[ Page 427 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. D'Arcy –– 427

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 428

Mr. King –– 434

On the amendment.

Ms. Sanford –– 440

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 446

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ~1r. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to see in the gallery the manager of our income assistance division. He's brought his son Alan, who's visiting from Vernon. So I would ask the House to welcome Alan Reed from Vernon.

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to welcome to the House this morning a group of students from just one of the outstanding schools in Burnaby-Edmonds - McPherson Park Junior Secondary school - and their teacher, Mr. Howe.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. D'ARCY: Because it's Friday, I'd like to welcome all those in the galleries who haven't been introduced.

MR. SPEAKER: May I introduce a fact to you, hon. member: you have six minutes left in your speech.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one other thing to say that may or may not be appropriate in parliamentary tradition. It occurred to me last night when I was speaking in this House, when there were very few members here and very few people in the gallery - and nobody in the press gallery -that the people who really were paying attention and were listening were the people who are here all the time. And those are the attendants, I welcome them today, once again.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that I have left, I want to assure the House that, while I feel that the budget as it was submitted last week is an improvement over the last two brought in by this government, it is certainly not worthy of support from this side of the House, I do not intend to support it. I would note that one of the hypocritical aspects of the budget, one of the hypocritical aspects of the litany that this government has been preaching, and is preaching - and no doubt a couple of our ministers who are back in Yorkton are preaching - is their mythology surrounding what they call fiscal responsibility and restraint.

It is rather interesting that the revenue collected and expended last fiscal year - not the one that just ended, but the one that ended March 31,1977 - showed that the government had extracted from the economy of British Columbia some 15.6 per cent of the gross provincial product. And that was purely the provincial government, Mr. Speaker; that did not count what was taken by school districts or local government, and did not account for what was taken by those three Grown corporations which really are providing essential services in British Columbia: ICBC, the B.C. Ferry Corporation and British Columbia Hydro. Just the government itself extracted for its services to the public in B. C. some 15.6 per cent of the gross provincial product. What do we f find in the interim financial statements that were filed by the Finance minister last week? Oh, it's true, Mr. Speaker, he only filed an 11-month statement. But if we project it for 12 months - which isn't too difficult, a grade 4 student can do that - we f find that the amount taken from the taxpayers of British Columbia by the government alone in the fiscal year that just ended, is not 15.6 per cent, but 15.7 per cent of the gross provincial product. And here we've had the Premier and other ministers of the government exhorting local governments in British Columbia, school districts in British Columbia, all of the other nine provinces and the federal government, to cut back their spending as a percentage of the gross national or gross provincial product. While this is being preached, the government of B.C. has actually increased its share by one-tenth of 1 per cent. It's true that they did not expend all of that money - the Finance minister tells us that he's not going to spend, in the last fiscal year, some $76 million of that. However, he has assured the House in flowery terms in his budget speech that he's going to spend that $76 million very shortly - in the new fiscal year - and I consider this a blatant example of a government preaching one thing, while knowing, and planning to do, exactly the opposite. I consider that reprehensible, Mr. Speaker.

However, what I've been talking about is only the provincial government's share. Are we to assume, Mr. Speaker, that in the last three years, since this government - well, since the first budget was introduced ... ?

MR. SPEAKER: Three minutes.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, you're looking a bit like a TV producer. In the last three years, the rates for British Columbia Hydro, B.C. Ferries and the Insurance Corporation of

[ Page 428 ]

B.C. have increased by more than the actual amount of the gross provincial product. They certainly have increased by more than 20 per cent for all three of those factors; and, while I don't have the final figures, I'm quite sure that those three Crown corporations are taking a larger share of the gross provincial product than they were in February and March of 1976.

Now that brings us back to local government. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Ron. Mr. Curtis) , I see by the Speaker's schedule, is going to be following me; and I suggest that the municipal sector is the only sector under control of the government where there possibly - and I only feel this intuitively - has been a reduction in the amount of their take from the local taxpayer, as a percentage of gross provincial product. However, I think, as every taxpayer knows - every industrial, commercial and residential taxpayer knows - it is not the municipal services that take the biggest bite when they get their tax notice in June. It is the school districts that take the biggest bite, and I don't blame the school districts for that. They've had an arbitrary increase in the last three years of 50 per cent in their mill rate alone - from 26-1/2 to 39-3/4. And we all know, Mr. Speaker, that the taxes you pay in June are not entirely based on mill rate, that assessment has something to do with that; and we also know that in the last three years assessment has gone up as well.

So what we see is that the government, hypocritically, has not only spent more itself as a share of the gross provincial product, but has shifted some costs, which used to be part of government, to the three major Crown corporations and to the school districts. This, in my opinion, is only another example of saying one thing, preaching one thing, while doing something else. I suggest that the government is going to have to decide exactly which way it's going to go.

In the few seconds allotted to me, I want to say something about investment in British Columbia, particularly private investment in B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: The time is expired, hon. member.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to reserve my remarks for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) when his estimates come up.

MR. SPEAKER: As you wish, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to do what many members have already done, sir, and that is to congratulate you on your elevation to the Speaker's chair and to wish you well in that important position, and also our Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) .

And while he is not in his seat, may I welcome publicly the newly elected hon. member for the constituency of Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) ?

Mr. Speaker, of all the events in a legislative session, the budget debate represents a genuine watershed. It's an opportunity to examine past performance as well as to anticipate the coming year's activities. I intend this morning to explore both of those opportunities.

My support for the 1978-79 provincial budget is much more than a partisan courtesy or obligation; it's a matter of genuine enthusiasm. Whether through local government assistance, the direct or support provision of housing, or special income redistribution programmes for senior citizens, this ministry, Municipal Affairs and Housing, delivers benefits to virtually every British Columbian. This generous and this growing stream of benefits reflects past and present provincial budgets. It's also a tribute, I think, to the fundamental economic strength of the province, the productiveness of its citizens and the sound fiscal management exercised by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this ministry was created last year by the union of two former departments of government. Over the succeeding months that change has proven to be a smooth and a successful one. It has quickly achieved certain economies and high levels of co-operation in personnel administration, central financial management and technical services. The new structure operating for the people of British Columbia is strong and responsive. However, I'm really more pleased with what the ministry has done than what it has become. The many accomplishments I would like to recite today are the direct consequence of this government's social priorities and its corresponding budgetary commitments.

Two of the ministry's most beneficial programmes are also among its most recent initiatives. I refer, sir, to the SAFER programme and revenue sharing with local government. Both of these last year enjoyed substantial support from all members in this assembly, and subsequently received an enthusiastic reception throughout the province and, as I'll discuss later, in other jurisdictions across Canada.

[ Page 429 ]

SAFER, shelter aid for elderly renters, was adopted to assist those persons 65 years of age and older who are paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. The programme identifies maximum assistance and claimable rent levels for singles and couples. Within these limits, eligible recipients are entitled to receive 75 per cent of rent over 30 per cent of their income. The programme is designed to respond flexibly to incomes and rents, and it allows mobility and freedom of choice in accommodation. The experience that we've gained in the first few months of operation since July I last has enabled the ministry to fine-tune the programme by adopting a more generous income definition and by extending the closing date for retroactive benefits.

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, more than 15,000 senior citizens are receiving SAFER in British Columbia and, as the House is aware, a budgetary provision of almost $12 million has been proposed to carry this programme through the 1978-79 fiscal year. Careful programme design will permit these valuable income redistribution payments to be directed to an identified group of worthy recipients. My only regret, sir, is that there are still some potential SAFER recipients who have riot yet applied for benefits. I would again urge all members of this assembly to encourage those potential applicants to contact the ministry because under this programme we want to assist everyone who is eligible. SAFER is a programme for people.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing also offers a wide range of programmes for communities, programmes which therefore benefit the citizens of every organized jurisdiction in British Columbia, every municipality. The most significant of these are embodied in the new Revenue Sharing Act. One of the highlights of this government's term thus far has been the adoption by this assembly of revenue sharing. I was grateful, sir, for the support expressed by so many members of this House, and particularly by my colleagues, the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . The favourable reception which the legislation received within this chamber was again resoundingly echoed outside.

When we talk about revenue sharing, we're talking about the long-term future, not just the 12-month span which is the legitimate scope of this debate, but, in fact, a future as unlimited as a statutory guarantee can make it. The guarantee I refer to is the very core of the legislation. Revenue sharing, in fact, depends on two durable commitments written into law by this assembly.

One of these establishes the formula by which the proceeds of one personal income tax point, one corporate income tax point and 6 per cent of sales tax and resource revenues will annually be assigned for local government use.

The other guarantee is that every cent generated by the formula will be deposited in a special fund and used exclusively for municipal and regional district grants. These fundamental guarantees, then, along with the administrative and regulatory apparatus accompanying the legislation, became operational at the beginning of this fiscal year. Even before that, however, the ministry was able to calculate a significant number of grants on the basis of revenue estimates and other available data. As early as mid-December last, we published individual entitlements for unconditional municipal grants, and I know that the release of this information greatly expedited budget preparation in every municipality.

Not only did revenue sharing allow us to identify grant amounts earlier, it also generated a significantly higher level of unconditional assistance than municipalities had been accustomed to receive under the old and outdated per capita grant formula.

In 1978, therefore, over $106 million worth of unconditional, no-strings municipal grants will be distributed under the programme. That represents an increase of almost $14 million over the equivalent total for 1977.

Besides being more generous, the 1978 distribution more fairly reflects varying municipal needs and circumstances, because it includes the individual municipal tax and expenditure base, along with population, as parts of each grant calculation. I expect that in this and future years, roughly four out of every five shared revenue dollars will be used for unconditional grants.

While the topic is open, perhaps I could briefly describe the disposition of the remaining 20 per cent. The basic $30,000 municipal grant is also unconditional, and it will significantly augment the resources of our smallest communities - our villages and towns. The automatic eligibility of all 140 municipalities implies a budgetary commitment there of wore than $4 million.

Under the water facilities assistance programme. revenue sharing will pay three-quarters of approved debt-servicing costs above a set mill rate. 1 expect, Mr. Speaker, to announce that mill rate very shortly, within a matter of days.

To accommodate anticipated demand, we've

[ Page 430 ]

budgeted nearly $8 million for that programme. The housing starts grant programme will provide $100 for each net housing unit started, while the MIG programme, Municipal Incentive Grant, will make a further $1,000 available for each new housing unit falling within defined cost, size and density limits. Both of these programmes help local governments cope with the costs of growth, and between them they are expected to require $13 million this year.

The new regional district grants programme will add expanded planning grants to the existing basic and administrative grants, and planning support will include both unconditional and cost-sharing grants. The total value of regional district assistance programmes this year, therefore, will exceed $2 million.

Revenue sharing will also fund municipal planning activities on a conditional cost-shared basis. A provincial total of up to $1 million will be available for the purpose, and we will be able to pay two-thirds of approved municipal planning costs under this programme.

The Ministry of Highways and Public Works will help this ministry to administer the new municipal highways grants programme. When fully operational, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this will provide up to $15 million annually. But in 1978, as it starts up, we would anticipate that just about $4 million will be spent in this fiscal year.

So when you add it all up, Mr. Speaker, revenue sharing will distribute more than $138 million this year. That guaranteed amount represents an aggregate increase of 20.6 per cent over the corresponding 1977 total.

Both SAFER and revenue sharing represent landmark legislation, not only in British Columbia but throughout the nation. At the 1977 conference of ministers of municipal affairs in Quebec City, I have to say that our new Revenue Sharing Act was a centre of attention. We received many enquiries and commendations, and interest was keen at the political level, the elected level and the administrative level.

Municipalities and provinces alike recognize the advantages of the principles we in this chamber adopted last year. Only a few weeks ago, incidentally, I was pleased to learn that the province of Saskatchewan plans to introduce revenue-sharing legislation which follows ours in many important particulars.

SAFER has also been the focus of national interest. Earlier this month, officials in the ministry hosted an interprovincial task force on shelter allowances and rent scales for senior citizens. The two-day seminar brought together representatives from the federal government and every province, except Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, I've spent several minutes describing two of this ministry's programmes, because SAFER and revenue sharing are, I feel, outstanding examples of the beneficial uses to which this government has directed the spending of public money.

I also owe it to this assembly to mention several other categories of accomplishment. Legislation adopted here last year is the source of that progress.

We introduced a major legislative programme on behalf of the ministry, including amendments to the Municipal Act, which provided major reforms in land-use planning and regulation, including development permits and development cost charges.

Amendments to the Islands Trust Act, which transferred basic land-use responsibilities from seven regional districts to a single trust, also provide for election of all three general trustees later this year.

A change in the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act increased the additional benefits to senior citizens for 1977 by $50 and extends these benefits to handicapped and war-veteran pensioners. All members, surely, will support this year's $50 increase to the same categories.

Revision [illegible] Purchase Assistance Act makes eligible for benefits beneficiaries under AHOP and divorced persons not previously entitled to qualify for benefits, and permits approved leases to be eligible.

The Mobile-home Act, which the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) referred to last night, provides for the recently opened registry for all mobile homes, with certain exemptions in the province. It's a first in Canada, and is being studied by other jurisdictions.

The Strata Titles Amendment Act ensures that no strata subdivision of land can be registered in the land registry office unless approved by the designated approving officer, and will also permit developers within defined limits to rent strata units.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is an impressive list. It illustrates some of the value obtained from the staff resources paid for by the people of this province in last year's budget. But it doesn't cover everything.

In addition to our legislative programme, the ministry was responsible for several major policy initiatives in 1977. One of these was the provincial government's commitment in principle to the payment of grants equivalent

[ Page 431 ]

to the full amount of property taxes on the improved properties it owns within municipalities. The commitment was made then with the full support of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , as he indicated on Monday. I predict that a number of municipalities will receive significantly larger grants in lieu of property taxes, both in dollar and percentage terms. Steps are also being taken to ensure that no community in B.C. will receive $1 less than it did in 1977.

Municipalities are also still benefiting from a very early step, a policy change taken with respect to social housing. An early reform was to abolish the unfair practice of charging municipalities 12.5 per cent of the deficits on national Housing Act section 40 projects. This reform thus far has yielded savings of $1.6 million for 12 municipalities.

The ministry is also participating with the Ministry of the Attorney-General in a task force to examine policing costs and cost-sharing in B.C. We look forward to a good, constructive, thoughtful report a little later on.

Toward the end of last year, I also announced the formation of a committee to review the role of regional districts. The committee's terms of reference empower it to examine jurisdictions, organizations, internal and external boundaries, inter-governmental relations, citizen relations, and provincial support policies. I'm certainly looking forward with other members of this House to the report and its recommendations.

There is citizen concern about various regional district attitudes and policies. Further, regional districts in this province are clearly in some considerable difficulty and do not enjoy the confidence of a number of members of this assembly.

Nineteen seventy-seven witnessed several other major accomplishments. The process of compiling a Crown land inventory for housing was completed for in excess of 200 communities. The available information will enable the province to identify useful housing opportunities to which it can materially contribute. In 1977 6,000 acres were made available for housing through 40 participating municipalities and regional districts.

Steady progress in the provision or support of housing also occurred last year. The total number of housing units operated by the B.C. Housing Management Commission has grown substantially in the past 12 months. Between February 1977 and 12 months later, the aggregate of senior citizen and family units rose from 7,471 to 8,114, an increase of almost 9 per cent.

In addition, rent supplements are paid to senior citizens and families living in non-profit housing units and designated ARP units, to ensure that rental payments do not exceed 25 per cent of income. The total number of units to which such subsidies apply rose from 3,374 in February, 1977, to 5,584 this February, an increase of more than 65 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report, with very great satisfaction, that our housing fund within the ministry has reached a state of self-sufficiency. Revenues now balance the expenditures. It's important, I think, to recognize that the housing fund no longer has to draw on current provincial revenues, releasing, therefore, budgetary resources for other worthwhile endeavours. That is of great satisfaction to this government.

Progress in various housing sectors absorbed substantial amounts of provincial funds in 1977: 781 co-operative and non-profit family units were completed during the year; over $6 million was expended in grants to 31 senior citizens' housing projects, comprising just over 1,800 units; municipal incentive grants were paid on behalf of more than 4,600 eligible units during the same period; the estimated provincial participation in the AHOP and ARP programmes approaches $8 million.

The ministry's programmes embrace much more than direct housing assistance. They also support a wide variety of municipal service installations and community improvement efforts. Under NIP, the neighbourhood improvement programme, a combined total of almost $9 million in provincial and federal funds was allocated to 18 participating communities in 1977; 93 municipalities and regional districts received a collective total of more than $15 million worth of sewage facilities assistance grants; water facilities assistance grants exceeded $7 million. Restructure, planning and other special purpose grants were also made to a number of municipalities.

Altogether, these policies and financial details document an impressive record of accomplishment. What, then, is in store for the coming year?

As far as most ministry activities are concerned, the prospect is clearly for more and better. Our commitment to housing, community service and distribution programmes is as strong as ever. And thanks to this year's provincial budget, it is backed by even more generous funding.

The ministry will use a great part of the resources placed at its disposal for direct and indirect measures to improve conditions in

[ Page 432 ]

the housing market. Recent trends in mortgage defaults and foreclosures are not as unique, Mr. Speaker, as they appear, and I believe they do not signal general or chronic ill health in the market. There are other factors which can be discussed in my estimates, and these factors, however, can alert us to market imbalances and the need for continuing policy adjustment. our staff is in constant touch with these trends and, as I will substantiate in just a moment, this government is always ready to move when the need manifests itself.

The formation of this ministry represented an effort to consolidate and rationalize the province's housing strategies. Another necessary step in that direction, and in keeping with the philosophy of this government, was taken last week. On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, I announced the government's intention to restore the Housing Corporation of B.C. to the private sector, where it had its origin and where it properly belongs.

Conscious of the substantial provincial investment, the present government agreed in early 1976 that HCBC should complete existing projects and undertake, at the same time, a sufficiently broad programme in the private sector to sustain equity and adequately protect the public investment. The principle was established, however, that responsibility for the administration of social housing programmes must be executed by and in this ministry, and that programme delivery should be carried out to the greatest possible extent by the private sector.

During the past two years the government has established a provincial housing administration with senior representatives serving all regions of the province, and I was able to introduce to the House a number of employees from around the province when they appeared yesterday afternoon.

The Housing Corporation, Mr. Speaker, while supporting the ministry through this reorganizational process, has substantially completed the duties assigned to it. It's apparent, therefore, that with the establishment, the putting in place of an effective ministry organization, the role of the Housing Corporation had to be, and could be, re-examined. Proposals will be invited for the purchase of the corporation by private interests, and I insist at an acceptable level of return to the public, the people, the citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance delivered his new budget on Monday, widespread interest has been shown in this government's decision to increase financial assistance to family first-home buyers. Although a minor legislative change will be required, I believe that it will be of assistance to this house and to prospective purchasers to have as much information as possible right now.

First, the increase to $2,500 became effective as of midnight last Monday, April 10. The proviso is that where an interim agreement or other home purchase transaction was completed after that date, the additional assistance will be provided, but only, of course, after legislative authority is obtained.

The increase will be available to families with one or more dependent children, who are purchasing their first new or used home, condominium unit or mobile home priced within the existing Rome Purchase Assistance Act grant limits. It's a family programme, Mr. Speaker, because this government as a first priority is concerned about the home environment in which children are raised in this province.

There will be the usual residency requirements which are already in place in the ministry on other programmes. We want to standardize those. Those residency requirements are available for members now, but certainly will be spelled out in regulation later.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, there've been a number of questions. The existing $1,000 grant will remain in place for those home-buyers who do not qualify under the enriched new plan.

AHOP, the provincial Assisted Home Ownership Programme, which provides grants to family buyers of new homes - additional, by the way, to a federal interest reduction loan and grant - will continue unchanged at this time. However, there have been discussions with the federal government on changes in the programme so that support to home purchase can be relevant to today's more stable home prices and income expectations.

The new Family First Home Programme i's designed for today's housing market. Eventually, it will replace the provincial AHOP programme, but we're going to do this in such a way and at such time as to honour our commitments under AHOP to builders of homes which have not yet been sold.

Mr. Speaker, in view of consultations with the federal government, I expect an announcement from Ottawa today or next week at the latest which will preclude this province's participation in ARP, the Assisted Rental Programme. However, again this ministry intends to honour those commitments for ARP which will have been made to April 30,1978.

[ Page 433 ]

Benefits which flow from this programme will continue at least over the next year.

The programme has been overwhelmingly successful, Mr. Speaker. The recent stabilization of rents and the increase in vacancy rates now allows renters a very wide-ranging choice of accommodation and expenditure. Part of that beneficial condition is due to the fact that more than 14,000 rental units have been or will be constructed with provincial assistance throughout British Columbia. Over a broad policy range, federal and provincial housing programmes should and usually do complement one another in terms of both administration and finance.

I'm relatively pleased - and that's a key word, Mr. Speaker - with the present level of co-operation, and I expect it to continue. But please don't assume that this is a rosy picture of federal-provincial relations. It is not. If communication between Ottawa and Victoria had been perfect, if Ottawa had been talking to us a little more over the years, CMHC might not have enmeshed itself in the ill-considered Acacia Towers project in North Vancouver, which has caused so much concern for provincial officials, heartaches for the sponsoring organization and also difficulty for us who bear no responsibility for the basic commitment. I'll be prepared to say more about that financial disaster - that federal disaster - during discussion of my estimates.

There are some clouds on the eastern horizon, possible complications, which perhaps I could discuss with the members now.

The first matter of potential concern has its origin in Ottawa's current review of several major CMRC programmes. Preliminary meetings and reports suggest that we at the provincial level must exercise caution in three sensitive areas.

Firstly, I think we must ensure that legitimate provincial jurisdiction over municipal aid policy is neither interfered with nor diminished by Ottawa activities. Secondly, we must strive to maintain or augment aggregate funding levels. Thirdly, if new programmes are developed to replace existing ones, all categories of recipients must be protected against adverse transitional effects. Senior staff and I are carefully monitoring all three areas. What the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Hon. Mr. Uuellet) is saying in Ottawa and saying to us is not necessarily what his senior officials are saying to staff in the provinces.

The other major federal-provincial question occupying our attention involves the effective capital cost allowance policy on the housing market. Ottawa, you will know, had threatened to repeal Income Tax Act provisions which allowed investors to apply the capital cost allowance from rental buildings to defer taxes. In November of last year. very late, the federal authorities relented to the extent of carrying on the provisions for one year, but at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. Both the original threat, and then the subsequent changed extension, have spread uncertainty among investors. British Columbia's position is clear and it's been conveyed forcefully to Ottawa. The retention of CCA is essential to the continued development by the private sector of rental accommodation.

The uncertainty created by the prospect of federal tax changes has persuaded us to consider changes to the Provincial Income Tax Act. Should the federal capital cost allowance provisions not be renewed, then we would explore provision in our legislation to leave in place the deferral of provincial taxes as an incentive to rental construction. In this, as in many other matters, 1 enjoy the active support of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) - he has certainly co-operated with us.

I'm pleased to report that the private sector has responded to our specific policies, as well as to the general improvement in provincial economic prospects which has occurred since this government took office. Statistics recently offered reveal a significant increase in housing starts over the corresponding period last year. In February 1978, the provincial total of housing starts is 27 per cent ahead of February 1977; and the increase in multiple dwelling units is 31 per cent. Naturally, 1 admit, there are cyclical factors and regional differences at play here; and the influence of the uncertainty regarding the CCA is also evident. Nevertheless I'm more than happy with recent progress.

The co~operation of the Minister of Finance will also be evident in another piece of legislation which will be presented to this assembly. The Homeowner Grant Act is a major social policy instrument which this government, and others, have previously and constantly worked to improve. This year's amendments will aim to eliminate certain anomalies by enacting more generous, and logically consistent, definitions of eligibility, and that troublesome claiming period. As an MLA who represents a large number of senior-citizen homeowners, I congratulate the government on its continuing policy to remove property taxes for owners over 65. The increase in the 1978 grant from $430 to $480 has already brought much

[ Page 434 ]

favourable comment.

The indispensable help of the Minister of Finance will also show itself in one of the most important bills scheduled for presentation during the current session. This government has treated the development of urban transit legislation as a major priority; and, as my cabinet colleagues can testify, we've had our frustrations with this extremely complex work. We've devoted a great deal of time and effort to designing a policy which will fairly and realistically distribute the consequent planning, operational and financial responsibility. This system, this formula, has been expressed in draft legislation, one of whose key provisions will empower us to adopt a generous and comprehensive financial support and control formula. I am confident that all hon. members will welcome the legislation, and the financial commitment underlying it.

Mr. Speaker, that just about ends my review of the present, future and some past budget-supported activities of this ministry. I've taken a fair amount of time, and I've thrown out a lot of figures and percentages because I wanted to say quite a bit about a lot of very worthwhile programmes. In closing, could I just briefly return to the them that I stated at the beginning of the presentation. It is that we owe the Minister of Finance a double thank you, a double debt: first, for the sound economic management which has made resources available for the programmes that I've described; second, for his direct assistance in the design and implementation of specific policies. He's a good guy, Mr. Speaker. I like him; 1 like his budget, and 1 certainly have no hesitation in supporting it. Thank you.

MR. KING: I do not support the budget, Mr. Speaker. 1 regretfully conclude that this is a government that is indifferent, incompetent and indecisive. Those are their strong points; now I'll deal with the weaknesses of this government.

In my view, this government has wrecked the economy through petty and spiteful political petulance. Going back over the short history of this particular government, and looking at the budgets which were introduced in '76 and '77, and some of the debates that took place during the course of those budgets, it's a matter of record that the opposition - not only the official opposition but the total opposition, including the Liberal and Conservative parties - criticized the government for their unwarranted and very heavy-handed increases in user rates, and in general service rates for virtually every service which the government provides to people. We predicted at that time that there would be a profound impact on the economy, that the removal of consumer dollars from the economy of British Columbia would result in a stagnant economy; would result in business closures and bankruptcies; would result in unemployment on a massive scale. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there's no question but that those predictions have come graphically true today. I think what we have to do, to understand why the government chose that route, is to go back and look at some of the strategy that was taken by the government at that time in '76 and '77.

1 think it's fairly well recognized that the government was out on a very transparently covered trip to punish the voters for having voted in a New Democratic Party government in 1972 and, therefore, as a ruse, they introduced massive cost increases in insurance rates, ferry rates - virtually every area of public service - hydro rates, health care costs and so on.

This was an attempt to punish and sanction the voters for having had the temerity to vote NDP in 1972. The sorry part about it was, Mr. Speaker, that this government was so hard-hearted that they cared not a whit what the impact was on the people of British Columbia, as a consequence of those spiteful actions.

It's so bad that today we have Social Credit members on the back bench stating publicly that they are disillusioned with this government, they are disillusioned with politics, they are disillusioned with the do-nothing policies of this government, and they are stating that they are not prepared to run again for political life in British Columbia. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) claims that he knows five or six or his colleagues who are not prepared to run again. He says he's disillusioned and he doesn't like what is going on in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote your speech?

MR. KING: Who wrote my speech? That's a classic comment coming from the member for Omineca, Mr. Speaker. lie has trouble even reading the speeches that Danny Campbell prepares for him.

I just want to comment a little bit on the report on the radio this morning, quoting the member for Omineca. He's disillusioned with the atmosphere in the House, disillusioned with the criticism, he says, that is levelled across the floor of the House. That member was a member of the previous Social Credit

[ Page 435 ]

government for many, many years. He was defeated in 1972, and therefore he was not a part of....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hate to correct you, but I believe you are referring to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , who was formerly the member for Omineca.

MR. KING: I beg your pardon. The member for Skeena used to be the member for Omineca. He's changed. Re parachuted into another riding. He was defeated in 1972 and, as a consequence, he didn't have the opportunity to sit in this Legislature and witness the performance of the 10 Socreds who were the official opposition at that time. If the member for Skeena is now disillusioned about criticism, Mr. Speaker, I commend to him that he go back in Hansard and read some of the speeches that were made in this House by his colleague sitting next to him, by the now-Premier, who was then leader of the opposition, and by the Minister of Economic Development (Ron. Mr. Phillips) , because, Mr. Speaker, I have never, quite frankly, in my life in politics, witnessed the kinds of personal attacks, the kinds of spiteful, acrimonious debate that was introduced in this Legislature by that little group at that time.

So if there is some bad feeling, some hostility, it's a legacy of the most irresponsible opposition this province ever saw, when that Social Credit government performed the role. Now I don't blame the member for being upset, but I, quite frankly, do not think he told the whole story. I think his disillusionment has more to do with the absence of any policies, which are going to develop support for himself in the riding of Skeena during the next election. I think the member is concerned because there are no positive policies in the budget which address themselves to the problem of unemployment, to the problem of northern development, to the problem of industrial stimulus in this province and, certainly, with respect to general people problem . So I can understand the member's disillusionment.

But he should not misconstrue the role of the opposition, which is one of criticism, which is the bounden duty of official opposition, to raise and scrutinize and criticize government policies and government spending plans, so that the public of this province may have a balanced view of what the proposals are and what the value of spending estimates are by this government. That's the whole principle and underlying tenet of the British parliamentary system. The member should not be surprised by that. If he is offended by the intensity of debate, I suggest to him that he review the Hansard record of that Social Credit opposition when they sat on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

It was a coalition of convenience that came together in 1975, and it's starting to come apart at the seams, Mr. Speaker. Five or six members are not prepared to run again. I think it has more to do with their disillusionment with government policies, and the underlying fear that they would not be successful in another election anyway, so they are choosing this opportunity to step aside. The coalition is coming apart at the seams, Mr. Speaker and that's appropriate because they are a seamy coalition. There's no question about that.

I was interested in listening to the radio this morning and hearing a statement by the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) . I don't know whether quietly, while we slept last night, he was admitted back into the cabinet and now holds responsibility for transport and communications again, or not, but he was commenting on the need for a short take-off aircraft service between the city of Vancouver and Victoria. I couldn't help but think, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this Legislature should know about quick take-offs than that former minister. The problem is that he may have some trouble landing, and his takeoff was a heck of a lot quicker than his landing thus far.

Mr. Speaker, there is much disappointment in the budget speech. It should have been an opportunity for the government to make amends for two and a half years of harsh treatment of the people of B.C. This was a good time to create confidence in the labour movement, in the young, in the business community, the forest industry, teachers and doctors, and all of the other elements of society who've suffered under the rather oppressive rule of this particular government. Unfortunately these opportunities are totally missed in the budget before the House today. While the Minister of Finance tried to show generosity -and he boasted, against all the facts, that British Columbia is an economic bright spot in Canada - the sad reality is that the generosity of this budget is simply a case of giving back to people a very small part of what was taken away from them by this government over the past two years. The boasting contained in the budget speech was a cruel jab at the 110,000 British Columbians who are unemployed today, and at the thousands of students who will not be able to find employment during the course of this summer

[ Page 436 ]

holiday.

Like the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , I found much irony in being reminded by the Minister of Finance that the government is committed to lowering the cost of government. This is a strange reminder from the government that raised sales tax 40 per cent; raised car insurance by an average of 139 per cent; raised. electricity rates by 31 per cent; raised ferry rates by as much as 300 per cent; raised ambulance rates by 200 per cent; and raised medical insurance premiums by 50 per cent.

As the third year of Social Credit comes to an end and the second year of the anti-inflation sham comes to an end, it is quite evident that one of the major inflationary forces in the province of British Columbia is the present British Columbia government's commitment to lower the cost of government. Their commitment in this regard is nothing but a pathetic reminder of the minister's view that British Columbia is an economic bright spot. Fantasies such as this do not build confidence. On the contrary, the average thinking person looking at this budget, witnessing these displays of fantasy, could not be blamed for being frightened about the future of the province in the hands of people who lack the reality that this government does.

I'm afraid the present government does not quite understand the full importance of a budget speech. They do not understand that, in laying out the financial programmes of the government for the year, they're addressing real problem that cannot be disguised by fine language and the public relations techniques of John Arnett, Dave Brown and all the other Social Credit hacks whom they've brought into the ministerial offices and the Premier's office. They're all, incidentally, receiving very handsome salaries from this budget; provisions for their financial security are contained in this budget. The government does not understand that leadership must be shown in a budget speech; people are counting on it. The government does not understand that the budget has personal ramifications that affect individual lives. I just want to recount for you a couple of cases, Mr. Speaker, which show how, in a personal way, the very punitive taxation and user-rate increases introduced by this group have impacted on particular individuals and enterprises over the past few years.

Take the case of a man who owns a Victoria plumbing company. It's a small firm by the standards of some of the members on the government benches, but it has provided a good and secure living for this man and for his family. But that was yesterday; in 1975 things were going reasonably well. He employed five men and he could look forward to a number of small sub-contracts that would see him through the year.

Then Social Credit camp to power and suddenly things didn't look bright for the economy of Victoria; certainly that's a matter of record. The housing and construction industries were hard hit. Between January 1977 and January 1978, a period in which the Social Credit Party was entirely in control and responsible for the provincial economy, starts on new dwellings fell from 424 to 312 in the Victoria metropolitan area. This reflected what was happening throughout the province. For example, in Greater Vancouver the fall in new housing starts was from 1,336 to 1,282 during the same period. In the two major metropolitan areas of British Columbia the number of housing and apartment units under construction in January, 1977 - one year after Social Credit came to power - was 13,252. Most of these units were in the beginning of construction when the Social Credit Party formed the government.

Twelve months later, in January, 1978, that figure had fallen to 10,441 housing starts. In short, the housing industry, on which our plumbers and many other subcontractors depend, was closing down. Today, with some 30 per cent of union members normally employed in the construction industry out of work, that winding down is continuing.

In mid-1976, the man in question had outstanding credit of some $50,000, and he was becoming uneasy about his debtors being able to pay it back. Today that outstanding amount is $20,000, so his debtors have been able to repay $30,000 in the past two years. But he is reluctant to build up that kind of debt again. He has no confidence in the economy, so he has withdrawn. His business is now down to himself and his wife, who acts as bookkeeper. Now his only anticipation is to be able to get out of the business. He's not going bankrupt like so many others, he's voluntarily leaving. He's leaving, hoping to collect his outstanding receivables and planning to move to England, where possibly he can start in business again.

Significantly, this man's departure from British Columbia will not be recorded in the bankruptcy statistics. No one will notice but the man himself, his family, his friends and neighbours. And there are hundreds of families in this precise position, whose numbers will not be recorded by the statisticians, but whose dashed hopes and sorrow and anxiety are very real. This is all as a direct result of

[ Page 437 ]

the punitive and oppressive taxes and costs which this government introduced, and which all but demolished disposable income and demand for goods and services in the province of British Columbia.

Let's have a look at another case, Mr. Speaker, again close at hand. Four years ago a trained artisan, a commercial potter, settled in Saanich and set up a business. He developed regular clients in Vancouver, three different outlets, and he started a retail store of his own in a market in Saanich. That was in 1975. Things didn't look so bad for the craftsman applying his skill and energy and enterprise. But at the end of the year the government changed. The potter really didn't pay much attention. He wasn't a New Democrat, anyway. Then, when he really thought about it, a free-enterprise government would probably be good f or him. After all, wasn't he a free-enterpriser? Indeed, did not he have something in common with these business people who were forming the new Social Credit government?

His hopes were high, like the plumber, like the thousands of others, and those hopes were dashed, Mr. Speaker. Within six months the new Social Credit government had increased insurance premiums on his truck enough so that, being a small operator, he felt pinched. Then the sales tax was raised from 5 to 7 per cent, and he became a little anxious about selling his products. Nevertheless, he continued to work and hope for the best. Then on June 1 the new Social Credit government, the government with which he thought he had something in common, raised the ferry rates by 100 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: And more!

MR. KING: Within a few weeks he realized that he could not supply his outlets in Vancouver any more at the existing prices. He tried, but increasingly he had to give up on each of them. In the meantime, all his overhead continued to rise. His sales in the Saanich retail outlet dwindled as well, because the tourists were no longer coming to Victoria. He, like so many others, depended on tourism, but they just didn't come. His per-unit cost rose, Mr. Speaker, to the point where he, too, has closed his business and is now looking for opportunities in another province.

I think the significant thing here, Mr. Speaker, is that these two cases are very real, but they are not recorded as bankruptcies. I suggest that if all the members in this House were truthful, each and every one of us could cite at least half a dozen such circumstances in our own ridings, where similar businesses have been obliged to close their doors because of the oppressive approach to economics that this government has displayed in the last two and a half years. We know that's going on. That's the reality. It's small wonder there's a lack of confidence. It's small wonder that we've got the highest unemployment level in post-war years.

I find it really strange and ironic to sit here and listen to the lip service that is paid to the budget by various members on that side of the House. I know that it's a bit of whistling in the dark. I know that there's genuine concern, but they're maintaining a political front. That strong, brave, political front has only been broken by the statements of the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) that he is disillusioned, that he is afraid of what his constituents are going to say, and that he's got a lot of company in that coalition back bench. That would not be the case, Mr. Speaker, if he had confidence in strong policies put forward by the government. He'd be willing and anxious and enthusiastic to go out and meet the people in his riding and to tell them what policies and provisions this government has for the north.

What about the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) ? 4e's quoted on the front page of The Province today as rapping the BCR and rapping the royal commission's recommendation that the Fort Nelson line be shut down. Well, those sound like brave words too, Mr. Speaker. After all, that member should not forget that it was his government that commissioned the royal commission study into the British Columbia Railway. His government had, just received a mandate from the people to make political decisions in this province, but escaped the responsibility to do so by setting up yet another commission of inquiry to look into the destiny and the economic circumstances of the British Columbia Railway. When that commission comes in with a much belated report which the government sat on for months while the economy of the north was deteriorating, that member sat silently, and then he pretends surprise that a recommendation comes to his government to close the line down. His government should have taken the initiative to grasp the nettle and make the political decision in the first instance. They didn't need a royal commission to assume the responsibility which they themselves should have shouldered.

Interjection.

[ Page 438 ]

MR. KING: If that member has any commitment, if that member has any courage, he will defend the people of Fort Nelson with a decision that he will resign his seat unless the government abandons the recommendation. It's very simple. If he wants to be tough about it, if he wants to be effective for the first time in his life in any endeavour, all he has to do is say to the government: "Look, we need a commitment now that that that rail line will continue to service the north, that it will bring lifeblood to the town of Fort Nelson, " or he'll resign his seat. If he has courage, if he has commitment, let him do so. To try to divert the attention to a condemnation of the royal commission, which his own cabinet set up, is a bit shallow.

Let's talk about overruns for a few minutes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You know all about that.

MR. KING: Yes, we do, my friend. You were not even in the House at the time when the debate regarding NDP overruns was going on. Where are those who suggest that you should not be here now, but I leave that up to the voters and I'm sure they will take care of that.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor. Would the Minister of Human Resources (Ron. Mr. Vander Zalm) please stop interrupting.

MR. KING: That's the way to go after him, Mr. Speaker. He's always out of order, that member.

Interjection.

MR. KING: If the people of British Columbia keep on suffering this government, the admonition of the Minister of Human Resources, I'm afraid, will be true: we'll all be eating tulip bulbs.

They've wrecked the economy. They've squandered the people's money for petty and vindictive political exercises. That minister should know something about wasting money. If he ran the economy of the province in the same way he runs his own enterprise for his own profit-making interest, I would say that he'd be doing a better job. But we are not having effective spending spending and effective cost control in the province of British Columbia. No, we're not.

Let's see what the Premier had to say about overruns when he sat as the Leader of the Opposition in this Legislature. I'm quoting from Hansard of February 4,1974:

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I hear a voice again interrupting me, a voice that is not located in its own stall - I mean chair. (Laughter.)

Let me quote from Hansard on February 4,1974. This is the Premier speaking:

"One year ago, Mr. Speaker, this Premier, this Minister of Finance, brought down his f first budget, his spending estimates for the next 12 months. Now, I wasn't here, but the record will show that my colleagues and, indeed, all private members of the House, faithfully debated, criticized this budget and reviewed the document at length. That was their responsibility.

"But the entire exercise was a sham, Mr. Speaker, because the document was a sham. The so-called budget was never intended to be a guide to the government's spending plans. We know that a little more than three months after this budget was passed this government authorized over $25 million of special warrants and expenditures which weren't included in budget. That figure of special warrants for expenditures not included in the budget is now aver $110 million. They did it all by that device which horrifies the Premier: the order-in-council, the censored order-in-council which says little and hides all."

Et cetera, et cetera. That was the Premier speaking about overruns.

And what are the overruns today for last year's government affairs? They are $215 million, Mr. Speaker, which this guy spent, beyond the approved estimates of the Legislature. This guy who calls himself a businessman, this guy who has the gall to talk about financial competence and proper cost control. Shame on him.

And what do they say about their overruns? They say: "Well, our overruns are okay because it's different; we're in power now." I guess that's the rationalization. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it means that we are standing in this Legislature and debating a budget and spending estimates for each ministry, which are rather meaningless. We see overruns approved by the executive council in secret meeting, which provide additional expenditures to various ministries to the tune of $215 million of the taxpayers' money, with no accountability to

[ Page 439 ]

this Legislature. The Premier used to find that completely horrifying. Now that the heavy reality of governing is upon him he abandons the principles, reverses his promises, reverses his commitments to the people, does anything to hold that coalition of convenience together. That's the nature of those birds, Mr. Speaker, and I use that word advisedly.

There were all kinds of scurrilous attacks from Social Credit when they sat in opposition. I want to read just one other little chapter from the same debate - the budget debate in 1974 - to refresh the memory of my friend from South Peace River.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I remember those dark days very well.

MR. KING: Yes, I remember them too; and indeed, they were dark days for the Legislature of British Columbia when a member of this House would make statements like these. Mr. Phillips is talking about the budget, Mr. Speaker, and this is on page 35 of the Hansard record, dated February 4,1974:

"Step No. 1: The Attorney-General says we can't give all this socialism at once because it will alarm the people. We must couch it in broad, general terms; we must tell them that we're going to establish a police commission. That's No. 1.

"But I know, Mr. Speaker, what the true intent of this is; I know what the Attorney- General intends to do."

The Attorney-General interjected, and said:

"Will you tell me, too?" Mr. Phillips went on: "Yes, certainly. You know; you've told people, Mr. Attorney-General, that you cannot tell the people all at once that you're going to establish a police force. You know that. You're afraid you'll frighten them. So you just gradually ease it in, the same as you did with Bill 42."

Police force! And away they went on the special police force - some kind of Gestapo, they suggested - and went around the province....

MR. KEMPF: It's the SS game.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca should know something about the SS. He certainly should, because they weren't there to protect him when he parachuted into Scotland. lie didn't have the SS with him on that occasion; he was all alone.

Mr. Speaker, I simply relate this to remind the members of this House, and to notify the new members who weren't a party to it at that time, of the completely scurrilous, irresponsible, baseless charges that were made by members in the Social Credit opposition at that time. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Economic Development would say anything whatsoever, just out of their imagination, that would be calculated to scare people, to bring lack of confidence to the province and to create unrest and social dissent - at any cost whatsoever, just so long as it served their political needs.

And these are the people that have the nerve now, when the opposition is debating the budget, to say: "You're bringing fear to the province, and creating a lack of confidence in the province." Imagine these people running around the province saying the NDP is setting up a secret police force! That is the kind of poison that should never be put forward in this Legislature without some facts to support it; and there were none. That is the kind of poison that this party has been confronted with - anything to get back political power.

It's the syndrome of the poor, spoiled rich kid that lost the candy. His Dad had given him everything in the past; he was used to receiving everything with very little effort. He wasn't prepared to work his way up through the ranks; he-came in, seized control of that party - passed along to him by Daddy - and then proceeded to sow this kind of poison as a method of seizing power. He wooed the Liberals, brought them in. I don't know what was offered, Mr. Speaker, but they were convinced that they should drop their party loyalty - if they ever had any - and compromise their principles for whatever they were worth. The same attack took place on the member for Saanich and the Islands (Ron. Mr. Curtis) - as he was then - until we found a coalition that was prepared to use any poisonous ruse to create lack of confidence in the community, to create support for their dubious coalition. And now they expect us to be nice boys, and talk about their budget in very parliamentary terms.

Mr. Skeena might get upset and not run again. How shameful! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But have the guts to say what the real reasons are. The S.q with the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) . Don't go around making empty threats. If you truly represent your riding, if you truly care for the economic security of your people, have the courage to get up and say: "Unless this government protects my riding, I will not protect this government. I will step down and I will take them on." Have that kind of courage, otherwise don't make

[ Page 440 ]

empty threats.

Mr. Speaker, these people bother me. I start out in all good humour - the best of hi our -and when I start recounting their sins, I become somewhat angry. That's not like me because I'm a very good-natured individual. But by golly, I don't know whether I'm any more angry than the taxpayers out there or not. I think they are pretty angry. It's significant that when we're looking at a budget that contains very little.... There's nothing in the way of any long-term definitive programmes to come to grips with unemployment; nothing in the way of any firm initiatives toward industrial development; nothing in the way of recognition of the needs of the north; very little of any positive, imaginative nature in this budget. Where's the poor spoiled rich kid today? He's not here; he's back east. He's the guy who used to sit here and quip that the Premier of that day was the "clown prince." That's what he said.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, as ye sow, so shall ye reap. If you want to indulge in those kind of personal attacks on the Premier.... I hesitate to call the Premier a poor spoiled rich kid. But having read his speech last night, having researched the kind of opposition he provided, the kind of vindictive sarcasm, the kind of personal attacks on the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) , who is now the leader of the opposition, I confess that I do not feel too inhibited anymore about the reference to the poor spoiled rich kid, because I believe it fits. I believe it fits. He should be here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

He should be here giving direction and leadership to the government. When the heat is on, he runs. I guess its no wonder that there are rumblings of dissent in the back bench. When we have a ship without a rudder; when we have one cabinet minister whose whole career and reputation is hanging by a narrow thread of lord knows what - some kind of political analysis by his former colleagues; when we have a province that is in distress; when we have 110,000 workers out there who are not productive today, not because of a strike or a lockout but because this government can't provide the confidence and the initiative to find productive work for them, the Premier should be here. He's a runaway kid.

This government asks that the population of this province have confidence in them. After taking away a buck from every citizen, every man, woman and child of this province, and then coming back like the old circus barker from Barnum & Bailey, they say: "One thin dime, one-tenth of a dollar bill, and see what good boys are we!" Shame on then, Mr. Speaker! I have no confidence in them. I'm ashamed of them.

As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, I must move Motion 6, standing in my name on the order paper, which reads as follows, seconded by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford):

"That the motion that 'Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the house to go into Committee of Supply' be amended by adding the following: 'but this House regrets that in the opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of government-imposed costs and taxes or to mobilize our human and natural resources toward a strategy of full employment, and also that no cost control provision has been offered to prevent unauthorized expenditures by special warrant overruns, which last year reached $215 million."'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First we must review the motion to be sure that it is in order. I notice the seconder has signed; technically, the motion is in order. As far as content of the motion, I appreciate the notice that we have received. Having given due consideration to the content, we find that the motion is in order.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: First of all, I would like to add my welcome to the House to the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) . The member for Oak Bay, Mr. Speaker, is a hard worker and he demonstrated that to me very clearly during the 1975 campaign when he ran in the constituency of Comox. I know that we will do his party credit in this Legislature and I certainly wish him well.

I've not formally congratulated you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation. I rather regret that we're discussing a motion which asks you to leave the Chair because you just got there.

I'm happy to second this amendment on behalf of the constituents of Comox. This is an overrun government, and that this government has overruns has become pretty clear in the last few weeks. But, Mr. Speaker, I'll bet you were surprised to find that this government has unprecedented overruns because you will recall the kind of yelling and screaming that took place when the previous government had overruns, which were about half of what they

[ Page 441 ]

are today. You must be surprised; these are unprecedented. You remember the hue and cry that was raised about a $100 million overrun in the Ministry of Human Resources under the previous government?

AN HON. MEMBER: A clerical error.

MS. SANFORD: But, Mr. Speaker, I'm just wondering if that group could have forgotten so soon. They're not saying too much these days about the current overrun; we're not hearing too much from that side about an unprecedented $200 million-plus overrun.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I have a lot to say about you later, Mr. Minister. Just be patient.

Mr. Speaker, they're not the millionaire money-managers that they would like to have the people of the province believe. They want us to think that under them the province is in great shape. Well, that's nonsense. It's a joke, Mr. Speaker. They can't even come within $200 million of a budget that they drew up. Money managers! Financial wizards! They're not business administrators, they're bunglers.

Let me give you just one example within the constituency of Comox of the kind of bungling that results in the overruns that we're seeing today. As as result of the decision that this government made to provide containment facilities for juveniles, the Attorney-General (Ron. Mr. Gardom) decided to convert the Lakeview forestry camp near Campbell River to a juvenile containment centre. The scheduled opening for that centre was January 1,1978. In anticipation of that opening a director was appointed, counsellors were hired, teachers were put on staff and a training programme was undertaken. The staff were ready for the January I opening but the centre did not open.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MS. SANFORD: The reason, Mr. Speaker, is bungling by that government, and let me illustrate. The renovation work for Lakeview centre commenced under the Ministry of Public Works; but then one day all of the workers suddenly disappeared from the site. The reason - Public Works was no longer in charge. It was now the responsibility of the B.C. Buildings Corporation to do the renovations. But the workers disappeared, and either the Buildings Corporation was unprepared to take over the renovation work at Lakeview camp or they hadn't been informed that they were supposed to do it, because nothing happened. All the renovation stopped, while the staff waited to take up their new duties. Today, Mr. Speaker, that building is still not open. Three and a half months after the date it was to be opened it is not ready.

MR. BARNES: What did it cost the taxpayers?

MS. SANFORD: The original estimates of the renovations were about half of what they really are. In other words they estimated approximately $250,000 to do the renovations. It's now up to half a million, and they're not finished yet and it's not opened yet.

What do we have? We have 27 people hired to manage that containment centre. We had 13 youth supervisors who were hired in October; four principal officers to run the centre -they were hired in September; we have a director; a clerk steno; a food services director; a chaplain; six auxiliaries. All of them were on staff by November. Here it is mid April and none of those staff have yet gone to work; they're still waiting. Mr. Speaker, that's waste, that's bungling. No wonder we have the kind of overruns that we're seeing today.

They're not business administrators, they're business bunglers. It's an overrun government. They have overrun and run over and run down the people who live in this province. They've run down the people and they've run down the economy, too. Their economic development policies are non-existent and I'm sorry to see the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has left the House.

They've put on excessive taxes and excessive costs in ferry rates, ICBC, medicare premiums, hospitalization, school taxes, ambulances, and on, and on, and on. Those increases, Mr. Speaker, have seriously hurt this economy. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we've seen a record number of bankruptcies in this province. People in this province are trying to participate in the democratic process. Under this government, they run into a brick wall.

Mr. Speaker, they did away will the the community resource boards, which were vehicles through which people could play a role in our democratic system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: They have centralized the Ministry of Education to the extent that local school boards, educators and parents have no say in what's going to happen in terms of education in British Columbia.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, they passed an Act in this House called the Pesticide Control

[ Page 442 ]

Act. We have a serious problem in our area where people are most concerned about the spraying of 2, 4-D along the power lines...

MR. LEA: They should spray the back bench.

MS. SANFORD: ... between Black Creek and Gold River. The people would like very much to be able to utilize the provisions under the new Pesticide Control Act, which was proclaimed last month, Mr. Speaker, and have some sort of an appeal process against Hydro's decision to go ahead and spray. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? I made inquiries on their behalf and there are no regulations yet. They do not have any appeal process set up yet. So it's unfortunate, but the government is not prepared to give the people that opportunity to participate in the democratic process by giving them an avenue through which they can appeal.

Just another example of the fact that they're not interested in hearing from the people. They're not interested in their views. They have no concern for people, Mr. Speaker. Not only have they stripped the wallets of the people of B.C., they've overrun and trampled their basic human rights.

Unlike the previous Minister of Labour, the member for Revels toke-Slocan, who just took his seat, this minister (Hon. Mr. Williams) has refused to appoint a board of inquiry into a number of human rights cases. He has refused to do so. The intent of the Human Rights Code is to ensure that basic human rights are not violated in B.C. What a bother to that government to have to deal with problems that relate to human rights! They're too busy, Mr. Speaker, selling off the Crown corporations to pay for their bungling, than to worry about a few human rights here and there. The Human Rights Commission ran out because the Minister of Labour failed to appoint them. For three and a half months, the province has been without a commission.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So what?

MS. SANFORD: Did you say "So what?"? So what?

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the minister himself has any concept of what human rights are all about. We don't have a Human Rights Commission? "So what?", he said.

Oh, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has just returned to the Rouse and I really must repeat this for his benefit. When I complained, Mr. Member, that this province has been without a Human Rights Commission for three and a half months, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) - and you won't believe this - said: "So what?".

The whole purpose of the Human Rights Commission was to enable the concept of human rights to be discussed in this province. It was to be promoted; it was an educational process. That's what those people were appointed to do, and you say: "So what?". They don't care about human rights, Mr. Speaker. They don't even understand them.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. SANFORD: Obviously it's not a priority of this government, Mr. Speaker, in terms of human rights - "So what?".

MR. LEA: If you were a member of the species, you'd have a different view.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have a runaway Premier. He runs and hides at every opportunity.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is not proper to interrupt the member who has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, they don't like to hear about their runaway Premier. They don't like to be reminded that he runs and hides at every opportunity. Mr. Speaker, he told the people of this province, when we had some problems during the time when Mr. Speaker Smith was in some difficulty, that he would meet with the leaders of the opposition to discuss the problem. And what happened? He ran away to Palm Springs. Yes, he did - he ran away.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is back in his seat because this morning he was outlining all of the great so-called benefits to the various municipalities in this province as a result of this budget. I would like to read into the record a copy of a letter which I have received from the city of Courtenay. It's signed by Mr. D. Ratcliffe, who is the city clerk administrator. The minister has a copy of this letter so I am sure he is aware of it.

"Dear sir:

"The council of the city of Courtenay wishes to express the strongest objection to the recent changes to assessment in school district 71 brought about by the Assessment Amendment Act, 1977, and the

[ Page 443 ]

subsequent order-in-council setting out the percentage values on each class of property. In particular, we are concerned with the massive reduction in assessed values as they pertain to timberland and tree-farm land in school district 71 which, although not in the city of Courtenay, affects the city in regards to the apportionment of costs relative to education and certain regional district functions charged out on a benefiting-area basis."

Mr. Speaker, what has happened there is that they've had a massive reduction in the amount of money that they can count on this year and are appealing to the government. He goes on to say:

"From the attached schedules you will note the shift in the tax burden from timberland and tree-farm areas on to the municipalities, and in particular the city of Courtenay. I think you will agree that an overall reduction of $13 million on a total assessment base of $116 million at the best of times is too severe a strain to place on the municipal property taxpayers in any one year. And in view of the economic downswing throughout the district over the past 12 months, the acceptance of the tax shift is even more difficult to bear.

"It is unreasonable to expect any group of taxpayers to be subjected to such a dramatic upheaval in the incidence of property taxation, regardless of the circumstances, and my council would appreciate anything that the provincial government could do to lessen the impact of the tax shift."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who's the mayor?

MS. SANFORD: It's Mayor Bill Moore. I'm really surprised you didn't know.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Yes. I'm not quite clear what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is referring to, as to whether or not I might know the name of the mayor in the city of Courtenay.

I have another copy of a letter here, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and housing to the mayor in Alert Bay. His name is Mayor Gilbert Popovich, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing addresses him as Mayor Hopovick, so he doesn't obviously know....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I just don't understand what the minister is getting at.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member, and don't be easily distracted by interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I'm pleased to see the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is back, because, Mr. Speaker, that minister is the one who is forever running off at the mouth. We have a number of nicknames for him. Leather-lungs and Motor-mouth are some of them, Mr. Speaker. He shouts a lot.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it seems to me that this is an excellent ....

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry if I used one of the words that's on the list.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's a vicious attack!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that it's perhaps timely to remind the hon. members that during an amendment, the scope of debate on an amendment is limited strictly to that which is specified in the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Yes. But, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We do not have the same scope as we do on an address in reply or on a motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair. I must insist on strict relevancy. Continue, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the motion did refer to overruns and it did refer to economic development, so I shall proceed.

Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Economic Development shouts a lot in hopes of covering up the fact that he is a failure as a Minister of Economic Development. He felt, when he came into the Comox constituency not too long ago, that the people in the constituency would be convinced through all the noise and bombast that he was doing a good job. He uses that technique a lot in this House, but he doesn't convince us. He tried to convince the people up in Port Hardy, Mr. Speaker, that this government was about to undo all of the damage that they had done to the economy.

I would like to quote from an editorial which

[ Page 444 ]

appeared in the North Island Gazette, published in Port Hardy, just after the Minister of Economic Development had been up there in early March. This editor is not an NDPer. I suppose I should clarify that. The editorial says:

"B.C. Economic Development Minister Don Phillips was the big drawing card for the second annual Port Hardy Chamber of Commerce president's ball last Saturday night. Tickets were snapped up so eagerly that a number of people who put off getting theirs until the final days were unable to attend, because every available seat was filled. By half past eight Saturday evening, these absentees were the envy of almost every one of the 150 people who sat suffering through Don Phillips' speech.

"A number of guests, seated sufficiently far back in the room to avoid being overtly rude to the minister, slipped quietly out for mental relief as the speech plodded on. As this is written, two days later, our mind is still so numbed by Phillips' speech that it is difficult to analyse what made it the disaster it was. And it was a disaster so much so that many Socreds stalwarts are still frankly embarrassed and don't want to discuss it. Others such as C. Salmon of Woss, an avowed Socred stalwart, have been harshly critical. Salmon told the minister to his face during the question period after the speech that it had not engendered confidence and it said next to nothing."

Can you imagine - a stalwart Socred member saying that that minister, representing that government, does not give confidence? We've been hearing for days about the doom and gloom that is coming from this side of the House, but the Socred members' staunch supporters who heard their own minister speak came away and said they had no confidence.

I will continue to quote from the editorial, Mr. Speaker:

" 'You don't have to tell us we live in B.C., ' Salmon told Phillips. 'We know we're in B.C.'

"What went wrong? Before dinner, Phillips appeared to be a simple, down-to-earth, straightforward sort of person. On his feet, before his audience, he came across as very shallow and far from candid.

'One of the first things we did in Victoria, ' Phillips told his audience, 'wa~ introduce new confidence in the private sector.'

"That might have been true at the time, but it is now more than two years later and that was a curious statement for an Economic Development minister to make when virtually all that confidence has publicly evaporated and business bankruptcies are at a historically high level in B.C.

"As evidence of the confidence shown in his government by business, Phillips chose some unfortunate examples. He noted millions being 'invested' by Cominco and Trail, which is a curious way to describe money Cominco is being compelled to spend in order to avoid a pollution shutdown and to keep its ancient plant from crumbling apart and sinking in the slag heap.

"He mentioned this past winter's oil industry activity, and specifically the 60 drilling in his own Peace River area, as evidence brought about by confidence. This is certainly true. All that drilling was indeed brought about through confidence, but it was the confidence in the new oil and gas deposits that had been discovered, not in any political party. The Socreds put in almost two years in of f ice and then the oil companies suddenly displayed their confidence after they struck oil and gas.

"Members and guests of the Port Hardy Chamber of Commerce may live in the backwoods, but we were not born yesterday and no speaker who claims such patently undeserved credit for his cause is going to be accorded much respect here, even by supporters of the cause. "However, probably the most telling mark against Phillips was the lack of interest in, and knowledge about, the North Island, which he displayed. Apart from opening courtesies, he said nothing about this region; in fact he said nothing at all about anything, beyond misleading claims and empty slogans."

Mr. Speaker, I won't quote any more from that.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Well, maybe I should quote a bit more. Everybody's encouraging me to quote more.

"Some of the slogans were dandies, such as the favorite of disgraced former U.S. president Richard Nixon: 'When the going gets tough, the tough get going.' We've heard that before, haven't we? Then there was: 'Help the needy, not the greedy.' "

The other one that is quoted in this editorial is "Fine tune our social programmes." and the editorial writer says

[ Page 445 ]

there were other gems as well.

I'll finish with this excerpt from this editorial. "One thing Phillips said in his speech stood out because it rang so true. That was when he said towards the end: 'I guess I'm not much of a politician.' "

Within two weeks, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was invited by the Campbell River chamber of commerce to address a meeting there. But I think word had come down from Port Hardy about the speech that he gave up there because only 15 people attended a public meeting sponsored by the chamber of commerce.

The increase in taxes and user rates, coupled with the dismal performance of the Economic Development minister, has left the economy of B.C. in dire shape. Taking a dollar from the taxpayer and giving back a dime just isn't good enough. The result of their economic policies has been the record number of bankruptcies and 109,000-plus people unemployed.

The anguish and the anxiety that the unemployed feel I think only they can describe. The costs of increased health problems, mental depression, alcoholism and antisocial behaviour resulting from the frustration of not being able to find work are difficult to measure. But the lost dollars in production can be measured. in 1977, 9.6 million workers in this country produced $180 billion worth of goods. If the unemployed had been working, another $16.7 billion would have been produced. So we are losing about $2 billion in production for every one percentage point of unemployment.

What are the costs in UIC and in lost tax revenue? If unemployment in Canada today was cut in half, we would save $1.5 billion in unemployment insurance payments and generate $2 billion in tax revenue. The costs of unemployment in this country are staggering.

Last week we had the Minister of Labour (Ron. Mr. Williams) stand up in this debate, and he quoted some selected statistics to support his contention that the Social Credit government has done an adequate job of creating employment in this province. The minister carefully selected a particular month instead of giving us the figures for the entire year, which incidentally paint an entirely different picture of the competence of this government.

When the NDP took office in 1972 there were 879,000 people employed in this province. When we left office in 1975 there were 1,009, 000 people employed. These are average figures for the year: 1,009, 000 people employed. In other words, there were 130,000 more jobs in this province when we left office. That's an average of 43,000 jobs a year that were created during that period of time we were in office.

Under two years of Social Credit mismanagement, the average number of jobs in British Columbia last year was 1,065, 000. In other words, there were 56,000 more jobs in two years, which works out to an average of 28,000 jobs a year as opposed to 43,000 jobs a year that were created during the time we were in office.

The creation of employment is a serious matter in this province, whether the Social Credit government is willing to admit it or not. The government cannot just fold its hands and walk away from the problem, saying it is up to private industry to take up the slack or it's up to the federal government to do something about the problem. Every province has to pull its weight. This province is not pulling its weight since Social Credit came in.

I wonder if they have even sat down and asked themselves how many jobs have to be created in this province this year, next year and the year after that. Nothing I have seen or heard from them to date would give me any indication that they know or they care. Every June more of our young people graduate from high school or from university and join the ranks of the unemployed, but this government does nothing and will not even admit that the problem exists.

Children who were born in 1960 will be graduating in June and will be looking for work. Whether they go to university or not, they still are going to have to be employed for some portion of the year; and four or so years down the road they are going to have to have jobs on a permanent basis. If they don't find jobs, they are going to swell the ranks of the unemployed either here or in some other province. The children born in 1961 in British Columbia will be graduating next year, and so on. But, Mr. Speaker, that government has not even planned for those students who will be coming onstream this year and next year and the year after that.

We can develop a fairly accurate picture of how many jobs we are going to need to create this year and next year and 10 years down the road if we look at some of the figures that are available to us. In 1960 there were 40,116 babies born in British Columbia. Those are the kids that are coming on to the market this year. We will assume for the moment that immigration into the province remains at the same level as last year - approximately 16,000 persons; that's what it's been at for a few

[ Page 446 ]

years. That gives us a total of 55,971 new people who want to work this year, 1978, in British Columbia. A certain number of people are going to retire from the work force in B.C. The Department of Labour - while it does a fair amount of research into a number of areas - does not research the number of people who retire from employment every year. But if we use the Canada Pension Plan figures, we determine that about 1 per cent of the labour force retires every year. So let's assume that 11,000 people will retire this year. Unfortunately, every year in B.C. a certain number of people die, and according to the vital statistics branch, approximately 6,000 people are lost from the work force each year through death, from one cause or another.

This still leaves us with a net increase of 38,501 people for whom jobs have to be found, just to keep pace with those young people that are coming on stream - 38,000. That's not taking into account the number of jobs that are going to be lost through mill closures, or plant shut-downs, stores going out of business or mine closures - we know that's happening in this province. And that's also assuming that no one else moves in from any of the other provinces in Canada.

Without taking into account the 109,000 now unemployed, the number of mills and plants that are going to shut down, or the number of people that are coming in from other provinces, we're going to need an additional 38,000 jobs just to keep up with the people that are coming into the work force this year. Let's look at the actual figures for 1976 and 1977, the year of which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was so proud when he spoke the other day in the House. In 1958, there were 39,000 babies born in British Columbia -39,577 - and there were 20,484 immigrants to British Columbia in 1976. The babies born in 1958 would be coming into the work force in 1976. That makes a total, Mr. Speaker, of 60,061 people who were going to be looking for work. Now its estimated that 10,000 workers retired in 1976 and some 6,000 died, leaving a total of about 16,000 leaving the work force. So we had a net increase of 43,000 workers -actual workers. The number of jobs increased by 29,000 in 1976, but we needed 43,000; so we have a shortfall of 14,700 jobs in 1976.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more information on this which I know will be valuable to the Minister of Labour, because we can project down the road f or years to come the number of jobs that are going to be needed. Mr. Speaker, this budget does not provide for those kinds of jobs. This budget does not even begin to come to grips with the problems of unemployment in British Columbia. This government has got to come to grips with it. They are bunglers, they are a government of overruns, a government that runs over the people, runs down the economy, and now as they're coming apart at the seams, the whole bunch of them are on the run. Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in seconding the motion by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) .

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the members again about the question of relevancy. We are on an amendment and are restricted in scope.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the member moving the resolution sat down, he was under the impression that he only had 40 minutes to speak. The green light was on; he had been told that he had three minutes to go. However, he did have another 20 minutes, according to the standing orders. I wonder in future if a seconder could be accorded the Speaker's advice in being told that he has another 20 minutes; and I wonder if the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) could be afforded the 20 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: I would be delighted to accommodate him, with one exception; and that is that, as pertaining to standing orders in this House, the onus is on the individual member to have knowledge of the rules, and a point of order should have been raised at the time. As much as I would like to, I cannot , accept the objection at this time. had it occurred at the time, I think I would have been able to do it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I rise here this morning to oppose this amendment to the budget speech. I would like to outline to the House some facts and figures for my opposition.

I was very interested to hear the remarks of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , and I was also very interested in some of the unemployment figures that she had; and I will once again, for about the fourth time in this House, attempt to set the record straight -from the figures, the source of which is the same as when they were in government. But, Mr. Speaker, what bothered me about the sort of action that they're taking is that it is not based on the true facts and figures; and it grieves me to see that that group over there will really not listen or pay any attention to the facts as they are today - black and white, cold, hard facts about unemployment, about investment in this province and about the progress that we're making in this great

[ Page 447 ]

province.

I was interested in the remarks of the member for Comox about her particular area. In her particular area - the upper part of the Island - because of the great initiatives by this government in being able to complete the road to that area, there will be a great deal of economic development. over and above that, the British Columbia Development Corporation and the ferry authority are investing literally millions and millions of dollars, which will be of great benefit to her area.

First of all, because of the sound financial management of this government and because we have the money, we were able to make a decision whereby the Ministry of Highways is going to spend approximately $2.5 million to build a road from downtown Port Hardy to Bear Cove. In Bear Cove there will be a new ferry terminal which will mean the expenditure of several millions of dollars; the Development Corporation is opening up a new industrial park at Bear Cove, and already we have 10 firm who have shown a great deal of interest in locating in that area. Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of economic activity going on in that member's riding; and the reason it's able to go on is the sound financial management of this government -being able to carry on, finish that highway to the upper Island, change the ferry terminal and put in industrial parks. It grieves me to hear that member stand up and talk about what this government should do to create jobs.

She hasn't outlined, nor has any other member from that woebegone group over there outlined, any positive programmes; they keep saying that the government should spend more money to create jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, as a rule of thumb you can use $30,000 to $35,000 to create a permanent job - not a make-work program*-_ by expenditures of government, which has, by the way, been going on in Canada for the last 20 years. That type of policy is the type of policy that has Canada in the situation it's in today - that type of short-term thinking, that type of make-work programme, that take-it-away-from-the-taxpayer-today-when-he-has-to-pay-it-back- tomorrow policy. That type of policy hasn't worked in Canada; and all the amount of preaching by that side of the House is not going to stop us from continuing our broad plans to provide jobs for those kids whom she was talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to outline to the House for a moment some of the expenditures that have been carried on in the province for the last four years. They tell me that this motion is really frivolous because what is actually happening is that, in the last two years, the expenditures of British Columbia capital by the private and public sector have shown a good, substantial increase over the years of 1974 and 1975.

For instance, in 1974 there were $560.6 million expended by the primary resource industries in British Columbia. In 1975, Mr. Speaker, that went up $3 million to $563.6 million.

MR. LAUK: Use the total figures.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now in the first year as soon as we restored confidence to this province the figure increased. Remember 1 said in 1975 it was $563.6 million - in 1976 that figure went up to a whopping $678 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't just a short decision on behalf of industry in British Columbia. It was a figure that told us that our policies have again restored confidence to this province. And what happened in the year 1977? In the year 1977, that figure went up to $840.9 million. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in two short years the expenditure has increased by practically one-third - a 20.5 per cent increase in 1976, and a 23.8 per cent increase in the year 1977. Now that's confidence, and that is money being expended to provide jobs for those kids that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was talking about, because we realize our great responsibility as the government of British Columbia to leave to those kids a heritage to have a strong and vibrant economy, and a heritage to have the same opportunities that we had when we were growing up. We will live up to that responsibility and, Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured that we understand what our responsibility is. Our responsibility is not to go out and spend the taxpayers' dollars today so that those kids will have to pay for it tomorrow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to look for just a few moments, to show you how frivolous this amendment is, at some other figures. I'd like to say that in the year 1974, in forest-related industries, there were expenditures in the province of British Columbia of $657.6 million. In 1975 that figure reduced to $540 million, and in the first year under Social Credit, as soon as confidence started to cow back to the lumber industry in British Columbia, it went back up to $663.1 million, and last year again it was a whopping ~819 million. That money is being spent to provide jobs for the future generations. That money is being spent because there is confidence once again in the policies

[ Page 448 ]

of the government of British Columbia. In other words, in the forest industry in 1976 there was a 22 per cent increase in expenditure, and in 1977 a 23 per cent increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take the time of the House to go over all the sectors....

MR. LEA: Go ahead!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'll tell you. They want some more figures. I'm glad you asked.

MR. LAUK: Bury yourself!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let's take a look at investment in manufacturing in the province of British Columbia. In 1974, $319 million were spent; in 1975 there was a big increase - it went up to $320 million. Now what happened in 1976 when confidence was again restored in this province? Invested in manufacturing, except forest products, were $342 million. And what happened last year in investment in manufacturing? You talk about secondary industry in British Columbia. You tell me there's no secondary industry in British Columbia. What happened last year because the manufacturing industry has faith in the policies of this government, has faith in what we're doing with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, has faith in the paper that we submitted to Ottawa last year outlining the western provinces' attitude towards freer trade? What happened last year because of these great policies, Mr. Speaker? Investment in the manufacturing industry, which includes food and beverages, metal fabricating, transportation equipment, petroleum and coal products, chemicals and other manufacturing, went up to $441.9 million. The increase in the first year of Social Credit government was 6.9 per cent, but as soon as people recognized that we indeed were running this province on a sound fiscal policy, last year the expenditure in the manufacturing industries rose 29.1 per cent.

Now I don't suppose, Mr. Speaker, that they want to hear it. As I say, there are some other things that I would love to talk about today, so I'm going to summarize.

The total private and public investment in the province of British Columbia in 1974 was $5,400, 600,000. In 1975, under the NDP there was an increase of about $400 million and it went to $5,806, 200,000. But in our first year as government, the total expenditures by the public and private sector - and that is with us cutting back on some government expenditures due to necessity, due to the fact that they left the kitty empty and we didn't have the money - went up an additional $500 million to $6,359, 700,000 in the first year. In 1977, to create jobs, investment in British Columbia by both the private and the public sector there was another increase of 12 per cent and on up to $7,161, 700,000 - an increase of $802 million over the previous year.

Now I say that's progress. I say that because there is again confidence in the province of British Columbia. The private sector is again investing in our great province, and that proves to me that our policies, Mr. Speaker, are indeed functioning.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline to the House just one other aspect where we are again endeavouring to get investment in the province of British Columbia.

During the term of the NIP, they signed in 1974 a General Development Agreement with the federal government. What did they do under that General Development Agreement? Well, they sat around here, and I remember them criticizing Ottawa and condemning Ottawa and condemning Ottawa policies. But what did they do in order to get some of the taxpayers' money - the taxpayers of British Columbia who send their money to Ottawa? What did they do to try and get some of that money back, to equalize some of the payments that are made to the other provinces? They did absolutely practically nothing.

But in the last two years, because this government has done their homework, because this government goes to Ottawa prepared, because this government does its research and because this government goes to the federal government and sells their programmes and doesn't stand out in the public and criticize them, but goes to the federal government and sells them on the benefits of investing in British Columbia, we have signed major agreements. We have a new $60 million ARDA agreement which indeed will benefit the agricultural community in British Columbia. That is the largest ARDA agreement that has ever been signed between Ottawa and British Columbia. The thrust of that agreement is to help our agricultural community to upgrade our grazing lands, to see that eventually British Columbia becomes self-sufficient in cattle. That is the main thrust of that programme.

Over and above that, we have signed a new northern transportation agreement for $10 million. We got an agreement going with Ottawa to develop and do the studies on developing the northeastern coal fields, which has been criticized in this House by the socialist

[ Page 449 ]

opposition. I will speak about that at greater length in one of my future debates in this Legislature. Over and above that, Mr. Speaker, we signed the west coast ferry agreement, which for the first time in history brings some Ottawa money back to help the people who use the ferries in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we signed after a great deal of homework and after a great deal of debate in Ottawa what I am told is one of the best industrial subsidiary agreements ever signed in Canada. That was signed a year ago last July - one of the best agreements not to pass out money but to help create industrial parks, help small businessmen with low-interest loans, help the small businessman with some forgivable loans. But the main thrust is to provide the infrastructure and the climate to invite investment in jobs for the future in the province of British Columbia.

They have the audacity to stand in this House and bring in this motion and say that we haven't done anything to restore confidence in the future or to bring back investment so that there will be more jobs created.

We've heard a lot in this House about bankruptcies in the province of British Columbia. Again they fail to understand the common denominators of economics, because new businesses, usually if they're going to go broke, go broke in the first year or 18 months. But while they condemn the number of bankruptcies, Mr. Speaker, they fail to realize that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of new companies formed in the province of British Columbia in the last two years. For the sake of the record, Mr. Speaker, again I will outline to the House the facts.

Let's go back to the NDP years. In 1973, incorporations of B.C. companies totalled 9,402; in 1974, 9,766; in 1975, 10,267; in 1976, the figure went up to 12,355; and last year, the figure went up to 13,209 new companies incorporated in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said in this House that the number of new companies being formed in British Columbia was because partnerships or individuals in business were forming companies to get around the tax laws. That's not so, because the registrations of extra-provincial companies, companies coming into British Columbia and forming companies in British Columbia, follows the same trend. So all of that talk that they are making over there, Mr. Speaker, is absolute and utter garbage.

In 1973 there were 573 registrations of extra-provincial companies in British Columbia. In 1974 it went down to 540 because extra-provincial companies were not coming into the province while those birds were in office. In 1975 there were 544. In 1976, the first year under good, solid fiscal policies, under good solid management, under the new confidence because the people of Canada, the people of the world knew that the province was again back under good management.... They recognized, Mr. Speaker, that those birds over there had been trying to be government for 20 years. They knew that they had got in and that their policies were foreign to British Columbia. They knew that they had been chucked out. They recognized they'd never be back. So confidence again was restored and in 1976,657 extra provincial companies registered in British Columbia, up from 544 their last year. And last year the figure went up to 745, an all-time high.

Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest to you that this amendment is frivolous. The greatest threat to confidence in the province of British Columbia, the greatest threat to new investment in British Columbia, the greatest threat to people coming in here and establishing companies is the threat that that group over there may once again form the government; that's the biggest threat there is.

In just two and a quarter years we have been able to turn the direction of this province around from going to the brink of financial disaster to inviting confidence back into the province.

When our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) unveiled this great budget - this budget that is for the future kids that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was talking about, to preserve their heritage and to assure them a future - when this budget was being laid in this Legislature by the Minister of Finance, 1 watched the faces of the opposition members. They were motionless and they were ashen grey because they couldn't believe that, under sound fiscal policy, I'm could in such a short term make such a dramatic change in the fiscal policies and in the finances of the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They still haven't got their colour back.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, they still haven't got their colour back.

It doesn't matter what area you talk about -whether you talk about the great policies of the British Columbia Development Corporation,

[ Page 450 ]

how in practically every area of the province they are creating new confidence and bringing new, tremendously exciting projects on stream - it doesn't matter whether you talk about what's going on in Comox or talk about the great new port development at Nanaimo that those birds over there stalled for three years while they were in government.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about building confidence and about creating jobs. I was approached in my office shortly after the election by the Nanaimo Harbour Commission. They said: "Mr. Phillips, we want your help to get a port development going at Nanaimo, a port development that we have been trying to get going for three years. But because of the policies of that government, we have not been able to get the project off the ground." I said: "You'll have my help, you'll have the help of my ministry and, indeed, you'll have the help of the entire government."

So what did we do? We went out and we said "Yes. We want to see this great development go ahead." What was the stumbling block? The stumbling block was the policies - and they talk about our policies - of that government who would not transfer the foreshore rights to the federal government, who hopefully will invest tens of millions of dollars in this project. Because of their stupid, idiotic policy of not transferring the foreshore rights to the federal government, that great programme, which will provide 2,500 new jobs in this province, was held up. What did we say, Mr. Speaker? We said: "Certainly, absolutely, and positively we will transfer those foreshore leases to you on the provision that the province of British Columbia controls the backlands so that we don't have it controlled by one company."

What have we done, Mr. Speaker? We put the package together. We have done our engineering and the government, through BCDC, put the money up and bought that land. We've made progress and we're just waiting. We're just waiting for the final firm proposal from Ottawa, to see that that project is going to go ahead and to see those new 2,500 jobs. Those are permanent jobs in the industries that will locate there, not government expenditures today to make big wheels out of yourselves.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you. When we first became government we could have taken the easy road. We could have gone out and made big fellows out of ourselves. We could have borrowed a billion dollars against the future of those kids that the member f or Comox was talking about. We could have spent all kinds of money. Short-term employment - a debt against the future of the future generations.

No, Mr. Speaker, we said we will build slowly, we will build steadily, and the jobs that we create will be permanent jobs. That's ~he type of project that we're building throughout the province and that's the type of project, like a great new port development in Nanaimo, that we've had the courage and the guts and the vision to bring to reality. Very shortly, we will have an announcement from Ottawa laying out their proposition, and I have no doubt in my mind that that great project will go ahead.

Throughout the province, there are similar projects. In Kamloops....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm going to talk about New Westminster.

I hope that member for New Westminster doesn't vote for this amendment, because it's a type of project, the type of vision, the type of farsightedness that is going on that he had absolutely no input into. It was the member for Burnaby that had the vision to work with us to put that together, completely rebuilding the downtown core of the heart of his constituency to provide jobs for future generations, to restore that great city, that great first capital of British Columbia, to restore it to its rightful role in the economy of British Columbia. Those are just two of the great projects, and I hate to go on.

What did we do in Prince Rupert? We had vision.

MR. LEA: Nothing. You've done nothing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That member for Prince Rupert had absolutely no input. Not once, Mr. Speaker, has that member for Prince Rupert ever been in my office making one solid suggestion as to what this government could do for the great city of Prince Rupert. No! He spends his time over here flogging used furniture. Never has that member ever stood on the floor of this House or been in my office.

MR. SPEAKER: Please, back to the amendment, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They have said we haven't done anything to restore confidence, that we haven't done anything to create jobs. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that member has never given one concrete suggestion as to what we could do in his riding. It was the Development Corporation with the great new dynamic policies that went in there and said

[ Page 451 ]

we should have a grain elevator, said we should repair the old one, that Ridley Island should be developed, again put their money on the line and bought up property there so that we can create new jobs for future generations. And I suppose that he's going to stand up and support this amendment, when he hasn't given me or hasn't given on the floor of this House one concrete suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on because my time is limited, and I have so many projects and so many wonderful things that this government is doing that I'd like to talk about. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I could stand here till 6 o'clock this evening if the members would care to listen, and tell them. We have done so much on every front. We have programmes for people; we have dynamic new development projects. We have done so much that I could stand here till 6 o'clock tonight relating them.

Mr. Speaker, we recognized that in order to have secondary manufacturing in British Columbia for long-term policies, for the future generations, we had to move to new high-technology types of industries. In my ministry, through working with the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , we are knitting together a complete new programme to knit the research in the universities, to knit the research of B.C. Research, to work with Ottawa on new research programmes, to use government and to use the research of individual corporations - a complete package of new research and development to establish new high-technology industry in British Columbia. We recognize that these new high-technology industries are the industries of the future; we recognize that these new high-technology industries are indeed the growth industries and we are making progress. Mr. Speaker, the Development Corporation will be the instrument to allow these industries to come in. Maybe we'll have to put up some facility, maybe we'll have to rent them out, but we are making it possible to happen. We are working with Ottawa; we are working with business. We have checked all of the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we've checked all of the research parks in North America. We have discovered how they operate, so that when we start our research park it will be something positive, it will be something tangible and it will work. Mr. Speaker, I'm not much for making predictions, but I predict that in the future British Columbia will be the leader in high-technology industries in all of Canada. I'll tell you why: we will accentuate the positive. We recognize that we have something in British Columbia that the other provinces don't have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. We have a great climate. We have, in Vancouver, one of the most beautiful cities in all of the world. We recognize that scientists and chemists and the people who will be the researchers, the people who will work with our universities, and the high-technology people who will work with industry will be invited to that great city because in that great city we will be able to point out all of the benefits.

And what do we have going? We have, Mr. Speaker, our great Minister of Tourism who will see, and who again is working on positive jobs for the future, working towards a great convention centre in that great city of Vancouver. It's not idle talk, not flailing at a dead horse. We are putting the thing together with positive, imaginative new programmes, and, Mr. Speaker, we will make the province of British Columbia a great place, whether they come in Vancouver or whether they come elsewhere, to come and live - they're coming already. But we will in the future, through the dynamic policies of this great minister, the Minister of Tourism for British Columbia, and through initiatives by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, make this great province of ours into a four-season vacation land, and we will have tourists coming here in the summer, in the spring, in the fall and in the autumn.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many seasons?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And they won't just be coming to Vancouver, because I want to tell you, we have right now on the drawing boards -it's not announced because it's going on gradually and quietly - four great, new, major ski developments in the province of British Columbia. We will not be negative, Mr. Speaker; we will accentuate the positive.

1 know that time is moving on. I want to talk just again about a few other areas where this great province, through these dynamic policies, is moving ahead. Let's take a look at Houston. What did we do in Houston? The Development Corporation went into Houston, and against great odds and against carping criticism from the opposition. What did they do? They put together a land package. They put together a new industrial park. And what's happening in Houston now? I'll let the member for Houston tell you what's happening: new

[ Page 452 ]

jobs are presently being created. I'll tell you, these aren't make-work jobs. These aren't government expenditures to create make-work jobs, to make big fellows out of ourselves today. No, Mr. Speaker, they're new jobs, and they're permanent jobs. Most important of all, they're jobs created by investment from the private sector, not the government.

Mr. Speaker, practically anywhere you go in this great province there are new, imaginative, dynamic things happening. In spite of the type of negativism that is brought to light in this amendment - in spite of all that, in spite of that negativism, in spite of that threat - this great province is moving solidly and steadily forward to create new long-lasting permanent jobs by investment from the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words about the very positive action we have taken with regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It has been said in this House before and I will say it again now: the decision that will be made in Geneva with regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will be the most important decision that will be made in the world in this decade affecting secondary industry and manufacturing in the province of British Columbia, and indeed in all western Canada.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we recognized it as one of our priorities when we were setting up this great, dynamic blueprint for the economy of British Columbia - the blueprint to preserve jobs for the future, the blueprint to preserve the future of those young people that are being born today. We recognized it as one of the key issues. And what did we do, Mr. Speaker? We put untold research into this. We got together with the other provinces - the province of Manitoba, the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Alberta - and we knocked on the door in Ottawa. We said: "Because this is such a dynamic policy, because it is going to have such an impact on the future of western Canada, you must pay attention to us."

Mr. Speaker, we recognized that Ottawa must pay attention to us; we recognized that we must have the opportunity for our input. So we did not go to Ottawa and hit them over the head with a two-by-four and call them dummies. No, we went down after a great deal of research, after we had prepared our position...

MR. LEA: You called them idiots.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and we said to the people in Ottawa: "You have to listen to us, not because of the benefits to the western Provinces, not because of a parochial interest in the province of British Columbia, but because of the good of all of Canada."

We had our homework done, and we sold our position, and today they're listening to us. We are having some input and they are recognizing our position, and because of that there will be a broad new general agreement signed in Geneva; and it will incorporate in it some of the wishes of western Canada because of the work we've done.

There is just one other aspect before....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must know now, hon. member, whether or not you're the designated speaker because your 40 minutes has elapsed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm designated.

MR. COCKE: Because the government is afraid his lies will be uncovered.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

RON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... to continue telling the great story of the province of British Columbia to the people. Because it is our responsibility, as government, to tell the facts to the people of British Columbia.

We have so many policies going, and so many great things going, that it will be difficult for me to cover them all; but there is one other area that I must talk about. Hear those people over there talk about.... Yes, I'll finish up, Mr. Speaker, at the first of the week; and therefore I'd like to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the Rouse.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the house.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.