[ Page 294 ]

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

B.C. Rail debt. Mr. Skelly — 295

Municipal budget increases. Mr. Stephens — 296

Expense accounts of crown corporations committee chairman. Mr. Cocke — 296

Sick leave for war veterans. Mr. King — 297

Adequacy of Grace Hospital facilities. Mr. Cocke — 297

Supply Act No. 1, 1979. Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 298

Mr. Stephens — 299

Mr. Barber — 299

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Cocke — 299

Report and third reading — 299

Budget debate.

Mr. Stupich — 300

Motion

Recommendation of the appointment of Dr. Karl A. Friedmann to perform the duties assigned to the ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act. Mr. Davidson — 316

Mrs. Dailly — 316

Mr. Cocke — 316

Mr. Lockstead — 316

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 316

Mr. King — 316

Mr. Lloyd — 317

Routine proceedings

Supply Act No. 1, 1979. Royal assent — 317

Budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 318

Mr. Cocke — 323

Presenting reports

Ministry of Education 1977-78 report. Hon. Mr. McClelland — 327

[ Page 295 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am pleased to advise you and the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon a group of senior citizens from West Vancouver. They represent 1,300 senior citizens who participate in senior citizens’ programs undertaken by the Parks and Recreation Commission of that municipality. They are here to see us in action. I promised them they would be a restraining influence upon some of the emotions that are often displayed in this House. Perhaps we could welcome them.

MR. NICOLSON: Seated somewhere in the gallery today is one of British Columbia’s authors and playwrights, Mr. Tom Elgie, author of “The Bluebell Incident,” which took place in the riding of Nelson-Creston in the last century. I wish the members would welcome him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish the members would join me in welcoming constituents from the mighty Peace River area today: Mayor Arnold Dahlen, of the city of Dawson Creek, alderman Dave Leopke and city administrator Jack Hardy.

I hope the House will make them welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mr. Jim Duval, who may be a candidate in the riding of Vancouver South and shake up the two senators who now have that riding.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We are all aware of the difficulties which face you and your office in participating in the affairs of this chamber. But we’re also aware that in your constituency you are ably assisted in your responsibilities. I think the members would like to welcome your constituency secretary, Geraldine Isaak.

Oral questions.

B.C. RAIL DEBT

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in the auditor-general’s statement B.C. Rail’s debts are noted to be incorrectly shown in the public accounts as contingent liabilities, in future will the minister instruct his staff to show these liabilities in the public accounts as dead weight debt on the province?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the Legislature is just now in receipt of the first report of the auditor-general, which the government welcomes, having introduced the legislation to provide an independent appointment.

Having had a brief look at her recommendations and concerns, we welcome them as a positive approach. We notice that the opposition have made similar comments in terms of the expectancy of her observations on the accounts of British Columbia and her wish to improve them as we go along.

We welcome her recommendations. And until we have studied these in greater detail….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: That’s correct. I presume the member that says “Oh, oh!” has read them in detail. Yes, no doubt. Have you read page 129, Mr. Member? What does it say?

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In any event, the document is a positive move. We have already acted on several of these recommendations and will be looking closely at many others.

In terms of the comment the member has made on the debt of the railway, this has been a part of the recommendation of the royal commission which is also being studied by the government. A direct debt is a direct debt and an indirect debt is an indirect debt.

MR. SKELLY: I don’t really know what the first answer was, but the fact is that the minister has had a recommendation from the McKenzie royal commission that the government assume B.C. Rail’s debts of something like $652 million because the railway will be unable to pay the debt itself. Therefore it’s incorrect to show that debt as a contingent liability on the accounts of the province. Does the minister support the recommendation that B.C. Rail’s debt be transferred from the contingent liabilities section of the public accounts to the dead weight, direct debt section of the public accounts? This would bring the direct, dead weight debt of this province under Social Credit to close to $1 billion.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the government is studying closely the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the B.C. Railway and is looking at the overall transportation policy in this regard. We have already contributed funds toward the subsidies involved in certain aspects of that railway. I think that with a view to the change of railway administration

[ Page 296 ]

and particularly its presidency, it’s no longer in any dire need of falling into disrepute.

MUNICIPAL BUDGET INCREASES

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance, who has stated on a number of occasions recently that he is going to limit the increase in budgets at the municipal level to 5 percent. Today my office contacted several municipalities to ask them what their understanding of this ruling is, and we’ve had a different answer from every municipality.

I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to explain to me and to the municipal authorities around this province if the 5 percent limitation means 5 percent over last year’s budget, or if it includes 5 percent of the accumulated surplus or just one year’s surplus. Would you clarify it for us, please?

HON. MR. WOLFE: For the benefit of the member, I can only assume that his office, in calling different municipalities, asked a different question on each occasion. This government has made the intention and the details of this restraint policy very clear. I would ask the member whether he disagrees with the need for restraint at all levels of government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The direction of questions usually goes towards the executive.

The rules do not provide that we ask questions of private members.

MR. STEPHENS. I know it surprises the minister to be asked a serious question. I don’t expect him to become defensive. I simply asked the question because I want the answer.

Please, for my enlightenment, because I don’t know, would you just give me a straight answer? What is the ruling?

HON. MR. WOLFE: This is covered in great detail in the release put out by the ministry in January. I’d be happy to supply the member with a copy.

MR. STEPHENS: I don’t know why the minister will not accept the fact that some confusion has been created. I’m passing on to him the information that the municipalities do not understand his press release. I’m asking on their behalf — and on my behalf — if he would please take a minute or two to tell us what the policy is, so that I will know and the municipalities will know. Don’t evade the question, please. Just get up and answer.

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF CROWN
CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN

MR. COCKE: I’d like to ask a question of the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), as chairman of the Committee on Crown Corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this in order?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne, volume 5, chapter 9, page 366 says:

"Questions may be asked of private members only under strict delimitations. Virtually the only question possible would refer to a committee of which the member is the chairman."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the precedent has been established in this House. Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if the member will continue the behaviour of the past chairman, by providing expenses for himself in the following manner. During a period when the Committee on Crown Corporations met twice, the chairman of that committee recorded, according to his expense voucher, 13 meetings between September 22 and October 13 last year.

Is this going to be the behaviour of the present chairman? I couldn’t care less about the past chairman; he has gone to his just reward.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It was $720.59.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, for clarification, questions that are directed to chairmen of committees must be strictly relevant to the chairman’s responsibilities and duties to the committee. As all members are aware, those matters which take place in committee, whether they be the behaviour of committee or matters of question before that committee, are only brought before this House by a report of the committee which would otherwise not be able to be brought here. Question period is not an avenue by which those things may be brought to the attention of the House. Questions of chairmen of committees must therefore be directly related to their activity within that committee. I believe this question is in order. Please proceed.

[ Page 297 ]

MR. COCKE: During the fall of last year — and I would assume that that happens regularly – the chairman put in expenses for 13 committee meetings. The committee actually met twice, on the 26th and 27th. And that was just for a three-week period.

I wonder if the chairman of our present committee is going to continue that kind of activity. If he is, I think he owes it to members of the House to tell them so.

MR. SPEAKER: The question ought best to be directed to the person who was the chairman of the committee at the time of the action. I don’t think that we can ask either the executive council or members of the committee questions about accounts which pertain to a time before their term of office.

MR. KING: It’s absolutely appalling that the members won’t account for their financial transactions.

SICK LEAVE FOR WAR VETERANS

I have a question for the acting Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis). My question is: why did the government rescind orders-in-council 617, 637 and 1927 by order-in-council 3013, dated September 22, 1977? The order-in-council provided in section 801 that:

"Where an employee who has served with the forces of the Crown in any war is granted sick leave for the purpose of attending a medical board or receiving diagnosis or treatment for a pensionable disability in a military hospital or other authorized hospital, sick leave may be granted to a total of 126 working days on the following basis."

I want to know why the government is all of a sudden denying wounded war veterans, who happen to be in the public service, the right to paid leave to attend to those afflictions and those wounds they got in the defence of their country. I want to know what the government’s rationale for the rescinding of that order is.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On behalf of the Provincial Secretary I’ll take the question on notice and advise him that the question was asked. I’m sure he’ll provide an answer in due course.

ADEQUACY OF
GRACE HOSPITAL FACILITIES

MR. COCKE: I’ll direct the question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain why it is that the new Grace Hospital, before it’s even complete, has been condemned by many of the Medical Association and other people who are very well equipped to decide on such matters? Their view is that the facility is going to be totally inadequate to meet the needs of expectant mothers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if the member for New Westminster would tell me who the people are.

MR. COCKE: The minister knows. He’s heard from them. But I’ll go on to ask the minister in this context. It’s unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is away, because we’re talking about his toy now. There are inadequacies in this very important area, but there are no inadequacies at the university. At the university we have a hospital that, when it comes on line, the operating costs will be $400 to $500 a day — a great embarrassment to the government — per patient day per bed. That’s compared to St. Paul’s and BGH at maybe $185. I was wondering how the minister can treat children in Grace in this fashion and yet let this opulence develop out of the UBC.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That’s a tremendous question, Mr. Speaker, and it’s framed so well. I’ll be happy to answer the question. Perhaps the member for New Westminster will tell me who the people are who have condemned Grace Hospital. This facility is hailed by many throughout North America as the finest new concept of shared services and shared care for mothers and children on a single site in all of the continent.

When he sends me the list of the people who have condemned that hospital, perhaps he will also file with this House the figures that he has in his possession showing that the new hospital at UBC will cost $400, $450 or $500 a day to provide care for the people of British Columbia.

Once the member has filed that information, which I am sure he has in his possession — and I’m sure that it is based on sound actuarial values or some other kind of values — perhaps he will make it available to this House. Then I’d be happy to answer his question, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 2.

[ Page 298 ]

SUPPLY ACT No. 1, 1979
(continued)

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at adjournment last night, the purpose of the opposition in keeping this House sitting last night was transparently obvious. A traditionally routine matter which took all of ten minutes to pass this House last year was suddenly blown up and grossly misrepresented by that opposition because they are running scared from an outstanding budget which does so much for the people of this province that even they, who can turn anything into a disaster with their usual negative attitude, don’t know how to attack it.

It’s a budget which reduces the burden of taxation on the people of this province across the board, a budget which reduces the sales tax to the lowest level in 25 years; a budget which lowers personal income tax; a budget which raises the homeowner grant $100 and which removes operating costs of community colleges from the property taxpayers. It’s a responsible budget, Mr. Speaker, which holds the line at a 5 percent increase, which fights inflation, yet which expands assistance to those in need, and which helps our senior citizens hold onto their hard-earned savings.

It’s a budget which expands health and education services to unprecedented levels, a budget which provides incentives and opportunities for the private sector and for individual initiative to build this great province. It’s a budget which will continue to expand employment in B.C. at rates which already lead this country. It’s all this, and much more. The opposition don’t know how to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, because it strikes at the very heart of what the NDP stood for in government — irresponsible spending, extravagance, waste, deficit financing, economic disaster and ultimately a threat to the fundamental services which the people of this province worked so hard to earn.

Mr. Speaker, they’re running scared from this bill and from this budget, and so they obstruct the fundamental workings of this House. They stamp their feet and they hold their breath and they turn even redder — if that’s possible. They obstruct and they distort, and in so doing they abuse the people of this province who want to see this outstanding budget implemented. They abuse the public servants and the suppliers, who have a right to be paid while the debates of this Legislature proceed — the little people, the people without whom this province cannot function. They don’t want the system to work; they want to tear it down.

They’re irresponsible. They want to take this province to a foreign philosophy. Until yesterday they’ve been trying to force an election. Jim Kinnaird has been running all over this province trying to force an election, but along the way their ranks have become divided. The people of the province have become confused as to who their leader really is. The third member for Vancouver East is in Alaska — he’s been given the Jim Gorst treatment. They’re confused and they’re scared after hearing this outstanding budget. They think they can deflect the situation and hurt the process of government by withholding interim supply. They are wrong. Authority for the government of British Columbia to pass special warrants is found in section 25(3) of theFinancial Control Act, which reads as follows:

"If, when the Legislature is not in session, or has been adjourned for a period exceeding seven days, or for an indefinite period, an accident happens to a public building or work, which requires immediate outlay for the repair thereof, or any other occasion arises in which an expenditure not foreseen or provided by the Legislature is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then, upon the report of the Minister of Finance that there is no legislative authority and of the minister in charge of the service in question, that the necessity is urgent, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order a special warrant to be prepared to be signed by the Lieutenant-Governor for the issue of the amount estimated to be required."

While an instance of British Columbia using special warrants in lieu of granting supply by a supply bill cannot be found in history, it is a standard parliamentary practice in the parliament of the government of Canada. Special warrants to provide funds for public use by the government of Canada, where no supply has been granted, have been used on several occasions in the past, usually when an election is called. This is, in fact, occurring right now. Canada passes the warrants month by month to maintain the urgent qualification. Canada has a very similar statutory authority to British Columbia — I refer you to the Financial Administration Act.

Now we know there is no point for those people over there to keep up their little charade any longer. You can stop your silly games. You don’t dare put up any more speakers to obstruct the business of this House. The

[ Page 299 ]

proper and reasonable conduct of the people’s business requires sensible, responsible opposition — something which they’ve proven themselves incapable of these past days. I say again, they don’t dare keep up this silly game. The people of the province will not put up with these irresponsible tactics. Face the facts. Face this outstanding budget. Get on with the business of the House.

MR. STEPHENS: For two days I have listened to the government and the official opposition blame each other for everything under the sun. They are both blaming each other, particularly the government blaming the opposition for holding up the business of this House. I’ve just done a quick check through last night’s Hansard and today, and I calculate the official opposition has spoken for 18 1/2 pages, and the government has spoken for 27 1/2 pages.

Who is holding up the business of this House? You guys have no credibility. Call an election! We’ll get rid of the both of them at the same time. Let’s go. Call your election! What are you waiting for, Bill? What are you afraid of? Let’s go.

MR. BARBER: Our finance critic made a commitment yesterday which we intend to honour today. Closing the debate for the official opposition, I wish to make two very brief comments.

In order that the House be fully informed as to who has taken time in this debate, having counted the minutes, courtesy of Hansard, including the remarks of the last speaker, the House might be amused to learn that the government that worries about wasting time has so far spent 85 minutes in debate of this matter. The official opposition has spent 66. With my own it may go to 68 or 69 minutes.

The second and final point I wish to make is that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) argued yesterday that with no notice, no consultation, and no time for study, the official opposition was not prepared to let interim supply pass until today. That day is here. We have studied the bill, and we have no further debate to offer. Call the bill now and we will pass it at once.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave of the House to refer Bill 2 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Supply Act No. 1, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: Just as we expected, the Premier got jumping up in this House and said: “See what you did? See what you did? Delay. Delay.” And yet the member for Victoria proved that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they were the ones who delayed this whole thing. And now he makes that charge.

I don’t know whether that Premier likes to grandstand, but I want to remind everybody there was no suggestion from that side that this bill would come forward. That was a break with the past, and if those are the kinds of breaks you want, continue on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before I recognize the next member in the debate, I should perhaps remind the members just once again that the type of debate which we’ve just had is not quite clause-by-clause study, which is the committee stage of the bill. I think all members are aware of that.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Supply Act No. 1, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now that we have the cooperation of the opposition, and because there are no Whips’ agreements now, and business has to be brought up on the floor of the House because of a breakdown in communication, we ask leave to pass technical bills.

I ask leave of the House to proceed to pub-

[ Page 300 ]

lic bills and orders — second reading of Bill 12, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 — so we can ease the minds of the people of British Columbia that this distribution can take place.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, leave is denied. We therefore return to the other question, which is the ….

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn’t hear a no. Perhaps they misunderstood. This is just a technical amendment to allow the distribution to take place. Surely they want it to proceed.Or don’t you want them to get the shares?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is not whether hon. members heard noes. The question is whether the Speaker heard noes.

The member for Nanaimo adjourned the debate.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. STEPHENS: On a point of order, it’s become obvious that there’s been a breakdown between the two major parties in this House. I want it clearly understood that the government has failed to communicate anything to me over the past two days. I’ve not been any party to what they’re doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, points of order can only be raised on matters that pertain to a specific standing order. Perhaps we could keep this in mind when we seek the floor pretending to have a point of order, when in essence we do not.

MR. STUPICH: One can only wonder why the government is so unwilling and reluctant to discuss the budget now. Yesterday they spoke about tradition and what has been the practice in the past. I cannot recall an instance in the past when the government would prefer to discuss legislation, particularly legislation that proposes to change a bill to allow residents other than B.C. residents to buy into the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

One can only wonder at the Premier’s anxiety to get that particular change agreed to without any discussion, rather than to go on, as is the tradition at this particular phase in the session, to discuss the budget address itself. I wonder why they don’t want to proceed with the budget debate.

I have some things to say. Then perhaps we’ll find out a little bit more about the Premier’s refusal to discuss the budget.

As my remarks develop, I think the answer will be quite obvious. I know sometimes it is very hard to determine from the government’s speeches whether or not they are going to vote with the government. I think it will be quite clear just how I intend to’vote, assuming that we do get to the point when there is a vote on the budget.

The members of this House, and I in particular as the opposition Finance critic, will turn to a detailed analysis of the budget. Those on this side of the House believe it behooves us all first to examine it from the point of view of the ordinary citizens of British Columbia. We believe that examination will be focused on the three major issues of the day. Most important is the tragic, record unemployment situation in the province. Second is devastating inflation. Third is foreign ownership, to which the bill the Premier wanted to discuss refers: loss of control of our own economy. Those are the three most important issues in our province today.

The accelerating loss of our ability as a people to deal with unemployment, with inflation or, indeed, with any other economic problem focuses the attention of British Columbians on their government, especially at budget time. When will this government do something to relieve the plight of the more than 112,000 unemployed in our province? When will this government do something to aid the elderly and others in the society who must exist on fixed, small incomes, in defending themselves against devastating increases in the cost of living?

When will this government do something to halt the ever increasing sellout of our land, our natural resources, our capacity as a society to govern ourselves? The answer given in this budget by this government is that apart from some idle braggadocio and apart from agreeing now to spend sums of money taken heedlessly from B.C. taxpayers over the past three years, this government not only intends to but is determined to do absolutely nothing about unemployment, galloping inflation and the continuing, frightening loss of our capacity to deal with such problems.

There are 112,000 people officially listed as unemployed in this province. Millionaires can have little understanding of unemployment, so it is important for us to pause to emphasize the magnitude of the human disaster. One hundred and twelve thousand people are looking for jobs and not finding them. Thousands more are given up by the statisticians and listed as “discouraged.” Thousands more are underemployed. For the month of February 1979, the

[ Page 301 ]

latest month for which we have figures, the actual unemployment rate was 10.3 percent in the Kamloops area — I see the minister for Kamloops is not here, but I’m sure he knows how bad it is; 10.9 percent in the Okanagan — the Premier is absent, but perhaps he’s heard something about it; 11.5 percent on Vancouver Island; and 12 percent in Prince George — the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), I’m sure, will back up these figures. My colleague, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has estimated the total of officially unemployed at 146,000 plus. All that is despite a forest industry which is generating record employment, thanks to continued high U.S. demand and the plunging Canadian dollar and, let me emphasize, no thanks at all to this or any other government.

The members of the opposition have pointed out on many occasions in this House that the record of the Social Credit government in dealing with unemployment is bad. There is a record of failure to act or care. Since Social Credit came to power in 1975, the average unemployment rate has been 8.5 percent of the labour force. Each month that average moves higher. When this statistic was pointed out to the government and it was noted that, by comparison, the average unemployment rate under the New Democratic Party administration was 7.1 percent, the government’s propagandists objected. They said it was not a fair comparison. They would rather compare the British Columbia statistics with the national statistics, as part of a general pattern of propaganda intended to show that British Columbians are better off than other Canadians. I’m afraid that on that comparison too they fail, for the statistics show that in all but one of the years since Social Credit has been in office, the average provincial unemployment rate was higher in British Columbia than it was in Canada as a whole.

In 1976, the average provincial unemployment rate in B.C. was 8.6 percent of the labour force compared to 7.1 percent for the whole of Canada. In 1977 the rate was 8.5 percent compared to 8.1 percent for all of Canada. In 1978 the B.C. rate was 8.3 percent, 0.1 percent higher than for the rest of Canada. But only a month later the pattern was reestablished, and in January of this year B.C.’s average unemployment rate was again moving ahead of the national average.

It seems that no comparison will serve the Social Credit government well. No comparison can be used to hide the embarrassing reality that this government is doing a shamefully poor job of providing jobs. There is no honest way of hiding the fact that Social Credit is creating only 28,000 new jobs each year, while in other provinces, and in some of the states of the United States, the record is better. In B.C., with the previous NDP administration, the number of jobs created each year averaged 43,000 compared to the 28,000 for the present administration.

But there is another comparison and such comparisons offend the government. Perhaps they’ll be interested in these as well. Actually, those of us who present such comparisons are being quite charitable. We have allowed the government of British Columbia to try to wriggle off the statistical hook by including in its comparisons the resource-poor Atlantic region. If the opposition were not so charitable, they might ask Social Credit to compare its record of job creation with the comparable statistics for the United States, where in the past three years unemployment has fallen from 8.5 percent to 6 percent. You’ll note from my earlier remarks that B.C.’s rate was actually lower than the U.S. rate some three years ago. The vigour of the U.S. recovery and especially the continued, very high demand for our forest products, coupled with the tremendous advantage to our exporters from the devalued Canadian dollar, should have resulted in a steady decline of unemployment in B.C. from 1976 onward. No such decline occurred. In fact, more British Columbians are now cursed with this tragedy than at any time since the great depression of the thirties. Why?

From the moment that this government took power in December of 1975, it began to unleash on the people of this province a devastating series of savage tax increases and user rate increases for government services. ICBC went up from 200 to 300 percent, sales tax up 40 percent, ferries went up more than 100 percent, and so on all along the list of government taxes and user rates, and I’ll have more to say about that later.

Not content with that damage, this government went out and took a direct and open part in the loss of B.C. jobs. You’ll recall that although the Premier promised to visit the workers before he made any decision about Railwest, he closed that plant down without visiting it, with the loss of 260 direct jobs in that one plant alone. He was afraid to meet them and discuss it, yet willing to sit here in Victoria, comfortably ensconced in his penthouse, and shut down an industry that was directly employing 260 men.

B.C. Ferries. You recall the argument between the provincial and the federal governments with respect to safety on the ferries and to the staff needed to run those ferries safely. In part because the ferries weren’t

[ Page 302 ]

needed nearly so much — because of what they did to tourism in this province in 1976 — 420 ferry employees were laid off.

BCR extension. Again there was loss of jobs and employment. Extra money was paid to contractors because we quit working on BCR, closed down the Dease Lake extension, and threatened to close down the Fort Nelson extension. That threat is still hanging over the heads of the people of Fort Nelson.

It is very difficult to assess the damage of these brutal policies. A working person earns — let’s say — $16,000 annually before taxes. With a taxable income of $12,000, the loss of his employment withdraws $12,000 from the private economy. The 112,000 unemployed together represent losses of something like $1.3 billion per year to our economy. The provincial government loses about $1,000 per year in provincial income tax from each one and perhaps something like $300 in lost sales tax revenue. There’ll be a reference to that later, too.

As an aside, perhaps the ordinary British Columbian will pause to reflect about the reduction of the sales tax to 4 percent. This is the government that increased the sales tax to 7 percent — a hike of 40 percent — and left that increase in force for more than two years. It was an act of political revenge. We warned them at the time about the depressing effect this would have on the B.C. economy. We warned them at the time about the effect that this would have on the cost of living in the province. Yet, for political reasons, they were determined to go ahead; and they did. They increased the sales tax by 40 percent for more than two years, brought it back two points at the behest of the federal government, and with federal government financing, and are now bringing it back one more point.

Perhaps this is welcome in the economy, but even there I have some questions. This morning I talked to an employee of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. That employee is one of those who is going to be kept on, not one of those who is going to lose his job because of the 5 percent limitation imposed by this government. But in a telephone conversation with me that employee said that he’s going to think every time that he saves one cent on a dollar purchase that what he is doing is contributing to the layoff of some of his fellow workers. That same thing will be happening to school board employees, to municipal employees, to regional district employees, to everyone upon whom or every organization upon which this government has imposed a limitation in spending of 5 percent — a limitation which it professes to live within itself; but I will have more to say about that later.

There is a question for the 112,000 officially unemployed, and for the unofficially unemployed and the underemployed. Those 112,000 paid you a 200 or 300 percent increase in ICBC in order to build the greater glory of the minister responsible for ICBC, “Stick-it in-your-ear-McGeer.” They created a surplus of $500 million.

The taxpayers paid this 40 percent increase in sales tax, the unconscionable increases in all other taxes and user costs, including even health care costs. Those people are entitled to something more from this government, this minister and this budget than the tiresome reiteration of the government’s philosophy that, having wrecked the economy, it must now simply stand aside and wait for the private sector to repair it. Those people are entitled to more from this government, this minister and this budget than yet another silly rehashing of charges about what the previous government did more than three years ago. I would remind you this government has been in office four days longer than was the NDP administration. It’s time they accepted some of the responsibility for what’s happening in this province, and not continue to hide behind what they profess to be some of the bad moves made by the previous administration.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The unemployed, official and unofficial, the underemployed and the business people who rely for their livelihood on working people having wages to spend all have a right to demand more — and they do demand more. Specifically, they have a right to demand and do demand action.

It is possible for a government to protect existing jobs, as the previous government did. And in the process it created BCRIC assets. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned previously that when we arrived in office in September of 1972 we were faced with the threat of some 1,000 jobs being lost in Ocean Falls. Roughly half of the population had already left the community. It was much more than a threat; it was actually happening. We couldn’t stand by and see 1,000 people lose their jobs, so we acted. You will recall that when we arrived in office in September of 1972, Canadian Cellulose assets in the province were in the process of being sold to Weyerhaeuser, who had announced their intention to close down Prince Rupert, with a direct loss of some 1,500 jobs in that community.

Other plant shutdowns were threatened, and

[ Page 303 ]

the NDP government acted. This government has stood idly by to see plant after plant close. It has, indeed, contributed to some of the closings. It is possible for a government that is genuinely dedicated to the well-being of its citizens — instead of a nineteenth century dogma — to create new jobs. It takes imagination, energy, courage, capacity to focus on present responsibilities. As an illustration, the Leader of the Opposition is not here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. STUPICH: Well, I’d like to tell the House just where he is. Today he is addressing a joint session of the State of Alaska Senate and House of Representatives, to pursue the proposal for construction of a major north-south rail link through this province. One would not expect the Leader of the Opposition to be undertaking this kind of a project. One would think the Premier would be interested in doing it. The Leader of the Opposition is doing this because such a project would create jobs. Jobs are desperately needed by the people of British Columbia. This project offers development of the northern areas of the province, a fundamental and stabilizing addition to the industrial infrastructure of the province, and many permanent jobs. It could be a great thing for the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How many?

MR. STUPICH: The minister opposite interrupts to ask how many. I would suggest that he let his imagination run in the same way that the former Premier of this province did. I’m talking about two former Premiers now, W.A.C. Bennett and David Barrett, who had the imagination to see B.C. grow. Both were determined that the BCR would be a railroad that would really serve the needs of the people of this province. This government is the government that has shut down construction of that railroad. This government is the government that is determined that B.C. will not grow because it would be government enterprise and it would be wrong for government enterprise to be successful.

Even in opposition there are ways to find jobs for British Columbians. All seem to elude the government, which is led by a man who would rather slander the Leader of the Opposition and insult the legislators of Alaska and of Washington state. They see possibilities in this rail plan. They are prepared to talk to anyone about it. The Premier of this province is simply not interested. He will not be moved.

So the Leader of the Opposition is in Alaska today, at the invitation of the Alaska state representatives and senators, trying to get jobs for British Columbians, while the Premier sits. Where? Not in the House. Perhaps in his penthouse suite in the Harbour Towers, packing for a junket to Kamloops, where he can take yet another couple of days off, surrounded by his political cronies, in an exercise of self congratulation.

Such a project can, and must be, undertaken if, as a society, we are to avoid the terrible suffering and terrible waste of unemployment that is condoned by the drafters of this budget. It is just plain silly, in the face of that obvious and urgent fact, to prattle on about the ills inherent to big government. The assets of the B.C. government and Crown corporations, not including the immense value of the government’s natural resources, currently stand at about $15 billion — much more than the combined assets of the 50 largest companies operating in the province of British Columbia.

Government is big business, Mr. Speaker, and for government to stand by and say that it’s up to the private sector when government has such an influence on the economy is simply to abdicate its responsibilities to govern. To suggest to people that the only role of government in the face of this staggering situation is to shrink from it, as this budget does, is simply to insult the people of this province and especially to insult those who most need and deserve some action, some responsibility. For those people this budget extends the meaning of the old phrase “adding insult to injury."

Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to inflation, the second problem that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. It’s a human problem in which this government, this minister and this budget equal their record for inactivity in the matter of providing employment. Indeed, setting aside for a moment their own additions to the problem, this government’s response to inflation has been total paralysis.

First, there are some very general and very severe problems. To illustrate, let me refer to page 178 of the report to the Legislature by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. That report both sets out some of the very grave problems and amply illustrates the reasons for the concerns voiced by the NDP members of that committee.

Page 178 of that report reveals that the cost of food to British Columbians more than doubled in the seven years between 1971 and 1978. The cost of food increased 14 percent

[ Page 304 ]

more rapidly during that period than all items taken together. The phrase "all items" includes provisions for things like tobacco, alcohol and entertainment. But food is a different matter. Everybody has to eat.

My colleague, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), has dissociated herself from the committee report because this profound problem is dismissed with the facile observation that British Columbians don’t spend a much higher proportion of their income on food than do most Canadians.

Well, Mr. Speaker, two years and $3 million later, that’s the conclusion. One of the problems is that a great many British Columbians have been reduced by the paralysis of this government to the incomes associated with welfare and unemployment insurance. Page 155 of that same report reveals that for the first time since 1957 the working people of the province of British Columbia are now experiencing a steady decline in real income; for the first time in 22 years there’s a steady decline in real income.

That is something against which to measure the economic performance of this government. It is something against which to assess this minister’s idle boast about benefiting people in this province. Finally, it is something with which to compare the Socred campaign slogan "Get B.C. moving again." Do you remember that slogan, Mr. Speaker? How many British Columbians do you suppose understood that that is what he meant when he was sloganing in 1975? How many British Columbians would have voted for this curious coalition of people who don’t remember from one day to the next what political party they belong to if they had known it would result in a decrease in real personal income of 2.5 percent in the calendar year 1978, the first decrease since 1975?

That’s just the beginning, Mr. Speaker. They had more of the same in store for the province. Take, for example, the forest industry workers of this province. These are among the most fortunate of B.C.’s workers, because they are represented by vigorous labour unions and because they work for an industry that, owing to circumstances which, thank goodness, are beyond the reach of this government, is enjoying an unparalleled period of prosperity.

Those workers signed collective agreements in mid-1977 calling for what seemed to be reasonable increases but, as at January 1 of this year — 18 months into those contracts — the full amount of those increases for the entire two-year period has been consumed by cost-of-living increases. That means every increase in the cost of living in British Columbia for the first six months of this year will represent a loss in the purchasing power that those workers enjoyed in June 1977. It is estimated that the cost-price index will rise by almost 9 percent in 1979. They expect that the purchasing power of their June 1979 paycheques will be 4 or 5 percent lower than their June 1977 paycheques.

It is important for us to emphasize that we are talking about decreases in living standards of people who work for the province’s most prosperous industry, people whose physical productivity is constantly increasing, people who are represented by vigorous trade unions.

What of less fortunate people who earn less to begin with and do not have annual increases? There are 146,000 unemployed who, if they are still receiving UIC benefits, are getting not a nominal increase, but a nominal decrease. Last year these people experienced an increase in food costs of 21 percent. So far this year food costs are increasing at an annual rate of 21.3 percent.

Effective April 1 of this year, recipients of GAIN in this province received an increase of something less than 4 percent in their allowance for food, clothing, medical care and transportation. These people do not have to deal with just the 21 percent increase in food costs that the rest of us experienced last year. As my colleague, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), pointed out to us in the throne speech debate, the Ministry of Health has recently advised us that GAIN recipients have experienced increases ranging from 21 to 61 percent for what the ministry describes as "a moderately low-cost food plan" — Victoria prices.

Those are the data against which we must measure the minister’s boast of economic recovery: 112,000 officially unemployed, ranging up to 146,000; continually declining real purchasing power; an overall inflation rate of over 8 percent and, in the most important of those categories, food increased by 21 percent; the incomes of many standing deathly still and in real terms disastrously declining; and GAIN recipients receiving less than 4 percent to handle increases of up to 60 percent.

Did you know that this was what they bad in mind when they talked in the fall of 1975 about getting the province going again — food costs increasing from 21 to 60 percent, GAIN income increasing at 4 percent?

In delivering his budget yesterday, in a rare but entirely fitting burst of modesty, the Minister of Finance declined to take credit on behalf of his government for the sustained high world demand for forest pro-

[ Page 305 ]

ducts, for the recovery of copper prices and for the windfall revenues that have been derived from the disastrous decline in the value of the Canadian dollar. But this minister and this government have a good deal to do with the health of small businesses, because the prosperity of small businesses — retail, professional and the like — relies directly upon the prosperity of the other British Columbians discussed previously.

What of the record there? In 1975-76, according to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, there were 197 business bankruptcies. That number has increased each year since then, and for the year 1978-79 that figure stands at 684, more than three times the 1975-76 rate. They have the nerve to say it is because more incorporations are taking place now. That might provide employment for lawyers, but it doesn’t deal with the serious problem of the 114,000 unemployed.

Those are the data against which we have to measure this government’s economic and fiscal performance. And, like the unemployed, the people who have been suffering this disastrous inflation have a right to expect better.

You will recall that an election promise of this government was to extend the NDP’s food price freeze beyond January 1976. Remember that promise, Mr. Speaker? They promised a new look at the high cost of living in the north; they promised subsidized mortgage rates to some groups; they promised a "home within reach" for every British Columbian within the near future. As an absolute minimum, the people who have had to bear this disastrous inflation have a right to expect delivery on those promises. These people paid the unbelievable increase in ICBC rates, the 40 percent increase in sales tax, the two point increase in income tax, the ferry increases, the medicare increases; they did everything this government demanded of them. They deserve, in return, as an absolute minimum, delivery at last on this litany of broken promises. And that brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the third point I mentioned in the beginning, the everincreasing foreign control over our land, our natural resources and our economy. The people of this province are profoundly concerned about this fundamental matter, Mr. Speaker, because unless and until we are able effectively to grapple with it, we will be unable to deal in a satisfactory and lasting way with inflation, with unemployment, with the absence of secondary industry, or with any of the range of economic problems that confront us.

Let me illustrate. The B.C. forest industry over the past couple of years, owing, as I’ve said, to the collapse of the Canadian dollar and to the unexpected duration of the U.S. housing boom, has been the recipient of very large windfall profits. Speaking of the Canadian scene, Weyerhaeuser profits in 1977 were $304 million, $413 million in 1978 — an increase of almost 36 percent; Domtar, $27 million in 1977, $63 million in 1978 — an increase of 135 percent; MacMillan Bloedel, $61 million in 1977, $101 million in 1978 — an increase of 66 percent; B.C. Forest Products, $35 million in 1977, $69 million in 1978 — an increase of 96 percent; Crown Zellerbach, $25 million in 1977, $36 million in 1978 — an increase of 47 percent; Pope and Talbot, $12 million in 1977, $17 million in 1978 — an increase of 41 percent; Triangle Pacific, $8 million in 1977, $12 million in 1978 — an increase of 48 percent; Weldwood of Canada, $13 million in 1977, $31 million in 1978 — an increase of 134 percent.

But there is a long-term problem with the B.C. forest industry, especially on the coast. As we harvest the last of the virgin stands of the very large original timber, we move closer to the time when the coast industry will depend upon the production of smaller, second growth timber. A number of observers, including the Pearse commission, have commented upon how slowly the coast industry has taken up the challenge of investment in the new plant and equipment required for the smaller timber.

The question arises: will the windfall profits be reinvested in this province? I’ve described the windfall profits, and my point in describing them is to ask: will they be reinvested in this province where they were generated, or will they be channelled to some other country, perhaps to establish or improve a competing plant in some other part of the world? The concern here of ordinary British Columbians across the province is not a narrow or negative nationalism; it is the concern of a mature people seeking to establish a mature economy.

What has been the record of this government in this vital concern? Foreign takeovers increased from 9 in 1976, to 26 in 1977, and then to 39 in 1978. You’ll recall these stories about the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the attempts they have made to stop foreign takeover of Canadian resources. You’ll recall the stories about the pressure this government put on that agency to try to make it easier for B.C. to sell off ownership of its resources and corporations. You’ll recall the Premier of the province presiding over the sale to foreign owners of quite a large number of B.C. industries, at the same as he was saying B.C. is not for sale. Crows Nest Indus-

[ Page 306 ]

tries was taken over by Shell Oil of the Netherlands; Salmo Forest Products was taken over by Louisiana Pacific, U.S.A.; MK (Canada) Natural Resources was taken over by Elco Mining of Germany; Brameda Resources was taken over by British Petroleums of England; Northwood Properties was taken over by Weyerhaeuser, U.S.A.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is asking what I mean by "taken over." Yes, certainly they were purchased. The purpose of the FIRA was to stop the sellout of Canadian resources.

It was the attitude of the NDP administration to stop the sellout and indeed, when opportunities presented themselves, to reacquire ownership of British Columbia resources, so that the people of British Columbia would own them. We took several steps to make sure that happened.

I mentioned earlier that when Ocean Falls….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Finance listens to selected parts of my speech; he doesn’t recall what I said about how badly they have handled the economy. I suggest he listen to the rest of it and maybe he’ll learn something.

We stopped everything cold. We were the ones who kept Ocean Falls going. We bought those resources for the people of British Columbia. It’s operating to this day. Even this government hasn’t had the nerve to shut that one down. We were the ones who bought Canadian Cellulose for the people of British Columbia for $1. It has since been sold to B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Canadian Cellulose is still operating. It was our government that bought Plateau Mills when it was in the midst of being sold to American investors. We were the ones who bought Kootenay Forest Products when it was in the midst of being sold to foreign investors. This government has presided over one foreign takeover after another, and the Attorney-General asks what I mean by "takeover."

They took them over by buying them. We stood idly by or even encouraged foreigners to buy our resources and our industries. The NDP administration did not let that happen during its terms in office nearly to the extent it has happened under the present administration.

Those are the concerns of ordinary British Columbians. The broad context against which they are judging the performance of this government is in the three most vital areas of concern — unemployment, inflation and foreign control of our economy.

There are, of course, a great number of concerns relating to individual aspects of this budget. To begin with, there is the oft repeated boast about staying within some self-imposed limit of 5 percent — that magical figure of 5 percent. In fact, they have not stayed within 5 percent. If you include the $220-odd million in surplus funds, the $70 million in B.C. Ferries construction costs, the $55 million in B.C. Buildings Corporation capital costs, plus whatever overruns — they had the nerve to criticize us about overruns, but they sure set some records in their three years of administration — if you take all those things into account, we’re not talking about a 5 percent increase in the provincial budget, we’re talking about a 12 1/2 percent increase in the budget.

The municipalities of this province would far prefer to have the freedom to budget within a 12 1/2 percent increase. At least they wouldn’t have to consider laying off hospital and school workers. This budget is a cruel and cynical joke for those people who are laid off and even for those — although the Attorney-General scoffs — who are compelled to lay them off.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Attorney-General will have ample opportunity to participate in this debate at the proper time.

MR. STUPICH: The Attorney-General is a man of good humour and likes to be considered a humanitarian. Does he really want to stand up and support a budget knowing full well that that budget is going to create unemployment for hospital workers and school workers? What’s even more serious is that it is going to withdraw services from patients in hospitals. It is going to require some decrease in the level of services.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not true. Wait till you hear….

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Attorney-General, I’ll come to that too. The Minister of Finance spoke yesterday and did nothing to reassure me that the people who are going to be laid off in the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital will not be laid off. He did nothing to reassure me or the people there that the people who are going to be laid off by the Nanaimo School Board will

[ Page 307 ]

not be laid off.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is asking: "How many are going to be laid off?"

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, you asked the question. I’ve heard the question; I’ve acknowledged the question. How many are laid off in Nanaimo? The layoff has not hit them yet, and I appreciate that there is a $35 million slush fund included in the budget speech yesterday that the minister is going to be able to allot to those hospitals that he thinks warrant it. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister of Health, who is asking me questions now, how much of that $35 million is going to go to the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. How much is going to go to St. Paul’s Hospital? How much is going to go to Lions Gate Hospital? How much is going to go to the Vancouver General Hospital? Let’s hear what is going to happen to that $35 million.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many have been laid off at the Nanaimo hospital? Answer that one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please.

Will the Attorneys-General come to order please — past and present? There may be an opportunity during estimates for these questions to be raised and for the Minister of Health to respond. But I would suggest that during the budget debate is not the appropriate time, and to attempt to gain the floor by standing up as if to answer a question …. We’re not in estimates now. We are on the budget. Will the member for Nanaimo please continue?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if past experience is any guide, the minister will not be nearly so ready to answer questions when his estimates are up.

However, he keeps coming back to the question of how many have been laid off. If he’ll listen, I’ll say again for his benefit — I think perhaps the others have heard me, but he didn’t hear me, obviously — that the layoffs have not hit yet, but they do know that if they’re going to have to live within a 5 percent budget there will have to be some curtailment of services within the hospital, within the school board, within the municipality and within the regional district. How many? That figure isn’t set yet. There is still some hope that some of this $35 million slush fund that has been awarded to the minister will come….

AN HON. MEMBER: It’s $25 million. You haven’t read the budget properly.

MR. STUPICH: Well, $25 million isn’t enough; $35 million isn’t enough; $55 million might be enough to cover the current deficits of the hospitals. But I’ll come back to the hospital budget.

I’m referring now to the highlights on the printed sheet in the beginning of the budget, and I’d like to just comment on a few of these. First with respect to the sales tax cuts, you will recall the history of the sales tax. You recall the increase that was imposed on the people of British Columbia that very political budget of 1976, a budget that was so embarrassing politically that the government was obliged to withdraw it and to reprint a new version that was circulated, perhaps, around the world. You will recall that very embarrassing political document that the government was warned should not be distributed because it would do incalculable damage to the reputation of British Columbia around the world. They withdrew it but they did not withdraw the increase in sales tax by 40 percent, an increase that did incalculable harm to the economy of British Columbia, as we predicted it would.

In 1978 it was rolled back two points with federal government assistance. Now it is being rolled back one further point effective midnight last night.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It’s the lowest in 25 years.

MR. STUPICH: It’s the lowest in 25 years, but I ask you, how long will it take to make up for the extra $250 million per year that they took out of the economy — something like a half a billion dollars that they took out of the economy, that created unemployment in the province, that effected dramatic increases in the cost of living? How long is it going to take to make up that one cent on the dollar for the damage done by the original increase by 40 percent in sales tax?

It reminds me of a story that the Attorney-General — this Attorney-General — reminded me of yesterday when we were talking about this. It was a story about Boy Scouts walking up a hill. When they got to the point where they

[ Page 308 ]

couldn’t go any farther, they loaded rocks into their packsacks and struggled along a little farther and kept loading rocks. Finally, when they couldn’t go any farther, they started to take the rocks out. It was so easy then to get to the top of the hill when they took the load off.

MR. MACDONALD: They only took some rocks out.

MR. STUPICH: In this case they’ve taken a few. As I suggested earlier — when the question came up as to whether or not it is an election budget — they have taken some of the rocks out of the packsack. I suggest the government is now going to wait to see whether or not the public opinion polls reflect that this government has done a good job in the minds of the voters. If the public opinion polls are not attractive enough, then they’ll take a few more rocks out of the packsack, and they’ll keep on taking those rocks out of the packsack until, finally, the public opinion polls tell them they’ve gone far enough and they can now go to the people with some hope of being re-elected. But their time may run out; there may not be time, at the rate at which they’re taking the rocks out of the packsack, for them to have the election within their five-year period.

Another item in the highlights is assessment on farm and agricultural reserve land. I heard the Minister of Finance being interviewed about this. The following question was put to him, a question that I had wondered about myself: What is going to be the effect of this reduced assessment on farmland on municipal budgets, regional district budgets and hospital district budgets? Who is going to pick up the load? The Minister of Finance said it will be spread out among the other taxpayers. Well, that’s great, Mr. Speaker. One of the highlights in this budget is to shift the taxation load from the farmers to their neighbours. That’s great for the farmers, but awful tough on the neighbours. They are shifting part of the property taxation load from the farmers to their neighbours, and we’re supposed to stand up and say that is great, that is wonderful. I think it’s terrible.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Do you really want to find out what we’d do about it? We’ll tell you when the time comes. There are other solutions, yes, but the solution is not to shift it from one group of property owners to another group of property owners — not in our minds.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The third highlight which I have marked is that no low-income person will pay more B.C. income tax than federal tax. The budget speech tells us this will benefit 65,000 taxpayers, with tax reductions ranging up to $89 each. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is a good thing. But the tragedy of this budget, at this time and in this province, is that while there are as many as 65,000 income tax payers to whom the saving of up to $89 will be extremely important, many other taxpayers, who are paying so little tax now that they are not paying more in provincial tax than federal tax, and many others who are not paying any income tax at all, will not be affected by this. How many are there in those two categories, Mr. Speaker? The tragedy is that this bonus of $89 per year to that group of people would be so important to many of our citizens.

Here’s another gift, and the next one I’ve marked — special dividend tax credit to B.C. residents on dividends from B.C. public corporations, which is approximately a 5 percent reduction on B.C. income tax. For how many people? I heard one news broadcast yesterday evening, I think, which said that this would affect quite a few people. If you have $3,000 in dividend income — and there are quite a few people in that category — look at the tax relief you’re going to get. Yes, Mr. Speaker, well might you raise your eyebrows, because I suggest you’re not one of those who are going to get the benefit of the reduction, to the extent of 5 percent income tax on $3,000 worth of income. I wonder just how many people in the province are going to feel that the government has done something for them in this particular provision. A 5 percent reduction in their B.C. income tax on the dividends they receive from B.C. corporations is a great gimmick.

Here’s another highlight — a new type of investment company, one which is going to get involved in special high-risk enterprises. Well, I think this is a corporation which will probably never see the light of day. It’s in the budget. Members opposite will likely talk about it during the budget debate and that’s likely the last we’ll ever hear of it.

It’s a new investment corporation that will presumably be trying to do some of the job that the Federal Business Development Bank is not doing, and they look at risky operations. So that means they are going to be looking at operations that are even riskier than the ones that the "court of last resort" currently looks after. Who is going to invest in a corporation that is lending money to a risky

[ Page 309 ]

operation that the FBDB will not lend to? What interest rate would have to be charged for the investors in that company to make anything at all, if we’re dealing with high-loss operations? A new type of corporation is promised to the people of British Columbia, one that will do the job that the Federal Business Development Bank is not able or is not willing to do, one that will do the job — and this would not be nearly so difficult — that BCDC is not willing or is not able to do. It’s got to be easy to find something that would do that — one willing to do the job that the Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development is not willing and not able to do. The corporation that is going to move into the gap left by those three organizations, I suggest to you, is going to have very little impact on the B.C. economic scene.

Personal income tax deductions: two points. I suppose we should all welcome that. It will be effective July 1, 1979. We should remember, I suppose, in the same way that the rocks were put in the packsack, that July 1, 1979, is exactly three years to the day since this same bunch of coalitionist-opportunists increased personal income tax in the province of British Columbia by those same two points. Three years later they’re promising to relieve us of the burden they imposed upon us three years ago.

Accelerated write-off on income tax credit for the cost of adapting buildings to the needs of the handicapped. We can all welcome that. One cannot help but wonder just how effective it’s going to be in getting buildings changed. I suppose, generally, we’re dealing with buildings of a class where the write-off is probably 5 percent at most, talking about a depreciated value. They’re going to get some reduction of the provincial portion of their income tax for making these changes. They might make the changes, but I think the incentive will be because they want to do something for the handicapped people rather than because of the incentive offered in this particular gimmick in the budget. I hope they do make the changes. I doubt very much that this will be the straw that tips the balance in favour of making any appreciable changes.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister interjects that they’re asking the federal government to make changes as well. I appreciate that. It is in the budget speech. There are a number of instances in the budget speech where the Minister of Finance hedges his promises by saying: "We’re asking the federal government to participate in this program for some of the grants. We’re asking the federal government to participate in several of the tax changes."

If they come back, it’s not necessary to get federal government participation in the gifts. It’s necessary to get federal government agreement in the collection of the income tax. I agree with that. But you don’t have to get the federal government to participate in the gifts, or to participate in the tax credits. We’re pursuing an argument here that perhaps is of great interest to the Minister of Finance and myself, and loses everybody else. I hope we get the changes. I hope we do get our buildings and walkways and stairways changed for the handicapped. I don’t think this is enough to accomplish it. I think the government will have to go further than….

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Well, you weren’t listening. My point is that the financial incentive is not nearly important enough to do it. There have to be some other reasons for people wanting to do these things. I hope the other reasons will be sufficient for them to so act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It’s good motivation.

MR. STUPICH: I agree. I’m afraid it will not accomplish its desired aims. But that’s fine. In other words, it isn’t going to cost the government anything to do it because nobody will act on this particular promise — at least, not because of this promise.

Homeowner grants are increased. That’s good too. There’s been no general increase in the homeowner grant since 1975. Now the government is increasing the homeowner grant by $100. Four years — that’s $25 a year, a much lower rate than under the regime of W.A.C. Bennett and a much lower rate than under the NDP administration of David Barrett.

We’re certainly not going to say it shouldn’t be put into place. It’s nice to get this $100. But one cannot help but suspect the motives of a Minister of Finance and of a government who for four years load an increasing share of the cost of education, to say nothing of other government services, on the homeowners; who for four years load these additional costs on homeowners and then say: "We’re going to give you a break. We know taxes have gone up much more than $100. But we’re going to reduce them $100 this year. Aren’t we good?"

There are grants for the Vancouver trade and convention centre, the Victoria convention centre, and a sports centre or a stadium in

[ Page 310 ]

the lower mainland. These are great projects. Unfortunately these are some of the ones that are hedged with the possibility of getting federal government participation, which is not too likely at present.

There are a lot of commitments the federal government has entered into that we’re all kind of wondering about right now. We’re wondering about one in Nanaimo; we’re wondering just exactly where the federal government commitment is. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be aware of that one.

The next point to which I would like to refer is $5 million for a low-interest loan program to help small- and medium-sized businesses in metropolitan areas. I simply ask the question: why metropolitan areas? I think it’s unfortunate to pick on certain areas and provide special programs and then have to decide whether it’s a metropolitan area or an outside area. Why not make the same programs apply to all parts of the province? Perhaps there will be opportunity to get into that later on.

There are $7.5 million for the purchase of additional BCDC shares. Doesn’t that really grab you? I’m not sure whether you have had an opportunity to look at the BCDC balance sheet. Under the heading "Share Capital" on the assets and liabilities side of the down sheet there’s a heading "Authorized and Issued" — 250,000 shares at a par value of $100 each. All 250,000 were authorized and issued at a par value of $100 each for a total capital value of $25 million. We know we’re going to buy some more shares. We’ve got to do two things. We have to increase the authorized capital of the company so that BCDC can issue 7 1/2 million more shares — that is, create more paper. Then we have to put the $7.5 million into the company.

I would suggest that we’re watering the stock to some extent. Those shares currently have a book value of $25.825, because of surpluses that have accumulated in BCDC. So if we’re buying some more shares at $100 a share, we’re getting them too cheap. We should be paying more than that per share.

One I’d like to comment about is $26.1 million for debt retirement that they attribute to the government that was in office between 1972 and 1975. That’s what the Socreds say, but it’s not what the accounts of this province show. There is no debt showing up in public accounts until after this administration was in charge of the financial affairs of this province for a full year — indeed for 15 1/2 months. I have the evidence in black and white figures, dollars recorded in the government’s own documents, illustrating clearly that this administration of coalitionist opportunists can no more make an honest budget presentation than a leopard can change its spots.

British Columbia citizens are not as stupid as the Socreds like to think. More and more of them are coming to realize that the distasteful deceptiveness of this administration’s gimmicks and statements is an inherent and inevitable product of an artificial political coalition that is founded not on common principles but purely on personal hunger for power at any price. The public, instinctively, is coming to recognize that a group of politicians who desert their original parties for the sake of opportunistic power will eventually and inevitabaly betray the public itself.

A politician who has no personal commitment to principle will sooner or later betray his own honour and his own province. Sooner or later the spots will show through. With this government they showed through sooner rather than later. Here we have an administration — yes, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) might well get in on this discussion — that bitterly opposed and condemned the acquisitions made by the NDP to bolster and strengthen our provincial economy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, I wonder if you would consult your references, sir; I think the use of the word "betrayal" is unparliamentary. I think the inference of "betrayal" is perhaps overstating the case in terms of parliamentary language. The member for Nanaimo is noted for a moderate tone; he is most uncharacteristic today, I might say. I wonder who the author is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Would the member withdraw the word which the minister finds unparliamentary, the word "betrayal"?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. I can appreciate that that particular individual would like me to withdraw.

Here we have an administration that bitterly opposed and condemned the acquisitions made by the NDP to bolster and strengthen our provincial economy. Yet when the Socreds came to power they did not hesitate to milk those NDP assets and even to sell them off in order to raise money for vote-catching gimmicks, without themselves adding one jot of improvement to the structure of our economy.

While unemployment soars to 112,000, they divert attention with gimmicks instead of creating the structural changes necessary to

[ Page 311 ]

cope with the present and future unemployment problem their neglect has created. With soaring inflation they have refused to protect the vulnerable on fixed incomes by indexing. This administration has treated its public responsibility to present and future generations like one of their political rallies. Wear some funny plastic hats, blow some horns, throw out some streamers and say, loudly enough to drown out the cries of anguish from suffering citizens: "Happy times are here again."

I ask people to reflect on the contrast between the NDP and the present Socred administrations. Despite being reviled, our administration year by year invested public money in adding to provincial assets to create more jobs and security — purchasing Columbia Cellulose and a significant position in Westcoast Transmission, creating a B.C.-run insurance corporation; setting up the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. These had a major impact on our province’s economic infrastructure. In a sense, we were buying geese to lay golden eggs for the people of British Columbia. But this government, after cashing in the golden eggs, is now rushing to sell off the geese as well. They think it’s good politics, because they believe it will bring them votes now. We think it’s bad government, because it’s betraying our citizens tomorrow.

It only means there will be no end to the terrible trends of higher unemployment, higher prices, higher bankruptcies and higher foreclosure rates that have become the real hallmarks of this coalition of opportunists. If you look beyond the funny hats, the fixed grins and the phony figures…. Mr. Speaker, there was some scoffing at my remarks to the effect that there was no debt in the public accounts — 3 1/2 months after this government came to office, March 31, 1976. It so happens that I have photocopies of page A3 of "Public Accounts," dated March 31, 1977, and they show the figures for 1977 and the figures for 1976. Mr. Speaker, I have additional copies of these and, with your permission, I would like to ask the Page to deliver them so that every member might be able to refer to them and be aware of the truth in my statement to the effect that 3 1/2 months after the election there was no net direct debt in the province of British Columbia. Members will have an opportunity to read this when they get their copy.

Under the heading "Liabilities, General Fund, 1976" it lists the outstanding cheques, accounts payable and other current liabilities, and then it comes to unnmatured debt. Under it there is a line saying "Deficit repayment." In 1976 there was not one penny. "Other debts" were $41,639,332, less sinking fund investments of $41,639,332.

At March 31, 1976, the figure at the bottom of this column — the total of unmatured debt at this date in time, 3 1/2 months after this government assumed office — shows not one penny of debt. Would the government members disavow public accounts? Would they say it’s not worth the paper it’s written on — in this case, photocopied on? The debt does appear by March 31, 1977. Oh, indeed, they did manage to create a deficit by March 31, 1977, but it took them some time after that period — 3 1/2 months after the election — to cook this debt and have it show on public accounts.

Getting back to the list of highlights, now that we’ve gone through that question, now that the members have had an opportunity to read from public accounts, there is the $14 million for reconstruction of the Fort Nelson railroad. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether that $14 million will ever be spent. This government shut down the Dease Lake extension. This government had the people in Fort Nelson living under a cloud for a while, wondering for three months whether or not the Fort Nelson extension was going to be closed down. Finally, in anticipation of an election in the fall of 1978, the Premier announced that the Fort Nelson extension would not close down at this time. The royal commission said that it would take something like $40 million to upgrade that line. We now have in the budget $14 million, much less than the amount required to do the job. One wonders whether or not this promise will ever be implemented.

Another item in the budget is $10 million for an intensified reforestation program. This isn’t public accounts, but I question whether that statement is worth the paper it’s written on. I would like to review the history, a little bit, of reforestation, because I think this is an extremely important issue. It’s an issue in which I’ve been interested ever since I…. Well, I was going to say since I read the first Sloan report, but even earlier than that I read a manuscript for a book that was written in the 1930s, a book that could see ahead to the day when we would have cut our first growth of timber and would be looking at the second growth, a book that tried to impress upon the minds of the readers the importance of getting involved in a serious program of reforestation. That was written 45 years ago.

The Sloan commission reports both pointed out the need to do something about reforestation. When we arrived on the scene, the budget with which we had to live for the first eight

[ Page 312 ]

months of office — that is the budget for the year ended March 31, 1973, that had been passed by the Legislature in the spring of 1972 — provided the grand and glorious amount, out of a budget of $1.5 billion, of $5 million for reforestation. Now isn’t that really something?

In the budget that was presented to the Legislature in the spring of 1975 by the NDP administration, that figure had increased by 300 percent to almost $20 million. That was not nearly enough, not nearly what we should have had, but it was 2.34 times what it was in 1973. It takes time to grow trees. It takes time to prepare the ground, it takes time to collect seedlings, it takes time to plant them to grow. There’s a limit to the rate at which you can grow in a reforestation program. Nevertheless, we did increase the expenditures in this period by 2.34 times between 1973 and 1976.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I’m sorry, the budget increased by 2.34 times in that period. The provincial budget went from $1.45 billion to $3.2 billion initially, and then there was a revised budget that increased it to $3.4 billion. Even taking the higher figure, the increase in the provincial budget between 1973 and 1976 was 134 percent — 2.34 times what it was. But in that time our provision for reforestation increased four times, much faster than did the provincial budget in total.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What’s the record under the Social Credit administration, Mr. Speaker? Remember, the budget for reforestation in 1976 under the NDP administration was $19.8 million. In 1978 — two years later — the budget for reforestation stood at $19.8 million. It was still the same figure. There had been absolutely no progress. However, as part of a job creation program last year when they thought it was going to be the election year, the budget did have an extra gimmick in there — another $10 million for reforestation. If you look at the estimates alone, in the years between 1976 and 1978, when the provincial budget increased by 35 percent, the provision for reforestation increased by only 5 percent. If you include the extra $10 million, then it increased by 55 percent, a little more than the increase in the budget, but not nearly the same rate of increase as was provided for under the NDP administration. But even then, Mr. Speaker, the fact that it was a little bit more than the increase in the budget is encouraging, if one could have any faith in this government to spend the money that it voted for reforestation.

Look at the interim financial statements. On page 10 we see that in the first ten months of this fiscal period, of the money that was voted for reforestation, $5 million remains unspent and is not going to be spent, because the time for reforestation is over for this fiscal year. Out of a niggardly provision of $19.8 million, they have not spent $5 million. Then you look at the special $10 million that they put in, this great job creation program they announced last year. There’s $10 million for special reforestation, and goodness only knows it needs it, because that extra $10 million simply brought their 1978 figures up, in terms of real dollars, to what we were doing in 1976. When you look at that you find that they have underspent there as well by $3.8 million. So out of their total provision of less than $30 million, almost one-third remains unspent, and they will, in fact, be spending very much less in terms of real dollars than we spent in our last year, and even less in terms of inflated dollars. If the people of British Columbia needed any reason for throwing this bunch out of office, that reason alone is sufficient — the way in which they have mishandled the largest resource of this province, the most important resource.

There’s a job experience program costing $5 million to prepare people for work. What work? There are 112,000 unemployed and they’re going to spend $5 million training students to create more unemployment. Think of the construction trades. This will really grab them. With so many unemployed tradesmen in the province, let’s spend $5 million creating some more unemployed tradesmen.

They have proposed $25 million for the stabilization of health and hospital costs. This is something to which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was referring earlier, and he is right. I did have the wrong figure; $25 million is the figure.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Someone asked me if I’d ever been right. I prefer to be left rather than right.

I wonder if the Minister of Health recalls that last year in the budget the provision for hospitals was reduced by $6 million, from $616 million down to $610 million. It is up this year to $649 million. So in the matter of hospital care we have provided for an increa-

[ Page 313 ]

se, over a two-year period, of $33 million. That’s a 5 percent increase over two years. They didn’t impose the 5 percent increase a couple of months ago for hospitals; they imposed it two years ago. At what cost to human suffering?

For new recreational facilities there is $5 million.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about the $120 million for long-term care?

MR. STUPICH: That’s another program: It’s a good program. I welcome that, but what about hospital care? The Minister of Health will possibly have an opportunity to tell us about that when he speaks during the budget debate, and if not, we’ll ask some questions during estimates. The facts of the matter are that for hospital care there has been a 5 percent increase in two years, at a time when — except for a period of about a year and a half, when more people were moving out of B.C. than were moving in — generally the population of B.C. has been increasing and the need for hospital care has been increasing with the increase in population. I know you did scare people out of the province for a while, but they’re coming back in spite of you.

There is $5 million for new recreational facilities. At a time when unemployment was much lower, as I pointed out earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the NDP spent $7 million in 1974 on this kind of a program; $16 million in 1975; and in our part year of 1976, $14 million. That’s an average expenditure of over $12 million.

With unemployment as high as it is, this government boasts about a job-creating program that is providing for this particular program, on the average, something less than a third of what we spent.

There wasn’t a community in the province of British Columbia — certainly none that I have visited, and I have visited a lot of them in the last three years and three months — where they did not make good use of the community recreational facilities fund program. It did create employment. It did call upon the municipalities to initiate the projects. They’re the ones who had to match it with $2 of their own for every $1 the government put in. It did provide recreational facilities that are being used all over the province. The minister says it’s pouring money down a rathole, and that might be his understanding of a recreational program. I pity him if that is the case.

To come back to another item in the budget, the denticare program, I’m sorry it’s not in the budget: Why not? Could it be that they dreamed up this scheme too late to include it in the budget, that they were desperately looking for some new gimmick with which they could approach the people of British Columbia? They thought of denticare, but by then the budget was so far along in preparation that they couldn’t amend the budget to include it. Could it simply be that they don’t know how much it’s going to cost? They don’t want to provide any amount for it in the budget because this would push them over their magic 5 percent limit, a limit they have ignored. They wanted to be able to say that they had kept some of the figures within 5 percent, and if denticare were included, then of course they would go over that limit.

The last comment I want to make on this particular part of the budget is about the equity of the provincial tax system. The Premier had something to say about equity and individuals — the equality of individuals. I’m reminded of a quotation from Anatole France: "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."

In some respects the budget is equal. The budget gives all of us the same opportunity to buy 5,000 BCRIC shares at $6 apiece. So 2.4 million people in the province have the same opportunity to apply for $30,000 worth of shares in BCRIC. I think even MLAs can. Everybody has the same opportunity to make use of the provision in the budget that gives us an additional 5 percent tax credit on our B.C. Income tax if we invest in B.C. corporations. Isn’t that great? That’s real equality. That’s the kind of equality that grabs the millionaires in the Socred coalition cabinet, but it’s not the kind of equality, I suggest, that would appeal to the people who are living on low, fixed incomes.

I have a copy of a Social Credit ad that was used in the last campaign. I think with all the rumblings and rumours that are going around, maybe it is a good time to remind them of something of what they said in 1975. It’s Tuesday, December 16, five days after the election. The Daily Colonist thought it wise to print in one editorial the collected promises of this particular group — the promises on which they were elected. I marked some of them.

"An anti-inflation freeze on taxes." In the last six years in this province we’ve had two Premiers. One Premier went around the province campaigning in 1972, promising not to increase taxes on people but to get more money from the natural resources of this province. PremierDave Barrett kept that promise. One Premier

[ Page 314 ]

went around this province promising an anti-inflation freeze on taxes. This Premier, while he was in office, kept the promise he made to the people of British Columbia when he campaigned in 1972. That Premier broke faith with the people of this province. He proceeded, very shortly after the election was over, to increase almost every tax that was under his authority to deal with and to increase the user rates for almost every government service. This Premier kept his promise to the people. That Premier broke his promise the moment he was elected.

"An anti-inflation freeze on all government spending." The previous Premier was accused of having three or four people working in his office, whereas W.A.C. Bennett got along with one and a half. How many does the present Premier have? If it’s spending out of lottery funds that is calculated to win seats for government members or to save seats for government members, then there’s no freeze on government spending. The freeze in government spending is on needed public services such as hospital care and school boards. That’s where the freeze is. It’s a freeze that’s hurting the citizens of this province, not the people who are running this government.

"A means-tested program to end property taxes for low-income senior citizens and for the handicapped." Remember the programs initiated by the former Premier of this province, who went around promising to do something for the needy, for the elderly, for the handicapped? Remember the introduction of the Mincome program in the fall of 1972? This Premier made that promise, and this Premier delivered on that promise. That Premier promised to do something for the elderly. He promised to take property taxes off completely for those over the age of 65. As I pointed out, property taxes have gone up steadily for four years.

This year there has been some increase in the homeowner grant. But let’s look at the actual increase. In the years between 1973 and 1976, when the NDP controlled the finances, the homeowner grant went up across the board from $185 to $280, a 58 percent increase. Under the Social Credit administration the homeowner grant goes up from $280 to $380, a 36 percent increase.

This Premier promised to reduce property taxes. That Premier promised to reduce taxes. This Premier, when he was in office, effected his promise. He made good on his promise. He reduced property taxes. That Premier promised to reduce taxes for the elderly. And what did he do? When we were in office the homeowner grant for the elderly was increased from $235 to $380, a 62 percent increase. In a comparable period under the present administration, in light of the Premier’s promise to do more for the elderly, the homeowner grant has gone from $380 to $580, an increase of 53 percent. Our increase was 62 percent. Their increase is 53 percent. This Premier kept the faith with the people who voted for him. That Premier has broken faith with the people who voted for him.

The Mincome program, the first ever of its kind in Canada, was promised by this Premier and delivered. As I pointed out earlier, there has been an increase of 4 percent in the GAIN program by today’s Premier in the face of a cost-of-living increase in the neighbourhood of 10 percent.

The Pharmacare program, promised by Premier Dave Barrett and delivered by Dave Barrett, has been emasculated by the present Premier of the province, Premier Bill Bennett, who said: "Let’s give it to everybody, but let’s give them each less. Let’s take away from the elderly so that everyone, even those who have absolutely no need for it" — such as many of us who could get along very well without that Pharmacare program — "will have to pay $100 more so that we share in the benefits of the Pharmacare program."

Premier Dave Barrett promised increased aid to school districts. The local mill rate and the local property taxation rate was reduced when the NDP were in office. This Premier Dave Barrett kept that promise. That Premier Bennett promised the same thing. The mill rate for educational purposes on the local property owner has increased every year that Premier Bill Bennett has been in office.

Two years ago this government under the present Premier promised to take off the local taxpayers all the operating costs of community colleges, and brought in legislation to effect that promise. For two years the people of British Columbia have been waiting for that section of the legislation to be proclaimed, and for the government to keep that promise. After waiting two years, yesterday in the budget speech we were told that the government was finally going to act on that promise. One wonders at the timing. Having waited two years, why not wait three years? Or why wait two years. Why not do it in one year? Or why not do it when they promised to do it in the first place?

Another item I’ve marked in this list of Socred promises: extend the NDP’s food freeze beyond January 1. When we were faced with the wage-price program, announced by the Prime Minister, the government of British Columbia acted by freezing the cost of food, energy, drugs. On behalf of the people of British

[ Page 315 ]

Columbia, this Premier said he was not prepared to stand idly by and see wages frozen while the cost of food and energy rise out of all proportion to the increases that were being provided in the wage-price program. This Premier argued that at federal-provincial conferences, and he acted to protect the people of British Columbia.

The man who now occupies the Premier’s chair promised during the 1975 campaign to extend the food price freeze beyond January 1. This appeared in an editorial in the Colonist on December 16, 1975. And that’s the last we ever heard of that promise. If it weren’t so serious, one could almost laugh at it: it was a serious promise by the person who is now the Premier of this province that he would extend the NDP food price freeze beyond January 1. I wonder if he even remembers it, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if he even remembered it the day after he said it. He certainly didn’t remember it the day after the election. The Premier who now sits as Leader of the Opposition, acted immediately on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I attended federal-provincial conferences and was told by senior civil servants that they wished that the federal government had shown the intestinal fortitude of the NDP administration in B.C. led by Dave Barrett, had frozen prices as did the government of British Columbia. But that intestinal fortitude was lacking on the part of the federal government and has been lacking ever since on the part of the administration that is, at this moment, as far as we, know, still in office in the province of British Columbia.

They also promised to take a look at the high cost of living in the north, by dusting off a four-year-old study. Well, maybe this government did look. If they did look, they kept very quiet about it. I’ve had an opportunity to visit the north quite recently and have found out that while they may have dusted off a four-year-old study, they’ve certainly done nothing about the cost of living in the north.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about the record of the NDP administration, the efforts we made to maintain employment in the province, the new revenue we generated for the province. I didn’t deal with B.C. Petroleum Corporation, but I think it’s worth recalling to ourselves that that organization, just five years old, is an organization that has provided hundreds of millions of dollars for the people of British Columbia, hundreds of millions of dollars that would have gone out of the province had it not been for the NDP administration in B.C. Had Premier Dave Barrett not led his government in establishing the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, those hundreds of millions of dollars would have been extracted from the people paying for natural gas and would have gone to the international oil companies, as are the tremendous windfall profits now being made in the Peace River area of this province because of this government’s approach to the international oil companies.

I think it’s worth noting that there has been one industry, if you like, in the province of British Columbia that has always been way ahead of any other in making a profit. In Public Accounts it’s called, perhaps euphemistically, a government enterprise, and the amount of revenue coming in from this government enterprise is shown annually under that heading. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, it’s the B.C. liquor distribution branch. This has always been the most successful industry in the whole province in terms of making profits – always until 1978, when it was surpassed by a corporation established by the NDP administration of Dave Barrett, a corporation established for the people of British Columbia, a corporation which even this government has not yet dared to tinker with. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation, for the first time in the history of any corporation, earned more money in 1978 than did the B.C. liquor board — $181.1 million against $172.5 million. But don’t worry, Mr. Speaker. They’re increasing liquor prices much faster than they’re increasing gas prices, so I’m sure that will soon turn around. I haven’t seen the 1979 figures yet. The Attorney-General who sits on my right tells me that it’s up to $215 million in the estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve had quite a bit to say about reforestation, because I think it is the most serious problem in our province, one that has been neglected by the Social Credit administration during its first 20-year term in office, one that we did our best to deal with in our short three years and 99 days, one which the present administration has been marking time on in its three years and 103 days. I remind you that in the year ending March, 1976, $19.8 million was earmarked for this vital program. In current dollars, that would-be about $28.5 million.

The budget we are dealing with now allots $20.6 million, plus a special $10 million, for a total of $30.6 million. That is despite the disastrous news we’ve been hearing from Fort Nelson and other areas of the province, and despite anticipated revenues direct from forestry — completely leaving out the corporate and individual income tax from the industry — of $223 million, an increase of 55 percent over last year. The real increase over

[ Page 316 ]

the 1975-76 figure is only marginal.

This government is, of course, as I have said before, not the first government of B.C. to fail in this matter of reforestation. However, it is this government which continues to fail, despite the clearest and most frequent warnings.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget which, apart from returning to taxpayers a tiny fraction of what was needlessly taken from them by this government, does nothing for the three very grave problems that beset the British Columbia economy. It does nothing and attempts nothing to alleviate the disastrous unemployment problem; it does nothing and attempts nothing to alleviate the increasingly severe inflation problems which so viciously gnaw at the income of the elderly and of our poor; and, finally, it does nothing and attempts nothing to halt or even to slow down the rate at which our land, our resources and our economy fall into the hands of giant foreign corporations. It does, of course, finally and as an act of deathbed repentance, spend the sums of money which were senselessly taken from B.C. taxpayers in the earlier years of this government and which, if spent then, might have prevented some of our present problems.

This budget does nothing, Mr. Speaker. After three years of fiscal strangulation by this government, the people of this province desperately needed a budget of vision, a budget of imagination, a budget of courage. Rather, what we have is a budget of fiscal deceit and economic paralysis, and a budget which will not be supported by the official opposition.

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Phillips, Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would like to move Motion 2, standing in the name of the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd).

Leave granted.

On Motion 2.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, the motion reads:

"That this House recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Dr. Karl A. Friedmann, the person unanimously recommended by the Legislative Assembly for appointment as ombudsman by the ombudsman special committee as an officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to the ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act."

Mr. Speaker, in making this motion I would like to take the opportunity to express a sincere vote of thanks to all members of the committee who dedicated themselves to searching out and unanimously recommending a candidate of Dr. Friedmann’s calibre, integrity and quality. The province of British Columbia and, indeed, the people of British Columbia will be well served by this most outstanding individual.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee I, too, wish to endorse the recommendation made by the chairman, and say how very pleased I am that we reached a unanimous decision. I am sure British Columbia will be well served by the choice of Professor Friedmann.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask if we could delay this for just one second. I know the member for Revelstoke- Slocan (Mr. King) would like to say a word, and that’s all we have.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps there are other members who wish to talk while he is arriving.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As a member who served on that particular committee, I too would like to add my support to the motion presented by the fine chairman of this committee. The chairman congratulated the committee but he didn’t congratulate himself. I think he chaired the committee meetings very well. I think all of the meetings were amiable. I think that considering that the committee processed in excess of some 500 applications individually, the work was expedited. and I would like to wish Dr. Friedmann the very best of luck and success, and let it be made known publicly at this time that I have some 18 cases for him when he assumes office.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would just like to say, as a member of the committee, that the committee worked well and functioned well because of the astute chairmanship of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). I would like to compliment him on his chairmanship, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: As a former member of the ombudsman committee, I would just like to briefly make a few comments. Number one, I want to congratulate and thank all members of the committee and the chairman on conducting a committee function that was well organized. It was harmonious; it was dedicated to achieving

[ Page 317 ]

a much-needed goal in the province of British Columbia. It is not too frequent, either in this Legislature or perhaps in the political life of this province, that all-party committees function with a degree of good will and the degree of dedication that this one functioned with. I think it should be noted. I would also like to express my thanks to a former member of that committee, the former Liberal leader, Gordon Gibson, who attended many of the meetings and made a significant contribution to the discussions.

Finally, I would like to say how much I am gratified at the selection that the committee made. I think Dr. Karl Friedmann is an eminent Canadian. I believe that his background and experience in the field of studying ombudsman work and writing books on the subject and understanding the human needs of people where there is a gap in the law and in the system of redress now will make a significant contribution to the democracy and to the guarantee of individual rights in this province.

Our party was very pleased to serve in that process and I wanted to state that for the record, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LLOYD: I would just like to add my remarks, as the secretary of the committee. I found it a very interesting committee. One of the things, of course, that we had to ascertain was exactly what we were looking for in an ombudsman. I think our trip to Alberta to study Dr. Ramdall Ivany’s office was a great experience for all of us.

One of the most encouraging aspects of that, I believe, Mr. Speaker, was what he said it had done to correct abuses in Alberta. Apparently when people are running into the same frustration on legislation, the ombudsman’s actions and reports have done a lot to correct it so that it wasn’t continued in the future.

I think the ombudsman office being established in B.C. and the proposed legislation for a bill of rights for our citizens will go a long way to protect the individual in our society. I wish to join the rest of the committee in congratulating and wishing the best of luck to Dr. Friedmann in his position.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, having piloted the bill through the House and having advocated this measure since 1966, I’m really more than delighted to see the historic and great progress that we have made. I, too, would like to join with the sentiments of the House and express my very best wishes to Dr. Friedmann and wish him every success and every fulfilment in the discharge of his duties.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just note for the record, and for Dr. Friedmann, that it was unanimous today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to make a very brief statement by way of a correction in yesterday’s remarks.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yesterday, during the budget speech, in referring to the revenue measures, the first one I described was the new change in the assessments covering farm lands and agricultural land reserve properties, in which I referred to a new exemption of 50 percent covering those properties for school and general purposes. The correct answer to this or description of it is that it applies only for school purposes, not also for general purposes. Therefore I refer members to page 41 in the printed copy of the budget speech, the paragraph which now reads on page 41: "This change will come into effect on December 31, 1979, and apply for purposes of the 1980 and succeeding years’ assessments for general and school purposes." So you should remove the words: "general and". It should apply for school tax purposes only.

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of the correction, or the effect of the correction, is to make the spoken word agree with the written word.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would ask for a short recess. His Honour is in the vicinity, I understand. We have some business to do with him.

MR. SPEAKER: I’m advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be approaching shortly. I declare a short recess.

The House took recess at 4:45 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:48.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. Shall we all rise.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act No. 1, 1979.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

[ Page 318 ]

thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud to stand and take my place in this budget debate, because it is, bar none, the best budget that has ever been brought down in the province of British Columbia. I listened, with interest, to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), the financial critic for the socialist party this afternoon. He had a very difficult time attacking this budget, going around in circles, reminding me of a hen thrashing around in a straw pile, trying to find something he could really condemn the budget for. But he didn’t succeed. There was no mention — none whatsoever — of comparing the records of, for instance, the Insurance Corporation, BCBC, the Development Corporation, the railway or the operation of the ferries. Was there any mention of labour-management relations during their term of office and during our term of office?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one word.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not one word. Was there any mention of the record of their Minister of Education against our Minister of Education, in their three years and our three years?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a line.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not a line. Was there any mention of the services that we have provided to people in the three years we’ve been government as compared to theirs — better hospital care, long-term care and better services for everybody? Was there any mention of the economic performance of their government versus ours?

Before they came to power they promised nothing and they delivered less. Compare the record. We said we would give good sound management and good government, and we have. We said we’d balance the budget, we’d give good fiscal management to the affairs of the people, and indeed we have. We said that we would get the province rolling and get the economy moving. We have.

It’s easy, my friends, to sit here in this stone building and pass rhetoric across the floor, but go out there in the province and talk to the people. Travel to the northwest, to the northeast, to the Kootenays, up island, any place you want to in this province and the people are happy with our performance. I want you to stop with me for just a moment and think of the confidence there is in the province today.

I want to take you back to those dying years of the socialist regime and the despair, futility and the lack of confidence there was in this province, and I want you to compare it with what is out there today. They won’t compare it because our performance has been so great that there is no comparison.

This budget comes encased in a bright yellow folder. I don’t know whether it was prophetic or not, but it is really a sunshine budget for the people of British Columbia — for the small businessman, the elderly, everybody. Due to the good management and the fiscal responsibility of this government, there is something in this budget for everybody. But this budget did not come about just by us floundering around and flaying our hands and talking a lot. This budget is the result of three years of hard, solid work and good management. It’s not the result of talk, but solid, hard work.

I’ve listened to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) speak before. His oratory this afternoon was the weakest I’ve ever heard him make in this House. They have a great deal of difficulty realizing that indeed we have turned the economy of this province around, that it is moving again. They have difficulty accepting that fact. From the downward slide that the economy was in at the end of 1975, when the rest of the provinces were increasing and Canada as a whole was moving ahead …. The province of British Columbia, I’m ashamed to say, was heading down the hill to financial disaster and economic ruin under their management.

What has happened now? We have turned the economy of this province around in one of the most difficult economic times the world has ever known. While the rest of Canada has either been going down, or increasing at a very slow rate, the province of British Columbia has taken off because of the leadership of this great government.

During their term of office, when things were great in the rest of Canada, when things were good in the rest of the world, when there was a high demand for the products we produce, when prices for minerals had never been higher, they somehow mismanaged the economy of this province so badly that it was going downhill when it should have been rising at a great rate. How could they do it? It took skill to go against the economic tide of Canada and the rest of the world. It must have

[ Page 319 ]

taken great skill. No, it didn’t take great skill. It didn’t any take great skill at all. They just didn’t know how to run the economy of this province.

There was some mention this afternoon that maybe the lumber industry was good. But I want to compare the revenue they took in from 1972, when they became government, to 1975. They practically doubled the budget. They were running around saying: "We don’t know where the money’s coming from. It’s rolling in so fast we’re going to have to keep extra busy to keep it shovelled out. Otherwise the building’s going to fill right up with money." And they tell us that we’ve had good times. They doubled the budget in that time. Did they reduce taxes to people? No, they increased taxes to people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: My friend, you just sit there and listen. You might learn something, although I doubt it very, very much.

I remember, when I was sitting over there, telling them the error of their ways. They talk about trying to help the small businessman. When their revenues were increasing at a fantastic pace, what did they do? They put taxes on the small, little independent businessman. They brought in the capital tax employment Act to tax the small businessman that they purport to help.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The capital tax employment Act; you know what tax I’m talking about, my friend.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The corporation capital tax employment…. Do you want me to draw you a picture? I know you want to forget. I know, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, that you’d like to forget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, let’s allow the member who has possession of the floor to make his own speech. Please proceed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What I’m trying to do is to draw you a picture. When the revenues were increasing faster than they ever anticipated, did they reduce taxes to people? Did they give any tax relief? No. They increased taxes to the small businessman. They increased taxes to the forest industry. They increased taxes to the mining industry. They practically drove those industries out of the province.

I want you to compare those years with the last three years. I want you to compare the economic trend. What is happening now in the province, and what happened then. I want you to compare the tax increases they brought in and the tax decreases we brought in. I want you to remember they drove investment out of the province of British Columbia.

There was some talk yesterday about the travelling expenses for the Ministry of Economic Development. I had to travel the world, and we’ve still got people travelling the world telling them that British Columbia is no longer the Chile of the north, telling them they should have confidence. We had to repair our image in the international market. When that socialist group over there was government, we were considered a very bad place to invest in and were classified on the international market as an unreliable supplier of goods and services. The world was afraid that if they invested in the province of British Columbia, it would be taken over by that socialist government. There was labour unrest in the province and we became known as an unreliable supplier when that socialist group were government.

The railway which delivers our goods and services was closed down most of the time when they were government. Compare our record with theirs. I’ll take our record any day, and so will a lot more people. They’ve talked about coal development. What happened when they were government? Coal contracts that we should have had in British Columbia and that could have been gainfully employing our people today were lost because they weren’t interested. The Koreans came here in 1974 wanting to buy coal. That government said: "We’re not interested at all." So where did the Koreans go? They went and made deals in Australia and the United States. They talked about unemployment. If they had stayed in government for another three years, there would have been absolute disaster in this province today. There was mention of travelling expenses. Did I go to Japan and play rugby? No. When I go to China will I walk the Great Wall? Will I go to Sweden and learn about socialism? Will I go to Norway and learn about socialism? The results of us going out and repairing our reputation in the international marketplace will be further and greater employment for the youth of today in the economy of tomorrow. Those are positive results, my friend, and you’d better listen. Oh, they’ve got all the answers now. They had all the answers before. They didn’t do anything with them, but now

[ Page 320 ]

they’re experts. They know how to run the province, I’ll tell you. They make poor government, but do they make good opposition? They used to be good opposition at one time; now they’re not even good opposition. They should have more experience.

When we came to government there were problems in this great province of ours. There were problems in the tourist industry, because they had said: "Yankee, go home." Motels were going broke. The economy of the tourist industry was at an all-time low. What did we do? We responded with Amazing Grace and the dollars rolled in, employing thousands and thousands of people. If that tourist industry had kept going the way it was going when they were government, unemployment would have been rampant in the province, particularly in the tourist industry, because they weren’t interested in it. They didn’t do one single thing for the tourist industry in the three years they were government. They said, "Yankee, go home," and they meant it.

I want you to compare the tourist industry of the last three years and the three years under socialism. They did absolutely nothing. Not only have we responded by promoting tourism in British Columbia, but we went to Ottawa and picked up some of our own British Columbia dollars. We brought them back in a new and innovative tourist development agreement, 50 percent funded by the province and 50 percent funded by B.C. dollars. The problems were there when they were government, but what did they do about it? Absolutely nothing. They went down to Ottawa with a microphone in one hand and a 2-by-4 in the other, and the rest of the country laughed at them.

I remember our first trip to Ottawa. We were prepared. We had done our homework. We had a good solid proposal. Ottawa couldn’t believe it, because they were so used to the boys in the socialist government coming down, buffooning around, hitting them over the head with a piece of 2-by-4 and going in and out with TV. British Columbia was the laughingstock of all the provinces in Canada. I want you to compare the record today. When we were down there, Ottawa asked: "Who are those new boys from B.C.? We can’t believe this. They’re prepared. They know what they’re talking about." I want you to compare the record of the third or fourth member for Vancouver East, who was leader of the opposition party. Compare his record in dealing with Ottawa and compare our Premier’s record of dealing with the senior government. Think about it, my friends. Our Premier today is respected as one of the top Premiers in Canada. I want you to think about it and I want you to think back three years and see what the other provinces thought of British Columbia and its leadership at that time.

Mr. Speaker, we have an innovative new program, the tourist industry development program, to help people build up the plan. Our tourist industry is growing so fast that we have to expand, we have to help those Ma and Pa operators who nearly went broke when the socialists were in. We have great new innovative ideas, a great new vision to develop our ski industry, to develop British Columbia as a four-season tourist area. Those problems were there; they had the opportunity to do something about it. What did they do? They did absolutely nothing.

This government, under the leadership of this Premier and under the guidance of the new Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch), will make British Columbia the ski capital of the entire world. We’re well on our way with Whistler, a new innovative idea which has $42 million of private capital committed. I’ll tell you, in three years Whistler will be one of the greatest ski areas in all of the world with fine, first-class facilities. Invermere is another great development about to happen. Whether you go into the northwest or the central areas, all of the ski areas are looking to us for guidance. And they will get it. I’ll tell you, British Columbia, indeed, will find her place in the future.

This opportunity, Mr. Speaker, was always here. We had the snow, we had the people who wanted to do something, we had the mountains and the great thing that we’ve got that no one really realized is warmer weather than they’ve got on the other side of the Rockies. It was here, waiting to happen. What did you do about it? You did nothing about it, my friends. You didn’t seize any opportunities, because you bad no vision and you bad no courage. If you had had those two components, you wouldn’t have known how to put them together anyway, my friends.

The problems were there in the manufacturing industry, Mr. Speaker, when they were government. What did they do? They did absolutely nothing, except increase the taxes on our manufacturing industry. What did we do? We got on a plane and we went down to Ottawa and we negotiated a deal with the federal government and we brought back an innovative new package called "Low Interest Loan Assistance to the Small Manufacturer." And today those loans are being taken advantage of, manufacturing firms are flourishing, and new ones are coming to this great province of British Columbia.

Entrepreneurship was dying in British Colum-

[ Page 321 ]

bia when they were government. The small businessman couldn’t go to anybody for help; the little guy couldn’t go to his banker because it had to be a lead-pipe cinch. That problem was there when they were government. What did they do about it? They did absolutely nothing about it. They said: "We’ve never done anything for the small businessman." We got on the plane and we went down to Ottawa. We had our homework done and we were prepared and we brought back B.C. dollars to help those small businessmen. Under the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program that we signed in Ottawa, 175 small entrepreneurs in this province have been helped today. That’s our record. And that problem was there; they knew about it. The question here in this budget is a comparison between the three socialist years and the three Social Credit years, and I’ll tell you there is really no comparison.

After they brought in the Land Commission, industrial land soared in price. There was no place for industry to locate. What did we do? Did we turn a deaf ear? Did we turn a blind eye? No, we went down to Ottawa and we came back with a $59 million shared program to bring on industrial land in this province so the manufacturing firms could locate here. Oh, Mr. Speaker, those problems were there. Now they’ve got all the answers. But what did they do when they were government? What did they do about these problems that I’m telling you about, that we responded to and acted on in a very positive manner?

We have established industrial commissioners in most of the regional districts, funded partly by the federal government and partly by the provincial government, so that there is someone out there who has the final responsibility for helping industry locate. Did we set up a big bureaucracy that has no end? No, we put a sunset clause in. We funded 90 percent the first year, 70 percent the second year and 50 percent the third year. Can you imagine what would have happened if they’d brought in that program? It would have been funded 100 percent the first year, 150 percent the second year and 300 percent the third year.

The industrial commissioners have come to me and said: "We have no tenure." I said: "In this free enterprise system you make your own tenure. You do a good job and you’ll have a job. If you don’t do a good job, you won’t be there, buddy, because that’s the way we work." Can you imagine what would have happened if they’d been government? Yes, the climate in British Columbia has indeed changed.

I want to talk about the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. If that insurance corporation had continued to go the way it was going, it would have taken almost 25 percent of this budget to fund. It would have been in the budget. What did we do with a corporation that lost $180 million under their bad management in their last year?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you laugh, my friend. I’ll tell you it isn’t funny at all. It was one of the greatest financial disasters of any company in North America.

What did we do? We brought in some common, ordinary sense, applied some common, ordinary business principles, and asked the people of the province to cooperate with us so that it wouldn’t be a financial disaster. And what are we able to do now? What was in the throne speech? We’re able to give insurance rates on an equal basis throughout this province regardless of age, regardless of sex and regardless of geographical location. We have said to the teenagers of this province: "You will be treated equally if you are good drivers." The only reason that we can bring in these new programs with their new imaginative ideas is because we applied some ordinary common sense and sound business management to the operation of that Insurance Corporation.

They don’t like to believe — all they want to talk about is unemployment figures — that there are close to 100,000 more people working in British Columbia today. Employment is up and on the rise. Compare that with the dying days of 1975 when unemployment was on the increase, and actual employment — which is where it really counts — was on the decline. Investment in British Columbia today is up. I’ve given you the figures before; I gave them to the House last year. I’m not going to repeat them, because they are embarrassing to the socialist opposition, but I’ve got all the black and white facts and figures. Investment in this province declined every year that they were government. Every year that we’ve been government, investment has been on the increase. Those facts speak for themselves.

They talk about unemployment. There are more people moving here from other provinces and from the rest of Canada, because they know they have a secure future here and that there will be jobs for their children in the years to come. I want you to compare that with the record of the socialist government. They were fleeing the province like flies in the last year that they were government, because they had no confidence in the government and they had no confidence — which is a shame in this great province of ours — in its ability to produce jobs and income and provide a good

[ Page 322 ]

life for anybody who wishes to come and live here. It was a sad and sorry state.

They talk about providing revenue from natural resources. Revenue from the natural resource industries in British Columbia for the three years that we have been government is up 75.3 percent over the three years when they were government. And they talk about getting revenue from the resources to provide services for people! We have a record of increased revenue from our natural resources of 75.3 percent, and that’s why we could bring down this budget and decrease taxes and increase services to people.

I want to tell you that every member of this Social Credit government can hold his head high and be proud of the record of this government, and make no mistake about that. You don’t have to go and hide around corners or walk down dark alleys. Stand out there and be proud of the record of this government, because it is unsurpassed by any province or any other government in Canada. Revenue is up and taxes are down.

I just want to say that it doesn’t matter what avenue or what aspect of life in British Columbia you talk about: our record surpasses theirs by many hundreds of percent. I don’t care whether you’re talking about labour management relations. I don’t care whether you’re talking about the record of the British Columbia Railway or about our record of building new highways and repairing the potholes. Take any avenue of life or government services in British Columbia that you wish to — our record stands high.

Take the record of our services to people in need. I didn’t say people in greed; I said people in need. We have a record that is the envy of every province in Canada, and I’ll tell you, we provide those services with a balanced budget — yes, even with a small surplus so that we have a little elbow room. That is the result of hard work and good fiscal management.

Compare our record of fiscal management with theirs. They had an overrun of $100 million. They were shovelling money out the back of a truck, as I said. It rolled in so fast they didn’t know how to get rid of it. Compare our record of good fiscal management with their very bad management.

Compare the record of the investment in the petroleum industry and the revenues from our oil fields while we were government and they were government. There is no comparison because there is confidence in British Columbia today.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to compare our record of revenues from the forest industry and compare capital investment in our number one industry while they were government. There was none, and we were no sooner sitting in these seats than hundreds of millions of dollars were committed to build new plants and renovate old plants, so that our young people of today would be assured of jobs for tomorrow.

Compare the record of the mining industry. New mines are opening up. I had the pleasure of going up to Stewart the other day with my colleague from the riding and announcing a new mine opening. Would that mine have opened if the NDP had been in there? The answer is no. There is confidence again in this province.

There is confidence on behalf of the mining industry, on behalf of the investor. We have a great new policy of port development, not only for British Columbia but for all the provinces of western Canada, because we are the gateway to the Pacific. The ports were there; they needed developing. When you were government what did you do? You did absolutely nothing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I’ll tell you what you did, my friend, in your own riding. You held back the development that would provide 1,900 jobs in your own riding. You held it back, my friend. Not one positive thing did you do.

The socialists had a great theory of talking about the people of British Columbia owning the resources of British Columbia. What did they do? They did not one solitary thing, except go out and buy a few industries that had been created by private enterprise. The one they tried to create themselves — that Swan song — lost about $8.7 million. The one thing they tried to create was a financial disaster.

Anyway, what did we do? We had one of the boldest, most innovative plans of any government anywhere in the world to allow people to invest in the resources of British Columbia through the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. That one corporation is the difference between socialism and individual ownership. That’s where it’s at, Mr. Speaker, because through the Resources Investment Corporation individuals in British Columbia will own their own resources in the years to come. If they had been government they would have taxed the people into the ground, left no money in their pockets, gone out and bought it on behalf of the people, and then managed it poorly so they would have lost money. Enquiries have come in from around the world. It’s hailed as the greatest new measure to make people aware and to get them to invest in

[ Page 323 ]

their own country and their own industries. One of the greatest new ideas anywhere in the world has been brought in by this government and by this Premier.

Compare anything you want to, but when you boil it all down and it all sifts out, the real comparison has to be in leadership. We have a leader in our Premier Bill Bennett who is comparable to none. This is not idle talk. Travel anywhere in this great dominion of ours. Go to the United States. He’s recognized as one of the best provincial leaders. As a matter of fact, he is recognized as the leader in Canada. He has new and innovative measures, courage, vision and the boldness to carry it through. That’s the type of leader we have. Compare that to the years of fumbling and burnbling around under the socialist government. There is no comparison. When you boil it all down, that’s really where it’s at. That’s why, today, his leadership is being challenged by people in his own party and by the leader of the B.C. Federation of Labour. That’s why he is being challenged.

They don’t know whether to keep him or toss him out. I don’t want to get personal, because I don’t have to. I don’t want to condemn anybody, because he tried. But I’m proud to stand in this Legislature today. I’m proud to support this budget because it has been the leadership of our Premier over the last three years that has brought this moment about: his leadership in working us to the bone — make no mistake about that; his guidance and his vision in dealing with the BNA Act and dealing with Ottawa; his leadership in economic affairs; and his leadership in providing services for the needy.

The record is impeccable. That’s why every member of this party can hold his chest out, hold his head high and follow that great leader of ours. Because the record is proven; the record is there. Not only we know it, but the people of British Columbia know it. I just wish time would permit me to compare some other records. But, as I say, every member of this government is proud. We’ve worked hard. We’ve done a lot for the people of British Columbia. Because of the leadership of our Premier, the people of British Columbia have responded and industry has responded. They have confidence, and they are investing.

The young people of this province have confidence in their future, as they have confidence in this government. What good is it to have all the rules and regulations and to have everything else if there are no jobs? That’s what counts in the long run. Jobs take investment. Jobs take courage on the part of the investor. Jobs are a matter of attitude. The people in British Columbia are investing; people from other provinces are investing. That’s why they have confidence in British Columbia, because they have confidence in the government of British Columbia, because they have confidence in our leader. That’s why British Columbia will continue to progress for decades and decades.

MR. COCKE: I want to talk just a little bit about leadership. I know there are momentous things happening in this province. Thank heaven there are. I’ll tell you where they’re going to be more thankful than anywhere under the sun — at the Lions Gate Hospital.

I want to read you a memo about leadership and priorities in this province. We listened to a good deal of hot air. We listened to a minister of the Crown who really begged a number of questions, the most important of which is: what is he doing here in the first place? It was so much better when he was out of the province spending his travel funds, getting all over the place, getting nothing done. At least he wasn’t inflicting himself on the people of B.C.

Let me say something about leadership. Let me read this memo into the record:

"Strategies for 1979-80 for the Lions Gate Hospital."

"For our 1979-79 fiscal year we originally received from the Minister of Health an increase of 4 percent in funds over those received in the previous year. Since then, after many submissions, telephone calls and meetings, we have received some adjustments, the most recent being an additional $430,000.

"Basically, here is how we stand: original approved expenditures, $22,350,497; salary and other technical adjustments, $1,014,153; additional approvals as a result of submissions" — hat in hand, no doubt — "$64,000, $291,080, $430,000" — those are three submissions, obviously — "giving a total sum of $785,080. Therefore the adjusted base upon which, by rules, we had 5 percent, is $24,149,730. Add 5 percent for 1979-80 — $1,207,487. Projected allowed expenditures for 1979-80 are $25,357,217. The projected cost for continuing at the same level of service is" — and here is the key to this whole situation — "$25,570,894."

That’s a shortfall, Mr. Speaker, with all this magnificent leadership, of $1,213,677, or a shortfall which equals, in average salaries, 75 employees. That’s 75 employees taken away from the hospital system. However, they can reduce that.

[ Page 324 ]

HON. MR. BAWLF: You’re ignoring the budget.

MR. COCKE: I’m talking about the budget, Mr. Member, and what you’re doing to health care in this province.

"As some savings will be on the basis of non-salary items, we’re projecting a reduction of 70 employees. A reduction of this magnitude cannot be made without drastic reductions in service. We have laid out below three possible scenarios to show the order of magnitude. They will not necessarily be actual reductions, as there must be a series of consultations with hospital departments and medical staff."

Let me read to you the scenarios.

"We suggest closing two nursing wards — for example, A-West or 5-West and A-2; or reducing nursing input into a number of professional programs; or combining one and two, closing one floor and reducing nursing input into fewer programs."

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was saying in the House earlier today what a marvellous job he was doing. I doubt like blazes if they’ll second that at the Lions Gate Hospital. Let’s talk about the closure of the two wards.

"By closing 5-West and A-2 we would be reducing nursing staff by 36 positions. The result of this closure would mean all day-care surgery and overnight stays would have to be located on another ward until northern expansion is completed. The number of psychiatric patients in the main building would probably increase, and their length of stay would probably be longer because they would not be getting a regular program, as they presently do in the A-2 unit. The care given to the community in psychiatric in-patient care would be cut approximately in half. There would be longer waiting lists for elective surgery. Note that the community already has fewer beds per thousand than the provincial average."

This is what that minister is doing to Lions Gate Hospital. This is what that government is doing. This is the kind of leadership that that government is affording this province. Is that the kind of leadership the people want? I say, no, it’s not the kind of leadership the people want. They want leadership that will safeguard health care in this province, and they’re not getting it. They won’t get it with the Social Credit government.

Let me go on reading from the memo:

"A cut in nursing input into programs — respiratory programs, cardiac exercise, cardiac stress, one full-time equivalent; reduction of nursing staff on 2-east — if no hip replacements or circolectric beds are used, 4.5 equivalents; combining intensive-care nursery and the observation nursery and transferring the high-risk babies to another agency, 4.5 equivalents."

This hospital is agonizing, Mr. Speaker, because of the reduction in nursing staff to the special care unit, heavy neurosurgical care cases would have to go to another hospital. Where? All the rest of the hospitals are in the same boat. At this moment the Royal Columbian Hospital is paying $1,000 a day on the interest on their deficit — on their overdraft – before they can pay for a single patient day. It’s absolutely senseless. The minister was standing up talking about shovelling money out of a truck. The only people in this province that are laughing are the banks. Banks are making millions of dollars in this BCRIC share business. Not only that, they’re making millions more of government money — and that’s where it comes from eventually — on the overdrafts.

MR. KEMPF: Are you going to take it away?

MR. COCKE: I will provide, and our party will provide, health care in this province as we always have, and as we did before.

In other areas patients on constant attention for psychiatry would be transferred to another agency so there’d be no constant attention. That’s three more equivalents.

The memo also says:

"Eliminate the unit assignment on the sixth floor — two positions; eliminate nurse clinicians — 3.5; eliminate area clinicians — three; eliminate room 202 — one full-time clinician."

The overwork load brings the total up to 35 full-time equivalents. The result of these cuts for the patient — and this is what is very important….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That member over there doesn’t care about health care, but we do. This is what the result will be: many services cut or not available.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Wonderful.

MR. COCKE: That minister doesn’t care either. He’s got troubles in Richmond. He’s got troubles in the Richmond Hospital. And he’s going to have an awful lot of trouble after 6 o’clock tonight.

[ Page 325 ]

Many services will not be available. There will be a longer length of stay.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let’s not interrupt the man who has the floor.

MR. COCKE: You see, this is why it’s incongruous. There would be longer lengths of stay at the hospital, naturally, because the care is cut. Isolation technique could deteriorate. Didn’t we hear something about Surrey Memorial Hospital having a great deal of difficulty with staph infection? Are we talking about isolation care? Yes. Isolation technique could deteriorate. Bed sores would increase. But as long as the minister isn’t in bed, I guess he doesn’t worry. Safety could be jeopardized. There would be increased risk and liability, and dissatisfaction with the service. In psychiatry there would be more suicides acting out behaviour.

This is a memo from that hospital telling the people exactly what’s going to happen in the hospital. There will be fewer bed linens, increased medications, fewer turns, back rubs and complete baths. There will be less patient teaching; shaving, nail care and hair washing will be done less frequently; dressing changes will be done less frequently. There will be fewer times up in the chair or fewer times walking in order to get one’s strength back.

The results of these cuts for the staff — and I think we have to think about the staff — will be an increase in frustration and fatigue; less job satisfaction; poor morale; greater staff turnover and, consequently, more orientation for new staff; increase in overtime; more medication errors and incident reports. With less in-service, staff would not be keeping up with new techniques. With no ward meetings they would not have the chance to problem-solve or ventilate their feelings. There would be no further transfer of functions, and perhaps revocation of the present transfer of functions.

This is a very serious document. The previous speaker was telling us it was a great deal of hot air. This is the kind of leadership this province does not need. We need leadership that’s going to provide for health care.

They also say new graduates, especially in the two-year program, would not have inservice education to prepare themselves to work in specialty areas. There would be less time for staff to become involved in quality assurance and patient care, audit and safety committees. Here is a hospital that is becoming unsafe because of the lack of leadership of a government that doesn’t understand the priority of health care. It’s a government that, from the time this minister has been in that position, has ignored health care and has played around with heroin treatment that never transpired, never took form and never took place. It has a program destined to go down the tube in any event, but it kept him out of the glue, made him look like he was doing something. Tell that to the Lions Gate Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, point 3 in this memo says:

"Close one ward and have some nursing input into programs. If we close 5-West, we would be saving 17 full-time equivalents. Then 18 full-time equivalents would have to be selected from the number of programs outlined above. In addition to the nursing reduction, the following reduction in other departments would occur."

If you think it’s a great idea to follow the leadership of the Socreds, particularly in health care, listen to the reduction they propose.

"Psychiatric day care: reduce program by one session each of psychologists and occupational therapists; further reduce programs during sick…and vacation, fewer patients will be seen and treated in day centres."

In other words, suddenly we don’t have psychiatric problems in North Vancouver any more.

Point 6 says: "Laboratory: drop student training program." The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) indicated to us that we need these technical programs, but what this hospital has to do is drop their student training program and curtail emergency-type procedures in the afternoon, nights and weekends. Some patients may have to stay longer in the hospital to have tests completed. What a marvellous way to save. The reduction is 3.9.

Nuclear medicine is reduced; pharmacy, reduced; radiology, reduced; rehabilitation department, reduced; social service, reduced; administration, reduced. That’s created by Mr. Riley’s resignation, incidentally.

"Admitting: eliminate part-time receptionist; reduce general coverage: waiting time for admission will be increased on some shifts."

That’s the way this government operates. Squeeze the hospitals dry. That’s the kind of leadership that we have been provided in this province.

Yes, the people in British Columbia are fed up. They’re fed up because they feel these services, including education and services to people, are their right. They don’t feel that

[ Page 326 ]

it’s the right of a government to put the boot to those programs. We know that the minister isn’t strong with Treasury Board, but that’s no excuse. The whole government is responsible for the dire shape that this province is in.

There is probably no group of people who try harder to do a decent job of conserving people’s money than people working in the hospital business. That includes the volunteers, the staff and all those thoughtful people who have their own priorities dictating to them that they give of themselves for a better life for the rest of us. What have we got? We’ve got a sterile government that has forced hospitals into a situation where they’re in the position that the Lions Gate Hospital outlined in this hospital memo.

It wasn’t meant for my hands but one way or another it found its way there. They didn’t send it to me, but there are people so tremendously concerned about the direction of health care that they saw that it got into the hands of the provincial health critic to bring it to the attention of the government, who’ve been heartless, careless, downright cruel and, I don’t mind saying, stupid in this respect. This hospital is working to capacity, coming into a crunch situation where they’ve going to have to cut back on psychiatry and the very important elements of providing care. What do they get out of it? They get into a dwindling spiral where they increase the length of stay and are even less able to provide care in the future. As a result of this reduction of 70 people in one hospital, we’ve got health care taking a very bad dive in North Vancouver. They’re telling us on March 20….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You’re very safe, aren’t you? They’re going to have to reduce — that’s what they’re telling you — because that’s all the budget they’ve got.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are close to adjournment time, hon. members. Let’s let the hon. member make his speech.

MR. COCKE: Don’t give me that "not one." The ministers told them the budget they can have and I’ve told you they can only live with that budget providing they cut 70 people from their staff. Does the minister understand? Not only that….

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You’ll have an opportunity to look at this. Don’t tell me "not one." It’s 70.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many have been reduced?

MR. COCKE: Seventy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we, perhaps, persevere for another four minutes? We’re that close to adjournment time. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, you can only stand so much of the truth, Mr. Minister. We’ve been listening to the half-truths and all the rest of the bizarre display that we’ve seen lately.

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

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to see him make that stick.

But anyway I’m just here to say this: every paper in this province, including the papers in the Kamloops and Kelowna area, is saying exactly the same thing. Health care is in absolute jeopardy; health care with this minister has suffered. Health care at the Lions Gate Hospital is demonstrably in trouble; 70 people will have to be laid off. Now if the minister can stand up, when they have to live with your budget….

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You see, Mr. Speaker, the minister is making jokes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Tell us how many people have been laid off.

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

Please, let’s proceed.

MR. COCKE: If the minister meant what he said, that they had a budget of — and I will

[ Page 327 ]

read it out — $25,575,894…. If the minister wants to stand up and say, "That’s not the budget; the budget will be $1,213,677 more than that," then he is in the right and I am in the wrong, but he will not stand up and say it’s going to be that because he can’t, because he’s already given them the budget and it means a cut of 70 employees all over.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Not one has been cut! There’s that minister over there blabbing away. The Royal Columbian Hospital, before they paid for a day in patient care, paid $1,000 in interest on their deficit. What the blazes is going on in this province, Mr. Speaker? This is an intolerable situation, a situation that should never have been permitted and, heaven help us, will never be permitted to be cursed again by this heartless group who have absolutely no concern about the needs of people in this province, a group that demonstrated….

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, come on!

MR. COCKE: They started out by squeezing in the areas that were somewhat popular. They squeezed the kids in ICBC, but now they’re squeezing in areas where they will never be forgiven. The same minister is taking the same old Conservative tack. Is he negotiating with the doctors? No, sir. He’s been too busy to negotiate with the doctors. He’s part of this conspiracy to get the health care situation into chaos, hoping that somehow they are going to get rid of medicare. They’ll get rid of the whole darn thing if they can. It’s just too bad for this province.

Mr. Cocke moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented the 1977-78 report for the Ministry of Education.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.