paying through municipal taxes for a service that some communities get and some don't, and also they're paying on their hydro bills for a service that the lower mainland and greater Victoria get, but other communities in B.C. don't. I consider that totally unconscionable, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Saanich, when he became minister, said transit services in B.C. were a mess. I hope he didn't mean the services people got, because I think those had been greatly improved in the two or three years previous. What was a mess, and I have to agree, was the method of financing those services. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that mess has gotten worse in the last two years and four months, rather than better. I hope the minister is going to deal with that when he introduces his transit bill, because it is totally irresponsible that some communities should pay twice for a service that they are not getting. Of course, some communities in the southern part of the province only pay once, because they don't have B.C. Hydro power, but nonetheless, it is still inequitable.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is in the House - if I could just interrupt her work for a minute. I would like to point out a concern I have, that the British Columbia Museum train, which traveled extensively in the province in 1975 - I'm not referring to the Royal Hudson train; I'm referring to the museum train - and traveled to some degree last year, is unavailable for part or all of this coming tourist season, because it's being used to promote tourism in other parts of Canada, and possibly even in the United States. Mr. Speaker, that is British Columbia's museum train. The Provincial Secretary will have an opportunity, I hope, to speak in this debate, if she hasn't already. But I have been advised by an advertising agency in the lower mainland, which I gather is responsible for the schedule of this train, that it's going to be unavailable for substantial parts of the summer season. I've been making inquiries as to when, after three or four years of operation, this train, which is paid for by all the taxpayers of British Columbia, is going to make an appearance in the West Kootenay. And maybe it is going to make an appearance this year; but our chances are reduced by the fact that this train is going to be used for promotional purposes outside the province - which is a noble enough cause, but that is British Columbia's museum train and I think the people who paid for it should have the opportunity, first, of looking at the exhibits that it has, and finding out aspects of another era. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the matter raised by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) . I thought he was going to go into greater detail than he did about air service to remoter parts of the province. I'd like to point out that not all of the airports which need to be developed or enhanced - if that's the correct word in B.C. - are in the remoter parts of the province; there are many small airports around the province which, quite frankly, have been federal government boondoggles, in that moneys were put into them along about election time, but they never turned out - they were only half-done; they never finished a facility that would in fact be useful on a commercial basis, whether to small companies or to large companies.

For instance, there have been a number of strips paved by the federal MoT to, 3,000 feet; and I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that a 3,000-foot strip is not even useful for an executive jet on a hot day, let alone for a 737. I'm not suggesting that we have a lot of new runways and expect the major companies such as PWA or CP Air to service them. I am suggesting that there should be some alternate air strips around the province. They already exist and merely need to be improved or enhanced; they don't need to be established. We will wait for 100 years, if we wait for the MoT to do it; and I believe that the funding made available through the province should be used to put some of these strips into serviceable use for commercial aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, I note you're tapping your wrist, and nodding at me; I presume you mean that the hour of adjournment has come and, in view of that, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 426 ]

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files the 1975 report of the B.C. Steamship Company.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved. The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.