[ Page 621 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Fort Nelson rail extension. Mr. Stupich –– 621

Compulsory heroin treatment programme. Mr. Gibson –– 621

Fort Nelson rail extension. Mr. King –– 622

Committee on Crown Corporations. Mr. Macdonald –– 622

Fort Nelson rail extension. Ms. Brown –– 623

Sale or lease of B.C. Rail. Mr. Stephens –– 623

Alleged irregularities in fish and wildlife branch. Mr. Nicolson –– 623

Fort Nelson rail extension. Mr. Gibson –– 624

Civil Liberties Association funding. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers –– 624

Budget debate

Mr. Barber –– 625

Mrs. Jordan –– 625

Mr. Cocke –– 631

Mr. Kerster –– 637

Mr. Kahl –– 641

Mrs. Dailly –– 645

Mr. Kempf –– 648

Mr. Rogers –– 650

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 653

Appendix –– 654

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that we have in the galleries today representatives from a very large delegation of visitors from the town of Fort Nelson, who are down to try to obtain a commitment for the preservation of their lifeline. They are headed by the president of the Fort Nelson Chamber of Commerce and the mayor of the town of Fort Nelson, Mayor Andrew Schuck. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to this entire delegation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Among the people visiting us from Fort Nelson is a long-time friend and associate of mine. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. George Dvorak.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I representing Vancouver-Burrard are fortunate that we have a cablevision channel 10 in the Kitsilano area and two of the technicians are here today to make a film for us in the half-hour show that we have every month: Mr. Shelly Riesner and Mr. Burke Harrington. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, also with the group from the north, the people from Fort Nelson, is a very good friend of mine and the mayor of Fort. St. James, His Worship, Mayor Jim Togyi. I would the House to make them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: Visiting me in the gallery today is a good friend from Ladysmith, Mrs. Mather, together with her sister, Mrs. Beachman, from Nanaimo. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is a group of students here today from Courtenay who are sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. They are here with their teachers and a representative from Crown Zellerbach. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral questions.

FORT NELSON RAIL EXTENSION

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. In the 110 days that have elapsed since the cabinet received the McKenzie commission's interim report, has the minister undertaken any analysis to determine the impact on the public treasury of the wiping out of 750 jobs in Fort Nelson's forest products industry?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as have all ers, I have given this report considerable analysis and study as to the implications on

MR. STUPICH: Well, the question was whether or not he had studied the impact of the public treasury, and I wonder whether he can answer that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems puzzled. He, , said he has given the report a great deal of study. Certainly, one of the studies must be the question as to what the economic impact of the threatened loss of employment in that area will be. And my question was: has he studied, in particular, the impact on the public treasury of the threatened loss of employment in that area in the event that the line is discontinued?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: But no answer.

MR. STUPICH: A further question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has no answer. Can the minister tell us whether or not his studies included the question as to what will be the loss by way of royalties and logging taxes -apart from all the other losses - paid by the three sawmills, the two veneer plants and the related forestry operations in the Fort Nelson area?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical because it pre-supposes the disappearance of industry, with the evident implications on logging tax. I could develop that kind of information, but I think it would be appropriate to be asked on the order paper.

MR. KING: A supplementary: can the minister tell us then, in light of the fact that he has made no such study, on what basis the cabinet proposes to make their decision as to %whether to accede to the royal commission recommendation or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order.

COMPULSORY HEROIN TREATMENT PROGRAMME

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I've a question for

[ Page 622 ]

the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask the minister about the letter that went out last September to employees of the Alcohol and Drug Commission offering to help find them other jobs in the public service, if they disagreed with the minister's compulsory heroin treatment programme. I'd like the minister to explain why this letter was necessary, and whether this principle will be applied to other controversial projects within his ministry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would have helped had the member been in the House when I answered this question before, and he would have had that answer. Obviously, he didn't read the Blue so I'll repeat it for him at this point. The letter really had nothing to do, basically, with the question which he raises. It was a letter outlining how the plans were developing for the treatment programme and what would be required of the staff as the programmes developed. On the advice of the Government Employee Relations Bureau, the offer was made to any members of the staff who were philosophically opposed to the programme, to assist them if they wished to find employment in other parts of the public service.

It was an unusual move, but it was one designed to make sure that no employee suffered any hardship because of some disagreement they might have had with a government policy. And, as such, it was a good move and it was done on advice from the Government Employee Relations Bureau.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in fact, I studied the Hansard account of the minister's reply very carefully, and it indicates that this letter had gone out. Obviously, the programme must have been a very controversial one within his own department if the letter was required in the first place. I want to ask the minister: since Mr. Hoskins has now stated clearly that this letter is not classified -those were his words - will the minister now table a copy of this letter in the House at the appropriate time this afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: I think all ers knew that we cannot insist on answers.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister inform the House whether any of the senior experienced people in the Alcohol and Drug Commission were consulted in respect to the drawing up of the heroin treatment programme?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. GIBSON: The minister apparently won't table the letter. I wonder if he could tell us why he won't table the letter?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not a question. Why should I?

FORT NELSON RAIL EXTENSION

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. Since the interim report of the McKenzie commission was received by cabinet last January, has the minister analysed the impact of shutting down the Fort Nelson line, which the Fort Nelson Chamber of Commerce has said will kill the potential for some 4 , 000 new jobs in forestry that the community estimates, on the basis of current projections, might be available over the next five years?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have been studying the implications of the recommendations of the report.

MR. KING: Would the minister care to share with the House and the people of Fort Nelson what his conclusions are with respect to that analysis?

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps in due time.

COMMITTEE ON

CROWN CORPORATIONS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) , chairman of the Committee on Crown Corporations. My question is: did the hon. member state, after the statement of the Minister of Finance yesterday about B.C. Hydro, that he will get an inquiry underway in the committee as soon as the list of questions is made available to him?

MR. VEITCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What I stated was that I would call the subcommittee together, and that has been done.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, did the chairman make that statement before a meeting of either the subcommittee or the committee?

MR. VEITCH: I stated that I would call the subcommittee together. Every member of the subcommittee has consented to the meeting.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, the answer to my first question was that the statement was made, Mr. Speaker, although he added that the sub-

[ Page 623 ]

committee would be called. My question is: does the Minister of Finance or the chairman, before a meeting of the subcommittee or the committee has been called, determine the subject matters to be studied by that committee and the priority of its business?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: He hasn't done it. Who's running that committee?

FORT NELSON RAIL EXTENSION

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Since the cabinet received the McKenzie interim. report at the beginning of the year, I'm wondering whether the minister will tell us what analysis has been done to determine the social consequences and potentially heavy costs to the public purse of a decision by his government to shut down the Fort Nelson rail line.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question up until the last phrase would have been in order, but it has a supposition in it, which, of course, would make the question out of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to restate the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Please do, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: What analysis has been done by the Minister of Human Resources - or anyone in his department - to determine the social consequences and the potentially heavy costs to the public purse which would accrue if a decision were made by that government to shut down the Fort Nelson rail line?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER. That is essentially the same question, and it is still out of order as a supposition.

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday the National Farmers Union pointed out to the cabinet that abandoning the Fort Nelson line would mean this government was turning its back on the farmers currently cultivating 130,000 acres in the Buick Creek area and throwing away the opportunity to bring a further one-half million acres under cultivation in the future. Did the minister assure that delegation that, in the past three and a half months, his colleagues had decided against committing such a folly?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If I understand the question correctly, no.

POSSIBLE SALE OR LEASE OF

PART OF B.C. RAIL

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Premier. Could you tell us ;, whether you or anyone on behalf of your government is in the process of negotiating a sale, lease or other disposal of any part of B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer to the question is no.

ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Has any member of the Legislative Assembly reported to the minister alleging the deliberate misspending of money by members of the fish and wildlife branch of his ministry?

HON. MR. BAWLF: I haven't had the benefit of any official report.

MR. NICOLSON: A supplementary: has any member of the Legislative Assembly - and that, basically, is how the first question was phrased - reported to the minister alleging the deliberate falsification of game-inventory figures?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I should say that I have received communications which have been forwarded to me by a member of the Legislature which have been from private citizens who expressed concern that this might occur - if that's the nature of the report which the member is seeking.

MR. NICOLSON: Supplementary. Then has any member of the minister's branch reported to the minister the serious allegations made against members of the fish and wildlife branch by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) when he was speaking at the Western Guide and Outfitters' annual meeting?

HON. MR. BAWLF: No.

[ Page 624 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Then will the minister undertake to get in touch with his acting ministry head, Mr. Robinson, concerning these allegations?

MR. SPEAKER: You're anticipating future action; the question is not in order.

FORT NELSON RAIL EXTENSION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. It's my understanding that the Premier met shortly before the House opened with a delegation from Fort Nelson. In view of the very serious question raised with respect to the conclusions of the royal commission report on the Fort Nelson extension by the brief presented by the Fort Nelson Chamber of Commerce, which maintains among other things that the Fort Nelson extension is an overall benefit to the economy, will the Premier commission an overall economic analysis from a global point of view rather than simply from the railway point of view to take into account the conflict between these two representations?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government has an interim report from the royal commission that is studying all aspects of the railway, its past, present and future possibilities. I await that report. What we're dealing with is an interim report now which is having the type of study internally that possibly the member is talking about.

I'd like to tell him that I had a very worthwhile meeting both with the chamber of commerce and with the mayors from communities along the whole of the B.C. Railway. I told them that I thought it was timely that all of them had this opportunity to tell the people of British Columbia how important that railway was, and haw it had helped build their communities in the past and the importance it had to their communities in the future. I feel that this is a point that has not been in fact appreciated by many British Columbians. That's why this controversy that has swirled around the railway for years brought us to the point of calling a royal commission. I think this act of publicity by those mayors and their strong statements is a worthwhile statement for British Columbians to consider.

MR. GIBSON: I would agree with the Premier as to the worthiness of the representation made by the Fort Nelson group. But I'd like to know more specifically.... The Premier indicates that an internal analysis is underway within the government as to the overall economic impact of the report of the commission, were it to be accepted. Will the Premier ensure that this report is made public, and when?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the member. We're getting information, and the reason we're getting the information is that when we announce the government's decision on the recommendation that is before it, we'll be able to give the reasons why, and back it up with the information the government has that will supplement that information that's in the royal commission report. In that busy the people of British Columbia will know very clearly, in a detailed way, how the government arrived at its decision.

MR. KING: A question to the Premier. Is it not true that the government requested the interim report from the McKenzie royal commission?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I don't have the ability to direct the commission to do anything. What I did do, when asked by the media one day about it, was to suggest that if the commission felt an early report would be of advantage to the government, they could deliver such an interim report.

MR. KING: Pure coincidence, eh?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could respond to a question which I took as notice a few days ago?

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? This is no longer question period.

Leave granted.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

ASSOCIATION FUNDING

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the question was from the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . In August, 1977, and then again in March, 1978, the Civil Liberties Association applied for funding and no acknowledgments were ever received.

Firstly, may I say in response to the member that the March letter he refers to is still not brought to light in our office. My office reports to me that the organization's earlier request for grant funding was inadvertently misplaced. The answer will soon be obtained for them and they will be receiving an answer in a short time.

[ Page 625 ]

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to table answers to questions standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BAWLF: 1 might just say, Mr. Speaker, in filing these answers, that they should properly have been directed by the member opposite, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , to the minister responsible for ferries - myself - inasmuch as they dealt with that subject.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BARBER: It's a bad budget, and I don't support it.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I spoke for half an hour last night. How much more do you want?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Are we prepared to proceed?

The hon. member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you for this recognition, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is not going to speak further, but I'm sure the people of this province are rather glad when they analyse what he says.

MR. BARBER: I spoke for half an hour last night. Do you want more?

MR. KEMPF: And said nothing.

MRS. JORDAN: And said nothing - too long.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to assure the people in the gallery who are visiting from the Fort Nelson area that the people of the North Okanagan are very much aware of the role this railway has played in the development of our province both economically and socially. They are concerned about the future of the railway. They share their concern and they will be weighing the matter very seriously. I feel we'll feel most sympathetic to the concerns expressed by these people. They are not alone in the province.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that some of the members made reference to the non-facts brought forth by the second member for

Victoria, which staggered the imagination when one analysed them. I thought I'd also bring to your attention some of the statements that are being made by the opposition outside this House which members will wish to weigh in keeping with the statements they make inside this House. I'm sorry the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has left his chair, because this would interest him, no doubt. It certainly covers his sojourn into the Okanagan Valley very well. He was there on the weekend, and he made a number of statements which, I think, the members will find interesting. They are covered in the Vernon News of Monday, April 17,1978.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what is said by his leader and contrary to what he says in this House, he told the people attending his meeting and the people of the North Okanagan: "We are socialists, pure and simple. We are not democratic socialists; we are not social democrats. We are socialists."

He also suggested to those who did not wish to feel comfortable or who did not feel comfortable with the idea of being socialists - and I assume he's meaning the Marxist-Leninist socialism from the their original philosophy stands - that they should leave the party. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that that member is advocating a confining of the interests of the party he represents, as opposed to what he's been saying in the House.

I thought it was rather interesting to note that His Honour brought to our attention in the throne speech the need for legislators to be responsible, to assume a greater degree of concern for the people and the economy of our province and to put these concerns above politics.

But this member, instead of making constructive suggestions as we have been asking for in this budget, said that it is the job of the socialists to confront the system, and that is what the NDP should be doing - not to help make the system better, not to help bring forth positive suggestions to create jobs or to help stabilize the economy, or talking about programme s which could be brought in for people, but their mission is to confront the system, solely, as socialists.

It was also interesting to note his quote when he said: "It simply means that if you have $100 million, we will spend it." And that, Mr. Speaker, is the truest word he's ever spoken, because that comes from the $100 million overrun man. What he's telling the people of British Columbia is that their philosophy hasn't changed. If they've got a penny of the public's in their hands, they

[ Page 626 ]

will spend it - not in a constructive way, but just spend it.

He also suggested, Mr. Speaker - and this will interest you - that the basic question facing all voters before the next provincial election - and do listen to this, Mr. Speaker - is to determine for themselves whether the NDP can be trusted with their bank accounts, Mr. Speaker. The basic issue of the next election, according to the NDP, will be whether or not the people can trust them with their bank accounts. This is the member who had a $100 million clerical overrun; this is the party that ran ICBC into a colossal deficit, the ferries into deficit, and yet he has little more to contribute and he's learned little more than to suggest that.

Along with the headline which says "Billion Jobless Warning in Population Study, " that member could talk about nothing more than that his answer and the socialist answer to job creation would be to create more Grown corporations like B.C. Rail, to create a chicken factory in the Okanagan - another Swan Valley, a $7 million boondoggle of taxpayers' money. And so he went on, Mr. Speaker. I would like to just present to you the headline of that paper related to that member, where he's standing with a very nice lady who ums awarded a longevity certificate and with their federal candidate. The headline says: "Night of Comedy, Surrealism and Insanity." I wonder how our reporters could have been so accurate.

Along with this sort of irresponsible statement and negative attitude being put forth outside the House by the members of the opposition, we have some serious problems within the House. I would refer to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) in his debate the other day when he seriously upset the senior citizens of this province. He forecast a dramatic cut in the budget for senior citizens housing construction. To quote his exact words from Hansard: "One anticipates this Year they will cut it out altogether. I would predict that it will, at the very greatest, be $1 million or less in the budget we will see on Monday at 2 o'clock. This government over and over again in a cruel and stupid way has abandoned its duty to the people of British Columbia." A quote from the second member for Victoria, Mr. Speaker. He emphatically and emotionally stated that this government would cut senior citizens housing, not once, but twice. His reference and the use of the words "cruel and stupid" certainly must be borne in mind %ten one sees not only how little faith his propheting of doom-and-gloom shows in the people of this province and how little faith his party has in the people of this province but when one realizes the impact that such statements do have on the lives of senior citizens in our province. "Cruel and stupid, " he said.

I had occasion to meet with some senior citizens following his statements, and they were indeed upset. And it was, indeed, a cruel and stupid statement. That member not only does a disservice to his party but to the senior citizens of this province. He said, Mr. Speaker, quoting further: "I predict they will cut it out altogether."

Mr. Speaker, what actually happened? This budget increased the amount of senior citizens housing funding by 50 per cent, and that means more money f or seniors to help them in their shelter requirements, and rightly so. It means more construction in this province, more work for people, more work for the building trades, more jobs for people. The SAFER programme, the shelter aid for elderly renters, was increased. The homeowner grant to aid senior citizens to be relieved of the burden of school taxes on their property was increased by another $50. These are part of our efforts and commitments to see that those who cannot help them elves as much as others receive the assistance that they should. These are the people who suffer most from inflation and these are the people who are going to benefit significantly from this budget.

There is the first home purchase plan for young people, which has increased, Mr. Speaker, as part of this government's commitment to try and offer, within our capability, many options to all people in terms of the type of shelter that they wish to have.

That member has repeatedly said that this government and the members on this side of the House are not concerned about senior citizens. All I would say, Mr. Speaker, is: consider the source of the question and statement and look at the record. He has been proven wrong over and over again. The difference between our side of the House and your side of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that on this side of the House we not only care, but we prove it by deeds, not by words. We prove it by dollars, not by promises. Those deeds, those dollars, are in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, that member also has stated repeatedly that his party allotted $10 million to senior citizens' housing. Mr. Speaker, the question must be asked: how much was spent?

MR. BARBER: No, that was your party, two years ago.

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask that hon. member to

[ Page 627 ]

check the record. Incidentally, just listening to that hon. member, his conscience must indeed be bothering him, because he certainly is creating quite a storm.

MR. BARBER: This is grotesque, this ridiculous speech by the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . My point of order is simply this: she has endlessly misquoted and misapplied.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a point of order.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, if it is correct, according to the rules, I will be guided by you. I wish at the earliest opportunity to correct the nonsense and misquotes from the member for North Okanagan. Shall I do this now or at the end of her remark ?

MR. SPEAKER: Standing orders only provide that if a substantial part of the member for Victoria's speech has been misconstrued, the correction is made after the member speaking has taken her seat.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose the reason the poor member can't control his mouth is he can't control himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps temperate language would be more appreciated in the House.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this party indeed made commitments, both when we were in opposition and during the last election. The major promise that we made was, in short, to try and get British Columbia moving again - to endeavour to restore confidence in British Columbia, and ourselves, to help us, as people, realize our own capabilities and what we could do with them, and to develop a new confidence in the economy, which had been so badly depleted.

We committed ourselves as elected members to work with people, to deal with the realities of life, as it existed in British Columbia and Canada today, and the realities of budgeting. Together, this commitment would stabilize the economy, and together we would work to expand services to people as we could achieve that stabilization and growth, and as we could afford to provide those services on a secure basis.

Together, the people of British Columbia who were determined, and this government, have done just that, under extremely adverse circumstances. No one minimizes the difficulties, Mr. Speaker, either for the people of this province or for this government. But we did do it and I believe the majority of people in this province, notwithstanding what the members of the opposition have to say, are glad that together we did do this. This budget is the third step in accomplishing these commitments to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, just to review a few commitments, we promised financial aid to independent schools. This is now available. We promised a strong effort to return high standards of discipline and purpose to education, and the core curriculum was just one of the first steps to be taken. The hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , speaking in the House the other night, outlined in detail the various steps that are being taken in education such as the co-ordinated training and vocational training and career training program s that are being made available to our young people as they graduate from high school and as they come into the work force.

We're working to continue not only the educational standards, but to broaden the opportunities for education, not only for young people but for people in all walks of life who wish to have the training they need to secure the jobs they wish.

Mr. Speaker, we are also embarked on a programme to help people outside the metropolitan areas to have an opportunity to take part in upper level learning. This is exciting to the people where I live and the people I represent, as well as those in the north who desperately want to increase their academic abilities, to increase their skills, but have not had this opportunity before because it was impossible for them to dislocate their families and their lives and attend an academic institution.

Mr. Speaker, this was a commitment made and it's a commitment coming into reality. Our government committed itself to pay a fair share of municipal taxes on Grown-owned corporations. Mr. Speaker, this budget meets that commitment.

Unlike the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who is still advocating that the Minister of Finance should be playing the stock market with the taxpayers' funds, our government made a commitment that the Minister of Finance would no longer have this opportunity to play the stock market with other people's money. This has been done, Mr. Speaker.

We gave our commitment to expand opportunities for youth employment and this budget does just that. The number of jobs created

[ Page 628 ]

this summer, Mr. Member, and the number of young people who will have an opportunity to work and to help finance their education will be the proof in the pudding in this instance. They will prove the claim that we have said is there.

We said that we would progressively reduce the property tax load in relation to senior citizens' housing. This we have done.

There is one point I would like to bring forth - which wasn't in the budget - which is a matter of serious concern to many people in this province as well as myself. It is with reference to the Assessment Act that was brought in, and the efforts by this government to bring about a more equitable assessment situation in our province. The old Act was described, quite aptly, I think, as the "spaghetti manufacturers' delight, " and a great many inequities had been created throughout the years. The new Act and the new assessment approach is designed to bring greater equality. I believe that this is proving true in many ways. But there is an area of concern which I would like to bring to your attention, in speaking about the budget.

It is in relation to lands which are locked into the agricultural land reserve. I believe that there is a concept about that all lands which are capable of production today in British Columbia should be in production, and that all lands that are capable of production in British Columbia today are in production. I would suggest that that is simply not the case. When we look at agriculture as a whole, we realize one of the most serious problem this industry is facing is a fair return from the marketplace for the products that they are producing now - the problem that we can't consume all of the products in British Columbia that we produce, that we have to compete for the products we produce with offshore and protected markets. Therefore all the capable land is not in production; and one must examine very carefully whether all the land capable of food production at this time should be in production. It is this land that concerns us. Unless this land under the new Assessment Authority is in production at this time to a stated value of that production, the classification of that land for assessment purposes is changed, which means there is a sharp increase in taxation.

I would like to suggest for our consideration that we must acknowledge, as a society, that our concern with agricultural land that is capable of food production is that it should be there for the time when we need it in British Columbia. In essence, we are asking for land-banking of land that is capable of food production, that has the climatic conditions for food production; we are asking that it should be there when we need it, and when the person who tills that land can receive a fair return. If that's the case, then I suggest to society that we must not be particularly concerned with who owns that land - I'm not speaking now of foreign ownership and that issue; I'm speaking in general of British Columbians - but with, first of all, what is that land's capability. Secondly, what is the climate surrounding it? Thirdly, what is happening to that land? How is it being managed? If it is not in food production, is it at least properly fenced? Is it in f act a weed patch, or is it being reasonably grazed? Are there no weeds? - the very practical aspects of food management. If we agree that that is what we should be concerned about - one last point about the marketing of the products from that land - I would suggest that, if we say all land capable of food production in British Columbia today must be in production, then we are endangering even more the market-return potential of our agricultural industry at this time.

Therefore, along with the capability and the management of that land which is being banked, we should be concerned about the products that are being marketed from it. Are we encouraging people to produce lower-quality vegetables and sell them on the market at a low price which in fact doesn't cover their cost of production?

If we believe these factors are our concern, then we must recognize that, inadvertently, through the Assessment Act, we have defeated our purpose. We have set up a conflict between our principles involved in the preservation of agricultural land and what is actually happening. What is happening is that we are getting two tiers of taxation, through assessment, on the same quality of land.

I don't want to criticize the new farm-classification standards, nor the criteria for determining the assessed value of farm land that is famed. But I do want to express concern f or this land that is in the agricultural land reserve - that has this capability - but, because it's not in active production and is being landbanked for the public, is receiving a tremendous increase in taxation. Let me give you a few examples: 16.4 acres in the agricultural land reserve in North Saanich is not being farmed and is being taxed $2,000 per acre at this time, under the new assessment; 10.3 acres in the Cowichan Valley, which is not being farmed - but which had taxes of an agricultural nature last time - will now be assessed at $1,650; eight acres

[ Page 629 ]

in the Okanagan on which the taxes rose from $200 in 1976 to $1,488 in 1977.

And so it goes. Mr. Speakerr: 67 acres in the lower mainland. Its 1976 taxes were $700; this year they will be $7,750.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I bring these figures to your attention is to point out to you that these figures are endangering the principle of the land reserve and that these figures will force people to seek to have their land removed from the land reserve whether or not that is their real desire. That pressure will be solely from the increased taxation.

Mr. Speaker, we have situations in many parts of the province where you will have two pieces of land belonging to the same farmer or the same landowner but will be on separate titles. Both pieces are in the land reserve. One piece is in production and the other piece is not because they simply cannot find the economic balance to have it in production. Those two pieces of land with the same capability, same climate, one in production, one not, are being assessed and then taxed on a different basis. One is agriculture, one is improved. Again I would suggest that this will put pressure on that landowner to sell the piece of property which is on a separate title and which has the staggering assessment because he hasn't got it in production today. Again, the pressure will come to have that land removed from the land reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have to acknowledge the obligation that we feel in the land reserve and that we have to acknowledge that this puts an obligation on society to meet its projections and to have an assessment classification, which is agriculture, for all lands in the land reserve that are capable of food production, whether or not they are in production now.

I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must look to alternate ways of encouraging people to keep land which is perhaps marginally productive at this time, or even marginally productive in the long run, but which is in the land reserve and which is serving a greenbelt purpose, to have a proper assessment. I would like to see the ministry explore a system where perhaps this type of land could be committed to the land reserve for a 10-year period, for example - a time frame of perhaps 20 years - during which it would be taxed as an agricultural classification, but if at the end of that time it was taken out of the land reserve due to social needs, then there would be a penalty levied equal to retroactive years of taxation had that land been out of the reserve.

It might also be feasible to encourage land to stay in the land reserve for greenbelt purposes or long-term marginal food production, if it's marginal land, by again a time frame of commitment - 10 years, 20 years - but limiting the capital gain that could be acquired through the sale of that land. Perhaps that could be so many points below the cost-of-living increase which has taken place over those years.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the people of British Columbia want agricultural land used for speculation, but I also believe they want to be fair to those who are landbanking agricultural land for the future or who are landbanking greenbelts at their personal expense.

I would leave this with you for consideration in hopes that we will examine the situation. I believe the evidence is coming now before the Land Commission in terms of requests for removal from the AIR solely on the basis of increased assessment with resulting tax increases. I also believe there is enough evidence around the province to point out a grave inequity and an inadvertent inequity in this new assessment procedure.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the opposition asked where the stimulus is for the economy in this budget. I wonder if it would be unkind to suggest that if you have to ask that question, you simply don't understand money or you don't understand economic activity. This budget points out very clearly the need for people to temper their demands on government, to temper their demands on the economy, to keep them within their capability as citizens to pay.

When we became government, the question was asked: What are our problems in British Columbia? What are our needs as a people? Can our philosophy achieve the support of the people and answer today's problems and meet British Columbia's needs? Our philosophy, simply put, Mr. Speaker, is that the individual, not the state, should be the cornerstone of public policy in this province. We pointed out the difference between Social Credit philosophy and the socialist philosophy. The people responded, they spoke with confidence, and they spoke loudly in favour of a policy based on individual initiative.

The public decision, Mr. Speaker, and the confidence was well placed, as this budget points out and as the response to this budget by the average citizen declares. For the record, I would just like to substantiate that statement with a few facts. We have had an increase of nearly 30,000 new jobs in British Columbia in 1977, over 15 per cent of all jobs

[ Page 630 ]

created in Canada, when our province accounts for only 11 per cent of the total Canadian labour force. We had a real gross provincial product up 4.3 per cent, compared to Canada at a gain of only 2.5 per cent.

Total wages and salaries, Mr. Speaker, were up 12 per cent in British Columbia and 10.4 per cent for all Canada. Product exports were up by 25 per cent over 1976. Most significantly, supporting the statement that the people of this province are supporting this approach, lost time due to work stoppages has been down dramatically from 1,445, 000 man days in 1976 to 122,000 in 1977.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of new companies formed in the province aver the last two years. As the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) pointed out, in 1973, there were only 9,402 new companies; in 1974, 9,776; but in 1976, after a responsible attitude to government has been expressed as a need in this province, 12,355 new companies were formed and in 1977, 13,209. The number of registrations from outside the province -extra-provincial companies - has increased from 745 in 1977, which is a record high for British Columbia.

Metallurgical mineral exploration increased by 21 per cent in 1976 over 1975, and has increased again in 1977. There was a 250 per cent increase in mineral claim units recorded in 1976 over 1975, and an increase of about 40 per cent in 1977.

Mr. Speaker, those relate to major companies largely, but this budget also has concerned itself with the small business people of this province and the very serious problem that they have had over the years. There is a commitment to remove sales tax for one year from the new and repaired production machinery bought by small business. This releases 13,000 small firms from corporate capital tax. There has been a $1 million introduction for small business training programmes to operate marketing skills, and the much discussed programme to try and slash the red tape, which has been staggering and strangling the small business people of this province.

Just before closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to point out a programme which hasn't been discussed. It's through the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') portfolio, and that is the small business seminar programme. 1 wonder how many members of this House have been to one of those seminars or even looked at the folder that's available. There are such things as setting up an import business. How do you set up a shop? How do you form a co-operative?

Financing your business, how to prepare a loan submission, sales forecasting for a small business - there is a wealth of information which is being made available to anyone in this province Who wants to start a business, but doesn't know how to go about it; people who have been in business for a long time, but want to upgrade their capabilities or businesses that are in difficulties and are applying to BCDC for loans. They are jointly analysing those businesses in existence for the type of management that is taking place and the productivity that is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, this programme has been very successful. I won't delay you with the details, but just in our own paper, the Vernon News, the other day there are statements in the paper about the programme. There's testimony in those statements from business people, both of vast experience and long time, and new business people who have taken this programme and have received a great deal of benefit from it. Many find that they have lost sight of the very factors that made them successful in business in the first instance. Like everyone else, they get busy - some of the red tape has been their problem - and they've developed what you could call bad habits. This has been robbing them of efficiency in their business, of profit, and in a sense robbing the consumer, who has to pay for that.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of women in this province who would like to get into business, or who would like to learn about business. Whether we like to admit it or not, there's a mystique about the business process and there's a tendency on the part of people to think: "Well, that's for someone else. I couldn't do it." This minister has recognized this, and he's making available to people the opportunity to do this, to learn this, to move away the mystique so that they can recognize how to recognize good business practices or how to start a business them elves. 1 think that that's well on the way to our commitment to helping people in British Columbia to help themselves. For the people in the North Okanagan, I would just like to applaud the minister, because certainly, they have benefited from it. I would urge every member to take the time to go to some of those seminars. You might even find you can balance your own bank account with greater ease than you've been able to do so in the past.

The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , when I listened to his business projections.... I think that he should take the course too. He'd enjoy it. There's a wine-making course next door.

[ Page 631 ]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to express some thoughts in this debate. I wish to assure you that the people of the North Okanagan are pleased with the budget. And they accept the challenge of continually tempering our demands on our economy and on our government within our capability to pay.

MR. BARBER: I rise to correct a gross misstatement by the previous speaker regarding remarks made by myself on not one but several previous occasions. Those remarks themselves concern the capital budget within the Ministry of Housing for the construction of seniors' housing.

MR. SPEAKER: The only corrections that can be allowed are corrections made in misquotations in your part of the speech.

MR. BARBER: Quite so. She referred to my remarks made yesterday.

The member alleged that our government had funded seniors' housing in the form of a capital grant in the amount of $10 million. In fact, it was her government, two years ago. To set the record entirely straight, regarding the misquotation that she made from my own remarks, may I say to you now, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago your budget in your estimates was $10 million for seniors' housing construction. Last year it was chopped to $4 million. This year, your budget speech proposes to raise it again to $6 million. That is the record.

My comment, to end finally on this point of order, has always been and is now again: what a government! They cut the budget for seniors housing from $10 million to $4 million and gave them free campsites instead. That is the correct quotation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You've gone beyond the provision of standing order 42.

MRS. JORDAN: I certainly don't intend to abuse the rules such as the member just did, but I would refer the member to Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not really a point of order, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we meet again. I am delighted to stand in my place, particularly following the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . It gives great leadership, suggesting I take a wine-making course. Obviously she's never tasted my delicious brew. Some day she might have that opportunity.

However, I don't really think that a business seminar usually finds itself preoccupied with wine-making.

I have just one or two thoughts. Incidentally, I felt that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) had something to do with the beginning part of her speech. Last night or last evening just before we adjourned, I noticed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had grown somewhat angry and probably sought out the next speaker, to put forward some suggestions with respect to what the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) had in his speech. And really, what he said was, in effect, that senior citizens housing had a budget of $10 million, was reduced to $4 million and now there's a hosanna from the Social Credit government, from the government of opportunists, and that hosanna is: "Hey, look at us! We've increased it 50 per cent."

Well, really and truly, that begs the question of the reductions. As a matter of fact, I recall, it seems to me, that our last budget in the NDP was something in the order of $12 million. I'm just taking that off the top of my head. I know it was in excess of the budget that we looked at the next year.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really excited me also about the [illegible] for North Okanagan was her indication of all the new businesses, all the new enterprise that is going on in our province. I would like to take her on a stroll down some of our main streets in some of our cities and let her see the bankruptcies and the business closures. We have 30 per cent of the bankruptcies in all of Canada. I suggest that we don't really have much to ring bells about at the moment. Our economy is in trouble; it's in trouble mainly because this government was greedy. This government took too much out of the economy, left too little to spend and that's why we have the problem that we have.

We have one other thing, too - the mineral claims. There are a lot of mineral claims going on but there's not much mining. As a matter of fact, five major mines have closed down in the last year and a half. So really, let's put everything into context and think in terms of what we can do to improve the situation in our province. One thing I would suggest right off the top, because it's timely now, is that the Premier make a decision today. Don't kid the troops about who makes the decisions for the BCR. We know perfectly well that the Premier and his cabinet appoint the directors of the BCR. Let's let that BCR directorship know that the government's

[ Page 632 ]

decision is that the Fort Nelson line will not be closed. Pure and simple.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Premier bobbled around with the question of the Fort Nelson line in question period today. He's had the report for 110 days. Let's see that he does something with it now, not next week, next month or next year, because the impression that the people up in the north have, that I met today, is that they're in jeopardy and there's no reason why they should be in jeopardy on this whole question.

Another thing that really irked me when I listened to the Premieres speech in answer to the question was that he was really saying to the people of Fort Nelson: "Do my political work for me - go out and sell the rest of the province on the fact that we should be doing this, and then I'll come up, look, and okay, you've done my work for me." Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough.

I know you're sitting on the edge of your chair, just about to talk about reflection on votes and all the rest of it, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important situation in our province today - a province that would never have developed, to the extent that it has, had it not been f or the fact that there was some insight into the need for transportation into the far-off areas; and, you know, the same goes for the Dease Lake line.

I just can't tell you often enough that we are certainly unimpressed with a government, that's supposed to be a businesslike government, sitting on a document for 90 days - or more - and then, when the Premier's out of town for the first time in this session of the Legislature, dropping that report so that he doesn't have to answer it immediately, so that he can look over the hills from Yorkton, Saskatchewan, and decide what his next political move should be. I believe that the people in that northern region have been abused by this government. It's about time this government took their courage, and got to work, and did something with the needs of our province. They are incompetent, incapable of making an important decision. Now let's see them f or once - and I can go over a legion of situations like this - come up with the right answer, and come up with it now.

Mr. Speaker, Iove been asked by practically every speaker on the other side of the House why it is that I have difficulty supporting this budget. Well, I can tell you a lot of reasons I have for not supporting this budget. Probably one of the most important reasons that I can think of is the fact that they're dumping it on the local taxpayers again.

What a beautiful strategy the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) used! Let's review the scenario for a moment. The scenario was that last fall the Minister of Education announced the mill rate - the increased mill rate. He said it would be 5 mills. Remember that? And everybody fell back in shock; they'd already been mi-11-rated to death since this government had been in power, and he said it's going to be 5 per cent. He was the bearer of bad news; and it's interesting that the Liberals so often are the bearers of bad news. Good stuff, and I agree with you, member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . I probably haven't got quite your animosity towards them, but I certainly share some of your lack of enthusiasm for the Liberals in your cabinet. The poor ex-Liberal Minister of Education brought in the bad news. He said that it would be 5 mills. And then the good old Social Credit Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , when he made his budget speech, announced magnanimously that it would only be 2.5 mills

Whatever he might be, he's not a very goo; Minister of Finance; but he's got some good qualities, I'm sure.

Mr. Speaker, let's review what has really happened in this area. We now have a mill rate increase of 50 per cent during the period of this government's stewardship. Now if that isn't shocking enough, and if that doesn't show the people that what they do is dump their responsibility on the local taxpayer, we have in the wings an assessment authority -that the member for North Okanagan was speaking about - which has brought our assessment base up 20 per cent.

Well now, Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder that the taxpayers are angry in our province? Because, in effect, what has happened is that there's been a definitive increase of 70 per cent; and if you don't think so, you stand in your place, Mr. Member, and you tell me how it works. No, he shakes his head. Let him make a speech about the local taxpayers and what's happened to them in the area of education since this government's been in power. An absolutely shocking display.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about some of the colleges.

MR. COCKE: You know, that member is such a lightweight, I can't even answer the question.

I'll give you one answer about Douglas College. They don't know where they are going to get their money this year because the government hasn't proclaimed that section of Bill 82 that they brought in last year,

[ Page 633 ]

telling them where they are going to get their money. How do you like them apples?

Let me go on with this whole question of the assessment base and so on. This year the assessment is up 9.3 per cent. You all heard that? If the mill rate had been left alone, we would therefore have had an average increase across the province of 9.3 per cent in the contribution from the local taxpayer. Isn't that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's correct.

MR. COCKE: Right. School budgets are up 9 per cent. I hope all those backbenchers hear that. The government budget, however, is up 9.8 per cent. The government preaches restraint to all and sundry: "Tighten your wallets. Tighten your pocketbooks. Don't spend a nickel unless you absolutely have to." Their budget is up 9.8 per cent; the assessment is up 9.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this government is guilty of more than that. The Minister of Finance has made some, I think, relatively sound moves, but I wish he would tell the public what is implicit in those moves. He moved out, along with his colleagues, a great portion of Public Works, which means that they are actually spending more because that is now out of the government sector; that isn't even part of the responsibility of government any more. They borrow the money; they build their buildings. None of the old pay-as-you-go like we used to have under W.A.C. It's now borrow for the future. And that's not a bad idea. But why not tell the people that that's one way that you can reduce your budget? If that were still in your budget, you would have an even greater increase: 9.8 per cent plus, plus, plus.

We've seen our ferries sold out from under us. It's a way of borrowing money, they say. The f ferries that were paid f or have now been sold to create a little bit of a surplus so the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) can stand up and boast: "What good boys are we."

The whole question that I pose to this government is: when are they going to get off this sanctimonious poppycock and start telling it like it really is in this province?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Dewdney agrees. I share with you the wish that they would do that, and do it soon.

(Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Oh, I'm glad you're in the chair, because I'm going to attack you shortly. You see, he can't talk back under those circumstances.

I'd like to give a bouquet to a person by the name of Cliff Adkins. Cliff Adkins recently gave out a press release in which he said:

" The B.C. School Trustees Association is disappointed that the provincial government has decided to increase the basic mill rate, even though the increase is less than half the amount the government had predicted earlier. By raising the basic mill rate by 2.25 mills, the government has chosen to increase local property taxes for school purposes by almost 16 per cent. Said BCSTA president Cliff Adkins: 'The provincial government has seen f it to increase its share of school funding by only 3.7 per cent. It appears that the government is financing its 2 per cent reduction in the sales tax by reducing the amount of money it is willing to spend on education and by passing the burden onto local property taxpayers.' "

The one thing I can say about the BCSTA is that it has never been looked upon as a radical area in our society. It has always been looked upon as a relatively conservative group, made up of the trustees of all the school boards across our province. This reflects where it's really at. I congratulate Cliff Adkins, and I congratulate others who make these kinds of observations very clear and make them very perceptively.

I just wish the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were here. One other thing I would like to comment on briefly in terms of education is this report. I don't blame the minister for only having made a galley proof available to the Legislature and to the press. I guess he wants us to kind of get used to that new way of doing business. This is a serious report provided by a Minister of Education. I have never seen such a political document in my life in terms of the message from the minister.

You would think that just for a moment they would get serious about the activity of government and give the kind of report that is expected of a minister, and that is a document outlining facts and not a message outlining political propaganda. That's all it is, Mr. Speaker, and I'm really shocked. I believe this is roughly the 70th document of its sort in B.C. It's not available to al-1 members. It's probably a surprise to you, Mr. Minister. It's not available because there was only one

[ Page 634 ]

copy made available and that was tabled on the Clerk's table, and so far we're waiting for the distribution.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn'.t help, when I read this message from the minister, thinking about what has become of ministerial responsibility when they put out a political document like that. It's nothing more.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister of whatever he is - Consumer and Corporate

Affairs - indicates that I've strayed from the budget. I'm not straying from the budget at all. You have plenty of scope in this debate to talk about anything you like, and I prefer to talk about this because it costs the taxpayers money to print that document and to print a political document like that. I suggest to you that it's not very inspiring at all. It's a government of PR, Mr. Speaker.

That's all they've got to offer: a government of PR. When they can't deliver any PR messages of their own, then they get up and smear.

You know, I've never heard anything like the smear that's gone on. Three years later, they still can't talk about anything else over there but the old government. I'm very surprised that they would not get on and say something about now.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we need a government of more than window-dressing. I suggest that we need a government that will make statements, that will make them carefully, that will make them legibly and will tell us about the school programme. One thing I want you to bear in mind when you read this annual report and you reread the message from the minister is that what he actually says - not in so many words but he certainly leaves the impression and certainly it's abroad - is that there will be centralization of the public school system.

Mr. Speaker, that same minister, when it was convenient, when we were discussing the needs of the blind and deaf children last session -remember? - talked about decentralization. I tell you, under those circumstances, it helped his budget because what he could do with decentralizing that particular programme was vest the responsibility of payment back on the local taxpayers again. Some of the members in the back bench better start thinking about what they're doing to local taxpayers. Sooner or later, your local taxpayers are going to understand who's doing what to whom. When they do, you are in jeopardy. They are piling a bundle on the local taxpayers that has never, ever, ever been thought of or envisaged in this province before.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to deal in much more detail with the school system when we get around to it, but there's one other little point that I would like to make in this particular debate. That's the whole question of the distance learning institute. I believe that the minister is now calling it the Open Learning Institute. This is the institute where we will be broadcasting television to the far reaches of the province. I don't think anybody can argue that anything we can do to enhance the education programme of our province is certainly in our best interests. But let's listen to what Pat Carney had to say. Remember that Pat Carney and the commission were hired to look into this whole question - do you remember that? - before she became a Conservative candidate in Vancouver Centre, or at least sought the candidacy. However, Pat Carney is very close to the educational system. She's also an economist and probably a well-chosen person to look into this particular area. Listen to what she has to say: "The report on the distance learning commission by the B.C. Ministry of Education has been lost in the debate over Education minister Pat McGeer's plans to import material from Britain's Open University."

Well, poor Pat. She was bypassed by the minister. One morning he woke up and thought, "Well, I've got a good idea, " and suddenly implemented it - not as far as the programme is concerned, but as far as the PR is concerned. Let's face that now. We haven't got a beam of television going around our province broadcasting educational material.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he consult anybody?

MR. COCKE: He did not consult anybody, as far as I know. He said in question period that he did, but anyway, let's get on with this for a moment.

"No minister is ever bound by recommendations, " says Pat Carney of the planning group. Good. Well said. "But the report cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $200,000 in manpower and overhead. It took about three man-years to produce and was tailored to meet B.C.'s specific needs. For these reasons it merits debate." It sure does. They spent $200,000; they spent three man-years - or woman-years - in acquiring this information, in acquiring this knowledge.

AN RON. MEMBER: Person-years.

MR. COCKE: Person-years? Well said.

[ Page 635 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'II love to. he's got a sore back, I understand.

The Minister of Education turned his back on his commission and wasted $200,000 of taxpayers' money. But beyond that, he had no proper consultation with the Universities Council, with his universities' presidents, with his colleges, with the people out there that he's trying to serve. I wonder if he's ever taken a trip to the north. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, just a little bit of consultation would go a long way from that arrogant government, from that government who's prepared to throw away $200,000 on ministerial whim and bring in an expert from the United Kingdom.

Now I'm not trying to denigrate what this expert or that expert has to say, but I say that you could delay that kind of a decision until at least you've met in one room. After that, make your decision. But, Mr. Speaker, that's not what we have.

I want to make one more comment on the Minister of Education, and then I'm going to get off his back. Apparently it's burdensome. Twice in this session of the Legislature the minister has stood, on his feet in this House. He's given a speech twice, and not once has he mentioned the public school system in our province. Not once has he said a word about the public school system in our province. He's mentioned open learning, he's mentioned this, he's mentioned that, but not once has he mentioned the public school system. That's where it all begins, Mr. Speaker. That's his most important responsibility, and we haven't heard a word from him on that particular area of his responsibility. I'm shocked.

'Mr. Speaker, I know that he's an elitist. I don't altogether take that away from him. From a brain researcher I presume that that's the way you get after a while, but it's not good enough for the education system in our province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I heard a very interesting little speech the other night. Something got the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) up. That's unusual, but anyway, he got onto his feet. I have heard some nonsense in the House, I really have. I've heard some nonsense around, but I'd like to tell the minister who spoke that you can't have it both ways. He said, for example, that we, in government, in our three and a half years, spent nigh unto $8 billion. Did you hear him shuddering? This government of thrift, this government that's going to tighten the belt, this year is spending $4.1

billion in one year, more than half of what we spent in that 3.6 years, or whatever it was.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. Well, why didn't you cut it if you're so smart? Incidentally you've taken out all of these other areas. Oh, yes. Why don't you make an amendment? No, I guess it's a bit too late now. You could jump up and do something on the amendment. It's too late. You're going to have to wait until your estimates - either that, or do it with some sort of a ministerial report.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they can't have it both ways. 1 suggest that they're spendthrifts. They are wastrels, and there's nothing in their record to show that they're anything else. They had to sell our ferries in order to protect their surpluses, and they have to get Public Works out of the budget in order to make themselves look better. No more Public Works money is shown in the budget. That's all gone to the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

So, Mr. Speaker, it shows that there is no basic validity in their argument. Where, indeed, are their cutbacks? They've soaked everybody except their friends, the millionaires. Oh, yes. Their millionaires got $38 million back to them so that they didn't have to pay their estate taxes, but there's no real help for the ordinary person in our province from this government. Yet they're spending at a very high rate. You know, they can't have it both ways. Don't criticize us for our level of spending or, somehow or another, defend the fact that you're spending it at an even higher level.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) could very well be known as Minister of Wreck & Con - he's doing some wrecking and some conning. I suggest that his arguments aren't valid.

Just before I get to the Minister of health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .... I'd like to talk to him for a moment or two, but I have a word for the chairman of the Committee on Grown Corporations and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . And that is, I want you, Mr. Speaker, and that minister to remember that when that committee was set up, it was a committee of members, not cabinet ministers. The First Minister said that it was to do a job of ferreting out information and to keep a rein and a check on Crown corporations. It was not a vehicle to be used by cabinet ministers. As a matter of fact, no cabinet ministers are

[ Page 636 ]

on that committee. And yet yesterday we saw a minister, seeking a headline, get up and suggest that he wants to refer some matters in the House, officially, to that committee.

I must say that I'm very sorry about the response of the chairman. After the minister said, "jump, " the chairman said, "how high?" Listen to what he said, and I'll quote The Province's story: "Veitch said he will hold a meeting of the committee's all-party subcommittee as soon as he receives the list, possibly today, and then decide a course of the full-committee meetings." What he really said was that the committee is at all times at the beck and call of the government to do their political whim.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's not the kind of committee it's supposed to be. It's the kind of committee where if a member - and a minister is a member - has something that he would like to bring before the committee, he can come to the committee. In our briefing sessions the chairman of our committee is the one who says that we don't make our questions public first; that we review our questions; that we then, at least then, have an opportunity to properly, investigate those Crown corporations. I serve notice that there will be some trouble over this in our committee, because I see the Minister of Finance attending his first meeting of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, coming out of that board of directors' meeting, coming back to Victoria, and the first thing he does is make this kind of a stage play.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that what happened is that the questions are coming from the wrong end. The questions are coming from Hydro. Otherwise, what was he doing that kind of job for? Do they want us to take our eyes off the ball that we've got it on now -transit? Is transit suddenly becoming an embarrassment? What's going on? The thing that bothers me more than anything else is the fact that there are others giving direction to this committee, and that should not be.

Mr. Speaker, it must be that, because no way should a chairman respond immediately. As a matter of fact, I saw the chairman of our committee standing ready to reply to the minister's request to make a statement. That's not good enough at all, Mr. Speaker. That committee, if it's to do the job that it was supposed to do, has to be completely a members' committee and cannot be subject to direction from the cabinet. Otherwise, our work will never end and we'll never get to the facts and the hard truth that we want to get to. Isn't it enough that the government have by far the majority on that committee? Three of my colleagues and myself and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) make up the opposition side on that committee. And is it nine, ten or eleven? I can't remember, but it's certainly over nine members from the government side. Now, for heaven's sake, isn't that enough? How much more do you want aver there? It's not good enough for us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Heavy-handed, 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we being programmed?

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to get on for a few minutes here.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources tells me to hurry. You know, I just wish I had longer this afternoon. I'd even get around to you. But you're really not that important. That's the trouble.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health made a speech the other night and he made some very interesting comments. He said: "You won't tell the people" - he aimed this at us - "about the 110,000 additional people who will be getting premium subsidies...." Note the way he said it, colleagues. Did you hear it? "You won't tell the people about the 110,000 additional people who will be getting premium subsidies thanks to this government." I asked the question: "Thanks to which government?" I also asked the question: "will" as opposed to "are."

They are getting it now. They've been getting it for months. It's because the income tax base went up and he didn't make the decision to change Medicare, so therefore it was automatic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: That's a shame, Mr. Speaker. I have so much more to say.

Mr. Speaker, it's exactly the same as the sales tax. He announced something as though it was his programme. It wasn't his programme, it was the federal government that changed the basis.... Mr. Chartered Accountant (Mr. Stupich) , what do you call it when your...?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in any event, the exemption has been increased. Therefore 110,000 additional people got on. Yet he made that large announcement. It's a typical Socred

[ Page 637 ]

phoney announcement. He said he found the ambulance service a shambles.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. COCKE: Do you know how I f found the ambulance service in this province?

MS. SANFORD: Non-existent.

MR. COCKE: Non-existent, Mr. Speaker. Non-existent! We didn't even have an Ambulance Act. You could have used a light delivery for ambulance service in this province until we set up the Ambulance Act and then finally the ambulance service. What kind of rot do we get over there, Mr. Speaker? First air ambulance, he said. We were using air ambulances. The minister is phoney-baloney.

He said: "We are building a children's hospital." Do you know something? He said it back two years ago - two years behind. That's what they're doing. They are building a children's hospital but it took them two years to get back to the fact that that was the right site and the right direction to go. But it took them two years. So we are two years behind in our children's hospital.

He talked about our government spending $40 million a year for five years. We weren't in power for five years. What rubbish! But we will be, Mr. Member; don't you worry.

He takes all the credit for long-term care. The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) and myself were down talking to Lalonde for months - two years actually - and that programme was well in the works when that minister came along and lucked into it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ron. member, your time in this debate has expired.

MR. COCKE: I thank you very much for your time. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to get around to some more of my friends.

MR. KERSTER: It's always a pleasure to rise and join in very calm, collected and sane debate in this House. But before I address my remarks to the budget I would like to be allowed to take the liberty of being somewhat repetitious - but sincere - in joining those who have spoken before me in congratulating the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their recent elevations.

To the Speaker: your personal convictions, your patience and your previous deportment in debate as a member of this assembly are an example which all members could benefit from.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to add my warm welcome to this assembly to another empty chair. But that chair is occupied normally -or is occupied anyhow - by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) . I'd like to compliment him on his Conservative support of this budget, and particularly compliment him on his brevity - clear evidence that he is following the example set by his predecessor (Mr. Wallace) .

Mr. Speaker, I think all Lion. members will agree with me that we all kind of miss the former member, Scott Wallace, and his unselfish contribution to debate in this House - a contribution which is certainly recorded at considerable length in Hansard. By just observing the question period, the official opposition has displayed the fact that they certainly miss his participation. They run out of questions rather early.

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss my constituency, I'd like to mention what I believe is one of the major factors which will have considerable effect in achieving both a prosperous British Columbia and a prosperous, united Canada. That factor is the ability and the desire and the determination to be positive. I'd like those members opposite who are remaining in the House to dwell on the word "positive" and to dwell on the word "solution" while I take this opportunity to discuss my great constituency.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate my appreciation to the electorate in Coquitlam -Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Electoral Area B - for affording me the opportunity to work for each and every one of them, regardless of political philosophy, in this Legislature. Their support, their co-operation, their input and their assistance have helped me isolate and solve many of our problems.

Mr. Speaker, I speak for all my constituents when I thank the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for the fact that the long-awaited Eagle Ridge Hospital has been expedited and will be built, in fact will begin construction this year. I also wish to express our appreciation for his foresight in assuring that this facility's design, which lends itself to very inexpensive expansion, wasn't altered so as to impede its ability to grow with the growing needs of our community. I'd also like to compliment that minister on the long-term care programme and expanded community-health services. These are also very much welcomed in our constituency. These are positive programmes, and they've been received with positive response in the Coquitlams.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for his understanding and his willingness to respond rapidly, to resolve the very real highway

[ Page 638 ]

problem which have frustrated many of our constituents for many, many years. The Highway 7A project, the St. John's project in Port Moody, the additional Ioco overpass and the Pitt River Bridge project are a sound beginning to resolving a lot of the traffic problem north of the Fraser.

I particularly appreciate - and all my constituents do, and I'm sure my hon. colleague, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , shares in this accolade - the announcement a few days ago that accelerated effort in the Highways Ministry by that minister will see the completion and the opening of the second span of the Pitt River Bridge this fall - about one year earlier than previously scheduled. I just hope, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker - and I hope the minister's listening - that you can rattle some of those contractors, who are dragging their feet in other sections of this highway project, so that they get their portion of this work speeded up and completed - work that, with some concerted effort and fewer excuses, could have been completed some time ago.

My constituents particularly appreciate the fact that the Mary Hill bypass has been reaffirmed as a number one priority of the Ministry of Highways. Again, to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, the sooner this project is completed, the sooner our communities can properly utilize existing and developing industrial areas and accommodate even more industrial and residential growth -the properly planned growth that we can accommodate and we do welcome in the Coquitlams under proper conditions.

Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Highways (Ron. Mr. Curtis) through you, if you are going to be accused of a so-called overrun by the SS, please have it happen in Coquitlam. We need the improvements, we welcome the jobs those projects afford us and goodness knows, we've suffered from underruns in action and overruns in conversations and promises for years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is to be thanked for his response to the needs of Coquitlams. The fragmented adult and juvenile probation services and the family court services, along with the supporting community programmes, are finally being consolidated into one facility. This will ensure a more co-ordinated, a more efficient and a more effective delivery of this important service to the community. This benefit is recognized as a temporary one and happily so, since a new provincial justice facility - and I think it's one of those mentioned in the budget, at least I hope it is - will house these services within the next three or four years.

Mr. Speaker, the last opportunity I had in this chamber to discuss the Attorney-General's ministry was during his estimates last year. At that time, I urged him to continue to fund the conference on the family. I'm pleased he did continue that funding, Mr. Speaker, with the result that the conference's very valuable input has undoubtedly been beneficial in influencing and structuring the proposed Family Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Attorney-General for his positive response to my request for a judicial enquiry into conditions existing in women's correctional institutions in British Columbia, particularly Oakalla; conditions which affect constituents of all members of this House in one way or another. I look forward to the report of the Proudfoot enquiry and the good that should come from it.

Mr. Speaker, my constituency wishes to express its appreciation to the hon. Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for her tireless efforts to attract tourist dollars to not only our province, but to our community. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our community has participated most actively in the Captain Cook Bicentennial celebrations, only one of the many innovative tourism marketing programmes initiated by that minister. Our local coordinator, Mrs. Marg Gregory, by the way, and her committee have done just a phenomenal job. If the response in Coquitlam is any barometer of the success of this programme, the province will enjoy its best tourist year ever.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there is one very serious problem, however, facing my constituents, a problem posed by a Crown corporation - B.C. Hydro. That Grown corporation has applied for and received a temporary permit to burn low-sulphur content oil at the Burrard thermal plant for testing purposes. Granted, the pollution control branch has made the oil-testing approval on a very restrictive basis. I don't for one minute question this approval. In fact, I think that pollution control branch clearly displayed their concerns in the responsible manner in which they attended to their business, by turning down an earlier application - a somewhat ham-handed application by hydro - for a permanent permit to bum high sulphur-content

[ Page 639 ]

oil at Burrard, which would have created just an abominable pollution problem in the Port Moody area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I very openly opposed to even this testing programme that is being proposed by B.C. hydro, mainly because I know that Hydro's objective, behind the scenes at least, is to obtain a permanent permit under section 5 (a) of the Act, through the route of going through 5 (c) under the Pollution Control Act. They're going to probably do this as a result of gathering the data that comes out of these controlled tests. I also am of the opinion that sometimes controlled tests bring out controlled data.

My point is: why does Hydro have to test, even with low sulphur-content oil, if so many Hydro officials assure me - and believe me, they have - there's no intention of burning oil unless there's a dire emergency? That's the first one. The second one is when alternate sources of electrical power are unavailable and natural gas is unavailable. They say that that's the only time that they will burn oil of any sulphur content, or any oil at all, at the Burrard thermal plant. In such emergencies - and these are usually of a very short duration, Mr. Speaker - if they have to burn oil, then burn oil. 1 think my constituents are prepared to accept some inconvenience if it means preventing the upheavals endured during blackout or brownout conditions, but not on a permanent basis.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to reiterate that the Port Moody basin has, because of both geographic and meteorological conditions, the worst pollution potential in the lower mainland area. I think, frankly, that if Hydro had the opportunity to do it all over again, they never even would consider locating that thermal generating plant where it is for those very reasons.

B.C. Hydro tells me that the Burrard thermal plant is 12 per cent of the present installed capacity of the entire generating system in the province. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this plant is very, very seldom used. Maybe what I'm now going to suggest will be considered by some as impractical, uneconomical or even impossible, but it's a suggestion I'd like to see at least considered by B.C. Hydro.

We know - at least, Hydro says - that there's a critical power supply problem on Vancouver Island, and we know that presently this island is almost totally dependent on mainland power generating sources transmitted by way of 12 underwater cables terminating in the Tsawwassen area. Now I'd like Hydro to just consider at least looking into the possibility of disassembling that Burrard thermal plant, and reassembling it somewhere on Vancouver Island, if they'll accept it over here. Now that may sound crazy, but wait until I get into it.

Undoubtedly, this would be a very costly operation, but it may be economically viable, less costly than the proposed Cheekye-Dunsmuir 500-kv. transmission line presently being considered by hydro. I think that proposal is estimated to cost somewhere in the area of $500 million or wore. The testing at the Burrard thermal plant will be costing Hydro, and through Hydro the province, in the area of $275,000 to $300,000.

The thermal plant's relocation to Vancouver Island could f ill all the power needs of the Island, and it could have some emergency capability, that is providing it isn't running at full capacity just to fill Island needs. You know, there'd also be plenty of spare capacity on those 12 underwater cables to accommodate transmission of emergency power, if there were any emergency power sources available, on the reverse run back to the mainland. I think that Hydro could then fully utilize a presently virtually wasted thermal generating plant. They might even consider forgetting about the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project, which I understand isn't all that popular, and power formerly diverted to the Island from the mainland might then be redistributed and maintained on the mainland.

Now Hydro engineers, planners and so forth may throw up their hands and say it's impossible, but I would hope at least, Mr. Speaker, that they would consider the idea as a cost-saving solution to many problems - most definitely a problem in our community. In the meantime, I would urge Hydro to knock off this oil-testing nonsense at the Port Moody location. It's unacceptable. They can't complete the test before their present temporary permit expires, in any event.

Now I want to take this opportunity to express some of my views on the very important issue of national unity. Firstly, I'm proud to associate myself with this government - the government that set the leadership example at the recent First Ministers' Conference in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, our Premier and our executive council members approached that conference prepared. They identified problem clearly and concisely. They presented constructive, positive, well-thought-out workable solutions. The federal government and all other provincial governments applauded the British Columbia delegation for that presentation. In plain terms, our government is concerned about unemployment, is concerned about inflation, is concerned about the

[ Page 640 ]

erosion of the Canadian dollar, is concerned about the way we build our nation's wealth, and is concerned about the way we share that wealth within our country.

Economic equality is at least as important to national unity as the more publicized cultural and language equalities. it's important that all British Columbians realize that our government and our Premier are working to fully understand all of the dimensions of the national unity problem -linguistic, cultural, regional, economic and the complex relationships between federal and provincial governments. These men are to be highly commended for looking beyond today. They have great ambitions for British Columbia and a united Canada, and are determined to see them fulfilled.

Now I call this reality in politics, because in the final analysis, achievement by a government which is concerned about the welfare of this province, and which is concerned about the welfare of all the people of a united Canada, is really what politics is all about. It is our government's concern for both B.C. and Canada, and its ability to communicate with the federal government, that led not only to ensuring that B.C. receives its fair share now of federal revenues, but to the positive, people-oriented budget presented by the hon. Minister of Finance (Ron. Mr. Wolfe) , a positive budget to benefit the vast majority of very positive British Columbians. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if co-operation with the federal government - regardless of the party in power - reaps benefits for British Columbians, I'm all for it.

The official opposition have little substance on which to base any real criticism of this budget. They've proved that by avoiding the debate as long as they possibly could. They proved that also when they went out of here when the budget was brought down, speculating that it would be an election budget.

Mr. Speaker, all kinds of attacks have come from the other side of the House. I don't remember who it was over there who accused us of cutting back on our social and service-to people programmes, but that accusation was made. Someone aver there said that; I don't know who it was. They said the NDP would never do that. Well, I'd just like to refresh their memories, and I do not want to use statistics, because we've heard numbers today until the House resembled a bingo game. I just want to bring out some plain old newspaper clippings -some vicious attacks on that government by the press.

This particular headline appeared on page 42 of the Victoria Times on Friday, April 25,1975: "Child Care Cut Seen in Hard-line Budget." What government was in power then?

Mr. Speaker, it says:

"Staff lay-offs and programme cutbacks are being threatened by several childcare agencies in B.C. because of the provincial government's hard-line approach to any budget increases for this fiscal year. Agency spokesmen report a stalemate in budget negotiations with the Human Resources department and say that the emotionally disturbed children in their care will be the ones to suffer."

Now that's one of those headlines. Here's another one, Mr. Speaker, and this one is from The Vancouver Sun, Monday, October 6,1975: "People Paying the Price of Barrett's Balanced Budget." Well, they may have got the headline just a little bit mixed up because we know that it was somewhat imbalanced, but nevertheless some of the leading lines in these things are very indicative of the empty allegations made by that opposition. "Policy Progress Slowed, All Branches Feel the Pinch."

" Education Minister Eileen Dailly last summer passed the word to universities and colleges that all budgets for 197677, like those of the current fiscal year, will be status quo. In a time of economic restraint, Mrs. Dailly says, we have to face the facts."

Now here's another one that attests to the f act that they had it right when they were saying that the people of B.C. were paying the price: "Women's Rights Staff Cut."

Here's another one: Tuesday, October 7,1975. "Welfare Officials Mum About Cuts." Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a portion of this article from The Vancouver Sun. It was written by a very capable young journalist by the name of Paul Knox:

"With a $500 million budget this year" - that's relating to 1975, and the NDP government - "and a cost overrun of $100 million last year, it's not surprising that the B.C. Human Resources department is feeling the pinch of tight money. Hearing about a cutback in some areas of Minister Norm Levi's jurisdiction is as easy as picking up the phone. But pinning the stories down is somewhat more difficult. Levi insists that nothing is being cut back and civil servants all down the line are taking their cue and refusing to talk or refusing to be quoted.

"Levi will say that financial reality has forced his department to balance the public demand for more and better programmes

[ Page 641 ]

with just demands from staff for better salaries and better working conditions."

I just have a couple more, Mr. Speaker: "Clouds Still Stay on Financial Horizon." That's from The Vancouver Sun, Thursday, October 9,1975, again Paul Knox. He says: "It's no secret that the B.C. government is on austerity. Premier Dave Barrett says that there's no cause for doom and gloom but he says the province must live within its means." I don't know what he meant by "means".

There's just one more that I would like to point out and that's from Sunday, October 10,1975, again The Vancouver Sun. This is a headline for those people who are saying that we are cutting back on our programmes and that former government never, ever did cut back on their programmes, according to them. This is the headline. Now listen to this: "Ferry Service Slashed. Housing Plan Delayed." Now this came out of The Sun Victoria Bureau. It says: "The government's massive austerity programme, a programme Finance Minister Dave Stupich" - because the other one fired himself - "hopes will trim $150 million from B.C.'s $3.25 billion budget, is apparently being intensified. The word came Thursday that B.C. Ferries plans a drastic cutback in service between Vancouver Island and the lower mainland to cut operating costs.

"A spokesman for Dunhill Development Corporation said that $1 billion housing project for Coquitlam's Burke Mountain had been postponed indefinitely."

Mr. Speaker, I have to say on that point that that's the best news we've had in Coquitlam. for many, many years. That was an ill-thought-up, i-11-bred scheme to dump 70,000 people into that area with no thought at all as to haw they were going to get in and out of the area, no thought at all where the educational facilities were going to be located and no thought at all for the fact that we didn't have a hospital or health facility to look after our present constituents.

Well, Mr. Speaker, far from cutting programmes, I think this government has displayed its ability to lead with positive people programmes. I just want to run through a few of these to refresh their memories and to maybe make them take an objective look, an objective, positive look at a very positive budget.

We've put positive programmes in, such as the new and equitable revenue-sharing programme with municipalities, and all municipalities are applauding that; a new programme of long-term health care - you talked about it, we did it; expanded Pharmacare and income assistance programmes for those in genuine need, not just anybody with their hand out, but those in genuine need are getting those dollars; shelter aid for elderly renters; increased homeowner grants for senior citizens; expanded protection for consumers; improved labour-management relations - a tremendous improvement in that area alone, and our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is to be highly commended; an auditor-general hired by an all-party committee, and working; ombudsman legislation - the most advanced in Canada; a committee of this Legislature to make Crown corporations more accountable to the public, another first, and 'something that's being looked at as a model by jurisdictions all over the Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition criticize, and they make irresponsible, negative statements which, they don't seem to understand, go far beyond the borders of the province of British Columbia. Their negative carping of this type has a very serious effect on those who are considering investing in the province of British Columbia. Then they mount an attack on the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , because they say he is not attracting investment to B.C. They stop it with all this negative carping, and then they say he's not attracting it. Well, again, they're wrong.

We never hear any constructive criticism from the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, and yet this government has made great progress in spite of all this negativism.

I think you have to take into consideration, hon. members and Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. members, that before we could really make any gains we had to clean up after the NDP one-time, one-tem government. I think that's a matter of fact, a matter of record.

Mr. Speaker, our government and our Minister of Economic Development have done more in the past 28 months not only to overcome the problem of negative statements made by the official opposition but to reestablish an attractive investment climate in B.C. He's done more, in fact, than any minister before him.

The official opposition's actions and reckless criticisms of this budget are a very real obstacle to the solution, Mr. Speaker. It appears to me, since the NDP flatly refuses to be any part of the solution, that they would much prefer to be part of the problem. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to be part of the solution.

I support this budget.

MR. KAHL: I rise in my place today to sup-

[ Page 642 ]

port the budget on behalf of the constituents of Esquimalt. I'm pleased to be here to do that. It's a good budget. It has lots of potential, Mr. Speaker. It remains to be seen how it is implemented, and I'm sure with the record that this present government has, it will be done very adequately for the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

I was interested to note the comments coming from the other side of the House regarding budgets and expenditures, and I was pleased to get some information from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) regarding the fiscal years 1973,1974 and 1975 - the total budgetary expenditures, along with the original budget, the over- or underexpenditure and the percentage in relation to what was originally budgeted. In 1973-74, the overexpenditure was 6.6 per cent. In 1974-75 it was 16.5 per cent. In 1975-76 it was an underexpenditure, percentage-wise, of 3.4 per cent, and likewise, in 1976-77, the same 3.4 per cent.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the budget. It's one that practises restraint but, at the same time, encourages those sectors of the economy, particularly the private sector, to involve them elves more in the economy of the province, and not encourage the socialists to advance their cause.

It's a pleasure also, Mr. Speaker, for me to support the budget because of the things that have been done in my constituency in the past several years. The announcement of the hospital, of course, and the constituency and the greater Victoria area are waiting for that day when it will come to fruition. The Trans-Canada Highway, thanks to the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , through you, Mr. Speaker, for the about-completion of the Trans-Canada Highway.

I'm advised also that the passenger traffic on the ferries is up considerably in the first quarter of this year - up 20 per cent over the past year, which was up 20 per cent over the previous year. Those signs are very worthwhile to the residents and business people on Vancouver Island.

We have, however, two problem in the province of British Columbia as far as the economy is concerned. One of them is bureaucracy and the second is the NDP, and I'll deal with them in that order.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: Did that come as a surprise to you at all?

Bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker - there is an interesting book in the library that, I think, some people should read. It's called "Red Tape." It's interesting because it outlines a number of things that governments find themselves involved in that don't necessarily add to getting rid of the bureaucratic mess that we sometimes find ourselves in. We have too many Grown corporations and too many committees, a lot of them set up by the previous administration and some by ours. We must be very careful - I know that we stood in this chamber and all voted for an auditor-general and an ombudsman. We must be very careful that those two offices do what they're supposed to do and do not set up another bureaucracy to watch the bureaucracy that's already there. They must be watched carefully.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you a small example of bureaucracy and how it works. I had a call from a gentleman in my constituency, an old chap - maybe 70 years old. He got his tax notice; he owed them a dollar. He took a dollar, put it into an envelope and sent it to our government. But the letter came back: "We cannot accept your dollar. You didn't sign the form." So it went around and around. Eventually the old chap ended up paying $26 instead of the $1 that he had already sent. Now that happens day after day after day. Somehow the rules and regulations have to be relaxed so that people can once again have that freedom of wanting to create something and making it easy f or them to do that in the province of British Columbia.

The NDP are the second problem that I mentioned. They continually go throughout this province talking doom and gloom and telling people that things are bad, there is no hope and things will not get better. Unfortunately, in the last election, we did not eliminate enough of them, but perhaps in the one coming up, we will. They are not a good opposition, Mr. Speaker. They offer no constructive criticism, no worthwhile solutions to problems, except to arrange their friends out on the front steps of the legislative buildings, carrying placards and hollering and screaming against policies that the government might or might not implement.

MR. NICOLSON: Is that what you're calling that group from Fort Nelson that was here today?

MR. KAHL: It's interesting to hear some of the members opposite a while ago talking about government, some things that our ministers had done. I remember in 1975 when 1 decided to seek the nomination, I made an inquiry.... I

[ Page 643 ]

believe, Mr. Speaker, you were with me at the time. We were at the Pacific National Exhibition and we took a stroll down and made some inquiries at the NDP booth. You may remember the opportunity we had. I made some inquiries of members who were working at that political booth, regarding small businesses and what the government of the present day had done to assist small businesses.

Well, I received a letter on August 26,1975, addressed to myself, outlining certain steps that were advantageous to small businesses in the province of British Columbia. Frankly, I have read them through on numerous occasions and researched them and, yes, there are a couple of them that might have been of some assistance but all in all it was a pretty dismal record. There's one newspaper clipping "Barrett Actions Praised, " it's called from the Victoria Daily Colonist, April 16,1975, and one letter, dated March 11,1975, from someone who's not here today, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources at that time, Robert Williams. My inquiries were made at the NDP booth, as the letter says, in the PNE, but interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the information came back to me on a letterhead that says "Legislative Assembly, Province of British Columbia." I found that rather interesting, in view of some of the comments that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has been making and the questions he's been asking the last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: The April fool.

MR. KAHL: I don't think it was any mistake that he was chosen to lead that parade on April Fool's Day.

I'll spend a moment or two on some solutions to those problem . I'll deal with them primarily as they are related to MY constituency.

One of the major employers in my constituency is the shipbuilding industry. I know that it is perhaps not the best throughout the world but I believe we have an opportunity to increase the production in that part of my constituency. We have a good work force put together and we have an opportunity, I believe, to take a close look at another Sea-Bus, the manufacture of same which was done in my constituency and I believe are of great value. We have an opportunity to encourage the federal government to get on with letting the contract for a crane at the graving dock in my constituency. I think these are things our government should take a look at, as suggested in the budget, to speed up some of these items that might be before us.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in the Minister of Finance's budget indicated that the highways programmes would be accelerated. I know that I have recommended this to the minister before, and I would like to do the same again. There is a major section of highway on Vancouver Island linking the most southerly town with the most northerly town on the Island that needs repair and rebuilding. I know it is an expensive proposal, but it must be done.

Recently, a school bus was confined at the bottom of a ravine. Students and driver were on the bus from 4:30 to 8:30 until another vehicle came along and discovered them and gave them some assistance. That seven-mile section of road between Port Renfrew and Jordan River must be done. It's the only remaining link on the Island Highway that has had no commitment in the last two and a half years, or the three previous to that. I recommend that it be done over a staged period. It's one of the only areas in the province of British Columbia where considerable work can be done in the winter time. At least give those people in that area a commitment that it will be done in a staged programme over a three- or four-year period.

It was interesting to note the fisheries development programme on page 29 of the budget speech - the salmon-enhancement programme. It's a major expenditure and commitment on the part of the federal government as well as the provincial government, but very little of that money is being spent on the south end of Vancouver Island. I would encourage, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) to take a very close look at restocking that whole area on the south end of Vancouver Island. It's the major fresh water fishing area for all fresh water fishermen in the greater Victoria area. It needs some looking at; it needs some money spent on it. Here is an excellent opportunity to do some work in that area.

Another important solution is for someone.... I believe it was mentioned in the throne speech. It's a long time overdue for someone to take a very close look at the Motor Carrier Commission. The Motor Carrier Commission causes problem for the small entrepreneur who wants to expand his licence in this province. I have a number of them in my constituency who have applied for expansion of licences and have been denied because larger corporations, who have an opportunity to appeal those applications, simply will not allow that expansion to take place. It is my opinion that it's a terrible injustice that

[ Page 644 ]

must be corrected.

There are some small businesses who have only recently acquired licences who have told me personally that they are afraid to apply for an expansion of their licence because they are afraid they might lose what they have got. It's a sad state. I'm pleased to see that it's being considered and being looked at closely. I do hope that in the very near future in this session of the Legislature that those injustices are corrected.

The B.C. Development Corporation, it was interesting to note, has been given some additional finances. Mr. Speaker, it is a very difficult thing, even today, for small businesses who are experiencing financial difficulty to get help from the British Columbia Development Corporation. I know, because a number of them in my constituency have talked with BCDC people on a number of occasions and have not been assisted. It's difficult to find a way through the maze of bureaucracy and red tape, to eventually knock on that door where assistance can be gained.

Perhaps one of the most significant solutions to problems in the economy of the province - in a part of the world where natural resources are in great abundance - is to create a climate in our province for inventors. Japan worked on that theory many years ago, and it has paid off considerably for them. Inventors, Mr. Speaker, are the key to development in any industry. A constituent of mine, by name of George May, is one such man. Let me relate to you a sad experience as far as the economy in our province is concerned.

In 1968, George May made an invention. It was the development of a telephone exchange system. In 1970, he incorporated with a smaller company and they attempted to gain federal funding in research and development. In 1972, they approached the provincial government of the day, the NDP. The NDP, the government of the day, said it was too busy to be of assistance to them. The telephone exchange system that was invented needed, perhaps, another $.25 million to bring it to fruition. Many people had investigated it, including the federal government, and said: "Yes, it has some potential." But the government of the day said: "I'm sorry, we're too busy, and we can't be of assistance to you."

So, Mr. Speaker, as often happens in British Columbia and in Canada, we lost out to the Americans. We lost out because there were no funds available from the government of the day in the province to assist them. What did we lose? Well, in 1974, that company had sales of

$220,000 in California. It was a unique invention that was invented by one individual, and could only be purchased and manufactured with his approval, and through him. That's the beauty of attracting inventors to our province. In 1975, the company sold $2,092, 000 worth of merchandise. In 1976, they sold $20. million, and in 1977, $32 million. That's what we lost because the government of the day said: "We can't be of assistance to you." Presently, they manufacture in southern California from a building with 200,000 square feet. Their projection is for $40 million this year, for $60 million in 1979, and they employ 700 people. And British Columbia got absolutely nothing.

The man is a British Columbian. He loves our province, he lives here, and he lives in my constituency. George May, the physicist, has many other inventions that are ready for production, and he would be very happy to sit down with the Minister of Economic Development (Ron. Mr. Phillips) . He would be very pleased to sit down with the Minister of Education (Ron. Mr. McGeer) , who has set up the research secretariat. He would be very pleased to sit down, and discuss, and be of assistance to us in the province of British Columbia with our economy.

We should, Mr. Speaker, make British Columbia an attractive place for inventors to come to through a system with funding, tax credits and tax deductions. They are the very nucleus of the economy. I was pleased to see the research secretariat set up. I hope and trust that it will be a practical research development tank, one that will take a look at what we have and build on what we have. I hope it won't be an academic place that spews forth textbooks and papers that aren't of any value to the practical man, and I'm sure that under the guidance of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Economic Development that can happen.

Another important area that I would like the Minister of Economic Development as well as the Minister of Education to take a serious look at is our educational system. Mr. Speaker, we must teach our children to become free enterprisers, not socialists. We must teach our children that it is better for private citizens to run a corporation for profit than it is for government to run things at a loss. We must take that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we must teach our children that it is as good to be an employer as an employee. What courses do we offer? What individual initiative do we offer our young people to follow along that line, Mr. Speaker? What college do we have in the province of

[ Page 645 ]

British Columbia that offers courses or degrees in business administration? What universities offer advanced studies in business administration so that we do not have to hire people from outside of the province or from outside of Canada to take top executive positions?

Those are things that we must look at. I'm sure that with the budget that is before us and the performance of the government in the last two and a half years, we will be very pleased at the strides that will be made. It's a pleasure to stand in my place today and support this budget.

MRS. DAILLY: Before getting into my brief comments on the budget, I would like to comment, because I feel it's relevant to the discussion on the budget, on some of the things said by the last two speakers.

First of all, I would like to thank the member for Coquitlam. (Mr. Kerster) for two very fine things he did for the NDP. First of all, he supported our policy, and mine as member for Burnaby North, on the holding back of any further pollution in Burrard Inlet. I commend him for speaking out on that issue and give him full support for it. I can't say I agree with his solution, however. When you have a problem in your own area, to suggest it be handed over to another area is something I think should be given more consideration than perhaps that speaker gave. However, I think we both share the same concerns about any further pollution in Burrard Inlet.

The other thing he did f or the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, he could not have done better if he had been over on this side of the House speaking against the budget produced by his own party and supporting the NDP point of view. For those of you who were in the House when the member for Coquitlam spoke, he spent a good deal of time reading excerpts from press clippings when the NDP was in government, related to the NDP budget statements of that time. He particularly stressed the budget statements which called for restraint in government spending. He alluded to my own portfolio, where I had asked for some pullback in spending in postsecondary education, particularly, and he quoted from other departments. This is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because we have been listening to the Premier and his cabinet, month after month, year after year, on the campaign trail, in this House, out of this House, commenting on what a spendthrift government the NDP was. Then one of their own backbenchers stands up and spends 15 minutes -I don't know if the Premier was in at the time - reading press clippings on how careful the NDP had been with the people's money of this province.

So really, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that member. He couldn't have done a better job than if it had come from someone on this side of the House. I'm glad that Hansard has it recorded that one of these Social Credit backbenchers endorses the financial and fiscal policies of the NDP when in government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just before I get right into the debate, the last speaker, the member for Esquimalt shocked me, and I'm sure other members in this House, when he suggested that we should put politics right into our school system, because 1 remember when I was Minister of Education that the Social Credit members were on their feet always demanding that such a terrible thing would never happen. We've heard ridiculous statements that under our regime socialism was taught in the schools.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course it was!

MRS. DAILLY: Never once has there been any proof of that, and most certainly the NDP government attempted to be and will always be completely non-partisan in their education system. Now we have a member of the back bench standing up and advocating that his government take a partisan and political role in the teaching of the students of this province. Now 1 think it is up to the Premier and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to let the public know whether they endorse his statement, because if they do, I think the public of B.C., whether they are socialist, non-socialist or whatever, would be most interested to know that this is the new policy of the Social Credit government in education: put their policies, their idea of a so-called free enterprise system, into the school curriculum. So it would be most interesting to hear the comments from the Minister of Education and the Premier when they speak on this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the actual budget before us, and in going through it.... I know we've spent a considerable number of hours going through the budget, so what I have done today is simply pick out a few quotes from the budget speech which 1 think expose very clearly the very large credibility gap of the Social Credit government, and that's putting it very kindly when I say "credibility gap."

I'd like to start off with one of their first statements on the first page of the budget, which, by the way, starts off as if it were a quote from the first grade primary textbook -"Look, Jane. Look Dick. See what we

[ Page 646 ]

have done." - because it leads off with: "Look at what we have done." That is the way the budget speech starts off. Then we get into the f first look at what we have done, and it says: "In the midst of an extremely difficult national and international financial and business environment, the British Columbia economy continues to recover from the poor situation into which it lapsed in 1974 and 1975." Well, Mr. Speaker, we've heard that over and aver again from the other side, so I think it is time we put some other statements in the record to show what a credibility gap the Social Credit members have, and the speech shows.

It's too bad the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is not here, because to point out the credibility gap of that statement, I first want to start with his department, and the fact that when he first became minister he made a similar statement about the NDP's years in of f ice and said we were incompetent, et cetera, et cetera, and breakdown in economic policies.

Now the interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that following that statement, or very close to it, his own department issued the first economic report from the Minister of Economic Development's department when he was newly appointed minister. Now remember what he had said prior to this. He had accused the NDP in the budget debate of creating a very poor economic situation in the province of B.C. And what does it say?

HON. MR. BENNETT: File it.

MRS. DAILLY: The Premier wants me to file it because I don't think he wants to hear it, Mr. Speaker, but I intend to read it here, if I may.

This is what it actually says in the minister's own report. This cane out under the name of the Hon. Don Phillips. "The British Columbia economy withstood the shocks of world recession and major work stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well." And that was the last year the NDP was in of f ice. This came out in the minister's own summary of economic activity in B.C. "Personal income growth, estimated at 16 per cent, was the major factor contributing to an anticipated 10 per cent nominal growth in the gross provincial product."

Then it went on to state, Mr. Speaker: "Attesting to the relative strength of the provincial economy...." It's actually stating that in 1975 when the NDP left office that the provincial economy was in a relatively stable, strong position, and this came out of that minister's own economic activity report. It goes on to talk about the average weekly wages, and it talks about the level of capital in repair spending.

This is interesting, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to bore you so I won't read the whole thing, but it does state that the value of mineral production in 1975, estimated $1.223 billion, was above the 1974 levels, due primarily to increased prices and [illegible] Of coal. That was at the end of 1975, yet the Social Credit members during the budget debate have actually had the gall to stand up and suggest that things - as the budget speech does - were in a sad state when the NDP left office.

Another great credibility gap, of course, is right here in front of me, and it comes in the form of: "Your MIA Reports." And what is it? It's the report from the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) to his Kamloops constituency, and it's most interesting. Now this minister actually states the usual line, which we've heard over and over again - huge overruns, disaster by the NDP. He states that they have made, since the Social Credit came in, a total change in circumstances in the province of nearly $1 billion in a short three and a half years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge that member to stand up and detail to this House that figure of $1 billion which you have made as a change from the time the NDP was in. It's thrown out very generally; there's no backup to it. It's a beautifully large figure....

HON. MR. MAIR: I was wrong, Eileen. It was more than that.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. minister, when his time does come to speak in the House, would spell out for us.... Because I think he owes not only to the NDP, when we know it's a fallacious statement.... You owe an apology for making a fallacious statement, Mr. Member, in this. You also owe it to the people of British Columbia to level with them, and you're not levelling with them with this sort of report that goes out.

Then we have this statement: "We have an economy in British Columbia" - this is from the hon. minister - "which has outstripped and outperformed the whole rest of Canada." Then we just look at these figures that we have in front of us. Since the Social Credit came into office, capital investment in B.C. in 1975, private and public, combined in the amount of $5,823, 000,000, but in 1976.... It declines the first year that this Social Credit government's in office; it declines to $5,196, 000,000. Yet the minister states there

[ Page 647 ]

the economy is growing since they came in.

One factor, of course, which is always used to measure the health of the economy is the state of housing in any province. Here's a very recent housing article, where it says: "Housing Starts Take Big Dip." There were 31 per cent fewer single houses started in the Vancouver metropolitan area in 1977 than the year before, one of the worst situations in Canada. CMHG said said that 5,368 single dwellings were started here last year, compared with 7,777 in 1976. In urban B.C. 1,819 units were started. Again, one of the worst areas was the city of Victoria, and we all know one of the reasons for that was the disastrous policies in handling the ferry rates by that government. So the housing situation, which is certainly a good measure of the economy, is in a bad state in this province, and yet that minister actually has the gall to put in his bulletin that everything's rosy in British Columbia. And what about mortgage payments? Well, I know that he must be concerned. It's of interest to his department. I should remind the minister again of these figures. B.C. home mortgage foreclosures hit a record high in 1977, Mr. Speaker, and the lenders are predicting that 1978 will be just as bad, if not worse. Yet we read this budget speech and they say: "We're on the move. We've improved everything since 1975, since the terrible NDP left. We're on the move. Things are going to get better.

Here we have more foreclosures, less housing starts than ever before, certainly since the NDP was in government. You know, it takes a lot of gall for any member over there to stand up and tell us that the economy is on the upswing under the Social Credit.

Then we have the Employers Council of B.C. that said at the end of last year that the mining industry is generally unable to justify developments in British Columbia, and that potential developments have been shelved again. Yet that group over there stands up around the province, in the House, out of the House, and states that they have brought the mining industry back again in this province, because of our disastrous policies. Here's the Employers Council of B.C. stating that potential developments have been shelved again.

It also went on to say that the state of the construction industry is the weakest sector. I think those of us who have friends or relatives who are in construction know of the tremendous rate of unemployment in the construction industry today. I understand, Mr. Speaker, it's over 30 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I'm not boring you, but it is necessary to put these facts in the record, so that the people of British Columbia can get the other side of the story, which is certainly not coming out, naturally, except from the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , who really did assist the NDP today. The council then states:

"No new shopping centres are being planned on the lower mainland and warehouse and office space is in oversupply. The trucking industry is in a prolonged slump. It started in 1975, continued in 1976 and industry spokesmen say no change is expected this year. The Teamsters' Union now has 15 per cent of its members unemployed, compared with 5 per cent in 1976. The economy on Vancouver Island is so bad that three people are moving out for every one who moves to the island. The moving-out rate is 40 per cent higher than in the past three years."

In Victoria, according to the Daily Colonist, dozens of small firms and construction companies are balancing at the edge of bankruptcy, all again because of their stupid fiscal policies.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear: "Well, you can criticize us and you get these facts in the record, but what can an NDP government do?" We often hear this. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you what an NDP government can do. Our record speaks for itself, and it speaks well. You've got the record here.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: If you want to have a good laugh again, I'm proud to say that our record proves itself. And I'd like to point out to you that the comparison of another NDP government, in the province of Saskatchewan, with this province certainly points out how sick the policies are of the Social Credit government in comparison to the policies of a New Democratic Party socialist government. For example, bringing us right up to date, Mr. Speaker, if you compare the budget increases for health care with other provinces in 1977-78, the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan had an increase of 19.5 per cent in their budget for health care, and %tat did we get from this government over here? We got 11.4 per cent. Compare a socialist government's commitment to health to this government's. And what about health care generally in other areas? What about a prescription drug plan? In Saskatchewan it is a full-prescription drug plan - none of this kind of thing that's called universal. We know that's a farce. It is not a universal

[ Page 648 ]

Pharmacare plan. In British Columbia it's strictly a partial one and more and more citizens are finding out how partial that is, indeed, when they go to make their claims.

There's a complete children's dental plan, Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan, and just a partial one in British Columbia. A hearing-aid plan is complete in Saskatchewan, and there's nothing here to date.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have partial.

(Mr. Kerster in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: Partial. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister - there is a partial one. So, in comparison, they have a complete one, we have a partial one.

Hospital beds per 1,000: 7.4 in Saskatchewan and 6.0 in British Columbia.

The portion of revenue from income tax we've heard much about. In Saskatchewan it's 20 per cent, in B.C. 22 per cent, and yet the Premier promised that that was going to change. Now that's another promise down the drain, Mr. Speaker, along with so many others.

It's interesting to note that the Saskatchewan government's expenditures on Pharmacare work out to $21.59 per capita; B.C.'s expenditure per capita on Pharmacare is $13.45. So there are the figures. For all the talk about this Pharmacare programme, compare it with the way it's handled under a New Democratic Party government.

When the New Democratic government in Saskatchewan brought down their recent budget, they did what all NDP governments do, and would do, and have done in the past, and that is to ensure that more money is put into the hands of the consumer and the citizen. So this year, at a time when Saskatchewan is suffering the same inflationary problem as every other province, what do they do? They dropped personal income taxes and they made other tax cuts, an overall 9.5 per cent decrease, and they also gave aid to small businessmen and to farmers. A reduction in the corporate tax encourages the growth of small businessmen. Right through, the Saskatchewan government ensured that more money would get back into the hands of the consumer.

On top of everything else, we find that unemployment is only 4 per cent in the New Democratic Party province of Saskatchewan. So when we hear that talk across the floor....

AN HON. MEMBER: The only thing they've got going for them is they have no one like you.

MRS. DAILLY: Just look at our record, and look at Saskatchewan's.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: No, he thinks he has.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the member for Burnaby North has the floor. Don't destroy my first attempt.

MRS. DAILLY: 1 thank you very much for attempting. Everyone thinks he has the floor except the member for Burnaby North.

But, Mr. Speaker, in winding up these brief remarks on the budget, I would like to say that I think a reaction to this budget could not be put into any better form than a quote from a young man who is out of work and has been out of work for a number of months in the province of British Columbia. He has his full degrees but everywhere he goes, he's frustrated. No one will accept him, and it's not for want of trying, as he points out. He's tired of putting his name in over and over again, with nothing for him. He says it bothers him tremendously to think of having to go on welfare, but months and months have gone on with no work.

But the point I want to quote here particularly.... I think he sums up exactly my feelings about this budget, and our party's feeling, Mr. Speaker. Asked what he thought was the problem with this province, he said he points the finger of blame mostly at the Social Credit government which, he says - and he lives in Victoria - has crippled the Victoria economy with the increased ferry rates and boosts in other taxes and rates. Then he says finally: "With some foresight, some planning, some economic sense, the government could protect the people against the ravages of an economy that is in a state of decline." And that's about where it's at, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: I rather think there's a conspiracy here today, but we'll see as we go along.

Mr. Speaker, the remarks that I have to make in this budget debate will be very brief. But in light of what the budget proposes, and also in light of what has been said by other members in this debate, one could find it very difficult not to go on at length about this budget.

Firstly, I would say that it is a good budget and it is a budget that has met with

[ Page 649 ]

the immediate acceptance of the people in my constituency. The feedback which I have received has been very positive and very encouraging. Granted, the budget does not have an answer to everyone's problem in this province. No budget could do that, especially during these times of economic strife. But, Mr. Speaker, the thinking people of British Columbia realize that and they're rallying behind this government's accountability as seen in this budget. The government has attempted to assist, during this period in our history of high inflation and, in some areas, high unemployment, the greatest number of our citizens while, at the same time, unlike other governments in other jurisdictions, assuring the people of British Columbia of a balanced budget and curbed government spending. Mr. Speaker, the people of this province agree with those kinds of measures. There are those, in this House and out, who have attempted to put this budget down, and in their frustration will probably continue to do so. I ask, in going through the budget, how anyone in this province in his right mind could put such a budget down.

In our budget, we've got an accelerated job development programme, an accelerated industrial development programme, an accelerated reforestation programme, an accelerated summer works programme, an accelerated mining development programme, an accelerated provincial highways programme, an accelerated recreational facilities programme, an accelerated senior citizens' housing construction programme, an accelerated agricultural programme - and I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker - a new long-term care program- under the Minister of Health (Ron. Mr. McClelland) , an expanded hospital construction programme, new moves in education, greater possibilities in human resources, housing and consumer protection, and I could go on and on.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Opposition members - and that's just a prime example of it - are frustrated because they know that to accept this budget -they know very well they should - is to contradict and to turn away from all that they themselves have said was needed in this province. They have said that because we have in excess of 100,000 people on unemployment insurance in British Columbia, we need jobs. This budget is almost totally designed to provide those jobs.

They have said that the elderly and the less fortunate in our province must be given additional consideration. This budget does that.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

They have said also that more emphasis must be placed by government on the plight of the agricultural industry. This budget does that. Let me just read from a recent newspaper clipping, in order to point out just what those in the agricultural industry think of this budget. I read from the Vernon News of last week:

"Agriculture spokesmen say B.C. farmers will get a fair deal in the provincial and federal budgets brought dawn Monday. 'They were both respectable budgets, ' Richard Bullock, president of the B.C. Fruitgrowers Association, said Tuesday. 'It took into consideration that we are in troubled times, and stayed away from making great election goodies."'

The arguments of the members over there have been empty, their remarks contradictory to what they themselves profess to want for the people of British Columbia. They are frustrated. They have admitted that this could very easily have been an election budget, and find it difficult that it is not. I believe they haven't seen anything yet. And they cannot believe what they are seeing right now.

They even poke fun at the reduction in the sales tax, but the people of this province do not. They know that it is high time Ottawa returned our fair share of the tax dollars taken from British Columbia. Unlike Ottawa's short-term outlook, our government and our Premier have made a commitment to the citizens of British Columbia that the reduction in the sales tax is here to stay. We see it in a newspaper article from the Vancouver Sun, April 12, where the big, black headlines read: "Reduced B.C. Sales Tax Here To Stay, Says Bennett." There is a long-term commitment, straightforward honesty, and planning for the citizens of this province. The opposition is frustrated.

I don't blame the hon. members opposite, although you would probably never know it by some of the things I say from time to time in this chamber. I believe that all of us, on whichever side of this House we sit, use this chamber as a vehicle in which to vent our frustration. I have come to the conclusion that the danger of this system is that those who ultimately suffer because of our system, and because of the way that all of us act in this chamber from time to time, are the people of British Columbia. It's the system - I believe it's archaic and obsolete. I think we recently saw in this House where - and I think

[ Page 650 ]

there's a need for more of it - lo and behold, two members from opposite sides of the floor of this House were agreeing with one another. Some find that strange. And we see it in big, black headlines: "Cause Unites Enemies."

1, for one, do not believe that we in this chamber are enemies. Most people seeking public office do so in order to make their community and their province and their country a better place in which everyone may live, and I don't think we're any different here.

Mr. Speaker, we heard very recently from a member of this House, my very good friend and colleague, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , a member who has been here longer than probably any of us want to be - some 23 years. That there were members on this side of the floor who had second thoughts about seeking another term in office I don't doubt; I don't doubt that's correct for one minute. But I don't for one minute believe, Mr. Speaker, that it's confined to this side of the floor. I would rather believe that the feeling exists among all members in this House. What the member for Skeena was saying, and I believe it's what I'm saying here today, is that many members of this House are disillusioned because of a system which encourages confrontation and the type of thing that goes on across this floor from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why many of the members are confused. I don't think that the type of thing that goes on across this floor day after day, as we've seen in the last two weeks of this budget debate, is beneficial to the people of British Columbia. The public wonders what it's all about. They have lost faith in all politicians today and, again, I don't blame them. But hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that we as politicians should, because of the feelings of people in regard to politicians, shirk our responsibility to them. It's about time, in my mind, that we all did something about it. We in this chamber have been given the responsibility to govern under the system. It's up to us to either make the system work or change it altogether. This will never happen unless we are all very, very serious about why we came here in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, 1 challenge today all hon. members of this House, regardless of their philosophical differences, to agree on those points which come up in this chamber and are beneficial to the citizens of British Columbia. I challenge the opposition to bury their philosophical differences and to support those programmes brought forward in this House and in this budget which we all know will be of benefit to British Columbians. I challenge the government also to whenever possible listen to and accept suggestions from the opposition members which will be of benefit to our citizens. Support those programmes, Mr. Speaker, which will provide jobs, which apparently the opposition wishes, but you would never know it by some of the debate that has gone on here in the last two weeks. I challenge them to support the programmes which will assist the less fortunate of our province whom they profess to represent.

But, Mr. Speaker, we're all at fault. We and we alone can restore the confidence in our citizens which they have lost, the confidence in ourselves as politicians. We and we alone can either make the present system work or change it. We and we alone must accept full responsibility for the complete collapse, should we not assume that responsibility, in the very near future of the one thing in which we all believe - all of us as hon. members, whether NDP, Liberal, Conservative or Social Credit - and that is democracy.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a budget which has been heralded by the majority of the people in this province as being positive, economically sound, and provides for our province and for our people, during a period of time when other jurisdictions cannot, more services, less intervention into our everyday lives by government, better educational program s, more opportunities and the promise of a better standard of living than ever previously experienced in the province of British Columbia in all our history. I would call upon all members of this Legislature to join me, for the good of all British Columbians, in supporting the budget.

MR. ROGERS: When you're the 38th speaker in speaking to the reply to the budget, it is somewhat difficult to think of something that hasn't probably been canvassed previously. But I am delighted to say that I've found a few little gems in this budget that haven't been thoroughly canvassed.

It's a balanced budget, and in that significance alone there are some comments I would like to make. An English economist by the name of Maynard Keynes once said that governments, when they are in difficulties, should borrow and spend more money to create more employment, and when times are good again they should then pay back those borrowings. However, he was an economist and not a politician, and what happens is that politically there are never really very good times. I think that those of us that follow the federal political scene in this country

[ Page 651 ]

might want to agree with that. Despite the fact that the economy of this country has had its ups and downs over the past 15 years, there has been a continuous growth in the federal overexpenditure.

Now theoretically, Mr. Keynes would have us, in the good years, paying back some of the bad years. I could say that Mr. Trudeau hasn't had a good year because I don't see any indication of him wanting to pay back any of this money. But I would like to compliment our Minister of Finance, because his budgets don't require that. In the federal scene, 14 per cent of every tax dollar now goes to pay interest on good times that we have had before, and we see very little indication of the federal government biting the bullet to try and retire any of their debt. In fact I would suggest that over the next little while we won't see any indication of it because, of course, it's time for the goodies to be passed out.

Politicians are always going to be at odds with economists because economists are prepared to tell us how to do it, but they're not prepared to tell us when it's time to save.

There are some things in the budget that no one's mentioned before, some good positive steps that I see. I know, that as a result of my speech last year on the evils of tobacco, the Minister of Finance took those words to heart, and I know, Mr. Speaker, this is something that you're listening to attentively. I applaud the increases in the tobacco tax, and I applaud the increase in the tax on liquor for this reason alone....

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: I'm insulting someone here. We lose money on booze taxes, there's no doubt about it. If you take in the entire social cost and problems that are caused by alcohol versus the revenue.... Admittedly, there are thousands and thousands of people who have a glass of port before dinner and cause us no problem , but for those families where the alcohol problem is serious, they become a social burden, they become a burden on their families and on their friends, and the taxpayer often has to pay for child support and all sorts of things. I think that perhaps those who imbibe should be prepared to pay part of that cost.

There's something in there on parimutuel betting. I presume that means at the track. I would look to counsel from other members, because I've never been to the track, but I'm told that horse racing is the most popular spectator sport in this province, as it is anywhere in North America. It exceeds baseball; it exceeds football; it exceeds hockey and soccer. Perhaps, I think, that's something we've overlooked in the past.

The removal of the tax on production machinery is another point that's been somewhat glossed over. The constituency I represent has a number of industrial plants that are aged, to say the least. They're becoming inefficient, especially in the lumber-processing industry. On Friday I'm going to have the pleasure of being at an opening ceremony of a new planer mill in Vancouver South, but this relief in this budget will come as a great support because there are about 30 mills in my constituency, almost all of which need updating. I know that the removal of this tax for one year will be a great incentive to get on with doing it now rather than postponing it.

The removal of the corporation capital tax for the small businesses is also very welcome, because it's really more costly to compute than it is to pay. It's very questionable if we ever got any positive benefits from that tax. It cost the employers and their accountants a great deal of time, and I always felt a little bit reluctant to pay tax on borrowed money when it was for operating expenses.

The homeowner grant increase for people over 65 is a particular help in my constituency, with a lot of senior citizens there.

We had a little discussion on railroads the other day. I thought perhaps we could have a little look into the background of railroads. In the 1920s, railroads were the glamour children of transportation. The aircraft had not yet come into its own, the highway systems were not developed and the railways were the only way of moving people and goods, and those were their salad days.

Then came the great Depression, and in the Depression the railways were allowed to fall into disrepair, mainly in the United States, but also in Canada to a great extent. At the end of the Depression, World War II came and the railways were pressed into service as they had never been pressed before. But still, because they were large major corporations, they had always been hated by the general public.

In 1946, at the end of World War II, in the United States, there was an enormous lobby group for the interstate highway system, which is now virtually complete. That lobby group was the trucking industry, and the trucking industry was very effective in convincing senators and congressmen in the United States that the railways were out of date and weren't

[ Page 652 ]

the way to go and that the way to go was the diesel truck.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now this province has been one of the areas in the world that went against that tide, with the foresight to develop the BCR. As a young boy, I remember them blasting the railway line up to Squamish and continuing it through to Quesnel and right on up to Fort Nelson. Now it would seem to me that the roadbed on the track between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson is in need of some repair; and that will be addressed a little later on, I'm sure, by those members of the executive council who are going to be responsible for that.

But, in the budget, it does say we're going to spend $7.5 million to develop northeast coal, so I would think that it's also contingent on us to have a really serious look at the whole transportation system of the BCR - the Fort Nelson extension as well as the Dease Lake extension. I would think that the people who were involved in the royal commission should be given the courtesy of completing their entire report before we decide to act on it. I would suggest that that report should be in soon because there are people waiting anxiously. But these people have put a lot of time and a lot of effort into preparing this report, and it would be unfair of us to briefly look at it and then cast the whole thing aside, as if it has not had any serious consideration.

One of the points that has been canvassed before, but I would like to make some discussion upon it, is that of bankruptcies. You know, Mr. Speaker, we really don't restrict anyone from getting into business in this province - there is no restriction at all. In many cases, the only time that someone going into business ever gets any counselling at all is when they go to see their friendly banker, or unfriendly banker as the case may be. When they do go to see the banker, he's quite often reluctant to lend them the money, because he either feels they are going to be undercapitalized or that the venture itself is not sound.

But bankers haven't got the right to stop anybody from getting into business. If they don't get the money from the banks, they get the money from somewhere else. So often our bankruptcies are the result not necessarily of economic times but of the lack of business expertise that people have when they enter a new business venture. Under capitalization is a big problem. But there is another problem that no one has addressed.... They say we have had so many bankruptcies. They should look a little more closely at the types of business that go bankrupt. There are certain industries and certain businesses which are glamour industries and fun industries to get in to. The air charter business is one of those businesses that I am a little familiar with. It's considerably more glamorous to run a small flying service than it is to run a small steel foundry. We haven't had bankruptcies in steel foundries; we have had lots and lots of flying services go bankrupt.

Restaurants are another business that we see cropping up all over the place. When a restaurant goes bankrupt, it goes bankrupt for one of many reasons - generally because the cook has quit or the maitre d' has insulted too many patrons or their wine list is incomplete. But people are fickle; they move between restaurants. Their loyalties are very thin, if any at all. So we get a tremendous degree of bankruptcies in that particular business enterprise. Yet every day and in every new year's phone book, you see a complete flock of new restaurants. People tend to be attracted to that kind of industry.

There is some mention in the budget that we are going to try and give people counsel. I question whether or not they will accept that counsel, because people are reluctant to accept advice from other professionals before going into a business venture. My friend here, the Whip (Mr. Mussallem) , agrees; he's seen it all too often. It's very tragic: people mortgage their homes; they borrow money from whomever; they convince their brother-in-law and everyone else they can that it's a great deal and they all are going to make a lot of money. And off they go into some totally unrelated field. That's something that's not really been explored. Quite often people will go into business ventures that are totally unrelated to any previous background they have ever had. People that come out of wheelbarrow manufacturing get into marina owning, or whatever.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: Well, that's right, yes. The grass is always greener. I hadn't thought that bankruptcy would come to a member of this House but then, there you go. I was looking at it not as a business venture but as something to fill in three or four months of the year and keep myself amused with your cross-court quips there.

Mr. Speaker, when you're number 38, it's hard to be original. I hope I have instilled a little thought and haven't bored the people in

[ Page 653 ]

Hansard too much. 1 will be supporting the budget. Thanks very much.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am no longer necessary, and I yield to my friend and colleague next to me.

HON. MR. BAWLF: It's a little early to adjourn and 1 have my notes here. I am delighted to at last have the opportunity to get down to speaking about what is certainly an outstanding budget, Mr. Speaker, after the various diversionary tactics of the opposition in recent days in their attempt to avoid that budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am particularly grateful to the Minister of Finance for the commitments which he has made in the area of conservation in this budget. This budget provides for the coming year, along with the accelerated fisheries programme, which is the subject of a bill mentioned in his budget address, an increase in funding under the administration of the conservation department of my ministry of almost 50 per cent over last year. This includes approximately $5.7 million in new money.

Mr. Speaker, just while I'm on the point of spending by the conservation department, I regret that the member for Nelson-Creston isn't here, because he's been very busy in the last few months writing to newspapers and making speeches to the effect that my fish and wildlife branch is suffering a lack of funds. 1 would like to make the point that that branch will have expended all of the funds to the best of our reckoning which were budgeted for them this past year, contrary to what the member for Nelson-Creston has said. More importantly again, I stress that this year the conservation department will be receiving and administering a 50 per cent increase in funding, with particular emphasis on fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, this just signals what will be a very important year for the conservation side of my ministry. I've recently announced the reorganization of that department to provide separate fisheries and wildlife branches. For the first time, all of the elements of the provincial government which are concerned in the management of the fisheries - although it's essentially a federal jurisdiction - all of the elements concerned with salt and fresh-water fisheries - with the sportsman, the commercial fisherman and the processor, will be in the hands of one distinct branch; and in this way we expect to be better able to administer the fisheries, to represent the provincial interest in the fisheries in discussions, and in all matters relating to this otherwise federal jurisdiction.

A particular area which, I also say, is important to highlight this year is the establishment of a chief conservation officer for the province. This, although perhaps a small item in the total scope of the budget in my ministry, is vital in that we feel that we've long lacked adequate methods and procedures for enforcement - someone to prepare and undertake training program s for our conservation officers and someone to liaise with other enforcement agencies and with the Attorney-General's office in the carrying out of protection of these fish and wildlife resources. The chief conservation officer will fulfill that need, and will be reporting directly to the deputy minister in carrying out those responsibilities.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in this coming session, another small but highly significant aspect of the budget will be the efforts which will be expended in commencing a complete redraft of the Wildlife Act for this province. It is our hope that this revised Wildlife Act will be capable of introduction in the next session of the House, and will address a number of concerns which have been accumulating over the years, including more humane trapping methods. That work in the coming year in preparing that Act will also benefit greatly from the findings of the inquiry into licensing and certification of guides and outfitters in this province, which inquiry has been undertaken by Judge McCarthy.

Also, we will be addressing another important area in reviewing the regulation of Indian hunting and other areas of hunting. We also have in the works this year a series of species management plans. This, again, will be a significant part of the effort which is budgeted for in the new wildlife branch. This will see us for the first time with a stated set of objective management plans for each of quite a large number of species which are important to the wildlife realities of this province.

In the coming year as well, Mr. Speaker, and not reflected directly in the budget in its full magnitude, we will be seeing approximately $20 million of joint federal-provincial spending on the salmonid enhancement programme, as that programme moves into high gear. That $20 million spread across this province in dozens of salmonid enhancement projects will be a very significant part of the total effort to recognize and enhance our valuable fisheries

[ Page 654 ]

resources.

Since we seem to have a House that is regarding the clock perhaps more than my remarks, I will move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

APPENDIX

6 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications the following question:

What were the total numbers of vehicles and passengers (on a monthly basis) using the British Columbia ferry service in (a) 1977 and (b) 1978?

The Hon. W. R. Bennett replied as follows:

9 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Com munications the following question:

With reference to fuel-oil purchased for the B.C. Ferries fleet––

What was (a) the total cost and (b) the unit cost of oil purchased in the fiscal years 1971/72,1972/73,1973/74,1974/75,1975/76, and 1976/77? .

The Hon. W. R. Bennett replied as follows:

" (a) Total cost––

"(b) Unit cost of oil purchased (not including gasoline tax)––

[ Page 655 ]