[ Page 581 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Vancouver Island Energy Authority Act (Bill M 201) .

Introduction and first reading. Mr. Skelly –– 581

Statement

Referral of press questions to Crown corporations committee. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 581

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Fort Nelson motion on railway debate. Mr. Lauk –– 582

Use of American lumber on Seven Mile Dam. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 582

Sales tax on telephone bills. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 582

Improvements for public service pensions. Ms. Brown –– 583

Negotiations for B.C. immigration agreement. Mr. Gibson –– 583

Civil Liberties Association funding. Mr. Levi –– 583

Government aircraft logs. Mrs. Dailly –– 583

Corporate taxes. Mr. Levi –– 584

Salary of Resources Investment Corporation president. Mr. Barber –– 584

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Mr. Stupich –– 587

Mrs. Dailly I –– 590

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 592

Mr. Mussallem –– 595

Mr. D'Arcy –– 596

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 599

Division on the amendment –– 600

Mr. Bawtree –– 600

Ms. Brown –– 603

Hon. Mr. Nielsen I –– 608

Mr. Barber –– 612

Presenting reports

Joint committee on housing reports. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 618

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to have in the audience today a group of Miss Surrey contestants. They're visiting here as a part of their participation in this contest. I would like to introduce them to the House and have them welcomed: Linda Julliusson; Diane St. Hilaire; Nicole Bedard; Mona Khehra; Heidi Stuber; Caroline Bungert. Sandy Holborn is one of the chaperones, as well as Rick Holborn, and they have with them as well a very well-known Surrey photographer, Mr. Ken Fisher. I would ask the House to welcome them and wish them well.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have visiting with us today a very large delegation from the Frank Hurt Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Dalfonso. they're again visiting the Legislature. I believe there are about 50. Some of them are here now and some will be coming in a little later. I would ask the House to welcome the students.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today - in fact in your gallery, sir - is the chairman of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission board of commissioners, Mrs. Mary Kerr. Would the House welcome her?

MRS. WALLACE: As part of the Grown Zellerbach annual hosting of high school students to this Legislature, I'm very pleased to welcome representatives from the Ladysmith Senior Secondary School - grade 11 students, together with their teachers, Mrs. Smith and Mr. Foster. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask our members of the House to welcome three outstanding young people who are visiting our Legislature today, from a long way away. These gentlemen are being sponsored by the Lions Clubs of Norway to promote tandem cycling for blind and handicapped people. They started a journey from Anchorage, Alaska, on April 1 and will tandem-cycle 7,000 miles to Miami, Florida, arriving there on June 24.

They are accompanied by Mr. Tang and Mr. Cox, who are members of the Lions Club in British Columbia, and I would like to ask the House to welcome these outstanding young people who are going to be a tremendous example to North Americans everywhere they visit: Mr. Tore Naerland, Rolf Borge and Truge Holland.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome to the gallery a very distinguished British Columbian, Mr. Bill Clancy, a personal - not political - friend of mine, and I hope Hansard records that. Bill's had a little bout of illness and we- all wish him well in the recovery.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the members' gallery today we have representatives of the National Farmers' Union who are in Victoria and had meetings with the Social Credit caucus and myself. They are Bev Heindricks, Darryl Viner, Ruth Viner, Arthur Macklin, Stewart Thiessen, Doris Jeannotte, Jean Leahy, Alan Watson and Frank Boult, and I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Along with the Miss Surrey contestants we have a young lady who has represented Surrey very well over the past year, Miss Debbie Swindell, Miss Surrey Princess 1977, and I would ask the House to welcome this beautiful lady.

Introduction of bills.

VANCOUVER ISLAND ENERGY AUTHORITY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, Bill M 201, Vancouver Island Energy Authority Act introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day f or second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to advise the House that yesterday I was telephoned by a Mr. Alex Young, a reporter for the Province newspaper, who contacted me as a newly appointed director of B.C. Hydro and indicated that he had been in discussion with officials of Hydro in an effort to obtain detailed information surrounding different electric generating projects initiated prior to 1976.

Because of the detailed nature of these questions, and because I'm a newly appointed director of Hydro, I consider it appropriate to turn this entire matter over to the Grown corporation reporting committee, which was a procedure developed by the Legislature for this very purpose. With this in mind, I have

[ Page 582 ]

now written to Mr. Veitch, the chairman of this committee, and advised him to take up the matter of these questions at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a copy of that letter.

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short comment on the minister's short statement. Really, I'd like to ask the minister a question. Is the minister suggesting - I may have misunderstood his statement....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There's a dispute as to whether or not leave was granted. I did not hear a no.

Leave not granted.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to respond to the minister's statement.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a little irregular.

Leave not granted.

Oral questions.

FORT NELSON MOTION ON RAILWAY DEBATE

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . A motion was passed by citizens of Fort Nelson, sponsored by the chamber of commerce. Five hundred and fifty people were there Tuesday night last. They passed a unanimous resolution as follows: "That the Minister of Economic Development, seconded by the MIA for North Peace River, move in this Legislature for full debate that the government make an immediate decision with respect to the McKenzie commission interim report."

Has the minister received notification of this motion?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. It seems to me that among numerous other wires and correspondence, I did receive notice of such a motion.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister decided to accede to the request of these 550 people in Fort Nelson?

MR. SPEAKER: order, please. The question is on the basis of a fact: has a decision been made? I think the question is in order.

MR. LAUK: To rephrase it, has the minister made a decision with respect to the request?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, decisions of that nature will be made in due course.

USE OF AMERICAN LUMBER

ON SEVEN MILE DAM

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would like to respond to two questions which I took on notice. The first one was last week directed by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) which had to do with the indication of importation of lumber for a certain Hydro project, I believe, in his area. He asked why an American firm, Atkinson Construction of California, under a contract with B.C. Hydro on the Seven Mile Dam on the Pend-d'Oreille River, is importing common grades of Douglas fir lumber from sawmills in the states of Washington and Oregon.

The answer is that the contractor for the Seven Mile Dam construction, whose name is Atkinson, purchases lumber from B.C. brokers -Big Boy Timber, North Coast Forest Products Ltd. of Vancouver, and R.S. Plant of Kelowna. Competitive bids are called for as required by the contract. The latest order was for Douglas fir scaffolding. When the brokers called for supplies, Celgar chose not to quote, and Kalesnikoff Lumber Company, which has supplied much lumber in the past, could not supply Douglas fir.

B.C. brokers supply lumber from manufacturers according to the bidding procedure, but apparently no Douglas fir of the grade required for scaffolding was available in British Columbia. The prime contractor does not know the source from which the lumber comes until it arrives on the site. So in fact, the tags referred to in the Legislature, which allegedly referred to these shipments, were for Douglas fir scaffolding. I might say as well, Mr. Speaker, we in this House should all take note that this province exports substantial quantities of lumber to our friendly neighbours to the south.

SALES TAX ON TELEPHONE BILLS

The other question had to do with the inquiry about sales tax on telephone bills, directed by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) . I appreciate his asking this question to clarify the matter, although it might have been better if he had given me a little advance notice and we could have responded that same day. He asked the question of whether a telephone bill, which is billed in advance for the monthly service and has been received and the change in tax occurs on April 10 midnight,

[ Page 583 ]

will reflect in a refund to the customer.

Section 3, or the amendment which is before the House and which amends this sales tax from 7 per cent to 5 per cent, makes this very clear in that any services or goods provided for after that date must be at the new rate. So there is no question, insofar as the departmental regulation or interpretation of the Act is concerned, that a bill which crosses over the date on which the tax changes will have to be reflected in an adjustment of the tax.

I'm also advised by the telephone company, in this case, that they will be making adjustments. I believe it is rather difficult to accommodate in the computer system, but I'm advised it is their intention to adjust for this reduction in the tax as of April 10. This would also apply, in any case, to similar bills from B.C. Hydro.

IMPROVEMENTS FOR

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONERS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . On March 22,1977, 1 asked the Provincial Secretary to consider improvements to the public service retirement pensioners who are having increments deducted from their Mincome and who receive no dental coverage. In her response, on page 2161 of Hansard, the minister replied that she would be meeting with this group "next week." I was advised yesterday that this meeting has not yet taken place, nearly 12 months later.

I'm wondering whether the minister could tell me just when she plans to meet with these people, and also whether she's made any decision about including them in the dental plan, which covers the minister's smile.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is one of policy and is not in order. However, if the minister wishes to answer...

MS. BROWN: Asking the minister if she's going to have a meeting is policy?

MR. SPEAKER: No. Apparently there must have been two parts to the question. The part that I heard....

MS. BROWN: There certainly were two parts to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Both parts of the question are out of order. However, the minister may choose to answer.

NEGOTIATIONS FOR B.C.

IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier a question on an area of subject matter he took as notice several days ago. As the Premier is no doubt aware, the federal government has offered all provinces agreements which would give the provincial governments a greater say in immigration matters within their own provincial boundaries. Three provinces have already signed such an agreement, and two more are very seriously considering it.

In view of the fact that B.C. is not one of the three that has signed, nor one of the two apparently seriously considering such a move, and since immigration is such an important question with respect to unemployment levels in British Columbia, can the Premier tell the House if he is considering entering into negotiations for such an agreement, or whether he has rejected the proposal?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are proceeding.

STATUS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

ASSOCIATION FUNDING

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. In August, 1977, and then again in March, 1978, the Civil Liberties Association applied for funding, and no acknowledgements were ever received. As the minister is constantly assuring us of the satisfactory financial status of her ministry, can she inform the House when the funding can be expected, or at least an acknowledgement?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I'll be pleased to bring the answer back to the House.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT LOGS

MRS. DAILLY. My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Several days ago the Premier said he would carry out the normal practice of the Ministry of Energy in giving to the House and producing the government aircraft logs. I wonder if the Premier, first of all, has found out what the normal practice is, and secondly, when he will give the House this information.

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I found out what the normal practice is.

[ Page 584 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Supplementary. Is there any reason, may I ask the Premier, for delay in giving this information to the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There is no delay, Mr. Speaker. The normal practice is being observed.

MR. LEVI: Well, what's the normal practice?

MRS. DAILLY: When the Premier made himself acquainted with his new portfolio and found out what the normal practice is, did he not also find out, from his own point of interest, when he can produce this for the floor of the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker - very shortly.

CORPORATE TAXES

MR. LEVI: A question to the Minister of Finance. Does the Ministry of Finance keep statistics on the financial categories of businesses and the amounts they pay under the Corporation Capital Tax Act?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Member.

SALARY OF RESOURCES INVESTMENT

CORPORATION PRESIDENT

MR. BARBER: A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. What is the annual salary being paid to Mr. David Helliwell, president and chief executive officer of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, and what additional benefits or bonuses, if any, will be paid to Mr. Helliwell?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is not a Crown corporation and, as such, will not be responsible to this Legislature.

MR. BARBER: It's really not a very satisfactory answer, as the Premier takes a great deal of credit for having established it. My question is and I would appreciate it if he would bring the information to this House: what is the annual salary being paid to Mr. David Helliwell, president and chief executive officer of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation and what additional benefits or bonuses, if any, will be paid to Mr. Helliwell?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I might advise the member, who fails to understand the rights and privileges of a public company operating in the private sector, that the big hand of government does not extend, as you would wish it, into the private sector.

The very reason this corporation was set up was to extend to the private sector functions that could be better operated in the private sector without the the heavy intrusion of government. Mr. Speaker, it's just a difference of philosophy. The second member for Victoria wants the big hand of government to reach into every private company in this province and we reject it.

MR. SPEAKER: As a point of interest for all members, questions should not, according to Beauchesne, surpass the competence of a minister in a given field.

MR. BARBER: That would rule out a heck of a lot of questions, Mr. Speaker.

With respect, the Premier has falsified my own position and covered up his awn. I, for one, have no intention of doing that. The supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is: can the Premier give this House, given that the House knows the Premier appointed the directors of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, one good reason to refuse to give us the salary, bonuses and benefits of Mr. Helliwell, its chairman?

HON. MR. BENNETT: After that fighting question from the leader of children's parades, let me tell you that the government appointed an interim board of directors, Mr. Speaker, and this will be of interest to the House....

MR. SPEAKER: May I just interrupt the hon. Premier long enough to suggest that perhaps temperate language might be more acceptable?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That is what I was hoping for, Mr. Speaker.

The member was here and I know he understands the legislation perfectly well. Before going public, the corporation had an interim board of directors. That board of directors then in fact became in charge of all potential assets and all assets of the company. They were not responsible to the government. They were responsible for preparing a prospectus and the prospective shareholders. As such, that is where their responsibility lies.

A public company operating in the private sector deals with its shareholders at annual meetings. That is where the accountability is made. The government does not have the ability

[ Page 585 ]

to intrude into public companies working in the private sector. That would be an invasion of privacy. They have a meeting at which they are accountable to their shareholders that must be conducted under the rules of this province on an annual basis. To say that anybody from government could intrude into these companies again is to extend what has been rejected by the people of this province -that is, the intrusion of socialism into the hand of every private-sector company in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is the Premier saying that the government of the province of British Columbia intends to transfer to this corporation many millions of dollars in assets - the estimate was $27 million, but it is obviously much more - without knowing the financial affairs of that corporation, without making that matter of open public knowledge when public assets are going to be transferred on such a colossal scale to that corporation?

HON. MR. MAIR: You drafted the Companies Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You should know better.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD. That's really the closed door of secrecy of a public operation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: You have millions of dollars of assets transferred to a company and you don't care to give the public any information about it. Disgraceful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Unfortunately, some of the question period time was lost in speech-making rather than question period.

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would take under advisement my request as a member of this chamber to rule on whether or not the minister responsible for the shareholding of the public in this private company - as the Premier refers to it - will not answer, as required to in question period, questions posed to him with respect of that company.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can only be guided by the precedents which are established for the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in doing so, that is what I was going to submit to you. The NDP minister responsible for the holding company of shares in Canadian Cellulose was asked questions in question period, and gave answers in question period on these very matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this sounds like debate and not like a point of order.

MR. LAUK: But that precedent having been established, is the Speaker going to allow the cabinet to hide behind a statute?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must rehearse for all hon. members the....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) perhaps also be interested in this observation? The precedents are established in this House, and they are simply these. questions can be asked; questions may even be repeated; questions may even be repeated many times if the Chair allows. However, we cannot insist upon answers. That is the precedent in this House and if the House wishes to change that, it must be done by substantive motion.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, am I then to understand that the questions them elves are in order? I misunderstood during question period then.

MR. SPEAKER: Each question stands on its own merit.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, with respect to procedure on ministerial statements. I'd like to draw Your Honour's attention to the Journals of 1976, May 4, when the then Speaker was making a ruling on this matter. He spoke first of all of statements which are made in response to opposition requests, and then goes on to say:

"But the older practice under which they were volunteered spontaneously is also often followed. Prior notice to Mr.

[ Page 586 ]

Speaker is necessary but the leave of the House is not required. As no question is before the House, debate on such statements is irregular. As I observed to the House on May 3, replies to ministerial statements have been permitted to the Leader of the official Opposition, as well as to the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties. In most cases, it is my view that further comment by other hon. members is not permitted."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the practice of this house has been to allow leaders of opposition parties to make responses to ministerial statements. Having raised this question at the earliest opportunity, I would ask to make a reply to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance just before the question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps before proceeding to a reply, I think that it needs to be remembered what procedure governs the Chair. That is, whenever a statement is made in the House and the statement is made by leave, it is the prerogative of any member not to grant leave so that the statement may or may not be made. I think that it would only be just that if a statement is made by leave, a reply also be allowed by leave. However, I am willing to be governed by the wishes of the House. Since leave has been asked for a reply to the statement, I will ask the question: shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, I want to support what is said as to parliamentary rights by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) . I know that in the last few days you have asked leave as to each statement to be made, but it seems to me that it is a matter of parliamentary right that when a minister of the Crown makes a statement, the other recognized political parties in the House have a right to reply, not as a matter of leave or grace. Once that statement has been made by a minister of the Crown, it is part of the tradition of British parliamentary practice that reply statements can be given.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is acceptable to the House, I will review the authorities and also the precedents and come in with a written decision, which will then be the precedent for our own House. Would that be satisfactory?

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just to put it in perspective, I think the member next to me was operating as a member, not as a minister, in that matters quite properly that should be dealt with by a committee of this House were asked of him as a member of this assembly, and not to do with his role as Minister of Finance. The questions, put to him by a reporter, dealt with a detailed series of questions, which he felt should immediately be reported to that committee. The chairman of the committee, having the responsibility to advise the other members of the committee.... As such, I would feel that any member of this Legislature put in that position would take such action to advise the chairman and then advise the Legislature that he has taken such action, out of his respect for the Legislature.

MR. COCKE: There was a fraudulent speech made in support of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) by the First Minister, who has been absolutely ill-behaved today - all day.

MR. GIBSON: If the Premier is going to be permitted to import an argument into this House on the grounds of a point of order, I want to have something to say about that argument. The argument was that the minister was acting not as a minister, but as an ordinary member of this House. I suggest that he was acting as a Minister of Finance, a minister of the Crown in his capacity of being on the board of British Columbia Hydro. The important principle involved here is that no minister of this House must be allowed to slough off his managerial duties on an auditing committee of this House. That's what's basic.

MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, hon. members, both of the previous statements are beyond the scope of a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not commenting on remarks made by other members, Mr. Speaker; I would just like you to consider, when you make your deliberation, that a possible sequence could occur in this House. I see it as follows: a minister could come in, ask for leave, and if he were denied leave, he still has the right to rise as a minister. So it is really redundant for a minister to get up and ask leave. It has, in the past, been a courtesy for the minister to ask leave and that courtesy has always been granted, and, of , course, the courtesy has followed from the other side of the House. But it would almost force members of this side of the House to deny leave so that the minister would have to

[ Page 587 ]

do it under his ministerial prerogative and thus place us under the ruling, as given by the former Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. We'll consider that in coming up with the ruling.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: You may recall yesterday evening, during discussion of this amendment, I was quoting from remarks made by the Minister of Finance in the debate on the subamendment, I believe it was. The Minister of Finance had plenty to say on that occasion and was widely reported. one can only wonder what he was afraid of hearing this afternoon when he denied leave to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party. At least, from here it looked as though he was afraid. We're not sure; it might have been the Premier who was afraid of what might be said. But certainly between the two of them, they denied leave. And yet in this debate on the subamendment, the Minister of Finance did have something to say, something with which we certainly take issue, remarks to the effect that had it not been for the very repressive measures taken by this government, the government would have had to borrow some $900 million to continue offering services over the past two years.

Mr. Speaker, it was those very same repressive measures that have been so disastrous for the economy of British Columbia over the past two years. That's not quoting the NDP, that's quoting many sources as to the effect of the various tax increases and user rate increases imposed by this government -politically inspired blows against the economy of British Columbia in an attempt to justify the actions they were taking.

I've quoted from many sources before, but I've never quoted from this particular one. It's a Province clipping, November 2,1977, referring to retail sales. one of the items the Minister of Finance referred to was the increase in sales tax, which he said brought in another $213 million. The effect of that increase in sales tax was to drive down retail sales. To some extent, at least, that increase in sales tax was counter-productive. The article says, in part:

"B.C. retails have not grown as fast as the national average. B.C. was always among the leaders in Canadian provinces. In this period B.C. retail sales have not grown as fast as the national average."

Further down in the same article:

"While August and September were reported by Vancouver department stores to have been good compared to the spring season and the same months last year" -some recovery in the economy but not much - "B.C. still lagged behind the nation in August. According to Statistics Canada, department store sales nationwide were up 13.9 per cent in August from a year earlier. Department store sales in Alberta were up 19.4 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 17 per cent; Ontario, 16 per cent; in the Atlantic provinces" -the depressed area of Canada - "retail store sales were up 13.6 per cent; in Manitoba, 13.3 per cent; in Quebec, 9.8 per cent;" and finally, down in the bottom of the list, B.C. was 9.4 per cent.

The article goes on to quote Melvin Fruitman, Retail Council's research manager in Toronto: "The greatest contribution government could make to retail sales and the economy would be for the B.C. government to take off the sales tax." Well, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't taken off. We never argued that it could be taken off. But we certainly argued that it should be reduced, and we've argued that the increase in that sales tax had a disastrous effect on the economy of British Columbia. To say that levying that sales tax saved us from borrowing money does not agree with the comments made by everyone else. It was politically inspired and it was a disastrous blow to our economy. Had it not been for that blow, likely government revenues would have been higher rather than lower.

The Minister of Finance commented on many other blows. I don't intend to go over them in detail. I will refer to the income tax increase, about which the Premier expressed concern earlier, and yet which has gone up even higher. The Minister of Finance said, in his remarks, that had it not been f or the increase in income tax, he would have been obliged to borrow another $80 million over the two years.

Reading from an editorial in the Daily Colonist - not noted for its support of the NDP, either provincially or federally - dated Thursday, April 21,1977: "The perplexing thing is that it is the NDP only which supports the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada for income tax cuts to create consumer demand and lead to more jobs." Those are the key words. The very measures that this Minister of Finance said were

[ Page 588 ]

responsible for him not having to borrow $900 million have had a disastrous cumulative effect on the economy of British Columbia, and are responsible for us being in the depressed state that everyone in Canada says we are in relative to the rest of Canada.

The Minister of Economic Development (Ron. Mr. Phillips) had some comments to make about Duke Point development. I'm sorry he is not here. I did want to say this while he is here, but he is out. He said it was the NDP that held back the Duke Point development. There was no talk at all of a Duke Point development until some time in 1974, approximately a year and a half before the election. The Minister of Economic Development said, that we couldn't reach agreement with Ottawa. Our problem in reaching agreement was with MacMillan Bloedel, who owned the land. We were trying to get MacMillan Bloedel to agree to sell that land to BCDC.

We had just about reached the point of signing the agreement by the time the election was called. Of course, MacMillan Bloedel were not in any great hurry to deal with us during the election campaign. There was a problem in reaching agreement with MacMillan Bloedel, and we didn't get the land. However, we had carried on the negotiations to the point where we almost got the land, and the succeeding government was in a position to pick up those negotiations.

Some seven or eight months after the election, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was in Nanaimo speaking to a chamber of commerce meeting where she announced that the Duke Point development was going ahead. There was great jubilation in that community - one that was hard hit, where unemployment was very high for the whole region. To know that Duke Point was going ahead, regardless of the actual dollar investment in that particular development, the psychological effect on the community would be tremendous -I think everyone recognizes that.

So there was great jubilation when the Provincial Secretary announced that it was going ahead. There were great headlines in Nanaimo. Then people started looking at the speech a little more closely and found out that nothing was promised, no announcements, nothing other than that it looked like a great speech to make to the chamber of commerce in Nanaimo, and that was the last we heard of it. There was nothing more for another year.

What did we hear next? We heard a speech from the hon. Minister of Economic Development saying that there was going to be a steel mill development at Duke Point. Mr. Speaker, I knew that there couldn't be. I phoned officials in

BCDC and said: "What is this man talking about?" They said: "Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be able to get his tongue in gear with his brain." I'm not going to say who it was, but that was their explanation. They said that the Minister of Economic Development doesn't know where Duke is; he thought it was 30 miles away when he made that speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Newell Morrison you were talking to.

MR. STUPICH: That was their own Embarrassed reaction to my questions about the Minister of Economic Development announcing a steel mill at Duke Point. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to deal any more with that. We know that it wasn't possible to build that steel mill at Duke Point. The Minister of Economic Development by now knows it; I'm sure he found out very soon after he made that announcement. We're not surprised to have that kind of remark from that particular minister.

I'd like to deal just briefly with the amendment again, Mr. Speaker, and just briefly with some of the remarks that are used in my original reply to the budget, but are something that I'd like to emphasize. I said during the course of my speech earlier that the government can't - it can, but it shouldn't - stand idly by as it professes to do in page after page of this budget, and say that it's up to the private sector. I pointed out at that time that the government with its various Crown corporations controls some $12 billion in assets. I pointed out at the t time that the largest B.C. company, in terms of sales, is MacMillan Bloedel, and it has $1.2 billion in assets. That's roughly 10 per cent of the influence that the government might have.

MacMillan Bloedel threatened to close down one small part of its operation in the province of British Columbia - Van Ply. There was a terrible reaction in the whole community. The whole of the province was upset about one company making this announcement with respect to one very small part of its investment. They weren't threatening to abandon B.C. altogether; they weren't threatening to abandon B.C. at all. They were simply saying that one particular operation was giving them a bit of trouble and they were going to close it down. Yet that was terribly bad news for B.C. that one company was going to close down one small part of its operation.

Mr. Speaker, imagine the effect on the total economy. That's the message we're trying to get across, and the government isn't accepting its responsibility. Imagine the effect on the

[ Page 589 ]

whole community, the business community, people who are here or who might be coming here, to have the government, which has 10 times the potential influence of MacMillan Bloedel, not saying that it's going to close down one small operation, but saying that in its total influence in the whole of the province, it is determined to do less than everybody else is going to do collectively. They're not saying how much they're going to do, but their goal is to do something less than the whole private sector is doing - to grow at a lower rate. If the private sector doesn't grow at all, presumably they're going to cut back their horns and do something less than nothing.

Mr. Speaker, that isn't good enough. The government, with the tremendous economic influence that it has in this province, should be leading the way, not waiting for everyone else to follow; not criticizing one single company and saying that if that company is threatening to close down one relatively small operation in the total context of things, it's doing a disservice to the province of British Columbia, and yet at the same time saying that in respect of our total control, our total influence in the province, we're going to do something less than everybody else is prepared to do together.

Mr. Speaker, that isn't good enough. On that basis alone this particular amendment should be supported by the members of this Legislature.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, in supporting this amendment....

MR. KARL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) he indicated that a senior civil servant had made certain remarks about a minister. I think that he should either name the individual .... Because by doing so he cast a shadow on all of those senior servants in that department, and I think that he should be prepared to name the individual or withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, your point is well taken, except that in this House every member is an honourable member, and every member accepts full responsibility for statements made in this House. We cannot require any member to say anything that he is reticent to say in this House, and my hands are tied.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On the same point of order, I think the member also narrowed it down to a number of people in the Nanaimo office, which gives a bad reflection on those limited numbers that are involved in that particular office. I think he should withdraw the remark or [illegible] the member. It's certainly, I think, an injustice to those people who work in the Nanaimo office.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is an observation and not really a point of order.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the section of the amendment that I specifically want to deal with fairly briefly today, because so many other areas have been covered on it, is the section of our amendment when we state specifically that we believe that this government has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of government-imposed costs and taxes. That's the particular area I want to deal with this afternoon.

1 don't think there's any question in any citizens' minds in the province that since this government came in, they have had less money to spend. Now we can throw figures back and forward across this House. I know that the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) last night attempted to use a lot of figures to discredit the performance of the NDP without particularly spending much time on trying to uphold his own policies. But 1 imagine that is about what we're going to expect from all members of that government between now and the next campaign, and during the coming campaign.

We can't expect that minister or his government to see that through their economic policies and their fiscal policies, they have made life for the average citizen in British Columbia a much harder life to bear because of taxes being imposed unnecessarily. As the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) just pointed out, in the figures used - $900 million, I believe - the Minister of Finance was so proud to tell us this government has collected in taxes a sum of money that was absolutely unnecessary to collect off the backs of the people of British Columbia. Yet they have persisted in doing this, primarily because they are government that is obsessed, as we've said many times, with balancing the books. Also, the Premier of this province is obsessed with the principle which was analysed by the Vancouver Province recently, and that is the Premier's obsession that all government spending be tied to a precise proportion of the gross national product. It's stated again and reiterated in this budget speech that this is the basis for many of the fiscal decisions made by this government. Yet when you analyse

[ Page 590 ]

that proposal and that practice of this government, even the paper such as the daily Vancouver Province - which certainly is not an advocate of socialism and has always been far more, as we know, inclined to the so-called free enterprise governments - question this government's whole thesis in following along with this principle that the precise proportion of the gross national product should be done in ratio to government spending.

Why does The Province attack this principle? It says basically that this government must realize that the economy and the handling of our economy can never be based strictly on a mathematical formula. I think that's most interesting. In other words, they're saying that you can't run a government just on the basis of a mathematical formula, which seems to be what this government thinks it can do. But what happens when they use that basis alone? The people of this province suffer because a government that runs strictly on the basis of a mathematical formula is a government without a heart. And so suggests the Vancouver Province. It actually states: "The Bennett plan would be impossible for any government with a heart to implement."

Yet this government has implemented this plan, and that is why we have so many people in this province today not only being burdened with heavy taxes but finding that services to people which are very, very much needed, have been cut again because of the obsession of the Premier and his cabinet with balancing the budget and keeping a certain ratio between the gross national product and all government spending.

Our point is, Mr. Speaker, words are going backwards and forwards across this House and across this floor. We know that the people out there are sick and tired of words. They want to have a government in here that understands that imposing unnecessary taxes does nothing but bring more burdens on them as individual citizens.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: There is one particular area of increased taxes which has been handled very lightly by the government in the budget debate as enunciated by the Minister of Finance (Ron. Mr. Wolfe) in his actual budget speech, and I want to deal. with that now. That's the area of increased school taxation. Now when this government was campaigning, they campaigned on a promise that they would lower school taxes. What has actually happened, Mr. Speaker? Since this government came in, the amount of money which they are placing into public school education in this province has decreased compared to the amount that the local taxpayer must raise. They're very quiet on this aspect. As a matter of fact, in the budget debate they skipped very lightly over public school education. It's interesting to note that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , when he spoke during the budget debate, took a rather, I think, shameful stance in that he didn't comment once upon public school education. Instead, he devoted his whole time to the area of post-secondary, which certainly is important, and completely eliminated any discussion on public school education except to mention grants to private schools in this province. I think that was shocking.

But no wonder he didn't mention it, because what have the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province actually done? They have given only an increase of slightly over 3 per cent to the school boards of this province for assistance in financing education - just over 3 per cent. What does that mean to the local taxpayer?

Well, first of all, this government imposed upon the local taxpayer since they came into office an increase in the basic mill rate from 26.5 to 39.75 mills. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The basic mill rate which is imposed on all boards of this province was 26.5 mills. Today, after not quite three years of Socred government, it has now reached 39.75 mills. The local taxpayer has no choice in this. This is done by statute, imposed upon the taxpayers of British Columbia.

But what do we see? We see in the budget speech that the Minister of Finance makes much of the fact that the basic levy has been dropped by 2.5 mills from what had originally been suggested as 5 mills. But at the sane time he does not point out that it has risen from 26.5 to 39.75.

Now I'm wondering how some of the members are going to deal with this when they return again to their own home constituencies and find out that this year, when most taxpayers felt, because of the change in assessment and changes in municipal revenue, that their municipal taxes would go down, they're all going to find them going up. Why? Because this government takes with one hand and gives with the other.

They've given to the municipal revenues, but they've taken away from the school boards an equivalent, and even more than they've given to the municipalities. Therefore the municipal tax rate is going to go up.

You know, another shocking thing with the whole matter of school taxes, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 591 ]

is.... We'll give an example of just how little the provincial government contributes. In Mr. Speaker's own area in Vancouver.... I know you'd be interested in this because the Vancouver school board, of course, encompasses your riding and a number of members' ridings here. Out of a school board budget of over $150 million, do you know how much the provincial government has increased their share this year - how much money they are giving to the taxpayers of British Columbia? It's $8 million. This means that by and large the taxpayers of Vancouver are going to have to pay over 90 per cent of their school taxes. And the provincial government is going to be picking up, roughly, maybe around 8 per cent. I don't have the specific figures in front of me, but I know that that is very close to the situation - an increase of $8 million.

I'd like to know how the Vancouver Social Credit MLAs are going to be able to explain this to their constituents at the time those school tax bills arrive - not only the Vancouver MLAs, all the Socred MLAs in this province.

The other shocking thing is, in my personal opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of money which has been given to private schools this year amounts to $9 million. Now we may hear people say: "$9 million, what's that out of a large budget?"

Well, first of all, I want to make this point. This $9 million goes to 18,000 private school children in this province. I'm not here to debate the pros and cons of that Act, Mr. Speaker, because it was done in the last session and I think I made it quite clear that I'm against it and will continue to be against that Act. But let's look at these figures. Eighteen thousand into $9 million works out in my calculation - and of course it's been stated in the budget speech - that each private school student should get roughly $500. Do you know how much the government will be giving this year to the public school student in the city of Vancouver, based on this decrease in their share? One hundred and thirty-five dollars. So the public school student in Vancouver City is going to receive $135 from this Social Credit government and the private school student will be receiving $500.

As I say again, Mr. Speaker, this is not time to debate the principle of the whole aid to private schools, but I do think a question remains there to be answered.

At a time when the government is complaining and telling us that everyone must restrain themselves, why was this particular time chosen to assist in the one area in private schools and take away from the public school system? The very fact that we find the $9 million for private schools listed in the budget under the Education estimates makes it quite clear that it must be coming out of educational - moneys. Yet the Minister of Finance and the Premier brought this in with much fanfare and said it would not effect education. Well, I think all we have to do is ask the taxpayer in the Vancouver school district what they think about their tax bills when they come.

I want to reiterate that the proportion paid by the provincial government for school taxes in British Columbia has decreased ever since this government came in to the state now where, on an average, we find that the provincial Social Credit government is paying roughly 40 per cent only of all school taxes in British Columbia. The other 60 is being picked up by the local taxpayer. This, of course, varies from district to district.

I would say that there is no other province in Canada which has abrogated their financial responsibility to the local school taxpayer more than this government here in British Columbia. If you check the figures across Canada, you will find nowhere else such disproportionate financing by any provincial government. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education will deal with this when his estimates come up. He's been purposely trying to create an anti-education mood in this province to put up a smokescreen to cover the inadequate financing by the Social Credit government of education in this province.

Mr. Speaker, those specific school costs are a disgrace. If there is any reason for voting against this particular budget, that is certainly one reason. Yet it will be interesting to note the members over there who sit and applaud their budget. I don't think one of them has dared to venture into the field of school taxation. And I would hope that before this debate is over, one of them would stand up and vindicate the school taxation policies of the Social Credit government.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: And we've heard the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , who just now has accepted the challenge and says he will.

MR. KERSTER: Let's debate the budget.

MRS. DAILLY: he says: "Let's debate the budget!" Mr. Speaker, if you haven't called me out of order, I must be on the budget.

[ Page 592 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You are on the motion, and I would ask that you continue, please, and address the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it's not only the school taxation which is hitting the people of British Columbia, but we've already had it listed very well by the member to my right, our financial critic: the whole area of onerous taxation in fuel costs, heating costs, lighting costs, ferry costs - the list goes on endlessly. Yet that group over there can sit there and say that we over here are frivolous in supporting an amendment that says that these costs should never be here in this budget.

Now we hear of ten that the economy is bad all across the country and let's not blame the Socreds. We hear that, of course, more from their own supporters, less and less from the general public. They have been in long enough now to show that although the world economic situation may be bad, this government has made the lives of the people in British Columbia far worse by their own fiscal policies.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that we could possibly support this budget, and that is why I'm very pleased to be able to stand up and just deal with one area, the school cost area, at this present time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very brief. I wasn't going to speak on this amendment because I think it's totally unnecessary. It's an unnecessary amendment and we should be getting on with the budget, as was suggested so many times. However, I think there are some charges which have been made by the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) that should be responded to, and I would certainly want to take this opportunity now.

The member began by suggesting that somehow there was less money in the budget now than what had been provided previously. I'm not sure whether she was referring to a particular estimate, namely that of Education, or whether she was referring to the whole of the budget. But in either case, she was totally wrong. As is so clearly obvious, there is more money in the budget now, particularly for people programmes, than ever before in the history of British Columbia. And what's more important, Mr. Speaker, we're doing this without putting the province into debt as they were doing for the short term that they held office.

To put this province into debt is only putting a load, a burden on the future generations that will be with us in British Columbia. It's totally unfair, and is the type of action which has occurred in other parts of Canada and Canada as a whole, and for which today all people are paying. The member, as I'm sure would all members on that side, would have us budget far beyond our means, which would only mean that we would be budgeting more and more, taking more and more taxes from people to simply pay the interest bill to places like Arabia. We won't have any of that; that's not what the people of British Columbia want. That's the very reason that the British Columbia people dumped them when they were the government. They didn't want any part of that. And they won't have them again, I assure you, hon. member.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to again reiterate and outline some of those tremendous programmes, only a few of the many that have been brought into being by our government.

First of all, the hospital building programme is the biggest that we've ever seen in British Columbia; it's an example for the whole of Canada. Not only is it providing needed facilities which were not provided during the three years that they held office, but its creating jobs for people in the private sector at a time when jobs, we agree, are needed. We're doing something about that. We're creating necessary programmes and projects and we're creating employment in doing so.

Secondly, our long-term care programme -there isn't a programme anywhere in North America that can equal this programme. It's providing a help, it's providing a sense of security to our elderly people such as they've never been able to hold previously. They deserve it. That group over there talked about it but they never did a thing, the, --ver moved at all. They stayed with those hospital programmes that were then in effect, those hospital programmes which were placing burdens on people of $800 to $1,000 a month. We have brought into being a long-term care programme that will provide a protection to those deserving, people. They talked about it; we did it. It's a very positive programme.

While they held office, they built a few highrises in one or two places. The majority were only completions that had been begun by the previous administration. But they did complete a few highrises to house senior citizens. We have viewed this far more humanely. We've said that people do not necessarily want to be housed in concrete structures because they reach a certain age. Let's provide people with the opportunity of staying in their own homes, in their familiar surroundings, with their pets, their garden, their neighbours and friends.

[ Page 593 ]

Through SAFER, this has been made possible, and we're providing more help to more people than has ever been provided in this province before this. This government has brought that programme into being. They hadn't even thought of it. It's a tremendous programme, SAFER.

Again the guild and programme LIFE, a programme for the handicapped: it's been welcomed from all quarters as the best move that has ever been made. We're seeing it through; we've made it possible. They talked about it; we did it. We could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, about the tremendous programmes that have been brought into being by this government.

Now again getting back to the so-called unnecessary tax increases that the member spoke of, it's only because we came into being and inherited tremendous debts, which were created by them while they held government, that we have had to make those necessary increases. But now, Mr. Speaker, we have made it possible, through our good management of the economy, to reduce it and hopefully we can go on doing this. We were left a tremendous debt because of their incompetence. Now they speak of increased taxes. They were the cause of it. We will decrease the taxes through good management.

Again, the hon. member made quite a bit of the so-called mathematical formula which was being used by this government, and said that mathematics should not at all enter into budgeting, that mathematics was not the concern. I think that clearly explains why, after three years of NDP, we were in horrendous trouble. We were in terrible problems because they did not use mathematics. They did not know how to add. They didn't bother to add. They just simply made poor investments. They ran everything into debt. They didn't know about their overruns until after they occurred. They had not provided the moneys for them. It was total incompetence, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose that if you go on as they did, running a budget or presenting a budget without mathematics, then you certainly end up with what we're faced with in this country today. I would suggest that the reason we have all of the problems that all of us are so concerned about is because we've had governments in the past, such as the NDP, which gave no consideration to mathematics or the future or what should be done with respect to budgeting. That is the cause of heavy taxes. That is the cause of inflation. That is the cause of unemployment. That is the cause of lack of industrial investment and expansion. It's due to lack of or poor budgeting, such as was exhibited by them when they held government for only three short years, although they appear like eternity.

Increased school taxation - the member said a lot about increased school taxation and I agree. All of us pay school taxes and all of us are extremely concerned. I think that again this is due once more to improper budgeting and possibly, by far, at the local level - by far the majority of the responsibility for this must rest with the local school boards. There has been terrible budgeting or no budgeting whatsoever or improper budgeting, and we're concerned. I'm sure all hon. members are concerned about this.

The member who just stood up - I believe if this is proper - I would suggest to the member that her sister-in-law is chairman of the Coquitlam school board, where recently they hired 28 more teachers, when all the reports would have indicated that they could have done with 37 less teachers. Now I agree that we must provide for additional classes or improved classes for the handicapped, but even with that, instead of a decrease, or at least holding our own, that particular school board - like others, but I point to that one because your sister-in-law happens to be the chairman - hired 27 more teachers. They also, I believe, recently opened a new school, and the only way they could fill the new school was to pull students from two other schools to try and fill the new school. It's this sort of thing, it's this attitude, it's that approach which is creating the problem, a problem that we're all extremely concerned about.

But we, Mr. Speaker, are providing more in our budget for education than has ever been provided in the history of British Columbia. If those members over there are suggesting that $1.2 billion for education out of a $4 billion budget isn't sufficient, or shouldn't be sufficient with good management, to provide the level of education required in this province, then once more I say that it's little wonder that we had such a horrible problem to inherit after three years of NDP.

Furthermore, once again, it was this government that increased the homeowner's grant for the elderly to the point where it is now $480, not only for the elderly, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. members across the way, but for the handicapped. It's $480 per year, a tremendous example of a programme, a way and approach which might have been talked about by those hon. members but, once more, this government managed to do it. We did it. It was action.

Again, the hon. member also makes a whole lot of the fact that she's terribly opposed to

[ Page 594 ]

financing for independent schools. And we know where those members of the NDP stand with respect to independent schools. We perhaps did not have the full debate that we wanted at the time, because they all walked out rather than discuss it. They ran away from it, they didn't want to debate it, they didn't want to stand up to it. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the financing of independent schools is an extremely progressive move, a move for which all people everywhere in British Columbia, regardless of what political party they support, will stand behind in future years. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, we have many benefits from this move, but in particular we're able to compare one system with another. We now have at least a little competition within the systems so that we can, from time to time, look at one as opposed to another and hold forth the best as an example to the other. All people everywhere in British Columbia will benefit tremendously from that good move.

HON. MR. MAIR: We'll debate it on the hustings at the next election. We'll take it to the people! You won't be able to walk out of that one!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As a final note for all British Columbians, if we just give some thought as to what happened in those three years, I think we can well appreciate that, had the NDP stayed in power, we would have had further cutbacks, we would have had enormous overruns, we would have had budgeting beyond our means to pay. It would have been disastrous.

I would just like to read one article which appeared in today's paper, which I believe clearly outlines what's wrong with the NDP, and why we in Canada cannot afford to have NDP again, anywhere in this nation. The article appeared in today's paper, and it's called "The NDP and Profit." I would like to read it for the record, Mr. Speaker.

"In February this year the leadership convention of Ontario's New Democratic Party provided an uplifting spectacle -the triumph of faith over reason. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, the party stoutly maintains that it is better for governments to run things at a loss than for private citizens to run them at a profit. No doubt the records of NDP government in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia are dismissed as irrelevant. The accumulation of debt, the driving away of industry, the high levels of tax and interference - these, it is presumed, are irrelevant also. Irrelevant too, is the experience in Quebec where a socialist party - by another name - not content with destroying jobs by banning North America's language of business, is destroying them even faster by establishing North America's highest minimum wage. Undaunted, the Ontario NDP plumped for one higher still. At the root is a child-like belief among politicians addicted to the power of law, making it an offence for employers to pay less than $5 an hour, and presto, $5 is the minimum. But businesses can't pay high wages unless they're profitable, and they can't be profitable if they're hit with much higher costs than the competition in foreign countries, where costs are much lower.

"Wages are only a part of their costs. Taxes and interference are another. One reason that taxes are high is that billions of dollars are spent on unemployment benefits that discourage people from working. If taxes are lower, inflation would be lower, too.

"Inflation makes profits look higher than they are, and taxes on them are higher in consequence. Inflation is destroying the savings and capital of Canadian business just as it is destroying the savings and capital of individuals. The NDP holds that profit is bad. By putting companies into community ownership, the theory is that profit would then be spread among the citizens who own them.

"It's a seductive theory. Where it falls down is in the fact that profit isn't automatic. It has to be worked for - very hard indeed. Ask anyone who's trying to start a business. Ask how long he works and how much he gets out of it. By comparison, the minimum wage would be princely, and he's not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he's self-employed.

"One day, if his business succeeds, he will be able to take more for himself. Then he will be attacked as a capitalist and profiteer. If the business continues to grow, there will be demands for it to be nationalized by the NDP.

"The NDP, which prides itself on the supposed virtue of altruism, is, in fact, motivated by the vice of envy. 'Why should he have more than 1 have?', is the slogan that drives its members. To back it up, NDP theorists and their fellow travelers among Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, have passed laws that penalize

[ Page 595 ]

Canada's doers and self-starters, and favour the idle and incompetent."

"Tax-gatherers, form-collectors, inspectors and regulators of all kinds -the doers and self-starters - carry a staggering load. It's time the slogan was changed - not 'why should lie have more than I?' but 'why shouldn't we all have more?' Let's all start working harder, much harder, to make it happen."

Mr. Speaker, that, 1 think, sums up the different between the NDP and those free enterprise parties who recognize that hard work and effort by the individuals will provide the benefits and the welfare required by others who cannot provide for themselves. Governments do not provide the benefits for people in need; governments take it from the doers, but as long as we have doers we can manage this. Drive away the doers, such as the NDP is suggesting or such as they are advocating, and no one will have anything. We'll all have poverty. 1 want British Columbia to be strong. I want all people to be well off. That's what I am striving for. I will not support this NDP amendment. It's silly; it's ridiculous. They, like all others here, should be standing up in support of the greatest budget that has ever hit the floor of this house.

MR. KING: On a point of order, the minister quoted extensively from a document. I wonder if lie would be kind enough to table that document.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to table this particular document. If they want further copies, I think we can make a copy for every member of the NDP because they can learn from this.

MR. MUSSALLEM: 1 do not think that anything need be said after that brilliant and fiery speech. I think we thoroughly understand the situation, the process and where we stand in this House. I compliment the hon. minister for the forthright and direct manner in which he spoke.

It is necessary for me, of course, to refer to the amendment to the motion, so I will not go astray. It is necessary for me to refer you to the amendment.

It says that "the Minister of Finance failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of government-imposed costs and taxes or to mobilize our human and natural resources." I want to just say to you, in reply to the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , that when the hon. member said that the economy in British Columbia was very bad.... I would like to know where the figures come from, because British Columbia leads the recovery parade, having a gross national product of nearly 5 per cent when the rest of Canada is about 2.5 per cent.

This kind of thing is bad for our image in Canada and the world, and it is regrettable that it is spoken of in that manner in this House. I would like to, at this time, repeat the words of the hon. Minister of Finance who said that such suggestions are mischievous and untruthful and serve to do nothing but undermine investor confidence in our government. I think that when we make these loose statements in this [louse, even though the opposition has a right to attack in any way that they see f it, they should be good British Columbians and try to enhance our image, rather than tear it down.

The hon. member for Burnaby North further complained in some manner and length regarding the education formula of the government. The education formula has been changed but little and the hon. member is qualified and knows full well the formula that is used. I need not go over this to explain it to her. She is very competent in this field. However, I should say that if Vancouver chooses to spend $135 million more than they are receiving in shareable amounts, that's their privilege. I remember very well in previous times in this House, where it was pointed out that in areas like West Vancouver, North Vancouver and Vancouver, it costs $600 and $700 to educate a student, whereas in the rest of British Columbia, it was costing about $450.

A formula was brought out at that time, when every student everywhere, according to the educational unit, received a fixed amount. If any municipality or jurisdiction wishes to pay more, it is their privilege to do so. If Vancouver wants to pay more to educate their children, that's their privilege, but do not come crying to this House saying we're putting a burden on the taxpayer. This is not so. The burden is established by their own doing and if they keep within the educational unit that the rest of the province is able to live with well, then why sit there and cry about the city of Vancouver? If they are wealthy and wish to spend their money, let them do so.

In our municipality it costs much less to educate a student, and the finest students come from that area. I will tell you that in the LSAT examination for law just recently held, a student from our municipality received 800 out of a possible 800. 1 think that has only happened once before - perhaps twice, in all of North America in the last 15 years.

[ Page 596 ]

So it is not the amount of money you spend on education; it is the people. It is the way they come and their dedication. Most people are gifted with the same intelligence, but to say that we need more money for education.... If Vancouver or West Vancouver wants to spend it, that's their privilege - but they all get the same amount. The government treats everyone equally. I'd like to make it very clear that this is a good system. It cannot be improved on. Many have been tried, but this one has stayed with us.

I hope I've not corrected the hon. member too much, but I think she knows full well the situation. We should not be crying for any municipality that wishes to be extravagant in the field of education. As a matter of fact, it should be noted here that very little of the money that is spent.... 1 should put it this way: the taxes that were referred to as being paid by the people of Vancouver, the homeowners of Vancouver - it isn't so. I want to put it this way: 90 per cent of the taxes for education is paid by the homeowners' grant; 10 per cent is paid by the taxpayer. Now is that too much? I think that it is a very reasonable amount - 10 per cent by the taxpayer, 90 per cent by the homeowners' grant.

Let us not hear that we are not supporting education. This government, as Social Credit governments before us, were the leaders of supportive education and the leaders in paying our way.

1 think that I could go on at length...

AN HON. MEMBER: 1 know you could.

MR. MUSSALLEM: ... to discuss other matters that are important. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) criticizes me for speaking. I think I will say to him that perhaps in the entire debate I have not yet taken more than 15 minutes in total. Anyway, in deference to such an honourable man and a Whip, I'll let the rest of my speech go by.

MR. D'ARCY: I am going to talk on this amendment in hopes that the government members over there will realize why there is an amendment. There is an amendment because the budget is totally inadequate arid, before that budget is passed in principle, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to see the government and the Minister of Finance have an opportunity to make some beneficial changes in it. The only way we on this side of the House can make those points is through an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great curiousity to statements from the other side of the House involving government participation in the economy. They say it's absolutely essential that the government reduce its share. But, Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly evident that the government on that side of the House, the party on that side of the House, in many areas of this province is going in exactly the opposite direction.

They are increasing the government's share of the economy, they are increasing the essential services Crown corporate share of the economy, and at the same time they are passing the burden of that increased rate structure and taxation on to middle-income and lower-income people. And, Mr. Speaker, that includes the small businessman. If the small businessman was a rich person, he wouldn't be a small businessman. So all that rhetoric we've heard over there about help for the small businessman is so much nonsense as far as I'm concerned, because this government continues to increase taxation on ordinary people, on middle-income people. And those are small businessmen.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to throw out a few percentages that I worked out based on public accounts and based on the interim financial statements produced by the Minister of Finance when he was introducing the budget.

Mr. Speaker, in 1975 we had a little over 15 per cent of the gross provincial product made up of pure government expenditure, not counting Crown corporations at all, or local government. And we see that by the interim statements for fiscal 1977-78 as tabled by the Minister of Finance, that share has grown to 15-2/3 per cent of the gross provincial product. But let's remember that a few things which used to be included in that pure government expenditure statement are now not included any more. For instance, the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, which in the fiscal year just ended has total revenues, I think, conservatively estimated at around $78 million - I think they'll be slightly higher than that, but I wish to be somewhat conservative - and there is three-tenths of I per cent additional, which used to be carried in the provincial revenue statements.

We have the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority - that rather interesting corporation for which the Minister of Finance himself is now responsible, which has seen its share of the gross provincial product rise from 2.4 per cent to 3 per cent, and that is using again a conservative estimate of $780 million gross revenue for the last fiscal year. I suspect, with the increase in rates of 12 to 20 per cent, and an increase in consumption of somewhere between 6 and 10 per

[ Page 597 ]

cent, that the gross figure for British Columbia hydro is going to be somewhat in excess of $780 million, but I prefer to be conservative on this.

So we see another six-tenths of 1 per cent increase in the government involvement in the economy of British Columbia through British Columbia Hydro.

The Insurance Corporation of B.C., Mr. Speaker, which in 1975 had a 1.25 per cent share of the gross provincial product, we see now again, at a conservative estimate for calendar year 1977, that that 1.25 per cent has grown to 1.8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we see the local government share. This is the one area where I can give the government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) some credit. he has managed to hold the line through his revenue sharing transfers - not lowering the municipal tax share of gross provincial product, but he has been able to hold the line at approximately 2.75 per cent. It's actually gone up from 2.75 to 2.77 while he's been minister, but that's pretty good. But the school district share, as has been shown in this House ... and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) tried to make the point that most of the school tax burden is taken over by the homeowner grant. 1 would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is simply not borne out in the figures provided, not only by the trustees' association but by the Ministry of Education, by the statements through the Municipal Affairs Ministry of taxes collected at the local level, where they point out that, once again, the share of gross provincial product actually collected in clear figures, the bottom line that people actually pay after their grant at the local level, has gone from 1.47 per cent to 1.85 per cent while this government has been in office. So there has not been a reduction at all. In fact there has been a major increase in the share of gross provincial product being collected at the local government level.

The total, Mr. Speaker, is rather interesting. We have gone from just under 23 per cent, 22.86 per cent, in 1975 and we are now over 25-1/3 per cent of gross provincial product directly under the control of that government. And they've done this while they have been withholding. That Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has been withholding federal funds for the aged and handicapped. lie was critical of the Victoria Times - I believe it was the Times when he introduced the GAIN bill, when they ran a story that was headlined, "The End of Mincome" or "Destruction of Mincome, " and he said:

"That's not true, that's not true." But what has happened? He's completely phased out the COLA agreements, the OULA allowances by the federal government, and very shortly the old-age security and GIS payments will come up to the Mincome level, the GAIN level, and there will be no more Mincome.

What did he do with his GAIN legislation when he apparently took the figure down to age 55? That, Mr. Speaker, was really only a way of taking people on social assistance officially off social assistance at 55 and calling the welfare that they received GAIN, so that he could reduce his income-assistance budget and reduce the number of people that he could say were on social assistance.

What happened to tile long-term care programme? I think that it's a good intention. I think the Minister of Health has good intentions with the long-term care programme. But what happened on January 1,1978, when people officially went on the long-term care programme? If they were on that programme, their GAIN checks stopped immediately. In fact, whether the institution that the person was on, who is on the long-term care programme, was actually on the programme or not, even if it might not have been on the programme until March or April of this year, still, their GAIN checks were cut off as of January 1,1978. Yet that minister said: "Oh no, we are not going to wipe out Mincome." And that's exactly what he's done.

lie's done more than what the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) claimed he was going to do in terms of rolling back the benefits that were given to people for their own tax dollars between 172 and 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about the level of capital investment in British Columbia that we have seen over the last few years. In the six years prior to 1972, we had an average increase in capital investment in British Columbia - both public and private, both repair and maintenance - of approximately 11 per cent under the former government of W.A.C. Bennett. During the three years that the New Democrats were in office in British Columbia, public and private investment rose to 16 per cent per annum compounded, the highest totals that we've ever had in the history of this province. In fact 1973 had a 20 per cent clear increase and 1974 had a 19 per cent increase. And in 1975, when there was no growth at all in the rest of Canada, we still had an 8 per cent growth in capital investment in the private sector in this province.

And what happened? Since this government has been in, that growth in investment in British

[ Page 598 ]

Columbia has gone back from 15 per cent, first of all, to 10 per cent and then last year to 9 per cent. There will be some improvement this year, but it still will be below the average of the three years prior to that. Mr. Speaker, that's a terrible record, and for that minister over there and other ministers to talk about how the former government drove away industry and borrowed us into debt, with their sorry financial record and with their sorry economic record, is absolutely shameful.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about job development. Again, going back to the previous two terms of the real Social Credit government, the W.A.C. Bennett government, we had a six- year average of new jobs in this province of 31,000 per year, which roughly held our unemployment at a rate averaging around 6 per cent. The New Democrats, when they were in, saw job creation in the private sector go from that 31,000 figure to 47,000 per year. In fact, the year 1974 was the highest increase that we have ever seen before or since in the number of new jobs in British Columbia in the private sector. Since the present government has been in, that figure has crashed from 47,000 to a little over 27,000 - nearly a 20,000-a-year job loss in new job creation, and yet they say how wonderful they are.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) talked about how the former government borrowed a great deal of money. Well, he's on very thin ice when he wants to talk about that, Mr. Speaker, because I will note that one of the basic reasons why investment in this province in the last few years has not shown up to be worse than it is has been the fact that the present government is in the process of borrowing nearly $2 billion to keep hydro-electric projects going, which in two and a third years is twice as much as the former government borrowed for hydro projects in three and a third years. That's how they've been keeping up their investment figures, because they know that unemployment in the building trades, if they weren't hiring on B.C. Hydro projects, would be some 80 per cent. There would be 80 per cent unemployment in the building trades, if it weren't for British Columbia Hydro and the off-shore borrowing that that government is doing, which is going on at two and one-half times the rate it was formerly. Yet that minister has the nerve to get up in this House and talk about off-shore borrowing.

Mr. Speaker, while this government has been in office, the share of every hydro-electric revenue dollar going to pure interest has increased from about 36 per cent; before the end of this year it will approach 50 cents on every dollar. That's how much interest is being paid out on the borrowing that they have done in the short time that they have been in office and it's been done entirely to pad their investment figures and prevent unemployment in B.C. in the building trades from being even worse than it is. It's because they have been unimaginative, because capital investment has not come to the province when they have been in office, and because the retail and service sector has simply not seen any reason to have confidence in them or in the economy of B.C. the way they had under the New Democratic government or even under the former Social Credit government - the real Social Credit government - in the years prior to 1972. That's a disgraceful performance, Mr. Speaker. For the government to get up in this House and say they have a good budget, with that kind of a dismal economic record, is absolutely unbelievable. That's what Herbert Hoover used to say; he used to say things like that in 1930-31-32. He used to say, "Prosperity is just around the corner, " because Herbert Hoover, bless his soul, didn't understand the problem. He didn't realize how bad things were in the United States and in North America, and that is the basic problem with this government - they don't understand how bad things are under their own government.

I have a friend who is with the fraud squad of the RCMP. We were discussing a mutual problem one time and lie described a particular - perhaps I could call it a client of his - as a pathological liar.

I said: "Well, in plain English, what's a pathological liar?"

He said: "Well, a pathological liar is someone who really physically believes his own baloney, " except he didn't use the word "baloney, " he used another word. He said: "People like that can even pass lie detector tests; it won't even show up."

The people across the way are having a pathological effect on the economy of this province and they don't realize it. I don't think they are all stupid; I don't think they are all insensitive; I don't think they are all unimaginative, although many of them may be. But I do believe that if they could only understand how bad things are getting under their lack of direction in this province, perhaps they would fundamentally get down to doing something about it. But they are so convinced, so self-righteous, so convinced that their own dogmatic, doctrinaire approach is going to bring the results they desire, they can't see the building burning down around them. That's the reason for this

[ Page 599 ]

amendment to the budget and why it is so necessary to bring their attention to what has happened to the economy of British Columbia under their direction.

I want to make a few final remarks about school board costs, because I initially raised this in the House and there has been some more discussion here today.

The suggestion has been made that school boards are somehow irresponsible. I would like to note that well over 90 per cent of school board costs go for personnel - people. They are a labour-intensive industry if there ever was one. I would note that the student-teacher ratio in this province has not decreased; there are not more teachers than there were three years ago for the number of students.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Also, the employee-student ratio in this province has not increased in the last three years. In other words, when I say employees, I'm including custodial employees, administrative employees and supervisory employees. They have not increased. School board funding has been controlled by the AIB. There have been no inflationary increases in the school sector, and there has been no increase in staff relative to the number of students in B.C. School boards are locked into their funding situation. Yet the implication has been made across the way that the school boards have been somehow irresponsible.

There are other people who wish to speak in this debate. I hope you will excuse me for having raised my voice. Believe me, I would hope that at some point during this debate on the budget and on the amendment, some people across the way will realize that even though they may be personally convinced that their government and this budget has done a good job and is going to do a good job, it has done a very bad job, the worst job of any budget in my adult life in British Columbia. That is why I support this amendment. That is why I am going to be opposing the budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in his presentation, made reference to a federal document, which would indicate a COLA allowance for the handicapped - a cost-of-living allowance for the handicapped. I would ask that he would table any documentation to that effect because we are not aware of any such federal legislation or provision for cost-of-living allowances. I would ask that he table the documentation that he has referred to.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister is well aware, as is everyone in this province who either is a senior citizen or is in receipt of any kind of handicap allowance - GAIN or Mincome or anything else - that that minister since he has been minister has not passed on cost-of-living allowances that have been given to him by the federal government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Both points of order are not points of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was not going to rise and make any comments on the amendment, as many of the speakers on the government side have said that it is an amendment that has probably been brought in because, in the debate on the budget, the opposition really can't find too much wrong. If they do, they are finding things wrong with job creation and they're finding things wrong with reduction in sales taxes, so they bring in frivolous amendments.

The other night, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and, I think, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) just made some comment about chicken, or something like that. That's the reason I'm standing. During the Leader of the Opposition's debate the other night, he raised the issue of Panco Poultry.

I'm going to deal basically with the philosophical difference between that party and this party. We strongly believe that the government should govern and it should not compete with industry. The Leader of the Opposition raised the question about Panco Poultry the other night, his concern about the values, and that we were going to sell it. And he indicated, or implied, possible job loss, et cetera. I'm standing here this afternoon to state that there is no dispute of the value of Panco Poultry. It's a matter of returning industry to the private sector and not having government involved.

Panco Poultry, when it is sold, will be sold as a going concern. It will be sold with the intent that jobs will be retained and that it will be put back into the private sector, in order that it could compete within the private sector, rather than being a government Crown corporation.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, to know that government, through legislation, et cetera, deals with marketing boards and marketing board legislation. That Party over there, when it was in government, purchased Panco Poultry, and in effect was in competition with other segments of the industry, with other

[ Page 600 ]

processors, over which government regulates. I think this is one area where we feel very strongly on this side of the House that governments should govern and should not compete, because in doing so they, in effect, have an unfair advantage over the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, that party also is fully aware, I'm sure, that Panco, the government-owned corporation, competes with the farmers, because Panco Poultry is a vertically integrated company, which that party over there always screams about - these big vertically integrated companies. Well, that's what Panco Poultry is. It competes with the farmers and with the family farms in the Fraser Valley in raising broilers. It competes because it raises broilers itself. It competes with Pan-Ready co-operative, a processor. Yet the government is right in there running this company.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that, as I said before, is a philosophical difference I think, because behind all their debate and all their arguments they want government involved. They want government into the private sector; they want to do away with the private sector. They want to be involved in industry. It's all government control. There's not a person on this side of this House who would agree with that concept.

What we are determining, Mr. Speaker, and what is taking the time in regard to Panco Poultry, is the best method of disposal so the taxpayers of this province, who paid money to purchase Panco Poultry a few years ago, will get a fair return on their investment because it is tax dollars that are being used. We will have the best method of disposal in order that jobs will be maintained in that company so that the employees of Panco Poultry today are not concerned about the future of their jobs. It is a going concern and will be sold as such, but the second member for Vancouver East always likes to cast doubts about the future. That's why I'm speaking on this subject, because I don't want any doubts cast in regard to the future of those employees.

The members opposite speak out regarding the budget; they're against it. They bring in an amendment concerning job creation, et cetera.

AN RON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the budget are statements made regarding the efforts to create jobs in this province. They speak out against the budget and bring in the amendment, yet, they are speaking out against sales tax reduction. They know full well that no government likes to raise sales taxes - it's a tax burden on its citizens - but we had to because we inherited the mess that we did in 1975.

Again, Mr. Speaker, philosophically it's a different approach. Our government programmes do something that their government programmes never did. Our government programmes are there to assist the private sector, and I think the budget indicates that commitment. They're there to assist the private sector in job creation and development and to give a future to the industry and to commerce in this province, as opposed to government getting directly involved in competition with that private sector.

Mr. Speaker, it's a feeble effort, I think, bringing forward this amendment. I know that all members on this side of the House will certainly be voting against it and I would like us to get on with the business at hand.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before starting, hon. members, I might remind all members that we are now actually back discussing the budget. Please proceed.

On the main motion.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, I was going to get that matter clarified before I started, because I would hate to be discussing some frivolous subject when I should be debating the main business of the House.

[ Page 601 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to take my place today in this debate and support the budget introduced last Monday by the Minister of Finance. It is a responsible budget which reflects the economic health of our province. It clearly shows the changes that have taken place since the dark days of 1975, when people felt that there was no hope and no opportunity in this province. It also reflects the realities of life. It recognizes the private sector. Neither this government nor any government can create jobs and provide a high standard of living over the long haul. The private sector is the only area which can provide the wealth and the jobs our people are looking for, and which they deserve and are entitled to.

Too many people, particularly those on the other side of the house, seem to believe that when government spends money, it creates wealth. There is only one way to create wealth, Mr. Speaker, and that is to produce and manufacture items for the citizens of our province. Our agriculture, our forests, our mines, our tourist industry and our hydro-electric plants all create wealth. Our hospitals, our schools, our human resource services - all necessary services. and ones we cannot do without, but they all spend money. They all spend the wealth created by the small and the large firms, and the individuals who work in the industries I previously mentioned. It is obvious to everyone in this province that the only way we can provide a great many services for people is having wealthy and economically healthy producing industries.

I am pleased to see that the budget has addressed itself to making sure that the flow of money from our wealth-creating industries will continue. The government has brought in many changes to help this group, the backbone of this country - the small businessmen and the workers of this province.

There is one item that I would like to bring forth at this time, Mr. Speaker. That is that some of our small business people are having difficulties when dealing with some of our larger manufacturing firms. I have some small firms in my constituency that are having problems getting the raw materials that some of the large industries are producing. Those large industries, unfortunately, are selling a great deal of their products in bulk quantities out of this province and out of this country, and some of our small firms are having to buy it back from the foreign countries in order to get it, even though it is produced right next door. This is one of the things that we must address ourselves to. The small firms making windows and doors are not able to get the raw material that they need, even though it is produced right next door.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I applaud the Minister of Finance for bringing in a budget that recognizes the great strength of our businesses in this province, particularly the small businessmen and women who have great entrepreneurial ability and are thus able to meet the rapidly changing conditions in our society today.

The reduction in the sales tax has received the most applause and support from all around the province, but in my opinion, important as it is, it is not the most significant statement in the budget speech. In my opinion, the most significant statement, and one that will spare small businesses the greatest amount of frustration and provide the greatest encouragement, was when the minister said:

"This government believes small business has been impeded to some extent in its productive effort by government red tape and reporting requirements. If our economy is to respond to meet our current needs, it must have a vibrant small-business sector encouraged by fiscal change and relief from regulation overkill. We are ending the bookkeeping and reporting where we can to get small business rolling." In my opinion, that is one of the most important things that we can do in this province to help all businesses. The bureaucracy and red tape in this country has prevented many businesses from getting started and has made life so difficult, that many, after a short time, have called it quits. They have decided life is too short to fight bureaucracy. In addition, all too often they moved out of this province. For these reasons, I wholeheartedly support all efforts to remove the roadblocks which prevent our businesses, both large and small, from operating in this province.

I am happy to see that our highway construction and maintenance programme is to receive an additional $27 million. Good roads do not cost, Mr. Speaker; they save money. The cost of transporting goods and services goes up or down in direct relationship to the standard of the road. I repeat: good roads don't cost; they save.

Speaking of highways, there is still room for a great deal of improvement in the way we manage the traffic on our highways. I hope the Minister of Highways will use his good offices to try and improve the management and the

[ Page 602 ]

traffic flow. Although we have a great many passing lanes and paved shoulders that were not available just two years ago, we still have a few drivers on our highways who are impeding traffic. I believe I spoke on this last year but we still see some drivers with dozens of cars piled up behind them, wanting to pass. We still see slow drivers that travel up the centre lane when there are passing lanes. There are many practices that lead to accidents on our highways, and I suggest that better management of the traffic with less emphasis on just speed and more on irresponsible, dangerous or inconsiderate driving would reduce the accident rate.

Speaking of the Ministry of Highways, I would like to point out that we have two areas in my constituency, one at Enderby and one at Chase, where the buildings that the highway crews are using are completely inadequate. They have been inadequate for anywhere from 10 to 20 years. I would hope that the minister through the B.C. Buildings Corporation would be able to rectify this situation very shortly.

We have many highways and smaller roads in my constituency that need reconstruction, need maintenance very badly, but I will discuss this under the minister's estimates.

I believe that the long-term health-care programme which has been introduced by our ministry is the greatest breakthrough that this province has ever seen in providing extended-care services in this province. This programme will be of considerable assistance to all the people in this province. I am happy to see that the people in Salmon Arm are working hard to try and provide some additional long-term health care in that community.

In the west side of my riding, Mr. Speaker, there is need for a community health-care centre. It is a long way from Salmon Arm to Kamloops and there are no community health-care services in that stretch of my riding. I believe it is very urgently needed. I was happy to see in the the budget speech that the mental health-care centre for Salmon Arm has been announced.

Under education, I applaud the decision to fund the independent schools. I know many on the opposition side feel that this is a retrograde step. Well, $9 million is not a lot of money for the numbers of students involved.

There is also need for increased opportunities for our young people and our adults to obtain greater training in order to take their place in the work force. The triangle from Revelstoke to Chase and down to Armstrong does not provide the same opportunities as in some of the larger centres. I would encourage the ministry to make sure that all that area is given the opportunities for agricultural and vocational training that they deserve. Some of the schools, particularly the Armstrong Senior Secondary and the Enderby A.L. Fortune Secondary School, are presently giving a great many courses in agriculture, very worthwhile courses. But they do not continue on to the degree necessary to allow some of our young people to take their place in the agricultural field. I believe there is need for practical veterinary training in that area, practical animal husbandry, and probably the most important, small business management.

I note in the budget that the enhancement programme to increase the numbers of salmon in this province is aimed at producing or doubling the amount over the next 15 to 20 years. In my opinion, this is a very modest target and should be able to be met quite easily. The spawning grounds in the Shuswap constituency, and I'm sure in most places in the province, are still there. They are just not being adequately stocked, very largely because of the over-fishing by the commercial fishermen in the salt water.

I've been back to my riding every weekend since this session started, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very happy to see that the tourist industry is thriving and doing very well in the Shuswap. Those yellow and black licence plates are very noticeable all over my riding and I'm sure most of them are carrying a fair amount of money with them - oil money at that.

The budget has indicated that there will be a first-time home-purchaser grant to the amount of $2,500 for those young people with families. I think this is an excellent programme and will contribute significantly to the construction industry, not only in the Shuswap but all over the province.

I'm very happy to see that we are continuing on with our election promise to remove most of the taxes f rom the homes of our senior citizens. The increase of an additional $50 to the homeowner grants for our senior citizens over 65 is another step in our election promise.

In the field of forests and the amount of work that needs to be done in reforestation -better management of our forests - I think there is great need to bring in programmes which will employ our youth to a greater degree than they have been in the past. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that possibly youth programmes, for those people who are not able to find a position in the normal work force, might be a very good alternative - a

[ Page 603 ]

very good way of keeping our young people gainfully employed in our forest industry.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the main difference between the people on this side of the House and those on the opposite side is that we encourage all people to become rich. The official opposition believes in keeping everyone universally poor. We believe - in fact, we know - that services for people can best be provided by a rich society. If nobody has any money in our society, those people who need our assistance will get very little. These are some of the benefits and opportunities that I see that can be possible with this great budget and other great budgets that this government will be bringing down in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget. It is a responsible budget, it is one that will increase confidence in this province, and above all it is a realistic budget. The first budget reversed the destructive policies of the socialist government; the second budget laid the groundwork for an expanding economy; the third budget reflects a few of the benefits that will accrue to the people in this province. We will continue to reap the benefits of good government and we will be bringing in better budgets year after year after year until the years 1972 to 1975 are just a bad memory in this province.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, is not just for one sector of our society, but provides benefits for everyone. I am most happy to support this budget.

MS. BROWN: I'll be speaking to you, Mr. Minister, not to them, so it's okay. As long as you're here, that's the important thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Sure, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to oppose this budget...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MS. BROWN: ... but I'm going to give my reasons why. I gave the matter a lot of thought and some very serious consideration, and I want to share with the House some of the reasons why I will not be supporting this budget.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no. I think everybody can learn a little bit of something from what I'm about to say, so I don't want to deprive you of this learning experience.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be constructive.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to be very constructive.

I'm particularly glad that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is here because I can't believe that speech which I heard coining over the microphone in my office earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I'm not going to be supporting the budget is because, first of all, it does not address itself to the fact that this government has been a burden on the people of this province for the past two and a half years. It does not deal with the fact that the policies of the government have resulted in a sharp increase in unemployment and it has not come forward with plans to deal with the increasing acceleration of unemployment during the term of office of this government.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this government has been profligate and irresponsible in their spending, resulting in overrun of over 200 million during the last fiscal year. This budget gives no indication that this profligacy is about to end, nor that the responsibility and fiscal incompetence that we have witnessed is about to be stamped out.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the burden that this government is on the people of the province through its financial violence, its flagrant patronage and its continuing attempt to muzzle the opposition through the abuse of powers bestowed on it as a democratically elected government of the province.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of persistent myths about wealth and poverty in our country. We like to congratulate ourselves that poverty is disappearing and we like to think that those poor who remain are poor because they are lazy and shiftless and content to live on welfare and handouts. We like to complain that the government taxes the middle and upper classes too heavily in order to support those who would remain idle. The reality of the situation is that none of these myths are true. Income distribution, Mr. Speaker, has not changed significantly in the past 25 years in this country as well as in this province. In 1951 the poorest fifth of the country, as well as of this province, had 4.4 per cent of the total income. Today that has dropped slightly to 4 per cent - and these are not figures that I'm pulling out of the air; these are figures that anyone can get from Stats Canada.

At the other end of the income scale, the richest fifth of our population had 42.8 per

[ Page 604 ]

cent of the income in 1941, and today there's been a slight change and they now have 42.4 per cent. These figures were arrived at - even after transfer payments were taken into account - despite the fact that all of the federal and provincial programmes over the past 25 years were supposed to be taking money from those who could afford to pay to give it to those who did not have - in other words, taking it from the rich to give it to the poor. In fact, the gap between the bottom fifth of our population and the top fifth has been growing wider and wider.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, according to a recent study by the national council of welfare, the stereotype of the poor that most people have is not true because, in fact, if you take low-income families headed by people under the age of 65 - that is people who have not yet reached retirement - we find that 60 per cent of them rely primarily on work and not on government payments to support themselves, and this is certainly true of British Columbia. The figures which we get from the national council of welfare is that 57 per cent of the poor people and of the poor families in this province are working; they're not in receipt of welfare. And this despite whatever you may have heard from the the Minister of Human Resources.

It is this group, Mr. Speaker, that has been hardest hit by this government's policy. This government has overburdened them with its tax increases, its fare increases, its price increases, its car insurance increases. It's from the pockets of this group that increases in ICBC were taken, that increases in the ferry rates, hospital insurance, medical premiums, the increases in bus fares, the increases in electricity rates and in ambulance costs, the increases in gasoline costs and school taxes and in home-heating costs - it was in this group that those increases were taken from.

This group also, coincidentally, was the group that registered the highest level of mortgage foreclosures and the highest level of business bankruptcies during the tenure of this present government. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this group gets the least benefits from this or any other government, because they draw fewer benefits from our educational system - they certainly do; they're not the people who use most of the UIC services; they get fewer of the transfer payments than any other group; they receive no large incentive grants; they do not even benefit from death duties or other kinds of write-offs which this government likes to brag about. And this government's policy, far from taking from the rich to help the poor, has done exactly the opposite.

Again I want to go back to Statistics Canada, Mr. Speaker. Statistics Canada compiled a "low-income cut-off" which is widely used as a definition of the poverty line. And while the Statistics Canada poverty line is not ideal for all circumstances, it is easy to calculate, it is up to date and it's based on government figures widely used and accepted. Statistics Canada "low-income cut-off" is: that a family that spends 62 per cent or more of its income on food, shelter and clothing is a family which is living below the poverty line - 62 per cent of its income on food, shelter or clothing, that is, the basis necessities, is a family which is living below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, I accept that this is a conservative definition and that, in fact, there are people above this who are also in pretty straitened circumstances; nonetheless I'm willing - for the purpose of this discussion - to accept their definition of what a poverty line is.

When we look, Mr. Speaker, at those incomes in British Columbia, we get some interesting bits of information. We find that in the urban areas, for example, in B.C., that would apply to a single individual with an income of less than $3,800 a year, a family of four with less than $8,422 a year, and a family of seven with less than $11,333 a year. In the rural areas, Mr. Speaker, we find that that would apply to a single person with an income of less than $2,783 a year, a family of four with an income of less than $6,124 a year, and a family of seven with an income of less than $8,240 a year.

In British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that that refers to approximately 57 per cent of the people in this group to which I'm addressing myself. And again, I'm not talking about people who are in receipt of welfare; I am talking about people who work, as well as people who are on fixed income, all of whom have had to bear the brunt of this government's fiscal abuse aver the past two and a half years.

This government, Mr. Speaker, put its hand into their pockets and forced them to pay up increases, as I've said before, on ICBC premiums, on ferry rates, on hospital insurance, hydro rates, bus fare, ambulance costs, school taxes, home heating costs, medical pensions and sales tax. If we add on top of this fiscal violence a list of the cutback in services, then the full picture of the burden which this government has been to the people of this province assumes horrendous proportions - cutbacks on services to senior

[ Page 605 ]

citizens, cutbacks on services to people living in northern coastal communities, cutbacks on services to the handicapped, to farmers, to women, to children and indeed to all of us.

Last night we heard from the Minister of Health about the great things that are happening to the delivery of health services in this province. I want to quote from The Vancouver Province of April 18,1978, on page 44 where Mrs. Bonnie Lantz, the former director of surgical nursing-of the Vancouver General, in resigning, said that "VGH is 'taking a lot of chances' with patient care under the existing system." And she goes on to talk about the fact that the hospital is operating without sufficient nurses.

Mr. Speaker, under the minister's estimates, I certainly will have a lot more to say about what is happening to Riverview Hospital as a result of the kind of policies and cutback in services happening to that hospital as a result of the ministers' actions. In the task force on single-industry towns which was released recently - on women in singleindustry towns - one of the things that they complained about most was the absence of the delivery of health care in those areas. No obstetricians, no pediatricians, none of the kinds of services that people need, and certainly no mental health, because the delivery of mental health in this province is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, a comparison of health insurance premiums with other provinces should be of interest to the minister who was so busy last night bragging about the superiority of his programme. Indeed, when we compare British Columbia with Quebec, Ontario or Alberta, we find that people with an income of less than $5,000 pay no premiums in Quebec, no premium in Ontario, no premiums in Alberta, and in British Columbia they have to pay $22.50.

Mr. Speaker, we find that people with an income of $8,000 in Quebec pay premiums of $112.73, none in Ontario, none in Alberta, and $225 in British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And no premiums.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the minister had his turn last night, and he used his selective memory to tell us all about the things that he was planning on doing and neglected to tell us about the kinds of services which we still desperately need in this province which have not been addressed in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, people earning an income of $9,000 in Quebec pay premium of $126; in Alberta they pay premiums of $93.60; and in

British Columbia they pay premiums of $225. Add to this, Mr. Speaker, the list of additional cutbacks courtesy of the Minister of Human Resources - all the information centres in the Vancouver area, including the downtown eastside information centre, which as you know is in absolutely the centre of the urban area that needs more services than any other part of Vancouver.

Meals on Wheels had its budget cut. The halfway house for men in Burnaby had its budget cut. Coast Foundation Society, which is a home for women with alcoholic problems, had its budget cut. When the Minister of Human Resources stands on the floor of this House and brags about the greatest services ever in the history of the province, he very selectively always forgets to mention the cutbacks in services, such as the Dr. Endicott home for the handicapped in Creston, the day-care centre in Nakusp, the Canadian Red Gross programme of swimming for the disabled.

Mr. Speaker, on April 6 1 received a letter telling me about the phasing out of the co-operative homes for single parents, which has been administered by the YWCA for the past 10 years. They have three months' terminal funding from this government and the Minister of Human Resources has the nerve to stand on the floor of this House and brag about the delivery of services and its increase, as outlined in the budget.

The West End service to seniors has had its budget cut. The West End landlords and tenants centre has had its budget cut. The Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society has had its budget cut. The Boundary community health and human resources centre has had its budget cut.

Mr. Speaker, four group homes administered by the YWCA have had their budgets cut. The Pender YWCA, which deals specifically with the Chinese community, has had its budget cut. The Gibbs Boys Club has had its budget cut. The programme of children for veterans has had its budget cut. The detached youth workers in the Victoria area has had its budget cut. The anti-poverty group of British Columbia has had its budget cut. The group homes have had their budgets cut. The tenants advisory counselling service of the West End has had its budget cut. The 311 society, %which is the Homebound Handicapped society, which was asking for a measly $10,000 so that people who were handicapped could stay at home and do something and sell their creations or their products and achieve some sense of independence, have had their budget cut.

The Minister of Human Resources has the nerve to stand on the floor of this House this afternoon and talk to us, Mr. Speaker, about

[ Page 606 ]

the great increase in services included in this budget. The minister has stood on the floor of this House on more than one occasion and talked about his commitment to the family - the greatest thing since sliced bread, he says. Everything must be done to keep the family together. Well, the Family Place in Vancouver, the Mt. Pleasant family place, the one in Dunbar, all of the family place associations have had their budget cut. That's the kind of support, Mr. Speaker, that services to people have been getting from this government. We have to sit here day after day and listen to the Minister of Human Resources talk about increase in services to people, and then in the same breath, brag about cutting his budget by $100 million. He thinks that we're stupid enough to think that he can increase services and cut his budget by $100 million.

All of this adds up to one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that this government is indeed a burden on the people of British Columbia.

The second reason why I cannot support this budget is because it fails to come to grips with the problem of unemployment and, as I said before, the accelerating problem of unemployment. In responding to the speech from the throne, when I moved the motion of non-confidence in the government because it did not deal at that time with the question of unemployment and women, I was told to wait until the budget.

Well 1 waited and waited and waited, and finally; the budget arrived. Long-term employment planning is nowhere in sight, only promises of temporary make-work projects. The minister uses the excuse that the population of the province has increased. He's complaining that there are more people living in British Columbia now than ever before. That, he says, is the reason why there is unemployment. At least he had the good grace not to use the Liberal excuse, which is that it is young people and women who are causing unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate tells us two things about this province. First, it is a rough measure of the number of people who are out of work, but secondly, and most important, it is a measure of the health of the economy. When the unemployment rate is high, we have to be concerned about it, because as a province we lose in the growth of the economy. Higher cost goods can only become less expensive when production runs are increased. We lose in the future when our labour force becomes less skilled and experienced because of all the time lost through unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, the whole Canadian labour force has been growing, not just here in British Columbia. It's growth has been averaging about 3. 6 per cent a year over the past five years, and whether this government likes it or not, all indications are that this growth will continue at least until we've got through the baby boom period of 1950 to 1958, and those young people finish school and join the full-time labour force.

Any government worth its salt knows that it has to plan the creation of jobs for a growing work force. The work force isn't going to remain static and it's not going to decrease. This cannot be left to the private sector, despite what the previous speaker, the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , just told us. It cannot, in fact, be left to any one segment in society. No one person should be asked to take full responsibility for ensuring full employment in this province. Mr. Speaker, it calls for co-operation between the province, the federal government and the private sector. For the provincial government to fail to do this means that the provincial government has abdicated its responsibility to the working people as well as to the unemployed people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is that government is and has been a major employer, whether at the federal, provincial, or municipal level. Governments then cannot afford to stand back and maintain a hands-off policy during any period of economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for budworms, when he was speaking, told us that there is work out there for anybody who wants to work, and so I would like to bring to his attention The Vancouver Sun of April 14,1978: "Advertiser Swamped by Waves of Job

Applicants. Unemployed personnel supervisors, teachers, nurses - 356 in all - have jammed a Broadway chiropractor's office over the past three days in answer to a newspaper ad for an office receptionist."

Three hundred and fifty-six, and that is just one example. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the f figures which are published by UIC on unemployment, and again I refer you to The Vancouver Sun of February 16,1978, page 10. "The figure shows that for every job listed with Canada Manpower in the Vancouver area, there are 22 unemployed people." The government has to take this into account and certainly should have taken it into account in preparation for this budget. This is the second reason, Mr. Speaker, why I will not be able to support this budget.

There is something tragically and seriously

[ Page 607 ]

wrong, Mr. Speaker, with a government and an economic doctrine which does so much damage to a province like British Columbia and then comes up with a budget like this one. After two and a half years of Social Credit government, as I said before, we have high unemployment rates, we have an incredible loss of services to people, and we have an increased charge on the public everywhere they turn. The economic future remains bleak. It is clear that the Premier and this government have done their part in pushing this province into a major economic depression and in keeping it there. It is clear from this budget that the government is bankrupt in terms of economic policy, and bankrupt in developing an economic strategy to put British Columbians back to work.

But this is only phase two, Mr. Speaker, of the government's strategy, because when Social Credit assumed office in 1975, we saw phase one. Phase one of their strategy, Mr. Speaker, was revenge - revenge against the people of this province. Now, having dismantled everything that they could lay their hands on and rushing full-tilt into serious economic difficulties, they have launched phase two. Phase two, Mr. Speaker, means presiding over the depression which they have created. Not stemming it, not stopping it, not overcoming it, but simply presiding over it and watching it happen.

Mr. Speaker, this province has an economy that increasingly looks like a beat-up and battered old car. It is because this government and the corporations behind it have a plan. They have refused to take the necessary measures to ensure a growing economy with a diversified industrial base, with adequate provision for services to people, because that is how their system works. We recognize that you have to have that kind of buoyant economy in order to provide services to people.

The present tragic and chaotic state of affairs here, Mr. Speaker, and across Canada, is the result of the failure of the so-called free market system to fulfill its promise or, indeed, even to remain a free market. Yet the tiger in the tank of this budget is the same old, overpriced, exploitative gas - the private sector. This budget is another pathetic attempt to prove a theory that will not and cannot provide growth, jobs, services, or equality. This budget is a pathetic attempt to show that if the government does nothing, the private sector may be enticed to come in and salvage the wreckage, thus making a few billion bucks for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a famous Seattle Chevrolet advertisement which we often see on TV. It's the picture of a car dealer smashing his cars up with a sledgehammer, and when he's through bashing them up, he says: "Come on down and get them at a bargain price." That, Mr. Speaker, is the Bennett-Wolfe programme for this province. They've smashed the province, they've smashed the economy, they've smashed the productive capacity of the people of the province, they have beaten labour almost to its knees, and now they are saying: "Come an in and get us at a bargain price."

By next year, Mr. Speaker, if present trends continue, the idea of giving away more forest resources, selling more coal and mineral rights cheaply, selling off more of the people's assets, may look good even to the most sceptical among us. By next next year, Mr. Speaker, if present trends continue, employers will be able to hire workers at any wage, to work under any unsafe, unhealthy and unregulated conditions. Then the province will, indeed, look like a huge car parts junk yard, and everything will be going cheap, cheap, cheap to the lowest bidders - the private sector, of course.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the final reason I cannot support this budget has to do with the big lie. The big lie is that a government with an overrun of over $200 million can run a province competently. That is just not true. The big lie is that a government that can....

AN HON. MEMBER: Be constructive.

MS. BROWN: I'm very constructive, and I'm saying that a government with an overrun of over $200 million cannot run a province competently. That's a constructive criticism. Mr. Speaker, a government that takes a universal Pharmacare programme, places a $100 a head price tag on it and hands it back to the people and calls it a universal Pharmacare programme, that, Mr. Speaker, is the big lie. It is no longer a universal Pharmacare programme and should not be regarded as such.

The big lie, Mr. Speaker, is that the tax burden on the homeowner in the urban area is lower and is going down. This morning I s Province - if I may draw your attention to it - on page I says that the homeowners in the city of Vancouver anyway are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of increases in regional hospital taxes, Greater Vancouver Regional District taxes and, of course, school taxes. Yet we are continually being told that the tax burden on the homeowner in the urban area is lower.

The big lie, Mr. Speaker, is that the

[ Page 608 ]

repressive fiscal violence which has been visited on the people of this province by this government was made necessary because of a debt burden which they found on this province. That is the big lie. The big lie, Mr. Speaker, is that this government honours the Social Credit commitment "to lower the cost of government." On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, every family, every individual, every person in this province has had to pay and pay dearly. It has cost a family of four $1,300 a year more just to have this government riding on its back.

Mr. Speaker, if this budget had introduced a form of tax credits to replace tax deductions as the basis of our tax system, tax credits to aid the working poor, the aged, the disabled and people on fixed income, the people at the bottom end of the income scale would have benefited and I would have been able to support this budget. If this budget had outlined a plan for the creation of jobs and the development of secondary industry in the province, I would have been able to support this budget. If this budget had repudiated the cruel and punitive policies of the Minister of Human Resources and had outlined a commitment to services based on need, I would have been able to support this budget. But this budget, Mr. Speaker, has failed to do all of these things and for these reasons I cannot support this budget. Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Unlike the previous speaker, I don't need to list a series of reasons why I won't support the budget because, naturally, I very much support the budget, as most of the citizens in the province of British Columbia obviously do.

The budget, in contrast to the other budgets which were released the same day, the federal budget and the budget in Manitoba, was there for all to see. I think there had been some reference made to this prior to the budget that there would be three that day and British Columbia would be the No. I budget, it would be the best budget. I think, really, a person who would analyse that budget, to look at the highlights of that budget, to see how moneys are to be expended, could only come to the conclusion that it's a sensible budget, it's a budget which will encourage development within our economy, will encourage people to spend more and to stimulate the economy, particularly local spending. It will encourage people to feel in a very positive way that progress is still.possible within the province of British Columbia and there can be such a thing as success.

Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of discussion in the house about the plight of the small businessman in British Columbia. I think few persons would argue that the small businessman has always been the backbone of our economy. But the small businessman is and always has been in an extremely fragile position. Many, many small businessmen are very of ten on the verge of going broke. Many of them work for substandard wages and very, very long hours. The reason they are prepared to sacrifice their personal life is because they do have a very strong urgency of independence. They do not wish to be dependent upon others and prefer to work for themselves and to hire those persons who are able to contribute to their small business. But the small business is the area where a slowdown in the economy is first felt. They feel the effects of strikes and lockouts; they feel the negative effects of too much government.

The budget speech and the Speech from the Throne emphasized that efforts will be introduced by the government this year to assist the small businessman. The Ministry of Economic Development has already produced programmes which are at this very moment benefiting small enterprise directly by way of assisting them in their financing or in their organization or an expansion. But the small businessman, Mr. Speaker, has another fight he must overcome if he is to survive and expand in our economy, and that is also referred to in the budget speech and earlier in the throne speech. And those are the problems associated with regulations - the red tape of bureaucracy.

Small businessmen, usually not in a position to hire lawyers with their high costs and other consultants to sort out the maze of regulations, find that they very often must do it themselves and spend an incredible amount of time attempting to fill out forms, pile upon pile of forms from different levels of government - federal government regulations, provincial government regulations, regional district government regulations, municipal regulations. All of these regulations make it impossible in many instances for him to succeed or even to survive. He can't afford to hire a specialist to do that for him, and many non-productive hours are consumed while he fills out all the paper for the different governments.

The small businessman, Mr. Speaker, is restricted in many ways. He hires people; he sells products. He has to pay attention to the hours of sale; the size of his signs to the colour of his signs; the landscaping around his building, if he has one; statistic forms, advertising contracts - government statistics

[ Page 609 ]

again. In almost every walk of his life, there is some government which wishes to prohibit his action, or at least make it so difficult for him that he's prepared to give up, to throw in the towel and perhaps f find a job working for someone else, or, if all else fails, perhaps to go on some type of welfare. But most small businessmen choose to be small businessmen and they are the very fibre of our system of society right across the country.

Mr. Speaker, government has a very strong obligation to assist the small businessman. Government has an obligation to assist all of its citizens in an attempt to overcome their difficulties, particularly their difficulties with governments. The small businessman sometimes is frowned upon by other people because they all have an idea that if you own a business of any kind, you must be very, very wealthy; you must be engaged in some type of practice which is going to rob them as customers. They're always suspicious of the quality of your product, the quality of your service. I suppose some small businessmen who have gone broke have done so because they were unable to supply and satisfy their customers. That again is part of the system we have, part of the system which has made our province so great and the country so great as well.

Mr. Speaker, this government intends to do something about it - at least it intends to attempt to do something about the problem is of small businessmen with the procedural wrangles, with the review commissions, appeal boards, agencies, review of regulations, procedures, policies, referrals, more appeals, and the Arts of this House. All of this will be scrutinized to determine if unnecessary roadblocks are being put in the way of small businessmen or other citizens of the province simply to function - not to. rip off anyone, not to take advantage of anyone, but simply to function.

Residents of British Columbia have a right to demand of their government, through their ministries, that certain services be provided for which they pay, for which they are taxed, and residents have a right to receive these services with a minimum of hassle, a minimum of red tape and a minimum of delay, because delay in the business world is very expensive. It's not unusual for citizens of Canada, who come to British Columbia and attempt to locate so they can employ people, to wait f or one year, two years, perhaps even three years before permission is granted for them to locate because of bureaucracy, because of regulations, because of appeal procedures, because of various opponents who may - who knows why? - be opposing some of these clean industries that wish to locate. Very, very of ten the entrepreneur will receive encouragement from a council to come into the municipality or the area. They might even feel they've been given approval by some member of council or the mayor or others, but they find they still must go through the procedure, even though everyone agrees very early on that it would be advantageous to that municipality for them to [illegible] there. But years can go by before they can receive the final approval to actually start into production, thereby employing people at that plant.

Those members of our society who are employed by the federal government, or the provincial government or local governments, I believe, have an obligation to do all within their power to accommodate our citizens, to ensure that all citizens receive co-operation and guidance, if needed. Every effort should be made to permit the citizens to be successful in their desires, in their applications and ambitions, by eliminating some of the ridiculous red tape and some of the going-by-the-book attitude that so many bureaucrats have. it's not precisely identified in the book, therefore it can't be done, even though the benefit is obvious. It's very easy, I'm sure, to say no, rather than try and assist someone so the answer could be yes.

We all recognize, I think we agree, that democracy is a fine system of government, but government must recognize that they've been authorized by the citizens of their area to make decisions at all levels. It's not always necessary to go back and back to the same people to find out if their attitude is changed, if they still back you. People have been elected to make decisions and they have an obligation to do that - again in the interests of time, in the interests of getting the job done, and of building up the economy through expansion, initial construction, and then opportunities which are there for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I had a personal experience the other day which I think illustrates the attitude some of our citizens have in supplying services to people. In this instance it was a legal firm who asked me to come down to their office to sign some documents. Recognizing that I was the client, I was the one paying the bill, I asked if it was possible at 1 o'clock because I had an appointment in the downtown area of Vancouver at 2 o'clock.

I was told that 1 o'clock was impractical. In my usual manner, I very politely asked why. I was advised they would be out to lunch. My

[ Page 610 ]

comments then were modified somewhat when I inquired why I o'clock was absolutely necessary for lunch. We made a compromise, and I arrived at 1:30 to find that they were still out to lunch. The attitude is that the customer or client is, presumably, never right if it's inconvenient for that person. I'm afraid that attitude has reached epidemic proportions in many of the services which are offered to the citizens of the province. It is extremely costly to the system and it's costly to all members of our society.

We hear of those who are protesting because they are out of work; we hear of those who are protesting on behalf of those who are out of work. We are besieged by those who urge the creation of new jobs. I certainly agree with the desire for more full employment, more jobs and the creation of new jobs. I met with representatives from the B.C. Federation of Labour when they were vising on the opening day of this Legislature. I discussed the problem as they outlined it to me as it relates to my constituency of Richmond. Much to my dismay, I had to advise the gentlemen who were in my office that Richmond - which is not a depressed area of the province, by any means; Richmond is not dependent on local industries because, being close to Vancouver, many people work in the city of Vancouver and other surrounding areas, although Ricmond does have a large amount of industry, particularly the Vancouver airport - and the area of Richmond is very attractive to a large number of light industrial companies who wish to locate in Richmond. In many instances they have acquired land. In many instances they have spoken to some of the senior staff members of the Richmond municipality; they have made their desires known.

There are many companies who wish to move in; the land is not within the agricultural land reserve. Construction would cause many jobs to be created. But Richmond council, since the last election when four NDP members were elected, has decided to go with no growth. They do not want industry to locate in Richmond for some reason, even though people do want the jobs. The attitude, unfortunately, which is now emanating from council, which represents my constituency, is one which is extremely negative. "You are not welcome in Richmond, " they say to business which would create jobs. "Go elsewhere. We don't need you. We are a no-growth council." It's a no-growth philosophy. It's very expensive for the people who are looking for work. There's a tremendous amount of construction which would be underway at this very time in Richmond, if the council would permit the construction to begin, and where the jobs would be created.

That negative attitude is not only shared on the Richmond council by at least four of those members, but you'll find it common throughout many areas of the province. This means that the person who wishes to establish or expand is stymied by zoning and other regulations. The people simply pack up and leave, or stay with a relatively small industry even though they have the capital and the desire to expand.

We hear about so many entrepreneurs who go to Washington state, Alberta and other areas of North America because, we are told, they can get the job done with a minimum of hassle and a minimum of regulations. It brings to mind a new marina located at Point Roberts, which berths 1,000 small craft. I was in contact with the person responsible for construction of this marina. The reason he went to Washington state is because he was convinced that it would be absolutely impossible to have a similar project in Canada.

MR. ROGERS: Your department wouldn't allow it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The first member for Vancouver South says my department wouldn't allow it. You are probably quite right. I certainly know the federal Ministry of the Environment would not allow it. Perhaps the ministry of my colleague on my left may not have allowed it as well.

He went down there with $7 million and built the marina in a year and a half. It will be used by people who own small boats, mainly from the Vancouver area.

It isn't the specifics; it's the attitude. Before he fully explored it, he was convinced the attitude would be "no, " because they are anti-development. "Take your small boat to Washington state and spend your money there."

It's no great puzzle as to why so many jobs are lost to our economy. Much of it has to do with red tape, the indecisions of local councils or regional districts - bless them -or the endless web of referrals, the hearings, the studies, the commissions, the countless plans, the technical reviews. It's an endless list of obstacles placed in the way of expansion and growth.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this government will do something about the problem which, I'm sure, has grown over the years. I would think every elected government, probably in every jurisdiction of the world, has pledged to resolve the problem. The problem is beginning to strangle us.

[ Page 611 ]

Mr. Speaker, the budget and the speech from our Minister of Finance (Ron. Mr. Wolfe) clearly indicate that this government considers it to be an obligation and a pledge to the people of B.C. to get on with it. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has outlined, in terms even members sitting opposite should be able to understand if they choose to, that progress is being made to stabilize the slide of the B.C. economy, which occurred in the early half of the 1970s. That critically ill economic situation has been stabilized, corrected, and is now moving ahead.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) hit the nail on the head the other day when he described how hundreds of jobs are being denied the citizens of this province because of negative attitudes held by so many people, and demonstrated to their highest degree by the members opposite. If you heard the member who spoke before me, and if you were to look in the Blues tomorrow and underscore the negative thoughts that were contained in that speech, you'll know why there are so many people who are affected by that negativism, which is so costly to the people of the province, particularly those people who are looking for work and those who perhaps might want more services.

It's sometimes amusing to hear from members of the previous government, who are constantly telling us about things that were to be. It's like some of the Dr. Seuss stories. Things that were to be - a steel mill that was going to happen, the agreements that were going to be signed, but weren't. We had a contradiction one afternoon with an audience of representatives of organized labour who said: "Why don't we have a steel mill?", while at the same time we had a presentation from their environment committee saying steel mills are polluters. Which do you, want?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the former government had stayed in office for a little longer, all of these things would have been done. At least they indicate that they would have been done. Perhaps we could remind them that they chose not to do these because they chose the date of the election. Obviously they didn't wish to accomplish those, probably because it was beyond their capacity. But decisions are being made by this government and they'll continue to be made, which will result in an economic boom - the growth of the economy in British Columbia. This government has a positive attitude caused by this understanding of our great opportunities, and our good fortune to live in British Columbia and in Canada. We have the will, and the citizens have the desire, and I'm sure it will be done.

I would just like to mention something specific to do, again, with my municipality of Richmond, relative to this strange negative attitude which seems to be so common in our society, and which is so expensive to our economy and does hold back so many ambitious people, , people who would like to succeed.

Richmond is the fourth largest municipality in British Columbia - larger than the city of Victoria - and it continues to expand very rapidly in population. The citizens enjoy magnificent weather in Richmond, as all would know, and the calming effect of living on flat land, as the Speaker would know, and the somewhat strange feeling of living below sea level, but all is not perfect in the Delta area of the Fraser River.

One of my pet peeves is that magnificent structure called the Arthur Laing bridge, a $30 million structure that really doesn't go anywhere and doesn't start anywhere, except in circles and loops, and takes a few cars f rom the airport to Granville Street. It's enough to make a taxpayer cry. If you have the opportunity of being near that bridge and the Oak Street bridge or the Knight Street bridge during certain hours of the day when the Oak Street bridge and Knight Street bridge are jammed, when the citizens of the city of Vancouver or the south side of the Fraser are backed up for miles, and a few casual drivers are making their way across the Arthur Laing Bridge.... I think some of them probably have been driving for many weeks on that bridge trying to find a way off it. But the capacity of that bridge is underutilized. The citizens of Richmond and others living south of the Fraser have asked for access to make use of that bridge, but the city of Vancouver says no, and this is what I mean by attitude.

The city of Vancouver forgets that the citizens of Richmond have sacrificed a great deal over the years for the convenience of all, including those people in Vancouver. Richmond has put up with the noise of aircraft for years, the establishment of the airport expansion, the. removal of a neighbourhood. Cora Brown was completely removed. That's a neighbourhood, not the woman. The surgery performed on the neighbourhood of Burkeville, so the airport could expand to serve the people of the greater Vancouver-Lower Mainland area.... And Richmond doesn't ask for anything for itself, but only to share with its neighbours. The city of Vancouver says no, because it's such an easy thing to say. I think probably soon the city of Vancouver will recognize that it's just too embarrassing to

[ Page 612 ]

have that bridge underutilized.

Mr. Speaker, during the budget debate, great hilarity stemmed from the other side of the House when it was mentioned that the sales tax would be taken off survival suits. I suppose it may be somewhat humorous but I would just like to suggest that the Doug Larden family of Richmond, who were rescued after their fishing vessel capsized and all survived, thanks to survival suits, would consider that to be a very positive step, small as it may be. Because if we can encourage our fishermen to purchase survival suits, even if it's simply by taking off the tax, it will probably save many lives from our herring fleet.

Finally, it's a pleasure to welcome you to the chair; I haven't had that opportunity. I offer my personal congratulations to you and to the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , from the other side of the Art Laing Bridge. I would also like to recognize the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) and wish him well in his duties in the House.

MR. BARBER: In the judgment of this opposition, no sensible person recognizing the extraordinary damage done to the economy of British Columbia by that group could possibly support the budget they have put forward this year. No government has done more damage to the economy of British Columbia in a shorter period of time than has Social Credit. No government has been more reckless with the people's money than Social Credit. No government's fiscal policies have been more stupid, more primitive and have done more irreparable damage than have the Social Credit economic policies in this province. This government, for two and a half years, for reasons of the most bizarre and backward right-wing ideology that compels them, has been absolutely reckless and irresponsible in its handling of the fiscal policies and programmes of the people of British Columbia.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a fiscal policy more reckless and more stupid than a policy that would sell, after we've already paid for them, three ferries to back-east interests - to Bay Street, Toronto, city interests? That's a policy put forward along those lines by this group. Can you imagine a policy more stupid and self-defeating than the one that unprincipled coalition would put forward selling what we've already bought, what we've already paid for, what we already built here in British Columbia?

The people of British Columbia built the Queen of Cowichan and they paid for it. The people of British Columbia built the Queen of Coquitlam and they paid for it. The people of British Columbia built the Queen of Surrey and they paid for it. All of these achievements were paid for by cold hard cash on the spot, pay as you go, by a responsible NDP government.

This group gets back into power - the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Social Credits, new and old, and even a member of Action Canada - and what do they do? Could you imagine anything more stupid or reckless? They sell the ferries we've already paid for, for $35 million, to the Bay Street boys. Why do they do that? Does that make any economic sense at all? If you owned a house - I presume you must, in Chilliwack; maybe you awn one here too - and you had worked for a long time putting together the capital to pay for it, you had taken the mortgage, you had paid the mortgage, it was your house, you owned it, would there to you, Mr. Speaker, be any great advantage in selling the house back to some financial interest in Ontario or Quebec, in order that ... ?

MR. MUSSALLEM: If you needed the money.

MR. BARBER: Listen to him. The American member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) tells us that if you needed money, you would do it.

Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't be so foolish or reckless or stupid, after you'd bought and paid for your own home, to sell it again and then lease it back to some back-east interest. They used it to create a phony, unbelievable false surplus to serve the partisan purposes of that coalition of opportunists. Can you imagine anything more reckless, more stupid or more irresponsible than doing what they have done when they sold the Cowichan, the Coquitlam and the Surrey, the ferries that we had already bought and paid for with good, cold cash, under the NDP government in British Columbia? We can't. It was incredibly reckless, stupid and irresponsible.

We can't support this government because in a second instance, for two and a half years, they have been reckless, stupid and irresponsible. What did they do to the sales tax? They tell us, two and a half years ago, that it was necessary to increase the sales tax by 40 per cent. They told us, and you may remember the excuses offered at that time, that it was a progressive move. The Minister of Finance stood up in his budget speech in that corridor and defended to legislators and press alike the allegedly progressive nature of his government's foolish policy of increasing the sales tax by 40 per cent.

For two years, for political purposes then, they raised it. For political purposes now,

[ Page 613 ]

they have taken it down. Economically, that move was reckless, stupid and irresponsible and should never have been done. For political purposes today they pull it back. They try and take the credit, but even in the taking of the credit, they mislead the people. Who turns out to deserve the credit? Not them at all, but Ottawa. Who turns out to deserve the accolades that may be forthcoming from business in this province? hardly the Social Credit government that perpetrated the wrong in the first place. It's the federal government that has corrected the wrong in the second place that deserves the credit.

This government did more damage with that one primitive, stupid, reckless move alone than almost any other you could even conceive of them doing. It was bad enough what they did to ICBC; it was bad enough what they did to the medical premiums and the hospital co-insurance; it was bad enough what they did to hydro, to natural gas and electricity. But the sales tax, one of the most important levers to open up or shut down economic activity in this province, they threw to the sky and increased by 40 per cent. They defended it as a progressive move for two years and now turn around and tell us that perhaps it wasn't so good after all. They were happy to restore it. They never tell us. Today they won't admit - they've neither the courage nor the honour - that it was in fact Ottawa that compelled it and not that group at all. No courage, no honour and no insight into good economic planning in British Columbia. No one who understands what this group did two years ago can in conscience support what they're purporting to do today. Their moves two years ago were stupid. Their moves this year are simply desperate. Two years ago they were political; this year they're political.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps more temperate language would not be quite as provocative.

MR. BARBER: I'm not aware I've provoked anyone over there.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order. the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, provocative language has been common in this House and was cherished in the past between 1972 and 1975. 1 would just wonder whether or not we could proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on the same point of order, the Speaker is bound by the rules of the House, and the rules of the House provide for temperate language. Just a constant reminder.

The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The third instance in which this government has been reckless, stupid and irresponsible is their extraordinary record of overruns in the last year, and I propose - temperately, Mr. Speaker; it is their language and not mine -to engage in some readings from the past.

I have here, for instance, a copy of the Vancouver-Little Mountain News, a Social Credit publication, Vol. 4, No. 1, dated December, 1975, which I'm pleased to see has a union label on it. The front story is: '!D-Day For All British Columbians, " and we see some charming pictures of the lady with the frozen hair and the present Minister of Finance. There they are. She has her arm around the Premier in this one. "Found: a gold bracelet at Vancouver-Little Mountain nominating meeting. Owner please call campaign office." That's nice that they turn in these things. On the back. "Vote Social Credit and have a prosperous New Year" was the message. What an extraordinary thing! "Vote Social Credit and have a prosperous New Year." What did they do in the new year when they were in power? What more reckless, stupid or irresponsible thing could they do than jack up the ICBC rates from 100 per cent to 300 per cent? This is what they mean by a prosperous New Year?

Continuing with readings from the past, let me, if I may, read you.... Oh, gosh, even the headline is marvellous. "Grace McCarthy and Evan Wolfe, Candidates For All Reasons." Could you imagine anything more sophomorish than that - a bad misquote from a movie purporting to support the economic policies of that group? However, they have a story here called "The Big Problems of British Columbia." It comes from page 2.

Under the title "Waste and Incompetence" that appears on page - if I counted correctly - 7 of this journal, they tell us what they're going to do if they get to power. They tell us they're going to "end spending without accountability by restoring control of spending to the Legislature." Now just this afternoon in question period, Mr. Speaker, we had a devastating example of a government that refuses to be responsible to this Legislature, regarding the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. They tell us here in this amazing publication, Vancouver-Little Mountain News, that they intend to "end spending without accountability by restoring control of

[ Page 614 ]

spending to the Legislature."

In question period today, Mr. Speaker -perfectly in order - I asked the Premier whether or not he would be prepared to tell this House of the salary and the benefits paid to Mr. Helliwell, the president and chief executive officer of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. I should tell you now, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Credit coalition has transferred to that corporation assets in value exceeding $151.5 million. That's an extraordinary amount of spending. They did so through an Act, the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act, which the Premier himself tabled in this House, which the government voted for and we voted against.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a government running a statement - taken from these readings of the past - that they are going to end spending without accountability by restoring control of spending to the Legislature, and then turning around this day and, in the words of the Premier, refusing in any instance to report to this House on the activities of a corporation that has now had expended on its behalf moneys equivalent to $151.5 million.? The Premier today, in his reply, was utterly irresponsible and incompetent. One of the reasons we cannot possibly vote for this budget is that it betrays again and again a commitment made falsely by that group when in opposition, falsely in their campaign literature, that they were going to restore accountability to this Legislature. The Premier's incompetent and irresponsible statement denying responsibility to this Legislature for the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is another reason why we cannot support this budget. There are more, however.

In the same publication it is written: "End $100 million overruns." Now we presume that when they made that statement they did not intend to replace $100 million overruns with overruns in excess of $200 million. I mean, it's a very odd promise to say they're going to end $100 million overruns and in the next breath concede, as they have had to concede this year, that they have, in fact, engaged in overruns of in excess of $215 million. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, any act more irresponsible, more reckless or more stupid, any promise more brazenly betrayed by that group, than the one here in the Vancouver Little Mountain News that said: "End $100 million overruns"? What a joke! End $100 million overruns, introduce $215 million overruns.

It's more, I suppose, than a small irony, Mr. Speaker, that one of the worst records of overruns is in the Ministry of the Provincial

Secretary. One of the worst overruns of all lies within the overrun perpetrated by the minister whose name and smiling, red-haired picture appears in this issue of Vancouver Little Mountain News.

She's overrun by a greater percentage in her department than any other minister in any other department. Can you imagine any more irresponsible promise here in this pamphlet -and $100 million overruns - when hers are the worst proportionately of any ministry? It's disgraceful. It should, you would think, embarrass them. But given how they put the coalition together in the first place, one can only presume that nothing these days embarrasses them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.)

MR. BARBER: Given how the coalition is falling apart these days - the quick demise of the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, the quick demise of the previous Speaker - perhaps, at least internally, there's some embarrassment. We may never see it, but others have observed it before.

Continuing with readings from the past, continuing to demonstrate why no opposition could endorse the hypocrisy of that gang, let me read as well from a pamphlet called %et B.C. Moving Again, " published by the British Columbia Social Credit Party. They have some extraordinary little things in here, some extraordinary little promises, some amazing promises which two and a half years later have been broken in a brazen and false way by that coalition.

Under education they tell us: "Restore control of education to local school boards, teachers and the family." Well, when we get to the Education estimates, we'll certainly see how they've kept that promise. There has never been a more centralized or authoritarian approach to education in this province than under this coalition. Never has bureaucracy been more powerful in education than it is today under Social Credit.

"Get B.C. Moving Again." They talk about housing. Another move more hypocritical than words could express by this government is seen in this year's budget speech. They tell us that they're increasing housing for seniors in the form of a capital allocation from $4 million to $6 million. And they take credit for it as if this is somehow a progressive move. Typically and falsely, they don't tell us that two years ago the budget was $10

[ Page 615 ]

million and they cut it to $4 million. They seem to forget to tell us these things.

This year, thinking that they can rewrite history in the most despicably Orwellian fashion, they turn around and boast about increasing the housing budget from $4 million to $6 million.

AN RON. MEMBER: Take a dollar, give a dime.

MR. BARBER: They forget it was $10 million. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago they told us that they were going to cut the budget for seniors housing construction from $10 million to $4 million, and the beatific Minister of Recreation and Conservation was in fact going to give them free campsites instead.

They were much consoled. I assure you, I got thousands of letters and hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions applauding the move to give them free campsites instead of the housing which they deserve. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation - not one ever to get a joke, much less take one - presumably omits to understand the sarcasm. I'll explain it to him: I'm being sarcastic. I didn't hear from anyone applauding the free campsites for seniors. It's another bold, cruel joke on the seniors of this province, perpetrated by that group over there who have never understood, in one human moment, what it's like to be old and on a fixed income under Social Credit. They've never understood it and, apparently, they never will.

More readings from the past. Here we are again. Under the heading of "Waste and Mismanagement, " we find the same thing that appeared in the Vancouver-Little Mountain News. What do we f find? We f find yet another promise on page 7 of the pamphlet: "End $100 Million Budget Overruns."

Mr. Speaker, once more, for those who might have thought that the woman who told the stories about the secret police might have told the same kind of stories in this paper without the authority of the Social Credit Party, I now produce a paper issued by the central body of the Social Credit Party, entitled: "Get B.C. Moving Again." They make the same promise. Presumably, unlike the secret police, this in fact represents reality.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: No one found them because they didn't exist; they never did.

MR. COCKE: We found them.

MR. BARBER: Yes, in the mind of the lady with the frozen hair; that's where we found them.

So they tell us they are going to end $100 million overruns. Instead, they produce $215 million overruns.

More readings from the past. From the Victoria Colonist, Tuesday, December 16, an editorial entitled "Socred Promises" recounts one of the Socred promises. Let this House be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that the Colonist has, editorially, supported Social Credit old and new for a number of years. Indeed, in some of the columns under the authorship of one particular columnist, over and over again, no matter what, Social Credit is supported. We presume, therefore, that in the flush of victory, this Socred-supporting paper would accurately report a Socred promise. What do we find on page 4, December 16,1975? It simply says, quoting Social Credit: "Avoid All Budget Overruns." They weren't trying out the fiction of "End $100 Million Overruns and We'll Bring in $215 Mil I ion Overruns." This paper, illuminating and restraining Socred promises, simply said: "Avoid All Budget Overruns."

On December 10,1975, the Vancouver Sun also got the story right. The Vancouver Sun, in an article by Neale Adams, a respected journalist in this province, under the listing of the promises made by Social Credit, simply records: "Avoid all budget overruns." Presumably, Mr. Speaker, it's possible to claim with some honour and fairness that Social Credit did indeed promise to end all budget overruns, period, pure and simple - not $1, not $100 million, not $215 million, but all. Now they have attempted in their usual way - rewriting history - to justify what they're doing by pretending that they have the money for it. Well, the fact is, they don't. If they had not sold off the assets of this province, they would be in a deficit position today. If they had not increased the taxes and charges unbearably, they would be in a deficit position today. If they had not done more reckless, irresponsible and stupid damage to the economy of this province by jacking up every rate, charge and tax in sight, they would be in a deficit position today. They tell us that they're not in a deficit position and that therefore their overruns are justifiable.

Let me take you back, Mr. Speaker, to a time prior to that when you occupied your own or any other chair.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I can

[ Page 616 ]

interrupt you for a minute, it's 16 minutes before the normal hour of adjournment and I would wonder if the members could restrain themselves and listen to the gentleman who speaks.

MR. BARBER: You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that that group over there has attempted to rationalize these reckless overruns by saying that they have the money for them and it's good for the economy, and by justifying overexpenditures that are wildly out of control in that language.

Another reading from the past is from February 27,1975. Was he still a Liberal or not? I'm referring to then Mr. L.A. William , now the Minister of Labour. How did he judge any overexpenditures, any unbudgeted expenditures, any overruns at all? Did he think that they were good for the economy then? Did he justify them as somehow being supportive of an economic programme at that time? Did he think that any of them could be justified for any purpose?

Well, listen carefully. Listen to what he said then, February 27,1975, , on page 239 of Hansard: "At the same time, when the Premier, " referring to Premier Barrett, "was questioned by the press on this particular subject, he indicated that all of the government departments were overspending. Overspending is a loss to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker."

Now in case the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and his erstwhile colleague -as long as he was in that group - the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , he on his box and the minister through his ears, didn't hear that, let me repeat what he said: "Overspending is a loss to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker." Was lie justifying overruns then, as the Minister of Finance justifies them now? No, he was attacking them then. He saw no value; could justify no overexpenditures.

Now I don't have at hand whether or not the Ministry of Labour is itself also wildly and recklessly overrun this year, but I presume that the Minister of Labour then checked his principles, joining the coalition, as he has obviously forgotten them now. In those days he seemed to think that overruns of any sort were a loss to the people of British Columbia.

"Rear, hear!", the Minister of Mine Closures says; hear, hear! indeed.

They are wildly, recklessly overrun to the amount of $215 million, and when they were in opposition, what did they say? They said it was a loss to the people of British Columbia. They can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker; hypocrites never can.

On February 27,1975, one of that group, one of that gang, told us that all overexpenditures were a loss to the people of British Columbia. It's an incredible record. On the basis of this performance, they expect any opposition to support such a budget. We can hardly do so.

Let me quote, if I may, from the Premier himself, then the Leader of the Opposition. One of the reasons we cannot support this budget is that this budget will prove to be as wildly inaccurate as was the last budget in predicting the actual expenditures of that coalition. They were wrong by more than $200 million. The budget they are bringing down this year will also be wrong, if history is any guide. What did they say when they were in opposition, about budgets that did not accurately predict revenues and expenditures? What did they think in those days of overexpenditure and overruns?

This year they justify their grotesque overruns by telling us that they could afford it, and therefore they should do it. Under the previous administration, when more could be afforded and more was done for people than under this, this is what their Premier had to say on February 4,1974, page 24 of Hansard: "One year ago, Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Finance brought down his first budget, his spending estimates for the next 12 months." I wasn't here, but the record will show that my colleagues and, indeed, all private members of the House faithfully debated, criticized and reviewed the document at length. That was their responsibility. Up to this point that is a reasonable statement. No one will question that. More power to him for having said it. Where he embarrasses himself now is by having said what he said then.

He goes on to say:

"The entire exercise was a sham, Mr. Speaker, because the document was a sham. The so-called budget was never intended to be a guide to the government's spending plans. We know that a little more than three months after this budget was passed, the government authorized over $25 million worth of special warrants and expenditures which weren't included in that budget." Listen to the horror, the shaking, , the trembling in his voice as he attacks $25 million worth of overruns.

To continue with the reading of the past the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier said: "That figure of special warrants for expenditures not included in the budget is now over $110 million." Listen again to the

[ Page 617 ]

quavering, the trembling and the shaking of his voice: "They did it all by that device which horrifies the Premier - the order-in-council - the censored order-in-council which says little and hides all, et cetera, et cetera." Like the King of Siam - understanding as little as the Premier does.

That was said by the present Premier and the then Leader of the Opposition. So I want to give you another reason why this opposition cannot support that group's budget. What we know now is that this budget on the table today has wildly underestimated their actual expenditures, because last year's budget did the same thing. They were wrong - hopelessly wrong - by $215 million. Can you imagine anything more incompetent or anything fiscally more irresponsible than being wrong to a tune of almost a quarter of a billion dollars? They were wrong, wrong, wrong.

When they were in opposition they said any overruns were wrong, wrong, wrong. The Premier said it; the Minister of Labour (Ron. Mr. Williams) said it. They all attacked overexpenditures. Now what do they do today? They tell us that somehow they can be justified.

George Orwell would have loved to have been here, Mr. Speaker. George Orwell never had it so good as this group has it and George Orwell knows exactly what this group is up to. If they had any choice in the matter, Hansard would never have been introduced. Social Credit opposed it for two decades. They now find it impossible to bury or burn Hansard. They are endlessly embarrassed when these readings from the past portray accurately and fairly the utterly hypocritical and irresponsible fiscal policies of this group as represented in this budget.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Would the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) please come to order? The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you very much.

Apparently the minister of Oldfield Road doesn't understand what an overrun is, so let me read into the record what his own Premier said an overrun was at page 39 of Hansard, February 20,1975. Let's look at what he said then about restraint as well. Let's talk about what he seems to think was wrong with overruns at that time, and let's hear the minister from Oldfield Road defend overruns, his own or any others:

"Our British Columbia citizens are concerned over those two words" - he's talking about inflation and overruns -"because food prices with inflation are worse in B.C. than in any other part in Canada. This does become a provincial problem. It does become a problem of this Legislature."

And he goes on to talk about inflation for a moment. I won't bore you. It was boring then and it would be boring now.

"The third word that I would like to discuss that was left out of this speech is 'restraint.' How loudly must the word restraint be shouted, Mr. Speaker, for governments to hear and for people to hear and recognize that in this difficult time in British Columbia in 1975, restraint is not only desirable but a necessity. But nowhere in this speech is there a mention of restraint from a government that has overrun in all departments - self-confessed overruns -overruns in a single department of $100 million, overruns from lack of restraint that this government seems proud of."

This is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier - then the Leader of the Opposition -attacked overruns in any department as an example of a government that knew not the meaning of the word restraint. This year no government understands more wrongly the meaning of restraint than does this coalition of opportunists with one of the worst records of overspending, overexpenditures and overruns in the history of this province.

We thought that the overruns on the Columbia River Treaty were bad. We thought that this group had learned their lesson. They learned nothing at all. Overrun of $215 million in those days they thought were dreadful. Today they try and hide them, they try and excuse them, they try and cover them up. They won't use the word they used then to describe the same accounting principle. Then overruns were bad, now somehow Social Credit justifies them. George Orwell never had it so good in the rewriting of language and history as Social Credit is having it good today. If overruns meant then what they said then, overruns mean the same thing now. They can't have it both ways. Hypocrites never can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That will have to be withdrawn.

MR. BARBER: I withdraw it.

I'll continue with readings from the past, talking about how they viewed overruns then, talking about, if you will, Mr. Speaker, the

[ Page 618 ]

apparent contradiction between their positions when they were in opposition, when they would say anything and do anything to get votes, and their position now, when they will say anything and do anything to keep in power, including selling off the ferries, raising the sales tax, raising ICBC and all the rest of it, reflecting on the argument we make today, which is simply that we cannot support a budget which will this year, as falsely as did the budget last year, misrepresent actual expenditures.

They have overexpended last year; apparently they will do it this year. Here is what the then Leader of the Opposition had to say about the matter: "Could the province have withstood the Premier's realism in 1974? And now for 1975 the Minister of Finance has presented a budget of realism to the people of British Columbia which requires the asking of some very serious questions. Is it realistic to expect that this government can control its spending habits in 1975 to eliminate all budgetary overruns?"

He, the now-Premier, asked a reasonable question, Mr. Speaker. He asked whether or not it was possible to support a budget which, in view of the budget presented the year before, which ended up in overexpenditures, could do the same thing. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have traveled another mile down the road. We know now what they wouldn't admit then.

They questioned then a budget with the grossest of inaccuracies, falsely represented the actual spending programmes of a government. Then when it turns out that their own spending programmes are equally badly misrepresented, surely we as well cannot support a budget on the same regard, on the same principle. They can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker; they simply cannot.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: For a number of reasons, more of which will be heard this evening and in days to come, we believe that this government has been more reckless and irresponsible in its spending habits than any other in the history of British Columbia. At this moment, I would, with the consent of the minister, move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I ask permission to table documents.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, these are the official reports of the Joint Committee on Housing in Prince George, September 22,1976; Prince George - the afternoon, same date; and Vernon - September 23, morning and afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: What Year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's 1976, but they're still in very good condition, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Edited?

MR. SPEAKER: Ron. members, before we rise....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, a member opposite asked if they had been edited. Sir, these are Hansard transcripts and I ask that member to withdraw without hesitation that there would be any editing of a Hansard....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker. It was heard, and probably heard by others in this House. I ask for a withdrawal immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Ron. members, if any improper motive was imputed to the member, I must ask for a withdrawal.

MR. SKELLY: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank You.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Is that a withdrawal? I distinctly heard....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not speaking to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . I distinctly heard the statement "edited?", which was a question, and I ask for a withdrawal.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I said: "Was it edited?" It was a question, and I have no intention of withdrawing that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps in the interest of ending the day on a co-operative note, could we have the hon. member withdraw?

[ Page 619 ]

Would the hon. member for Revels toke-Slocan please withdraw in the interest of closing the day on a co-operative note?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with all good humour, this is going from the ridiculous to the sublime. I made no charge. I asked the question: "Was the transcript edited"? The minister has said "no." I accept his word.

MR. SPEAKER: And no improper motive was imputed by the member who now stands on his feet.

MR. KING: In a question? How do you impute an improper motive in a question, Mr. Speaker? It's beyond me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the allegation which was made earlier is one which can be tossed across the floor in a moment of levity or whatever; however, Mr. Speaker, the allegation also reflects on Hansard staff and it is for that reason that 1 take particular offence to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: On a point of order, there is no allegation made from this side of the House and if the minister does not choose to accept that, that's on his head. I clearly, for the record, asked a question: "Was it edited?" There was no reflection on the Hansard staff, and that is a question which the minister has answered. I accept his answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we can conclude the matter. Phrases used in this House which members find offensive have ordinarily been withdrawn upon request, without having to have to find words in a list, et cetera. So 1 think, in the interest of a co-operative spirit, if the member for Revels toke-Slocan would withdraw that which the hon. minister finds offensive....

MR. KING: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker - no.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, our problem is that oftentimes we get carried away. A minister loses his cool, and suddenly we have to withdraw something from this side of the House. I really think if the minister thinks it over during the evening, he'll be fine tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. minister find acceptable the word of an hon. member that no improper motive was imputed to the minister?

Would the minister accept that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I did not lose my cool. I was extremely angry at the remark which was made apparently by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . I understood there was a withdrawal. I look to you for direction now as to whether the statement has been withdrawn. He shakes his head, indicating no, it has not been withdrawn. The matter, as far as I am concerned, sir, remains unresolved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair finds satisfactory the word of an hon. member who says that no improper motive was imputed. I would ask the hon. minister to find that acceptable.

MR. KING: On a point of order. For clarification, I made no allegation; I've explained that to the minister. I asked a question. I indicated that there was no allegation. I've accepted the minister's word that there was no editing of the documents that were filed, which at that point I did not know were Hansard records. I did not know what manner of documents they were. I've accepted his word that they were not edited. I would presume that he would accept that I simply asked a question and made no allegation. Therefore there can be no improper motive.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you withdraw?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the matter acceptable?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair finds acceptable the fact that no improper motive was imputed and, therefore, I trust that will conclude the matter.

Before we conclude, hon. members, I would like to draw to the attention of all hon. members an opportunity that exists and that has been announced in the House of Commons in Ottawa. It pertains to the opportunity for three students who will be graduating in the year 1978 to become pages in the House in Ottawa. There are certain criteria that are established. Rather than take the time to read the criteria that I have in hand, I will just let you know that they are available and in my office. If any member wishes to have a student from his area represented as a page in Ottawa, would you please draw the name to my attention and I will submit the name forthwith.

MR. KING: I submit the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

[ Page 620 ]

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.