[ Page 555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Mr. Macdonald –– 555

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 558

Mr. Veitch –– 562

Mr- Lauk –– 563

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 567

Mr. Skelly –– 570

Mr. Kerster –– 576

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 577

Mr. Stupich –– 579

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is leaving because he knows I'm going to ask him whether he reduced the sales tax for the province of British Columbia because he wanted to, or because his wrist was twisted. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to give the answer myself. He knew what the question was going to be, and it's a question he wants to dodge because he has carefully put on three different faces in a matter of weeks for the people of the province of British Columbia.

Now there was a Roman god called Janus who had two faces. But the Premier of British Columbia has three faces: one for October; one f or 2 o'clock on budget day, April 10,1978; and another when he went back to Yorkton with the other Premiers of the four western provinces. I'm quite sure that neither he nor the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) wants to listen to the questions that are going to be put to them tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to start by reading the words of the Hon. Jean Chretien. This is from his budget speech, delivered in the House of Commons on April 10,1978 - which by British Columbia time was 8 p.m. in Ottawa, but 5 p.m. in British Columbia. I'm quite correct in that, am I not? For three hours, the government of British Columbia was engaged in pure hype. They were pretending that out of the goodness of their hearts they were finally, after punishing the people of the province of British Columbia - and I'm referring to the amendment - and all the rate increases Let the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) Yes, he's muttering there, but how much did you increase hospital care -400 per cent? How much did you increase medicare? How much did you increase ambulance services? Yes, well you may mutter. When a chance came up to end the punishment of the people of the province - which this government was imposing because they wanted to blame it all on the New Democratic Party, in one of the greatest hikes that has ever happened in any province, at any time - they were caught in a trap.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, don't get so excited.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Jean Chretien says 'this: "Indeed I made a proposal to the provinces last fall" - which is October, 1977 - "under which the federal government would compensate them for half of the cost of reducing sales taxes by two percentage points."

Now that was the first proposal. And what was the answer of the government of British Columbia, which presumably has the interests of the people of this province at heart, which has sucked up more purchasing power out of the pockets of people within two years than any government in the history of any province? Were they not delighted that in October the federal government was going to help them lift the load of sales tax from the people of this province? They rejected it out of hand.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What happened to your friends in Manitoba?

MR. MACDONALD: They rejected it. The government of the province of British Columbia, which had increased the sales tax from 5 per cent to 7 per cent, had an opportunity last October to have the federal government share in reducing that sales tax to 5 per cent; and they rejected it out of hand as something not worthy to be discussed. It was something for the common people of this province, and the whole Social Credit game plan was to make the common people of this province suffer, to blame it on the New Democratic Party and not -on the millionaires and the car dealers and the turncoats. Then, when they had finished - and this is their game plan, and I don't want to let it out, Mr. Speaker; this is strictly between yourself and myself - their game plan was to punish the people of this province until shortly before the next election, and then give them back a little of their own money, and say: "What good fellows we are." That's their plan. The Hon. Jean Chretien spoiled it, because he put them to the acid test last October and said: "If we help you to reduce the imposition of sales tax on the people of this province, and help business to get back on its feet, and small business to have a little bit of purchasing power that people are able to afford " The Minister of Finance and the Premier of British Columbia rejected it out of hand.

Now this is your kindly, friendly coalition of car dealers, turncoats, millionaires and land speculators. You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm looking straight at you and through you to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

[ Page 556 ]

(Hon. Mr. Mair) .

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I didn't lose two assistants.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: When we built the Helmut extension of the pipeline into the Helmut area, I didn't lose my executive assistant. I didn't lose my constituency secretary. I didn't refuse to answer questions. I didn't have any contradiction in my testimony between what I said and what Arthur Weeks said. What we did was consistent and upright and clear, and that minister should not interrupt me because the Speaker is going to admonish him.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what has happened to provoke the hon. members, but please, may we have order in the House?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to take an historic ranch outside of Kamloops, and pay $10,000 down and then have it on sale for $1.3 million the next day....

I would not expect the member who did that to be able to police real estate. I would not expect the member who did that to vote in favour of the retention of inheritance taxes.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you will. You will, in here or out there, anytime you want. I think it's time the people of British Columbia knew what kind of a coalition they have in those government benches. What did the good book say, Mr. Speaker? "By their deeds you shall know them."

MR. KING: Complete mercenaries.

MR. SKET.TY: Psychopaths.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will have to ask the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) to withdraw the word "psychopaths."

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am serious about this. It's up to the government, if they deny what I'm saying, to say that on October, 1977, they had an opportunity to say yes to the federal government and reduce the sales tax by two points. The Hon. Jean Chretien, in his budget speech.... If you want to say he's lying, it's perfectly in order for members to do so. But this is the fate of the people of the province and dollars they were spending out of their pockets they were talking about. And he said that in view of the refusal of the provinces, or some of them, including British Columbia, to agree that federal money should come in and help the situation in the province of British Columbia, he went another way with the January budget and reduced the personal income tax by raising the exemptions by $100.

Now if that is the case, this government has created a cardinal sin so far as the people of this province are concerned, because you let them bottom out, you let them suffer with the seven per cent sales tax, through January, February, March and to the end of March, when finally - and here I'm talking about the second face of the Premier of the province of British Columbia - the sales tax was reduced from 7 to 5 per cent. But the businesses that suffered during that period of time, after the federal offer was curtly dismissed in October, 1977, will never get their money back. Those who went bankrupt are bankrupt to stay. And the punishment....

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't hear you.

MR. MACDONALD: I will raise my voice whatever decibels that hon. member wants, because I am talking about the Social Credit game plan, which is to punish the people of this province, try to blame it on the New Democratic Party and then relieve the screws a little bit before election time. It's the most cynical thing that has ever been put together by any crew of political opportunists who have abandoned and checked their political principles at the door to enter that government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am. I know exactly what I have to say and what should be said. I'm just answering the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , and if he wants me to raise my voice on this or any other thing, I certainly will.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was the first face of Premier Bennett of the province of British Columbia, the Prime Minister of British Columbia, if you will. In October, when relief was offered to the people of British Columbia and rejected, what was the second face? The same. Because in January, 1978, the Finance

[ Page 557 ]

ministers met. That preceded a meeting of the First Ministers, which I think took place in February, 1978. At that meeting the Hon. Jean Chretien again proposed to the provinces that they reduce the sales tax in order to give the people a break and in order to give small business a break.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you get up, because you have questions to answer. I'm making this statement, which you can answer if you like; Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development can answer.

Again, in January, 1978, the province of British Columbia rejected the proposals of federal money to reduce the sales tax in this province...

MR. KING: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: ... because you wanted to let the people suffer a little longer.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm speaking to that minister through you, Mr. Speaker, because it's very difficult. When I speak to him, sometimes it goes right through the ears.

Mr. Speaker, the pace remained the same after the proposal in October. After the proposal in January the answer of the government of British Columbia was. "Don't say things like that to us. It interferes with our political game plan. Our plan is to punish the people a little longer."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you answer. I'm giving you facts. I'm giving you the record of what happened.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in March, 1978, the Hon. Jean Chretien came out to the province of British Columbia and he made a final proposition. And that proposition is stated in his budget speech. He said. "I have offered to compensate the provinces for a reduction of two percentage points in their retail sales tax for a period of six months. In return I have asked them to bear the cost of a further one percentage point for the same period." Now let's stop there, because before you get the alternative that was proposed by the province of British Columbia, there it is. Chretien is saying: "I will compensate, in order to get the economy back on its feet, a reduction in the sales tax of two percentage points, and I asked them to reduce the sales tax by another percentage point because the economy is bottomed out and people need help."

That makes, by my reckoning, an appeal by the Minister of Finance of Canada to reduce the sales tax to 4 per cent. The answer of the province of British Columbia: "No. No way." No way are they prepared to give that kind of a break to common people in this province of British Columbia. No way would this government, Mr. Speaker, consider a reduction in the sales tax as requested to 4 per cent. I can give you the alternatives of what they were doing in terms of the finances of this province. But giving people, in order to get our economy going and pick up on unemployment, a reduction to 4 per cent, was rejected out of hand by this government.

So Jean Chretien gave them an alternative. he said: "...or an extension of the two-point cut for a further three-month period." The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wags his head. That appealed a little more to you, eh? You had to go back to 5 per cent, but you sure didn't want to go to 4 per cent, even f or a limited period. He's wagging his head. No way should you give people that kind of a break, even if it's in the interest of the economy and the federal government are contributing.

So they insisted that it must remain at least at 5 per cent. And that, Mr. Speaker, was where it stood when the budget was brought down on April 10,1978, when we had the Premier of the province of British Columbia putting on his other face. So far his face had been flinty hard. He was saying no to a reduction in the sales tax for the people of this province. But on April 10, at 2 o'clock on the budget day, the Premier was all smiles. He was Mr. Benevolent. He was going to give back, to the people of this province, a reduction in sales tax from 7 to 5 per cent out of the goodness of his heart. He didn't say during those three hours before the truth finally began to emerge that he had been forced to make that reduction by the Ottawa government. On, he put on the face of Mr. Benevolent, and then slowly the truth began to emerge that he had been forced. He had been forced. Thank goodness for the consumers and the workers of the province of British Columbia. He had been forced to reduce it back to 5 per cent, and he wouldn't admit it, and he does not admit it today.

He fled from the House tonight. He came into the House, Mr. Speaker, at 8 o'clock. I saw him and I said I was going to ask him. "Was this a forced reduction in the sales tax, or did you do it in the interest of the people of

[ Page 558 ]

B.C.?" He has fled and the Minister of Finance has fled, because he does not want to admit that his wrist was twisted by Ottawa, and that's the only way in which the people of this province could get a tax break.

And then he had, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, without being unparliamentary, the audacity to go down to Yorkton, Saskatchewan, and chide the federal government before disappearing through a door. The television cameras were there.

MS. SANFORD: He ran away.

MR. MACDONALD: lie ran away but he joined in the statement chiding the federal government for interfering in the affairs of the province of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, what this means is that the government ought to answer, fully and forthrightly, whether they introduced this reduction in the sales tax because they believed it was good for the province of British Columbia or because they were only dragged kicking and screaming into that kind of a reduction because of the actions of the federal government. They have to answer whether their game plan was to reduce that sales tax just before the provincial election. You know, at a later date, down the road, to turn Ebenezer Scrooge into Santa Claus just before the election and then give a little bit of the money back that they had taken from the people of the province of British Columbia....

The reason why they are so reticent on this question is that the political game plan has been upset a little bit. The whole plan, you know - to punish the people of the province of British Columbia and blame it on the NDP while you are pouring money off to the millionaires and the extractive industries, mostly multinational, on a scale never heard before - was to do that, and when the people were really punished, to give a little bit back and then say: "What good people we are." A little guy called Jean Chretien came in and spoiled it; he spoiled your plan a little bit.

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's not your plan, but he spoiled their plan over there.

So I say this: it's a sorry thing when you have the Prime Minister of a province putting on one face which nobody sees. No reduction in sales tax in October and January - flinty hard - and then on budget day he's all smiles, "I'm being Mr. Benevolent. I'm giving you back 2 per cent of the sales tax in your interests." Say nothing about the federal proposition and then go back to Yorkton, Saskatchewan, finally and put on a third f ace and say : "Oh, that bad federal government. I say that the government ought to answer up fully now, because this is a matter that has contributed to some disunity in Canada." There is nothing wrong with the process of intergovernmental consultation as to the terms of a budget. Nevertheless the Premier of British Columbia will not admit to it. He will not admit that he is being forced to reduce that sales tax. lie will not admit that the game plan of the Social Credit coalition has been upset by Jean Chretien, the Minister of Finance of Canada.

I regret that neither the Premier nor the Minister of Finance are present, but I think it's time now that the questions were answered. Why was the sales tax not; reduced to 4 per cent when the federal offer was made, which would have given us a real stimulus so far as business and employment are concerned in the province of British Columbia?

Does the Premier finally admit that the only reason he reduced the sales tax was not for the good of the people of British Columbia or the consumers, but because he had to? He had no choice, and he was dragged kicking and screaming into making that budget speech on April 10,1978.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to hear that the member who previously spoke was really speaking to the amendment. I must congratulate him because he spoke for half an hour and he didn't use any notes at all. I really must congratulate him for that, but then I guess if you have nothing to say, you don't really need any notes.

That member, Mr. Speaker, got up. He didn't speak to the budget; he didn't speak to the amendment. He just huffed and puffed and said absolutely nothing to this House.

The amendment says in part that the opposition is somewhat disappointed in the fact that our hon. minister has failed to mobilize our human and natural resources for the province of British Columbia. That seems rather strange to me, coming from a government which, on their very short tenure in office in this province - and thank God it was short -did everything they possibly could to eliminate jobs in this province, to eliminate investment in our natural and human resources, and to provide for jobs for the citizens and working people of this province. Everything they could possibly do they did to scare investment away from this province. Yet they come up with this ridiculous amendment saying that this government is doing nothing to mobilize our human and natural resources to

[ Page 559 ]

create jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia. It's absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House on several occasions in the past that the reason I got involved in politics - although at times I wonder why anybody would do such a thing -was because of what that party did, when they were the government, to the industry in which I had earned my living all of my life, and in which my father had earned his living. I'm speaking of the mining industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were working f or the government.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair-]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I was working for the government in the civil service. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) thinks that's a bad thing. I guess he thinks all people who work for the government of British Columbia are in some way second-class citizens. Well, they're not, Mr. Member. There are a lot of good people working for this government; there have been and there will be. That member and that government....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, you had your opportunity, Mr. Member, but you lost your chance and mine was the glory, because you're no longer the minister.

Mr. Speaker, that government did everything it could to eliminate jobs in our resource industries and to eliminate the chance of the people of our province to harness that human resource. Yet they're bringing forth this amendment saying that we are doing nothing to harness these resources. The prospectors, the diamond drillers, the miners and the entrepreneurs in that industry had nothing to work with. They had no opportunities. They could not create jobs and wealth for this province under the legislation brought in by that government. Everything they did was designed for eliminating jobs, eliminating opportunities and creating havoc in the investment climate in British Columbia.

In the forestry industry as well, Mr. Speaker, that government did everything it could to chase and scare investment away from this province, investment which would come into this province and create jobs and opportunities and utilize our natural and our human resources.

They threatened to nationalize our industry. The former minister, Mr. Speaker, spoke to people coming into his office and said: "Don't worry about your cash flows, about your investments, about your wood supply. You're going to be a public utility in a few years." Is that the way to create an investment climate in this province which will encourage jobs and opportunities for the people of this province?

They tried to eliminate the free enterprise sector of the petroleum and natural gas industry. We saw what happened there. We had practically no expenditures in the exploration for these very valuable energy resources in this province, a chance to harness these resources and give people - the people in the Fort Nelson and Fort St. John and Dawson Creek area - a chance to work in a viable industry and to generate energy sources so that we can further develop our economy.

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Everything they did went towards eliminating jobs and scaring away investment from this bountiful province we have here, which has such a tremendous future under a good government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you for the amendment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I am not for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment somehow indicates to me that that party feels that a government can legislate prosperity and good times. Well, governments cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. Our society, the way of life we have, the standard of living we have, was created by people doing things for themselves with initiative to benefit from their efforts. That government, through its very basic philosophy, has tried to eliminate this. They 'have done everything they can to scare the investment way, to eliminate chances for people to make this a prosperous province. Mr. Speaker, we have invited people back into this province who will invest, who will create jobs and opportunities.

In 1974, Mr. Speaker, in this province, we had a mining industry which was practically non-existent in terms of mining exploration and development. That government said: "Oh, yes, but it's the climate of the times." Well, I spoke to many people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territories, in Alberta and in Washington, and those people were absolutely delighted with the government of the day in British Columbia. They said: "We have never had it so good, because all the investment that would have been going to your province is now coming here. We have the jobs, we have the opportunities, and you people in British Columbia are just out of luck because

[ Page 560 ]

you have a government which is trying to discourage that type of investment."

Mr. Speaker, they say we have no investment in British Columbia, that there's nothing happening to create jobs. In my speech on the budget debate I mentioned some of the investments which are taking place in B.C., investments which are creating new jobs, investments which are securing jobs that we have now, and ensuring that they will continue in the future.

I ask those members: Would they speak to the employees of Weldwood in Williams Lake where 450 new jobs are being created in a plywood manufacturing plant? Would they speak to those people and ask them what they think about the fact that no jobs are being created in B.C.? Will they speak to the West Fraser employees in Smithers and ask them about the new sawmill which is being built there, about the jobs that were not created there? Will they speak to the people employed by Doman Industries now, and the additional people who will be employed in the near future when Doman Industries builds a new sawmill, and in the future when they build a new pulp mill, and ask them why this government has not created jobs? Will they speak to the people at the little Ardew Wood Products plant in Merritt, where 35 or 40 jobs have been created by a small family operation? Will they speak to the Nicola Valley sawmills in Merritt where 150 jobs have just been created because of the establishment of a new plywood plant? Will they speak to Canadian Forest Products and Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel employees who are working for those companies and who will be in the future because those companies are now investing dollars in British Columbia, because there is a climate for investment here and we can assure their jobs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If I can have the attention of the government Whip, could you keep your little quorum down there in order? It's a bit difficult for me to hear the minister. Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Whip, keep these guys quiet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I speak of jobs being created directly in our No. I industry, our forest industry. This really is a very small part of the jobs created because of that industry. In 1974 F.L.C. Reed, a very well-known forestry consultant in British Columbia, undertook a study for the then government of British Columbia, asking what effect the forestry has on job creation in B.C. That report said loud and clear to that government that for every one job that is created in that basic resource industry, five new jobs are created throughout the province of British Columbia in service and supply industries which serve that industry. Many, many new jobs - many hundreds and thousands of new jobs - have been created in the forest industry in the last two and a half years, rather than being scared and frightened away from this province. For every job that has been created in that industry, five jobs have been created in the province to service that industry.

We have people who supply equipment and consumable goods to this industry; people who supply services to the industry; people who supply services to the people employed in that industry -the doctors, the lawyers, the school teachers, the plumbers, the electricians, the waitresses in the restaurants. Everybody who is employed in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is in some way affected by the employment and the activity in our No. I industry, our forestry industry. We have done an awful lot in the last two years to create jobs, jobs which exist today, jobs which have existed and which have been secured by the attitudes and climate created by this government.

Mr. Speaker, that party opposite continues to preach doom and gloom in the province of British Columbia. They know very well that when they do that, the world is watching our media. The world is looking at what is said here in British Columbia and they know that the world will take some notice of what they say. The more doom and gloom that they can predict, they know that the less chance there is of jobs being created in our basic resource industries in B.C. That makes them happy, Mr. Speaker. It makes them very happy to know that investment perhaps will be scared away and that jobs will not be created for the citizens of British Columbia. That party who claimed to be the friend of the working people in B.C. is doing everything it possibly can to scare jobs away from this province. I say to them: shame!

This party, this opposition, which was once unfortunately the government of this province, have proposed amendments to this budget speech; they have proposed amendments to the amendments. All they're saying when they do that, Mr. Speaker, is that they are afraid to debate this budget. They know that this is a good budget. It provides jobs and opportunities, and they don't want to address the budget. They want to create smokescreens and they want to make the world think that

[ Page 561 ]

nothing can happen in British Columbia. This budget does an awful lot to help the employment problem in British Columbia.

Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, keep your hand down. You had your chance. If you want to speak I suggest you pay one of your infrequent visits to your constituency and see what the people up there have to say about you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This budget provides incentives to the private sector to create jobs in British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) insists on interjecting, I must ask that he return to his own chair.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will have to make those arrangements yourself, hon. member. And I would ask that the minister address the Chair.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this budget provides incentives for the private sector to further invest in British Columbia and to create jobs and opportunities for our citizens. This budget also provides direct government spending to help create additional jobs in this time of unfortunately high unemployment in this province and the rest of Canada. There is unemployment here and there is unemployment throughout Canada, but British Columbia is doing the best job of any province in Canada in creating employment. You know that and we know that and the people of British Columbia know that.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing money in public works. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is building highways, creating an asset for the people of British Columbia and at the same time providing jobs for the people of British Columbia.

We are providing social services for the people of British Columbia in our budget. We are providing investment in our basic resource industries, our mining industry and our forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, we have a special allotment of $10 million to begin a badly needed intensive forest management programme in this province. Ibis investment will not only create jobs today but it will assure jobs for tomorrow because of increased yields from this very important resource we have. But just as important, this investment will provide for many, many people job skills which they need to take advantage of to work in that basic resource industry we have.

Mr. Speaker, some of the parrots on the other side of the House appear to be becoming nervous. They keep yip, yip, yipping. My programme alone in intensive forest management in British Columbia this year will provide over 75,000 man-days of employment to enhance our forest resource and assure our continuing raw material supply for that industry.

Mr. Speaker, our budget provides investment in such things as airports for remote communities, and many of those members don't even know what a remote community is. They spoke at length this afternoon about Fort Nelson. Perhaps they may know where it is on a map; perhaps one or two of them have even been there. There are many remote communities in this province which sorely need better transportation systems, and our budget provides for spending to create airport facilities so these people can be connected to the outside world. The members opposite don't want to debate our budget. They're afraid to debate our budget. They keep kicking up smokescreens with amendments and subamendments, and amendments to the amendments.

They spent a great deal of time this afternoon and yesterday talking about the interim report of the royal commission, trying to create the impression in the minds of the people of British Columbia, and the minds of the people of Fort Nelson, that the government has made a decision to shut down that railway. Well, nothing is farther from the truth. Those members talk about their compassion for those people, and everything they have said in this House has tried to create the impression in the minds of those people in Fort Nelson that their doom is here, that the railway will shut down. Mr. Speaker, the Premier today said: "We will not abandon the north of B.C." It is the policies of governments like this which have created the northern development in British Columbia, and we will continue to do so in the future.

Everything that is said by the members opposite is designed to detract from the investment climate which we are trying to create, and which we have created in this province. It has scared jobs away from this province. And to them, Mr. Speaker, I say: shame. It's the people whom you claim to represent who have suffered from your actions and your attitudes.

Mr. Speaker, this government takes its responsibilities very seriously. The Fort

[ Page 562 ]

Nelson interim report is receiving very serious study by this government. Many jobs, many lives, many families are dependent upon that, and also many millions of taxpayers' dollars. The future of the north, perhaps, depends to a certain extent on that railway. We will consider all of these factors as a government, when we make that decision; but the decision will be made with reasoned judgment, not in the heat of passion and smokescreens set up by this opposition. We wish to encourage jobs- in British Columbia; we are encouraging jobs in British Columbia. The amendment we have before us, and the subamendment which we disposed of this afternoon, do nothing but create an atmosphere of uncertainty for the creation of jobs in this province. I challenge those members to do away with these silly amendments, and debate the budget - because they are afraid to debate our budget.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the amendment that was made by the hon. member for Revel stoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . It states that the opposition is cognizant of a strategy of full employment. Now a little while ago we went through some situations in this House which said that this government did not have a clear-cut commitment to the people of this province. Perhaps several days ago, 1 said that 1 would never be negative in speaking in this House. And it's interesting to have these great developers here speak on development, and looking after the north and looking after the people of British Columbia. I know how they were looked after. what they didn't realize was that, a while ago they spoke of a development railway. They're great developers; they spoke of vision, Mr. Speaker. I know what the division was, but some of the vision....

MR. LAUK: We speak of vision; you speak of division.

MR. VEITCH: They spoke of vision, of the people of the north, and they'll .... Hon. member, listen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. VEITCH: There's a cool breeze coming from the centre of Vancouver. The vision of the north was that they didn't vote for the NDP. You know, hon. member, the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , speaking about employment, or unemployment.... The previous Premier (Mr. Barrett) spoke of a vision. He said he had an ambition - one time in his life he said that he was a dishwasher on a railway, and later on he became the president of a railway. (Laughter.) Well, the fact is that he failed at both jobs. He talked about a resource railway, and he said that they wanted to do all sorts of things in the last few days about resources. They wanted to bring in timber that they didn't want cut; they wanted to bring in resources from mines that they didn't want mined; they wanted to bring in supplies to oil wells that they didn't want tapped. It's interesting that they spoke about the people of the north, during the election. I remember hon. member, when they talked about the people in the north. They sent a man up there. What was his name - Nunweiler? I can never quite remember what his name was. Mr. Speaker, maybe you could help me on this -Nundealer, Neverdoer?

They said that they would help the people out by spending $500 million to put a man in there, - half a million dollars to send a man in there who would have an executive assistant and a few other things, and would look at the people of the north. He looked, and he looked, and he looked, and what they did was they drove investment out of British Columbia. They told the people of British Columbia that they would never be able to export any of their minerals because they're going to keep it for future generations. They'll leave it in the ground. It's important now, looking at employment, that we've got a government who don't represent the people of the north, or the east, or the west, but they represent the people of British Columbia.

This afternoon we went through an amendment which was sort of a bit of trickery that the hon. Leader of the Opposition tried to perpetrate upon this assembly. It didn't work out too well. Most of the things he did in three and a half years of government didn't work out very well. Certainly the trickery is not-part of that patricide.

1 believe that the trust of the people in 1975, Mr. Speaker, will never go unwarranted. People are aware of the ploys of the opposition. They're aware of the fact that they cannot stand the heat and they're not willing to get out of the kitchen. They can't stand the heat of the budget because there's nothing they can debate. There's nothing to debate, Mr. Speaker, because this is the greatest budget that British Columbia's ever had.

I don't think the people are going to succumb to trickery. I believe that what should happen on this amendment, my friend, is that it should be junked along with most of the NDP philosophy, and we should get on with the budget debate.

[ Page 563 ]

MR. LAUK: I feel very reluctant to follow the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. That was a fantastic speech. It makes one proud to sit in the same chamber as that hon. member, having heard that speech. It was just fantastic.

I wonder if the people of Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Speaker, know the wit and the articulation of the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon. They'd be most pleased. I wonder if you could send me a copy of that speech.

Mr. Speaker, on this amendment, a number of factors....

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you in on that real estate deal?

MR. LAUK: I know what millionaires are, Mr. Speaker; I know what car dealers are. But what do you call a person who hangs around millionaires and car dealers?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I know that you're now going to relate that to the amendment.

MR. LAUK: Of course. I'd like to say that millionaires and car dealers are the last to pay their fees.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major things about the budget that disturbs me, as a member of the opposition, and particularly a member from an urban area - I know, Mr. Speaker, you'll appreciate what I'm about to say; you as a member for Vancouver South will appreciate this - is that insofar as the homeowner, the person that has to bear the brunt of municipal taxation in the city of Vancouver, is concerned, this budget is strictly a shell game. It places a greater burden on the homeowner, and they're pretending that they've got an equitable budget for all taxpayers. In reality, what has been a traditional expense of the provincial treasury is being foisted upon the ordinary municipal taxpayer.

I think a few figures, Mr. Speaker, would be able to point out the problem. With the tremendous increase of taxes that is accruing every year on the homeowner, the amount of purchasing power of the average family in the city of Vancouver - disposable income - is so depressed and so narrow that the economy generally is being affected. This is the purpose of our amendment, Mr. Speaker: to bring some of these points home to the government.

The school district in which you and I have our constituencies, Mr. Speaker, has had to place more and more of the burden since 1975 onto the landowner, as opposed to the provincial treasury. As you may recall, it's always been a guarantee, if you like, of the provincial governments of the past, that no more than 50 per cent of that kind of burden would be placed on the landowner. It was a commitment of the NDP administration, a continuing commitment, that we would make every effort, budget after budget - year after year - to relieve the homeowner of this tremendous school tax burden. It's a continuing process and it's difficult to achieve, but at least the previous administration was well on the road. This administration, Mr. Speaker, is doing exactly the opposite.

I don't know why the minister of recreation and conservatism is laughing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a nervous laugh.

MR. LAUK: Well, let's look at these figures for the city of Vancouver, and you tell me where you've gone wrong. In 1975 the total school budget was $82,813, 838, the local share was $68,666, 651 and the provincial share was $14,147, 187. It was an increase of the provincial share by 3 or 4 per cent. The total provincial share of the school budget in that school district was 17 per cent.

In 1976, the total budget was approximately $96 million, the local share was $84,283, 668, the provincial share sunk down to 12 per cent, $11,700, 000. The mill rate went up from 26.5 mills to 32.5 mills.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Run for the school board.

MR. LAUK: It's not the school board, my friend, and you know perfectly well. This government is trying to, get off the hook. Oh, it's easy to say: "Look, we're going to have a balanced budget." You foisted all of your responsibilities for education onto the local taxpayer. Maybe some of your friends believe the mindless pap that you try to sell, but the people of the city of Vancouver don't believe it, not for a minute.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: In 1977, Mr. Speaker, the total budget was $103 million; $92,500, 000 was borne by the city; only $10,300, 000 by the province, only 10 per cent. The mill rate went up again. This municipal taxation madness is continuing - 10 per cent, and the mill rate up from 32.5 mills to 37.5 mills in 1977.

In 1978, the total budget for schools in the city of Vancouver is $112 million; $104 million is borne by the city; $8 million by the province of British Columbia - 7 per cent.

[ Page 564 ]

AN HON MEMBER: You're really good, you guys.

MR. LAUK: Seven per cent of the total school bill for the city of Vancouver is now being borne by the province. And the mill rate, my friends...39.75 mills. This government is breaking the backs of the homeowners in the city of Vancouver and in most municipalities.

The city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, as you well know - because I know that your constituents have talked to you personally about this subject - has to bear extra school costs, educational costs in the city because it is the major city of the province. Are there any extra grants? Is there any extra assistance? No. Our '!Marie Antoinette" Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) waves his hand. He will not consider extra situations, like English as a second language. How many people in Vancouver South and Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker, have English as a second language? What extra costs have to be borne by the city of Vancouver? It's not because we're a normal school district. No, we have exceptional situations there - new Canadian populations where English is a second language, with the tremendous cost of teaching English as a second language.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous cost to the city of Vancouver. It has to be borne by the city, because obviously the provincial government is shirking its rightful responsibility and reneging on the promises of three successive administrations.

They disbanded Jericho Hill school. Now where do you think those kids go? They go into the school system in Vancouver. They don't go up to Pouce Coupe. They've got to be where the facilities are, where the trained teachers are. Who pays the bill? Again, this phony argument that they were breaking up Jericho Hill school so that these kids would have a better time in the community was a simple excuse to foist the cost of their special education and special needs onto the homeowners and their tax base in the city of Vancouver.

Other special programmes and learning assistance centres in the city of Vancouver, because it's the major city, add to the total cost burden that has nothing to do with the number of students enrolled. These are special situations. They have forced the school board in the city of Vancouver to increase its costs. But I ask you, is an increase from $102 million to $112 million in one year, in the face of these tremendously increased costs ... ? This is not an irresponsible budget; that is a responsible budget. Clearly, I cannot, as a responsible politician, go to the school board and say: "You haven't done your job." I think they have. I think that the responsibility lies right here with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister of Education (Ron. Mr. McGeer) , who have brought dawn a budget that betrays the confidence of the people of the city of Vancouver in this government. That's the kind of thing we get from this government all the time.

What kind of a budget is it? It's a budget going nowhere. And I'll tell you something else. I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) . I do. He said: "The opposition have nothing to debate in this budget because there's nothing there." I agree with that. That's what he said. I accept that. There is nothing there to create jobs and there's nothing there to turn this economy around.

We don't need a government with vision necessarily during good times. We don't need a government that will be active in seeking out new programmes to create employment and economic development during good times. We need it now, and it's clear we haven't got it now. We've got a myopic government, a government that does not understand anything except black and white, profit and loss.

You've got situations in our hospital system that are being neglected by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . The chief nurse in surgery in the Vancouver General hospital has resigned. What did she say?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll tell you. Do you have to know all about medicine to try and clean up the mess in the Health ministry? The other day someone said to me: "Well, no wonder all the doctors liked Dennis Cocke."

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. LEA: Everybody in health care.

MR. LAUK: Name names? The second member for Vancouver South said the doctors liked Dennis Cocke. Someone said: "Why don't they like the present Minister of Health?". It can't be because our ministry gave the doctors more money. This ministry is spending more money than we ever saw. They spill more than we spent. They're spending more and doing less than we ever did in the Ministry of Health. And it's no wonder that the chief nurse in the Vancouver General hospital resigned, saying: "I am not getting support, I am not getting trained personnel, I have not got time to train new people." I wonder how close the Vancouver

[ Page 565 ]

General Hospital is to losing its accreditation under this administration.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It just got its accreditation a month ago.

MR. LAUK: Well, see what damage you can do in a month? A genius can't do as bad as you in that quick a time.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We're getting a little bit carried away here.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, that's an important point. Costs in health are going out of sight and services are decreasing.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Mine Closures is getting frisky this evening. It's ten after nine and it's far past his bedtime. Don't attack the nuns.

Mr. Speaker, it's way past the Minister of Mine Closures' bedtime. He only works four hours a day and he gets all tuckered out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I just absolutely cannot relate that to the amendment, so I would ask that you get to the motion.

MR. LAUK: I know that the amendment is clear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see nothing in here about the Minister of Mines' bedtime so I know that the frivolity of the evening is going to come to a bitter end, and we're now going to get back to the business of the House.

MR. LAUK: I think that we have to focus on a number of things here and what I am trying to describe to the chamber is this: the budget itself is the largest budget in the history of the province of British Columbia. When we look at it in its effect, it produces less in the way of services to people than any other budget in the history of British Columbia.

Our amendment specifically refers to the job creation programmes. Now I wonder what all the overruns were about. They can't be job creation, although the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) claims that. We proved that what she was saying was incorrect. We proved that. These ministerial overruns are sheer political propaganda for the Minister of Travel Industry. There's no control....

MR. LEA: A buck a button.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, why would I wish that you are spending taxpayers' money on political propaganda? I don't wish that at all. I call you on the carpet for it. You've got to answer for it and you certainly will. Yes, the Social Credit brown carpet that she's got in her office.

Mr. Speaker, these overruns were horrendous, in percentage terms related to the original budget of her ministry. There's no control over these things. There was $215 million or more in overruns in one year. Now that's not fiction, that's an admitted fact. I'll tell you what is fiction - the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) with respect to an NDP deficit. Talk about a budget of fiction, it is a revenge budget that was deliberately designed to deceive the people of the province of British Columbia. It was a total work of fiction. I think that the Minister of Finance should get the Governor-Generals award for fiction. He should get the Pulitzer prize; he should get the Nobel prize.

I'll tell you about Grizzly Valley - I've never heard so much ado about nothing in all my life. It's like the northeast coal development, which I will deal with in a moment. Talk about creating jobs. The shortest pipeline in the history of the province and they're saying this is a great deal. We asked this government last year what their economic strategy was going to be. They said the northeast coal development. They talked about the coal development. Well, it's interesting to see the NKK steel feasibility report's comments on coal development in the northeast. I just think that the House should be reminded of the facts before we get carried away.

Most of the underground miners would have to be recruited - and this is referring to the Sukunka and other areas - in other countries, a method of manning that is not without problems and which raises questions about the usefulness of such developments to the province, without the addition of a steel mill project.

Does everybody understand that? The northeast coal project, they are saying, doesn't make sense unless you've got a steel mill here to use the coal here. I wonder if you've read George Froehlich, back on April 5, chapter and verse. It destroys the so-called industrial strategy of the Social Credit to create jobs. What is there in this budget that creates jobs, Mr. Speaker? Zero. There is not a

[ Page 566 ]

dime to create jobs. They promised $20 million to the BCDC, they've anted up with $10 million. If I were the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) responsible for BCDC and got $10 million for the Development Corporation in a time when there's an economic depression in this province, I would not hesitate to resign - not hesitate for a minute.

At the same time that this government is taxing the ordinary working families of this province and allowing the millionaires of the province tax concessions, they have yet to come up with one job-creating programme, where we can say: here are permanent jobs created by the efforts and design of this government. There's not one, Mr. Speaker - not one.

The Minister of Mine Closures is a total and utter abject failure. In almost three years in office, he's done nothing but close mines. I was the Minister of Mines for three months. I had the mining industry and labour on the sawcommittee. We announced the opening of Afton Mines plus a copper smelter, all through government initiative and vision, and this man sits in the House all day, cross-commenting, and attends, instead of ribbon cuttings, gate closings. The Minister of Closures. The Minister of Economic Development used to sit on this side of the House and look over there and say to me when I was minister: "You're the nerve centre of the government; you're the nerve centre of the economy." Nothing but cutbacks, retrenchment and bombast.

He gave a speech up in Quesnel, and said nothing. The press reported he said nothing. They asked him: "Mr. Minister, what have you created for this area of Quesnel-Prince George?". He said: "Oh, well, we've been talking to the fellow who is going to build a steel mill in Prince George." One day later we find out that there was no such steel mill. He hadn't even been in touch with the guy to know that there was no project going ahead. That's what he said. It wasn't me.

Mr. Speaker, the whole story should be told with respect to this budget. It is a failure, it has no job-creating programmes, it is conceded that it is a runaway budget in terms of costs, and it must be shown and demonstrated to the people that it provides no services; in fact, it provides less services year after year. Further, it must be reiterated that the tax burden is continually building on the homeowner and on ordinary working families, and the share of taxes on resource corporations in this province is receded to much less than 20 per cent of the total budget.

This government puts greed on a pedestal, Mr. Speaker. It worships greed and it provides no relief for the ordinary people of this province. And that's why, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to support this amendment that calls into question confidence in the government as a result of the budget speech that was delivered on April 10.

I have a great many comments to make, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be pointed out that a number of projects have been ignored in this budget that are very important to the city of Vancouver. Public transit is not the least, and I'm sorry that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) isn't here. I'd like to carry on a dialogue this session again, during his estimates. Now I can't think of a better project for creating jobs in the urban area than a full-scale public transit system. Now if we're going to come across with a public transit corporation that again places the major burden on the city of Vancouver, or even 50 per cent of it, then it's just nothing but a cheap political trick, because the people of the city of Vancouver as taxpayers are already overburdened and they can't afford it. It has to be funded by the two senior levels of government.

I do not know why the Minister of Recreation and Conservatism is laughing. But I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, that with a public transit system jobs would be created, and this is part of the disappointment that we see in a runaway budget in providing less services. Instead, we fear that the politicking in the back rooms done by such members as the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) is reaching the ears of government to the extent where another white elephant bridge is going to be built at great cost to all of the taxpayers of British Columbia. My colleagues from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and others know that the people of the whole province pay that tax burden for a bridge across the river, which will be chock full of traffic the day after it's opened.

MR. DAVIDSON: Jobs for Vancouver.

MR. LAUK: Jobs on a temporary basis. That is a fool's paradise, my friend. You should be looking carefully at public transit, not bridges. Bridges are outdated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. LAUK: I should tell you that recently at a conference in the city of Vancouver, energy experts predicted on a conservative basis that our time in terms of energy is running out, and by 1983 in North America there will be a

[ Page 567 ]

fundamental energy crisis. My friend from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) knows this, as our energy critic, who's looked into this very carefully.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I will just ignore that. I had a meeting in the West End of the city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you, it was attended by a cross-section of citizens from the city of Vancouver, and not one of them had a good word to say about the Minister of Human Resources. Not one.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, they weren't, my friend. A great many had been working in the community for years and years and years.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Not a kind word. But I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker: there's an energy crisis coming on in 1983, and it's not a question of whether we prefer the private automobile or public transit. We're not going to have any choice. We're losing the lead time that we have now to start seriously looking in the urban areas at public transit. We need that valuable energy resource for the automobiles to travel long distances in the rest of the province. We've got to curtail the automobile traffic in the city and emphasize public transit. All that I see in this budget is a vague promise, and I f ear that it will just be political tinkering. There's less said this year in the throne speech than there was the year before - that's another example.

This government has proven beyond a doubt that it is incapable of managing the finances of this province. Really, the slogan of the Minister of Health should be that cemeteries are cheaper than hospitals. The slogan of the Minister of Economic Development should be "Well, it's not my fault, it's private industry. We'll let them do the job." how can ordinary people in the city of Vancouver and certainly in the province understand that kind of an attitude?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to support this amendment, and I'm sure right-thinking citizens support us all over the province when we condemn this province for its gross neglect in handling the economic recession we all face today.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to be on my feet to support an outstanding budget and to reject this ridiculous, outrageous amendment which is before the house at this time.

First of all, however, my congratulations to you and to your colleague, the Speaker - or condolences, as the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to follow that veritable cornucopia of misinformation, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. For that member to talk about a shell game, Mr. Speaker.... We brought in a budget which that opposition ran scared from. They ran into an amendment, which they then retreated from again because it was indefensible, and into another amendment which was totally frivolous, which collapsed on the floor of this House. The pigeons have come home to roost, Mr. Speaker, because they're back with the amendment that they ran from.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot of bafflegab from the other side and lots of statistics and an attempt to misinform the public. Mr. Speaker, I think there are some very telling statistics which I would just cite to put this whole debate in perspective. I would like to take you to a comparison.

When this amendment uses terms such as "onerous burden of government, " "imposed costs and taxes, " "strategy of full employment, " and "no cost-control provisions, " let's just look at a comparison of performance here between this government in its third budget and that group in their three budgets.

When that group assumed government they took on a budget of $1.45 billion. When they left, their third budget was .$3.43 billion, Mr. Speaker, for a $2 billion increase. They came into government riding the crest of the most outstanding economic surge in the history of this province and this country, and through no doing of their own. They increased the spending of the province by $2 billion, a 135 per cent increase in spending in three years.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: That member had the audacity to stand up here and talk about this government spilling more money than they spent - that this government is spending more and doing less. They increased spending by $2 billion in three years - 135 per cent. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare that record with the record of this government. In this third budget we have progressed from a budget of $3.4 billion to a budget of $4.3 billion, an increase of $850 million in three budget years, an increase of 25 per cent in spending.

[ Page 568 ]

MR. LEA: No wonder. You ruined the economy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to return to his own seat if he's going to continue to involve....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That includes the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . I would ask the member for Prince Rupert to return to his own seat if he's going to continue in this debate across the floor of the House.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Let's just go back over that record, Mr. Speaker. They came in with $500 million in financial reserves, riding the crest of the greatest economic boom in the history of this province or any province in this country. They rode that crest into a $2 billion increase in spending from a base of $1.4 billion. They rode that crest in an incredible spending spree, and when the economy began to turn down and when unemployment began to increase by tens of thousands of people, what did they do about it? They allowed that figure of unemployment.... When this government came to office it was 108,000 people. And what did they do with that crest, that great wave of prosperity? Did they plan for the downturn? Did they do anything to conserve the resources of the people of this province, to cover up for the lean times? They did nothing. They left us with half a billion dollars in bills in government and in Crown corporations. And this member has the audacity to stand here and talk about this government spending more.

MR. LAUK: Even your Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) doesn't say that.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, has recited for the record in this House hundreds of millions of dollars of overexpenditure beyond their estimates; he has recited the legacy of half a billion dollars in debts that that government left after the greatest wave of prosperity this province has seen.

MR. LAUK: That's simply not true. You're not telling the truth.

HON. MR. BAWLF: In a comparable three-budget period, we have not had a 135 per cent increase in spending, we have had a 25 per cent increase in spending at a time when every government in this country - all 10 provinces, the federal government - have agreed that the one thing that has got out of control in this country is government spending, and there is no government which established that milestone more effectively than that government. They spent the taxpayers into oblivion in this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You call them a government? They were a group of peanut vendors.

HON. MR. BAWLF: They use the term "no cost control provisions." I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the government that brought in the auditor-general; this is the government that brought in an independent reporting authority to make sure that never again government will go berserk like that government did with the people's money; this is the government that brought in quarterly financial reports so the facts won't be hidden from the people of this province; this is the government that ended the ability of a Finance minister to gamble on the stock market with the people's money; and this a government that brought in good, planned fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, for all of that $2 billion spending spree, and in fact, a $2 billion increase in budget, they spent nigh on $8 billion in their time in office. They came with a half billion dollars in financial reserves; they left us a half billion dollars in debts. This government which has increased its total budgetary allocation in three budgets 25 per cent, has brought this province its first billion dollar budget in education, has brought this province its first billion dollar budget in health, and has brought this government a programme of housing for senior citizens that isn't tokenism of a few hundred units sprinkled around the province. We told the senior citizens of this province that we care, with a programme which has brought secure housing to thousands of senior citizens in this province.

That member has the audacity to stand up in this House and talk about decreasing health services, when this government is the government that brought in long-term care in this province. We brought in security for thousands of senior citizens and an opportunity to live out a dignified life, not institutionalization, not waiting on lists miles long to get into a health-care facility, but long-term care which will take care of every senior citizen in this province who needs health care. Mr. Speaker, this is a

Government which brought in universal

[ Page 569 ]

Pharmacare to make sure that every citizen in this province and every family has protection against excessive pharmaceutical costs.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This member has the audacity to stand up and talk about the plight of the property taxpayer. I remember being on a municipal council in this city when somebody said: "What about the provincial government paying their rightful share of property taxes?" And the former Premier said: "So what?" Mr. Speaker, this government is paying its fair share of full property taxes. You remember him; he's now the third member for Vancouver East.

This is the government that brought in the most progressive programme of revenue sharing for local government in Canada. Mr. Speaker, this government has a record with a 25 per cent increase in spending in three budget years combined that makes their $2 billion budgetary increase look sick. No one will remember what that government did because they didn't do anything.

Mr. Speaker, this ridiculous amendment talks about....

MS. BROWN: Overruns.

HON. MR. BAWLF: It talks about the onerous burden of government.

HON. MR. MAIR: Overruns? Where's the master, Madame Runge?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Ron. members, I understand the exuberance of the moment, but let's try to maintain order.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, this group over here puts forward an amendment talking about the onerous burden of government. They increased spending of the moneys of the people of this province 135 per cent in three years at a time when inflation was becoming a national epidemic and when government was leading that problem. This bunch over here in government were leading the problem ahead of everybody else and they talk about the onerous burden of government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They were fuelling the fires of inflation.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, they talk about what great financial managers they were. Just for a moment of levity from the Daily Colonist this past weekend: "Mil 1 ions of dollars unclaimed in banks." We find, Mr. Speaker, that one of the unclaimed accounts in a local bank is "the Victoria GU Constituency Association, $159.55. Address unknown." Address unknown - that tells it all, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Taxi!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. it's not relevant to the amendment.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this country, and we, as responsible Canadians and concerned British Columbians, face some serious economic challenges. Above all, what is required of all Canadians, and especially their elected leaders in this country, is responsibility -responsibility to create a positive economic attitude and climate in this country. Mr. Speaker, when you listen to the nonsense that's come across this floor since this session convened, when you listen to the nonsense that's in this amendment because they didn't have the guts to debate the budget.... Mr. Speaker, this is the same group whose leader went off to Halifax and said that difficult times face this province, and he was happy to see it.

This is the same group where this other member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) here stands up.... Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, he stood up in here and he led the campaign to tell people across this country and across this continent that it was too expensive to come to Vancouver Island. he was trying to help our tourist industry, no doubt. Then he stood up and cited statistics which he dreamed up off the top of his head, which had no basis in fact, and we had to correct those.

This year, in the latest chapter, Mr. Speaker, he's trying to tell the people of Victoria to panic. Hysteria is here, folks. He's talking about 900 jobs having been eliminated from the employment of this government and its corporations in this city.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if he can prove that figure, I'll eat my hat, because that's nonsense!

MR. LAUK: Will you resign?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Will he resign? he should resign.

MR. LAUK: Will you resign? Put your seat where your mouth is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, may I point out what happens when the remarks are

[ Page 570 ]

not relevant to the amendment?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Speaker, the amendment speaks about full employment, and I'm referring to jobs in Victoria, jobs which that member has dreamed up off the top of his head as having been lost. The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there is no substance whatsoever to those claims, and that member is only whipping up hysteria, as well as all of his colleagues over there. That member should apologize to the people of this city or resign.

Talking about creating a strategy of full employment, it is fundamental to that effort, Mr. Speaker, that there be a positive atmosphere in this province from all of its elected leaders, regardless of party. And those people over there have done nothing but whip up hysteria on no factual basis whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't get any from the government.

HON. MR. BAWLF: So you're admitting you have no facts - you just make them up.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of that group over there, a short while ago, was saying there wouldn't be a balanced budget in this province. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has pointed out that the budget will be balanced, and those members who would preach hysteria, who would whip up hysteria, who would whip up a lack of confidence in this province and the fact that this province is moving ahead, Mr. Speaker, are no longer political enemies of this government and this party. They are enemies of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been one positive idea from that side of the floor since this session started. All they've done is run. They've run from the throne speech; they've run from the budget speech. They set up an amendment and they even ran from that. This party over here is a disgrace. They're the worst opposition that's ever sat in this House and this amendment doesn't bear the dignity of any more comment. Mr. Speaker, I reject this amendment.

MR. SKELLY: After that speech, which was hysterical in the extreme, I think it's about time that we did get back to the amendment and the terms of the amendment. Then we'll get down to debating the budget; and we'll debate the budget for the full time we have available to debate on this budget. No concern about that at all.

It's a fairly wide-ranging amendment, Mr. Speaker, and it does, as the previous speaker pointed out, deal with the onerous burden of taxation and government costs on the people, the failure of the government to mobilize the economy towards the strategy of full employment and the failure of government to control costs, resulting in overruns last year of $215 million, almost a quarter of a billion dollars in unauthorized overexpenditures by government departments. And that member talked about the NDP overrunning its budget, overspending its budget.

This is the government that promised to curb waste and cut overexpenditures. In their last election-campaign leaflet, they talked about ending $100 million budget overruns, and they certainly did that. They more than doubled them - $100 million to $215 million in a single year, a 100 per cent increase in overruns.

But, Mr. Speaker, when they talk about budget overruns in tile 1974-75 fiscal year, I guess they are referring to the overrun in the Ministry of Human Resources budget, which was something like $84 million. Of course, their budget in human Resources is a heck of a lot more than ours was in 1974-75. But they neglect to mention that, even though their programmes have gone down and the number of people served by the Ministry of Human Resources has declined, they're spending more money than we spent in the 1974-75 budget -spending more money and serving fewer people.

Now that doesn't mean that more people are working, Mr. Speaker, because for every month this government has been in office another 1,300 people have gone off the job rolls and into unemployment. One year under the NDP, 77,000 jobs created; the best year under the Social Credit government, 29,000 jobs.

Now they neglect to mention, Mr. Speaker, that in the same year that the Hurd, -. resources budget increased by $100 million, revenues in this province increased by something like $450 million, with no substantial increase in tax rates - in fact, with no increase in tax rates at all. And in the year they talk about having a $100 million overrun, this government - the NDP government - had a $94 million surplus that went into the surplus account of this province. It went into the public accounts of the province of British Columbia, certified by the comptroller-general. He doesn't believe it.

AN RON. MEMBER: He's challenging tile comptroller-general.

MR.SKELLY: Is he challenging the

[ Page 571 ]

province which has a responsible government and which reveals the facts to the members of the Legislature so that they can deal with those facts in rational, reasonable terms, in any other government in this province we would have had a budget paper outlining the rationale, documenting how that $39 million would relate to job creation in the province.

If you want positive comment across the floor, if you want constructive criticism of a budget, that's the way to do it. You give us the facts and we'll give you constructive criticism. That's what's needed in this Legislature. That's what the member for Skeena was talking about.

Mr. Speaker, we get in this budget, page 24, a listing of supposed employment programmes adopted by the present government: an accelerated industrial development programme where they are going to buy shares in one of the Grown corporations; a reforestation programme which the minister says is going to create 75,000 man-hours of employment. That's a half an hour of employment for everybody who is registered at a Manpower office in this province seeking work. They get a half an hour of work for an investment.... Oh, half a day. I stand corrected - 75,000 man-days of employment. As I pointed out, that is half a day's work for everybody who is registered at a manpower office in this province seeking employment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: At least we have the money to do it.

MR. SKELLY: The minister says at least he had the money to do it. how did he get the money? Now this should be budget paper No. 2: "How we got the money to run a $76 million programme to create employment in the province of British Columbia. First of all, we sold your ferries that you guys own. We sold the ferries to some trust companies back on Bay Street, and out of your assets we're going to create jobs for a year. Now we're still going to have to pay lease fees on the ferries for time immemorial and then we'll have the right to buy them back at maybe twice the cost - $97 million dollars." They sold off the ferries. They robbed money from special funds created from surplus funds generated by previous governments. They stole money from surplus funds to put in a programme to create jobs for a single year. Perpetual funds.

HON. MR. MUIR; On a point of order, surely we cannot tolerate the suggestion that money has been stolen.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member is imputing any improper motive to any member, I would ask him to withdraw. Please withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I wasn't imputing improper motives as far as robbing one account to stock another account. I withdraw that word.

They took money from perpetual-fund accounts and surplus-fund accounts, and that's where they got the money for this job-creation programme. They eliminated surpluses developed by previous governments and created a job-creation programme that is going to last one single year. They sold the house to buy groceries.

Provincial highways programme. Where did they get the money for the provincial highways programme? Well, they said here that the maintenance programme is going to get an upgrading; they're going to go up to $27 million. They are going to give them $27 million extra for their maintenance programme to augment an already large programme of upgrading and extending the province's highways system. But where did they get that money, Mr. Speaker?

We should have this explained to us in a budget paper, carefully prepared - an analysis for members to look at so that if this government is believable, they can be believed. But we should have that laid out in an analysis. When we look at the actual budget, we find out that they have taken something like $23 million away from the capital programme, resulting in a net increase in expenditure for highways maintenance and capital taken together of $5 million. That's far less than inflation. Not a single new job created as a result of that programme. That's $27 million transferred from the capital budget to the maintenance budget, all those jobs done away with under the capital programme and replaced in the maintenance programme. Not a single new job created and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, probably fewer jobs available than ever before.

Somebody sent me the front page of the North Island Gazette, Port hardy, March 22,1978. This is the Minister of Highways' programme. In 1969, they completed the Nimpkish Valley road through to Zeballos because the mine there shut down under the government and people thought the town was going to die. So they built a road through there so people could get out a lot easier. But now they're not maintaining the road. The workers at Zeballos went on strike and they picked up their shovels and had to go out to fill potholes on the road by hand so they could get out of Zeballos.

[ Page 572 ]

But what he didn't know, Mr. Speaker, was that the government, the NDP government, through sound financial management...

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: ...through sound financial management, in the first year of its operation...

Interjections.

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

MR. SKELLY: ... in the first year of operations, redeemed something like $74 million in parity bonds, balanced the situation so that, if there was a run on parity bonds created by irresponsible statements - such as that Premier's father made on those two night-sitting debates in this Legislature - this province had the financial power to redeem those parity bonds without sacrificing government programmes.

When we took over this province, the amount of outstanding, instant debt created a perilous financial situation for this government, a financial situation that we immediately set about to work to redeem. And we ended up in that year with a f financial surplus of $140 million; and if you doubt it, check the public accounts. But you weren't here to ask the questions.

So you talk about the financial situation of the government. Compare the situation with regard to this government that's been on the federal dole for the last three years. You're getting a third of a billion dollars more from the federal government now than the province got three years ago. This is a have-not province now as a result of Social Credit policy. We're on the federal dole now more than ever. This finance minister criticized the federal government, said that $11 billion deficits are discouraging investor confidence in the economy of this country; and yet he's sharing in that deficit to the tune of over $800 million. So he's taking the debt on one hand, and criticizing the federal government for raising it on the other.

Not only that, they've taken programmes that were handled on pay-as-you-go basis by this province under the NDP government and put them on a debt financed basis.

MR. LOEWEN: What grade did you teach?

MR. SKELLY: I worked at Oakalla prison farm and met some of your previous cabinet ministers there: Robert Bonner - you know, the Attorney-General of this province, possibly before he was working for M & B, I don't know; he may have been working f or them at the same time. But I worked for Robert Bonner down there at Oakalla prison farm, where some of your former cabinet ministers were living at the time, at public expense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hardly relevant to the motion.

MR. SKELLY: Somebody asked a question, Mr. Speaker, and it's difficult to get answers in question period; and I thought I shouldn't take it as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not proper to ask questions of the member now speaking. Please, proceed.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, Mr. Speaker. The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) pointed out a few days ago that he was complaining about the conduct of members on both sides of the House, and the fact that we go back and forth criticizing each other - that nothing positive and constructive comes out of debates such as these. He said that all we do is holler back and forth across the floor at each other, and use the same old political clichés. And I must admit that what I was doing was responding to the minister of wrecking and conning, who got up and hollered those kinds of remarks across the floor. I must admit that I did get mad. But it is true, what the member f or Skeena said, that very few of the debates, very few of the speeches made in this House are constructive. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that as a backbench member, as an ordinary member of this legislature, one of the reasons for that is that it's so frustrating dealing with a government that does not give you the facts. For example, on a budget like this - a budget to the tune of $4 billion - in another province, or almost every other province, we would get budget papers providing a rationale for what the government is planning to do.

We've often asked the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) what studies he had done to show how removing succession duties would improve the job-creation climate and the investment climate in the province. Mr. Speaker, this relates directly to the failure of the government to involve themselves in a full-employment strategy.

But we've asked the Minister of Finance to table documents that show us how the loss of

$39 million in provincial revenues in a single year and sending that money back to the millionaires is going to create jobs in the province of British Columbia. Now in any other

[ Page 573 ]

comptroller-general? He never did in public accounts. The time he was on the public accounts and economic affairs committee he never bothered to show up. A $94 million surplus in that year, Mr. Speaker, and where did that money go? Into job-creation programmes throughout this province: $35 million in special employment programmes; $15 million for community-recreation facilities funds; $20 million for the ferries, to build ferries that we paid for in cash, which they sold to some Bay Street companies back east. They talk about pay-as-you-go. We paid cash for three ferries, built in shipyards in this province...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: how do you pay cash out of a deficit?

MR. SKELLY: ... in a year when we had a $94 million surplus in this province. In 1974 the fiscal surplus was $140 million. Excess of revenue over expenditures was $140 million in the 1974 budget of the New Democratic Party government. And where did that surplus go, Mr. Speaker? Thirty-five million dollars went for the construction of those same ferries, the Queen of Cowichan, the Queen of Coquitlam and the Queen of Alberni - $35 million paid in solid, hard cash, currency of the realm. Pay as you go? You sold them back east to the Bay Street boys, and now you rent them back.

MR. LAUK: What a bunch of rubes.

MR. SKELLY: Now you rent them back, cooking the books. Out of that $140 million surplus generated by the good management of an NDP government, $15 million went to lower school taxes, as my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) pointed out, when the school district in Vancouver was paying a lower percentage of school costs than they've paid in any year since the Social Credit government took office.

Talk about senior citizens' housing and housing programmes in this government. Out of that $140 million budget surplus as a result of NDP good management of the economy, $40 million went to first and second mortgages for home buyers in the province of British Columbia and $10 million went to community recreation facilities. Every single community in the province benefited from the surplus generated by the NDP government in that year and from the good financial management that that NDP government exercised. Ten million dollars went to the B.C. Medical Centre, $10 million went to guaranteed income for farmers, and $10 million went to development of agricultural products secondary industry. What do the farmers think of that minister now? Five million dollars went to the B.C. Cultural Fund and $5 million to the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund.

MR. SPEAKER: How does the hon. member relate this to the amendment?

MR. SKELLY: We are talking about overruns, Mr. Speaker, to the tune of $215 million by this government this year - overruns, department by department, totalling a quarter of a billion dollars.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I draw to all hon. members' attention that it is difficult for certain members to call for the protection of the Chair, in shouting for order, when they themselves are out of order. Therefore, if you wish the protection of the Chair, be sure that you yourselves are in order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to relate my remarks to the questions brought up by some of the ministers and the members across the floor relating to overruns, and that's strictly relevant to the amendment. The speaker who was on the floor before me was talking about a $500 million cash reserve that was in the reserves when the NDP government took over. I don't know how he got that figure - he probably made it up on the floor when he stood up. And he said that we left the province $400 million in debt. This is the debt, instant parity bond debt, when we took over as government of this province. And that Premier's father stood up before he left office 22 days after the election, after he had burned half the papers, and he said that the province was in good financial shape, they had $98 million in surplus, but he had something in instant debt that could be redeemed by the people of this province against provincial government account - $253 million in parity bonds instant debt. I remember a night sitting in this House, Mr. Speaker - you were here, but the present Premier wasn't because he was still in the hardware business up in Kelowna, waiting for his dad to quit - when that former Premier got up on the floor and made an inflammatory speech in which he tried to create a run on parity bonds in this province in order to destroy the finances of this government, knowing that he had oversold parity bonds beyond the ability of this province to redeem them.

[ Page 574 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's honourable.

AN HON. MEMBER: hear what he said? "Honourable."

MR. SKELLY: "Logging Stops for Work on Roads." how many thousands of dollars of lost timber production was there because the workers had to quit work and go out and f ill potholes on the Zeballos to Nimpkish Valley road, because this government doesn't spend a nickel on that road unless somebody forces them to spend the money?

This relates to a strategy of full employment, Mr. Speaker. And I'm talking about full employment and how this $22 million figure shuffling relates to full employment in the province. No new jobs created.

The member for Vancouver South was talking about the airport development programme, and 1 support that programme. In fact, when I was a backbencher in the previous government, 1 asked the Minister of Transport.... Before that time, Mr. Speaker, we didn't have a Minister of Transport. Before that time we didn't have a Minister of Transport, we didn't have a transport policy, but under the NDP we set up a department to do some transportation planning in the province. One of the things that they were working on was an airport development programme similar to the one that they've had in Saskatchewan for many years. This pamphlet is dated 1974, relating to the Saskatchewan programme for development of road access to national airports, for development of runway and lighting facilities at community airports in remote areas, and financial grants both for operating and for capital. Even for private airports they would pay $500 a year for a private airport operator to help maintain his airport facility in case one of the pilots involved in the civil aviation field in Canada required the use of that airport in an emergency situation. So in Saskatchewan they have this programme in effect and it's been in effect for something like five years. I asked the minister to set it up, and he got his transportation people to work on it.

But then, when the member for Vancouver South was talking about this programme, I said: "Steve, do you realize how much money is in that programme? It's only going to be $3 million." Fortunately it's $5 million. I didn't know at that time it was going to be $5 million. lie said: "Yes, but a lot of work can be done by volunteer labour." That is the employment programme in this province under this $5 million airport assistance programme.

AN RON. MEMBER: User pay.

MR. SKELLY: They give $5 million to airports to put in fuel facilities, lighting facilities, terminal facilities - $5 million. With that amount of money you have to have a heck of a lot of volunteer labour because there's not that much money involved in there that can be used to develop airport facilities to any effect in this province.

The trouble with the present government is that in this budget they try to do too many things for too many people to maintain their options in the event of an election, Mr. Speaker. So they gave $2 million to fisheries and they gave $2 million elderly citizens' housing construction. [illegible] the cost of an intermediate care home in Port Alberni. I'm talking about job creation, Mr. Speaker.

In one year we put $40 million into second mortgages out of fiscal services from good NDP management. What do they do? Two million dollars into elderly citizens' housing. What a paltry contribution. Talk about job creation. There's nothing in this budget for job creation, Mr. Speaker. That's why we presented this amendment. No approach whatsoever to full employment.

The Minister of Forests talks about his $10 million reforestation programme. By his Acts alone - by his cutting down in the Vancouver forest district from close utilization to intermediate use, by his cutting back in road construction and maintenance standards - we've lost almost 600 jobs on Vancouver Island alone in maintenance and ground crews.

A situation worse than the Vancouver plywood situation, Mr. Speaker, is that member's job-creation programme. Calvert Knudsen, the chief executive officer of MacMillan Bloedel, came down to Port Alberni a few days ago and he said: "Those people aren't going to be hired back until 1982." By that time they've lost their call-back privileges with MacMillan Bloedel and it's unlikely that they'll ever get jobs on road maintenance again. Those jobs are lost forever. You talk about creating 75,000 man-days of employment in this province under this $10 million programme. You've killed twice that many jobs just in the last year alone. There have been 1,300 jobs lost for every single month this government has been in office.

We all got a letter in the mail today, Mr. Speaker. The member for Vancouver Centre was talking about energy problems in a conference he attended in Vancouver relating to energy problems and the crisis that this province is going to face. Energy isn't addressed at all

[ Page 575 ]

in this budget. In a speech I made relative to the throne speech debate, I pointed out that alternate energy sources and lower and intermediate technology electrical generation can create 10 times the jobs of these centralized types of generation facilities we have with B.C. Hydro.

But I got a newsletter from B.C. Research today; "Guidelines to Industrial Progress" it's called. B.C. Research has been working since 1940 on fluidized-bed technology to develop electricity from things like wood wastes, hog fuel, coal and this kind of thing. Are we making use of that technology here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? No way.

B.C. Research has contracted with the Saskatchewan Power Corporation of Regina to supply a 5 million Btu unit which will be a fourfold scale-up of the present pilot plant. Saskatchewan Power plans to install the unit at the Saskatchewan Forest Products mill, Hudson's Bay, Saskatchewan.

This is technology developed here in British Columbia that could be used here in British Columbia to develop jobs here in British Columbia, but because of a lack of sound energy policy, a lack of job-creation strategy and full-employment strategy by that gang over there, we're losing those jobs and we're losing that research. And where are they going? They're going where people have confidence in the economy and confidence in the government - to Saskatchewan under the NDP. That's technology produced here in British Columbia but not used here in British Columbia because we don't have a government that's concerned about innovation.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about what the city of Vancouver is doing. They've hired an energy conservation officer and he's developing a programme in the city of Vancouver to save energy, to create jobs, to save taxpayers' money. They went to the B.C. Energy Commission and asked them for money to help fund some of the projects in order to create jobs and to save energy in the province, and the B.C. Energy Commission said: "We don't have any money." We're the only province in Canada that doesn't have a solar energy demonstration project, that doesn't involve themselves in alternate energy projects. We did under the NDP. Windpower in the Queen Charlotte Islands: we developed a windpower system. We began an investigation of the geothermal resources of the province, and forced B. C. Hydro to get involved in geothermal energy development - never before under the Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of lower intermediate technology job-creation projects we could get involved in. The city of Vancouver is doing it, the city of Edmonton is doing it, the city of Seattle is going it, everybody is involved in it, but there is nothing from the provincial government. They don't even address them elves to the problem of energy conservation and development of jobs through new energy technologies.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they could just harness Phillips, it would be good.

MR. SKELLY: That would solve the transportation and energy problem all at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the state of California has done.... Part of the problem is that we haven't identified target groups that need job-creation programmes.

I sent a letter at one time to the parks branch, to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , who just got up and made an hysterical speech in the House a little while ago. I sent him some information about the California conservation corps that was set up by Governor Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown's government had identified a problem that a large number of young people.... The baby boom, passing through the school system, had now reached the point where they were participating in the labour force and were looking for something worthwhile to do. California has some tremendous environmental problems, problem managing their forests, managing wildlife and the common property resources that don't receive adequate management anywhere in North America. So Brown set up the California conservation corps as a vehicle to employ this target group, to give them some outdoor experience, plus to manage some of the resources that hadn't received attention from government before. Now we have thousands of young people working in California, through the California conservation corps, involved in healthy outdoor work, involved in resolving some of the environmental and natural resource management problems that had been prevalent in that area for some time, and keeping those people off the streets.

We don't have that kind of job-creation programme here in British Columbia, because we really don't have a government that is concerned enough to analyse and to identify the problems. What we really need, Mr. Speaker, is that kind of analysis. When a budget comes down in this House we should see the rationale behind that budget. It's one thing to talk about a billion dollars for education, a billion dollars for health, so

[ Page 576 ]

many I dollars for this and that, but we would like to see the rationale in terms of jobs created, before we can approve this budget.

MR. LEA: So would Evan!

MR. SKELLY: Evan probably heard about the budget after most of the other people in cabinet, after Tom wrote it.

But, Mr. Speaker, we do need that kind of rationale for the budget, and until we can see the facts about job creation and the facts about the financial management of this government, there is absolutely no way that we can support this budget. I would encourage all members on both sides of the House to support this amendment.

MR. KERSTER: Just for a change of pace, I think I would like to return for a moment to the real world and speak against this motion. Mr. Speaker, I can't say it's a frivolous motion because, obviously, if it were really definitively termed frivolous you wouldn't have allowed it to be brought forward in the first place. But I think I can call it transparent, because I think everyone in B.C. can see through it. I think it is nothing but an attempt by the NDP opposition to really sidestep and avoid debating the real issues, and that is the budget. The NDP don't want to debate that budget. They turned noticeably pale when it was brought down. They all ran out of this room saying: "It's an election budget." How could they really talk negatively about a very positive budget brought down by this government?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to this particular motion, and one of the last lines of the motion, where they refer specifically to the fact that no cost-control provision -at least this is what they allege - has been offered to prevent unauthorised expenditures by special warrant overruns which last year reached $215 million.

Well, it's odd that they speak about overruns, and it's odd, Mr. Speaker, that they speak about expenditures that all governments really have utilized. All methods of spending have been utilized in areas of overruns or alleged overruns. Governments do spend additional moneys because government programmes change from time to time away from the specifically budgeted, laid-out funds.

These are spent, Mr. Speaker. The NDP did it. Our government did it. Probably we'll do it again, but these are spent by special warrant under statutory authorization. I think, really, ' to get away from this "through the looking-glass" nonsense, that one can only describe additional expenditures as overruns when the funds expended aren't there to spend.

I'd like to refer back to the public accounts of British Columbia for the fiscal year ended March 31,1975. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, if we look on page C12 we'll see the total budgetary expenditure under those great financial managers, the former NDP government, who've been standing up applauding their fiscal responsibility for the last three days. Financial experts. They got a long-distance call from Arabia the other day; their payments are overdue.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. They had actually budgeted for $2,172, 796,526. They actually spent $2,531, 067,142. Now their overrun, if you want to look at it as an overrun, was $358,270, 616.

Now granted, under special warrant and statutory authorization there was authorized expenditures that year of $203,368, 495, but then on top of that - and this doesn't include clerical errors - they had $154,902, 121 that they couldn't account for. These are funds over and above their special warrants. I'll tell you something. Mr. Speaker, they talk about special warrants.

While they have been touching on overruns, I would like to talk about some moneys that were spent under a special warrant. I think they talked about having a deposit in the B.C. Central Credit Union. I think they said this was a credit to the NDP government of $2.5 million that they said they deposited for the safekeeping of the people of this province in the B.C. Central Credit Union. I want to point out something about that particular special warrant. That special warrant was issued one day before the writ was dropped for the election in December of 1975. That special warrant was authorized on December 10,1975. That's fiscal responsibility? That was $2.5 million, and you know what that was for? That wasn't a deposit at all; that was put up as collateral to cover a bad loan. That loan would never be made by the Bank of British Columbia or by any other bank in this province. Ron. members, those opposite in the NDP just think back to the days of the Arctic Harvester. Ask your former minister of economic destruction; he knows all about it. He signed that special warrant. So did your former Premier. That kind of fiscal responsibility we can do without.

We talked about overruns. As I say, Mr. Speaker, these overruns and all this blathergab about $215 million this year is just utter nonsense because if the money's there, it's not an overrun. Fiscal responsibility and the sound fiscal management

[ Page 577 ]

of this government has meant that the money was there to spend; and if it's there to spend, issue a special warrant and spend it for services for people. That's what we've done in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention that the little member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) very briefly referred to mine closures as related to unemployment. I just want to jog his amnesia for a moment. I was going to deal with this in my reply to the budget speech but I don't know whether we'll ever get a chance to reply with all this nonsense going on. But you know, I looked up some statistics and in 1976-77 there were two mine closures, and our government is definitely responsible for this. There were two mine closures. We were responsible and our Minister of Mines was responsible for the loss of 170 jobs. But you know, I think they should really look back just a wee nip and take a look back to 1973-75, when after scratching and clawing their way for 20 years to try and get power in this province, they had no less than 16 mine closures. How many jobs were lost? There were 1,381 jobs that they've never mentioned.

It took them 20 years to make Who's Who and it took them one day in December to make "Who's Through."

Mr. Speaker, I think that it's important that both sides of the story come out. The member for Alberni stated: "When we took over this province...." Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how politics has worked here but the parliamentary process normally is to be elected and to represent constituents as a representative, democratic government. But his statement was: "When we took over this province...." Well, it's obvious that they took it over and it's obvious what they did with it, and it's obvious what they're doing with it right now. They're side-stepping all of the issues. They want to talk about money, they want to get up and brag about all of their fiscal responsibility, how they protected the taxpayers' money, how they shovelled it out of the back of a truck and then sold the truck up in Duncan somewhere for a dollar. They can talk about that, but let's do it during the budget debate. Let's do it during the minister's estimates. Mr. Speaker, let's debate the budget.

I reject this motion; I think it's a sham.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wasn't going to speak on this....

HON. MR. BENNETT : You'll make them sick.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'm here to heal, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned to speak on this Amendment, because it is a frivolous amendment and doesn't really mean very much, but after listening to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) develop the new NDP slogan for the next election, I thought I might say a few words. That new slogan, incidentally, is: "We were going to do it." Talk about airports: "Oh, we were going to do that." Talk about revenue sharing: "We were going to do that. We had a little book here from Saskatchewan that told us we were going to do that." Auditor-General: "We were going to do that." Ombudsman: "We were going to do that." Full taxation for government buildings: "We were going to do that." Quarterly financial reports: "We were going to do that." Universal Pharmacare: "We were going to do that." Nonsense! -

The member, in attempting to develop this amendment to the main motion, complained about this government getting federal grants. He said we were on the f federal dole. Imagine, a person who's charged with the responsibility of being part of government complaining because for the first time in history we've developed a good relationship with the federal government.

That's money that the B.C. taxpayers sent to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker; and we've brought it back to help create jobs in this province. There's been $8 million brought back to B.C. for the B.C. Ferries for the first time in history, and $80 million brought back for secondary education that was sitting in Ottawa and left there by that former Education minister, left there and not touched. It's B.C. money, just waiting to come back to build jobs for our people, Mr. Speaker.

Even after listening to those comments by that member I still probably wouldn't have spoken on this silly amendment, except for the comments that the little member for Vancouver Centre made about health care particularly. That little member talked about health-care cuts in relation to the amendment talking about imposed costs and taxes. I'd like for that member or any member on that side of the floor to tell us about one health-care cut anywhere in British Columbia, and I challenge you because you can't do it, you cannot do it. But you won't tell the people about the 110,000 additional people who will be getting premium subsidies, thanks to this government.

When this government took office, the Emergency Health Services Commission was a shambles. On with the debate. When this government took office we found an ambulance service which was in shambles. Training had

[ Page 578 ]

been stopped by that previous government because they ran out of money, and jobs were being eliminated because that former government ran out of money. I'm proud to say today that ambulance training is going at full tilt, and we are training paramedics in this province today full scale. I was very happy the other day to be able to take part in the development of the 100th new ambulance to serve the people of this province. I'm proud that we were able to turn that around and provide the first air ambulance service in the history of this province, where people from anywhere in this province now come to hospital for a maximum cost of $100, because of good management, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Even you don't believe that, Bob.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're thankful for it, Mr. Member, and one day when you go home, if you ever do, the people of Prince Rupert will tell you that they love it as well - if you ever go home or if You ever dare to go home.

The saddest cut of all, Mr. Speaker, was when that little member for Vancouver Centre talked about his own city, the city of Vancouver, and talked about health-care cuts. What nonsense! More jobs will be created because of the health policies in the city of Vancouver alone by this government.

We are building a new Children's hospital to serve the people of this province. It's under construction. We are building a new Grace Hospital to serve the mothers of this province. It's building. We are rebuilding, at a cost of $28 million, St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. We are building to a 100 new beds the cancer control agency clinic for a total of $15 million. Mr. Speaker, that little member didn't even know that the Vancouver General Hospital had got its certification, and the only reason it got its certification was because this government has committed $70 million to rebuild that hospital.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The little member for Vancouver Centre. There are two of them -one's big, one's little.

Mr. Speaker, those developments in the city of Vancouver mean jobs for all of the people in that city. We are developing jobs in this ministry alone by developing new health centres all over this province. I'd like to just tell you about a couple of them: Prince George, $2.5 million; Nanaimo, $2 million; Terrace, $2 million; North Kamloops, $1.2 million; Vernon, $2.2 million; Parksville, $1 million; Langley and Surrey; Kelowna, $3.5 million...

AN HON. MEMBER: How much in Langley and Surrey?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I didn't want to say, Mr. Speaker - $800,000 in Surrey and $300,000 in Langley. I just didn't want to brag.

Others include Nelson, $3.5 million; Cranbrook, $3.5 million; and Chilliwack, $1.2 million. It goes on so much I don't want to keep going. But, you know, it comes to $35 million; and that means jobs, jobs for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this government brought in a long-term health care programme that now has 15,000 beds covered in this province, 15,000 people who were cut out of the health-care delivery system. That government only promised; this government delivered.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I looked through all of this material, not only have we kept all our promises that we made in 1975, but we've kept all yours that you only talked about for many years. Yes, the good ones.

Mr. Speaker, what does the new long-term care programme mean in terms of jobs?

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, silly little man. It means about 2,200 new, long-term care beds built in the next two years. And maybe you'd like to hear where some of those are going as well.

Campbell River, $2 million; Parksville, $1.4 million; Port Alberni, $1,800, 000; Luther Court, Victoria, $1,800, 000; the Gulf Islands, $1,300, 000; Vernon, $2 million; Prince Rupert, $1,300, 000; Vanderhoof, $600,000; Kelowna, $800,000; Chilliwack, again, $2.5 million; Creston, $1 million; South Delta, $2.8 million; Skeena View and Terrace, $1,600, 000; Haro Park in Vancouver, $4 million; Parkdale Place in Summerland, $1.3 million; Burnaby, $1,100, 000: 2,200 new beds to be built in two years to provide jobs for the people of British Columbia, and places for the ill and handicapped of this province.

AN RON. MEMBER: Where do you get the money?

MR. McCLELLAND: Where did we get the money, Mr. Speaker? We got the money by prudent investment of the taxpayers' money of British Columbia, and good management on their behalf.

[ Page 579 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not where we get the money; it's where the money goes.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: 1 hate to tell you about this one, I really do. Mr. Speaker, I hate to rub it in. Should I not?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, at the extreme urging of my colleagues I must tell you about these job-creation products - $770 million in the next five years in hospital construction in this province.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what that other government spent in the five-year period for which it was responsible? They spent $40 million a year in hospital construction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A total of $200 million. What did they do with all their money?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What did they do with the people's money, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's nothing to show f or it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: From 1978 to 1983 in hospital construction alone - which is entirely in the private sector, 1r. Speaker -the direct jobs created will be 15,000 and, indirectly, another 15,000 for 30,000 jobs in hospital construction alone in the next five years. This is one ministry in this government providing jobs for the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the private sector?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are you the private sector?

AN HON. MEMBER: Those are private-sector jobs.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Those are private-sector jobs, which you wouldn't understand much about.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, confidence has returned in this province. It is evidenced by the number of new jobs that are being created and have been created in this province. For that little opposition to set forward the kind of amendment to the motion on the budget that they have done here is pure cowardice. They were afraid to debate the budget in this House; they don't have the ability, they don't have the nerve and they don't have the competence to debate the kind of budget that the people of British Columbia have been waiting for for years and now have got the positive kind of results from this government that will see this province move forward and forward and forward.

I'm glad to see, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) agreed today that after the next election there will be another Social Credit government. I was very happy to hear him say that in the House because it's the first time anyone from that side of the House has been realistic in the debate. We'll be able to go on to bigger and better things, and more and more jobs, and more and more security f or all the people of this province, thanks to the positive programmes of the government of British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: If the only comfort that the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has to look forward to in the next election is the possible prediction from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , I can understand why the Premier is denying that it's an election budget.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you heard me say "possible prediction." I didn't hear that prediction, I've heard the interpretation. Mr. Speaker, you and I have heard the minister speak about it. It was a possible prediction; I didn't hear the prediction itself.

As far as the Minister of health's brave prediction about what he is going to do in the next five years, the $700 million that he is going to spend on hospital construction in the next five years, he compares that with the $40 million a year that was spent by the NDP government. I haven't checked his figures, but I would suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is one real difference. The $40 million

[ Page 580 ]

spent per year by the NDP were real dollars. What he's talking about, "in the next five years, " may be election promises - the kind of election promises that group made to the farmers in the province; the kind of election promises that the farmers have been telling me they believed when they heard them from that group, but the kind of election promises that those farmers have come to regret. Many of them have assured me that they will not make that mistake again. Many of them have assured me that they always voted Social Credit, ever since it was formed, but they certainly will not do so again, because of this government's record of job creation, and because of this government's record of breaking promises.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) spoke on the subamendment yesterday, and I was rather surprised at some of the figures he gave to the Legislature and how he dared to use these f figures in the debate, I suspect, in seriousness. I give him credit for doing it seriously. But I'd like to consider some of those figures and the effect of those figures on the job-creating possibilities of the B.C. economy - either private or public. I want to quote some of the figures that the minister did use in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, and analyse them and look at them from a job-creating point of view. He suggested that had the various taxes and the various user rates - and he listed them - not been increased the way they were, it would have been necessary for his government to have borrowed $900 million to maintain the level of services that they maintained in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we've raised the argument over and over again. Economists in British Columbia, across the country and even internationally have raised the argument that it was this very government's repressive tax increases and user-rate increases that hit the B.C. economy to the extent that they did, and that created the very bad economy that we've had in British Columbia in the last two and a half years.

Let's look at the individual price increases and user-rate increases that the minister mentioned. Top of the list, Mr. Speaker, was the sales tax increase. He suggested that had it not been for that sales tax increase, he would have had to borrow an extra $213 million. Mr. Speaker, we pointed out when he first introduced that increase some two and a quarter years ago what the effect of that increase would be and what effect it would have on the economy. Since then, time after time, many of the members of the Legislature on this side have pointed out and on the other side knew that that sales tax increase drew business out of the province, drove it into Alberta and drove it into Washington state. We've seen reports from many of the business people in the province expressing concern about the effect of that sales tax increase on their own businesses. Mr. Speaker, I think the terrible effect on employment - the increase in unemployment - caused by that one tax increase alone has been proven over and over again.

MR. MACDONALD: And loss of public revenue too.

MR. STUPICH: The fact that it did hurt the economy so much, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out, had a very bad effect on provincial government revenue. Increasing that sales tax by $213 million cost the citizens of this province a good deal more than that. It cost the business community many hundreds of millions of dollars and cost government revenues untold millions of dollars as well by depressing the economy.

I quoted in this Legislature previously remarks made by Mr. Woodward, the head of Woodward's Stores, about the effect of the sales tax increase on his business. I've quoted from Kelly Douglas, who reported at one stage that their business in western Canada was doing quite well, thank you. If it were not for the depressed economy existing in the province of British Columbia, they would have done extremely well in 1976, but because of the depressed economy in British Columbia, in large measure created by that very substantial 40 per cent increase in the rate of sales tax, the economy in B.C. suffered and government revenue suffered. So for him to say that he would have had to borrow $213 million had he not increased the sales tax by 40 per cent is simply flying in the face of all of the information that has been available to us from every other source. Likely he would have been in something like a break-even position had he not imposed that drastic increase in sales tax.

Mr. Stupich moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.