Hansard — Friday, June 8, 1979 — Morning Sitting

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget address. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 23

Budget debate.

Mr. Stupich –– 25

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 30

Mr. Lorimer –– 32

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 33

Mr. Barnes –– 38

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Pari Mutual Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Funds Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr.

Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 11).

Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 39

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 40

FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HALL: I would like to have the House welcome today two visitors from the state of Mississippi, Mr. Roosevelt Jones and Mr. Bob Reid, accompanied by Ernie Clarke, the third vice-president of the IWA Regional Council No. 1.

The gentlemen from Mississippi, Mr. Speaker, are visiting western Canada, Alberta and British Columbia to acquaint us of the conduct of their employer, Husky Oil Ltd., and some of the reprehensible activities that are taking place in Mississippi.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are approximately 25 grade 11 students from Claremont Secondary School in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. They are accompanied by Ron Bergeron, teacher, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you and the House to join with me in welcoming 29 students from the Edward Milne High School in Sooke. They are here this morning to see the democratic policies evolving from House and are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. John Bergbusch, who himself is a very active person within the school system. In addition he is the president of the Colwood Ratepayers Association. I would like you all to welcome them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have with us in the gallery a group of friends from the Princeton Community Services, in Princeton. This group is very well known to myself, to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and to a former Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), all of whom have been entertained by them when in Penticton.

The group includes Joyce and Austin Fraser, Pat Reid, Henry Gunther, Erin Lee, June Marchand, Chris Kelly, Carol Lukes, Betty Welsh, Gail Fraser, May Carter and Bonnie Taylor. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it being budget day and a ceremonial day, with the permission of the House I will turn up the lights so that there will be ample lighting for the television cameras.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year 1977-78, which were tabled on March 22, 1979, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the report of the auditor-general for the year ending March 31, 1978, which was tabled on April 2, 1979, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Motion approved.

ESTIMATES OF SUMS REQUIRED
FOR THE SERVICE OF THE PROVINCE

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled The Estimates of Sums Required for the Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, including Schedule A sums required by Her Majesty to make good certain sums expended for the public service for the period ended March 31, 1979, and to indemnify the several officers and persons for making such expenditure, recommending the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply,

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move, seconded by the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We'll put the question to this motion a little later.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I just thought I'd try, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the "sunshine budget" is back.

It is my pleasure to introduce to this first session of the thirty-second Legislature the budget proposals that were delivered to this House on April 2, 1979, to the last session of the thirty-first Legislative Assembly. Associated with this budget, of course, are the estimates of revenue and expenditure which were presented at that same time.

Soon after the budget proposals for 1979-80 were delivered to this assembly a provincial election was called. During that election campaign the government declared that the budget of April 2 would be returned to the first sitting of the subsequent legislative assembly for debate and implementation.

We are today following through on our budget proposals to the people of British Columbia, and we propose now to implement the budget proposals that were outlined to the previous House to fund the province's social programs, create new jobs and stimulate investment.

This budget was tailored earlier this year to the specific economic and fiscal objectives of government and to the needs of the people of British Columbia.

Our objectives have not changed in the intervening two months. This budget is designed to fund and enrich social programs for everyone in need, to develop activity and job opportunities in this province, to increase the purchasing power of individuals and business by reducing taxation, and to encourage individual and corporate investment.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to read the April 2 budget into the record of this House [Laughter] — but I might. Many members are familiar with it because it has enjoyed wide

publicity. I would like just to summarize the main points in the speech to refresh the memories of those members who have been returned to office, and to acquaint those new members of this assembly with the broad outlines of this government's proposals. Some of the proposals are, of course, already in effect.

First of all, we are providing more for social programs:

Health care will receive $1.2 billion, 27 percent of the total projected budget — one of the highest percentages of health spending by any provincial government.

Education receives $1.1 billion, nearly a quarter of the total budget.

The third-largest share of the budget — $648 million goes to Human Resources. The income- assistance budget is increased by $72.7 million.

A new dental care program for British Columbians not presently covered under an existing dental plan will be developed by the Ministry of Health.

Municipalities will receive $141.7 million from this budget — a sizeable contribution to assist with local development.

A proposal has been made to provide developers or building owners who adapt buildings to the needs of the handicapped with an accelerated write-off or income tax credit.

In this budget we are also encouraging new investment by individuals and corporations to create more jobs. The exemption under the Corporation Capital Tax Act is raised to $1 million to take the tax off 3,000 firms. Last year we removed this tax from 13,000 other firms, and this will make a total of 16,000 freed from this burden. A new type of investment company — we call it the small business venture capital corporation — will be encouraged to finance high-risk enterprises. A special tax deduction will be allowed British Columbia taxpayers who place their funds in these venture groups. And a special dividend tax credit of 5 percent is proposed for all British Columbia residents receiving dividends from British Columbia public corporations.

Mr. Speaker, the budget which I am quickly summarizing also detailed this government's plans to distribute shares in the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation to all citizens of this province. As of June 6, about seven million shares had been applied for by British Columbians, on the basis of five free shares to each citizen. As you know, citizens of this province also have the right to purchase additional shares up to June 15. As of June 6, sales were about $37 million. This response, Mr. Speaker, indicates to this government that the people of this province have a strong commitment to individual ownership.

To continue, Mr. Speaker, with this summary: in this budget we are cutting taxes.

On April 2, at midnight, the social services tax was reduced by one percentage point to 4 percent. This produced the lowest sales tax in this province in 25 years, and the lowest sales tax of any province in Canada that imposes the tax.

At the same time we exempted vitamins and dietary supplements, diabetic and ostomy supplies from sales tax.

We introduced a policy that will not require a low-income person to pay more British Columbia income tax than federal tax. This will save 65,000 taxpayers an average of $89 this year.

We have increased the renters' tax credit by $50 to a total of $150, beginning this year.

We have initiated this year a permanent increase of $100 in the annual homeowners' grant for all homeowners in the province. Mr. Speaker, this raises the basic grant to $380 and the grant for senior citizens and persons receiving the handicapped or war veterans' allowance to $580. Homeowners who are now receiving property tax bills all over this province should see a sizeable reduction in the taxes they must pay as a result of this measure.

Personal income taxes will be reduced significantly on July 1 this year. This will involve a reduction in the personal rate to 44 percent from 46 percent — to the second-lowest personal income tax rate in Canada. This change will mean tax savings of up to $65 per year for a family of four with income of $23,000.

Assessments on farm and agricultural reserve land will be reduced 50 percent on December 31 to reduce the burden of school taxes.

The parimutual betting tax has been reduced one percentage point.

A provincial political contributions income tax credit has been introduced.

And all operating costs of regional colleges are to be taken off the shoulders of local taxpayers.

These tax reductions are widespread and significant. We believe they will do much to lighten the burden on all taxpayers, and stimulate the economy by freeing millions of additional dollars for consumer spending.

Also in this budget we are using revenue surplus to create more jobs.

In addition to the regular budget estimates, I am reintroducing four special appropriation bills to use surplus funds from the last two years to fund a number of public projects. These projects will create an estimated 8,000 new jobs in 1979, and more in the future, and will provide developments of lasting value to the people of this province.

The $140.5 million surplus from the 1977-78 fiscal year will pay for the $100 increase in the homeowner grant. It will also provide for the reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension of the British Columbia Railway, for accelerated programs and highway construction, forest management, youth employment experience programs, construction of recreational facilities, and a payment due on our provincial debt.

The surplus from the 1978-79 fiscal year will provide $80 million, as the budget indicates, for these projects: $10 million for the proposed Vancouver trade and convention centre; $2.5 million for the proposed Victoria convention centre; $25 million for a sports centre or stadium in the lower mainland; $5 million for a low-interest program to help small- and medium-sized business in metropolitan areas; $7.5 million for purchase of additional shares in the British Columbia Development Corporation; $5 million for industrial research; $25 million to stabilize health and hospital operating costs.

This has been a quick review of the budget to refresh the memories of the hon. members.

The budget, as I said on April 2, provides wide-ranging tax cuts that are designed to stimulate the provincial economy and help build for prosperity in our province in the 1980s.

I urge hon. members to join with us in implementing these programs so that the citizens we all represent may

enjoy the benefits that will flow from these changes as quickly as possible.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps before we proceed to the debate that remains, members may wish to have the documents in their hands. Perhaps we can have a short recess while these are distributed.

The House took recess at 10:31 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:33 a.m.

MR. STUPICH: First I'd like to join with those who have congratulated you on your re-election as Speaker. I would have hoped that there would have been a different party representing Chilliwack. But when it comes to Speaker, I wouldn't hope for any change at all as long as that party is going to be government. I do congratulate you. You have served the House well in the past, and I look forward to you serving us well in the future. If I should stray, and if you should have to call me to order sometime, it's just because I have miscalculated how far I think I can get away with it.

I'd like to welcome in particular the new members of the House. When I first was elected in 1963, it was the habit of the older members then to welcome new members to what they called the most exclusive club in the province. It's a habit that seems to have been dropped in recent years. I think it's worth recalling that it's a very difficult club to get into. It's very limited in membership. There can be only 57 members at the present time. It carries with it all kinds of responsibility. Sometimes the rewards are more imaginary than they are real. If nothing else, you can certainly say that membership in the club has no job security associated with it, as some of us have found out to our sorrow in the past.

I must confess that it's with some trepidation that I rise to speak on the budget. The last time I spoke on the budget, the Premier called an election — not that I'm concerned about what would be the outcome of another election. I don't think that the voters really want to go through a third election in this short space, so I'll take a chance on it. I'll perhaps not be as lengthy as I was the previous time, and the Premier isn't here, so he may not think to call an election this time. You're counting on him not to call an election, I assume.

"The 'sunshine budget' is back," the Minister of Finance tells us. Well, Mr. Speaker, the "sunshine budget" when it came in on April 2 had a real sunshine colour to it. It has kind of faded in the interim, hasn't it? It's a very pale edition of the "sunshine budget," and I suppose that's understandable. You will note that all of the 18 NDP MLAs who were here when the original "sunshine budget" was introduced were returned, even though in some instances they had to find new constituencies to represent. But the same cannot be said for the government party. They lost, I think, some seven seats although they managed to pick up two from other parties that were represented in the previous Legislature and are not in this one.

So I think it's understandable that the government is not so keen, not so bold with the colours on its budget in June 1979 as it was when the "sunshine budget" was introduced the day after April Fools' Day. As far as the comments about the budget, my position hasn't changed. I spoke about the budget when I travelled around the province. I spoke about this government's conduct of the affairs of this province, and partly as a result of the increased knowledge of what this government had done in its three and a third years in office, representation from that side of the House was reduced; representation from the NDP members was increased.

I think the people of the province came to realize that a lot of the sunshine in this budget, or perhaps all of the sunshine in this budget, was on the cover itself. When you get into the contents of the sunshine, as far as the people of this province were concerned, the contents were somewhat lacking. Mr. Speaker, the examination that I conducted of the budget when I spoke on April 3, 1979, tried to show that the three major issues facing the people of the province today were not really dealt with in that budget. They were discussed during the campaign. Increasingly the people of this province felt that the Social Credit Party was not the one to deal with these problems, increasingly they came to support the NDP, but they didn't get quite far enough by the time May 10 came around.

It is obvious that the arguments I used then, the arguments I'm going to use today, and the arguments that my colleagues will be using are that the tragic unemployment record of this government, the devastating effects of inflation on the people of the province and the increasing degree of foreign ownership and the loss of control of our own economy are concerns that are held by the people of the province of British Columbia. They are concerns that are not met within the budget that we have before us now. There is an accelerating loss of our people as a people to deal with unemployment, to deal with inflation and to deal with the other real economic problems that face British Columbians. These three great and increasing problems catch the attention of British Columbians as they watch their government, and they watch it especially today on the introduction of this budget when, perhaps, they hope there will be some change — change that would show on the part of this government so recently chastened in the provincial election.

There is nothing to show that the government is any more concerned about the 112,000 unemployed than they were when they tabled the sunshine-coloured budget on April 2; nothing to show that they have any more concern about the problems of the elderly in trying to meet the rapidly increasing cost of living; nothing to show that they have any more concern about the increasing sell out of our land, natural resources and our capacity as a society to govern ourselves. The answer given in this budget by this government is some idle braggadocio.

I think I'm going to mention just a couple of instances of that braggadocio. I'm reading now from the introduction to the budget tabled on April 2: "This budget marks a substantial advance in reducing the drag of big government on the individual." Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is a desirable goal — I'm not arguing that right now — they must be making haste very slowly. The budget that we introduced in the spring of 1975 called for expenditures of $3.22 billion. For comparison purposes we would have to remove from that the capital accounts in public works then and the capital costs in B.C. Ferries, since those two have been removed from budget. We then come in with a budget of $3.1 billion; that's just four years ago.

The budget before us now has not changed from the one before us a couple of months ago. It calls for expenditures in estimates of almost $4.6 billion, but also details additional expenditures of $220 million, which brings us up to $4.8 billion. And when you look at the record of over expenditure that this government has built up — in excess of $200 million a year, Mr. Speaker — there's little doubt but that we are heading for a $5 billion expenditure in the year 1979-80. To say that that is a significant reduction in the rate of government spending — to go from $3.1 billion up to $5 billion in the short space of four years — is, as I suggest, making haste rather slowly.

"Three years ago when I stood in this assembly to resent our first budget" — I am reading from the budget again — "we were wrestling with the sorry results of runaway government spending and debt accumulation." Well, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, we were spending not nearly as fast as the present administration is spending and, more than that, we were spending on investments and on building up assets that were producing revenue for the people of the province and that were giving the people of the province an increasing role in governing the province of British Columbia.

In our term in office, in that period of three budgets, we added to special funds, perpetual funds and the like some $330 million. We invested in shares of various corporations some $78 million, all of which were producing revenue for the people of the province: Westcoast Transmission — $25,457,000, a good investment because this government sold it for 50 percent more than that; BCBC — an investment of $25 million in shares of that corporation, which was opposed by the Social Crediters, and today they're saying they're going to put some more money into it — in April they said it — so they're staying, but the amount is still small; Kootenay Forest Products — $14.5 million, sold to BCRIC; Plateau Mills — $7.6 million and the price went up 50 percent the next day; Panco, much maligned Panco cost $4.8 million — sold for in excess of $15 million; Ocean Falls — $790,000; Canadian Cellulose — $1, and I'm told by lawyers that that dollar that is called for in such contracts is not paid out. That's the kind of thing that we were spending money on, Mr. Speaker. These were good investments that the NDP administration made on behalf of the people of the province.

But what does the Social Credit administration have to show by way of lasting benefits, by way of increasing the role of the people of the province in governing their province? What do they have to show for the $4.5 billion that they spent last year, or for the $5 billion that they will be spending this year? Precious little, Mr. Speaker, in the way of lasting benefit for the people of the province.

"When the previous Social Credit administration left office in 1972" — I'm quoting from the budget again — "the incoming administration was handed millions of dollars in cash and securities to begin work. Three years later those millions were gone and we were staring at a provincial debt of $261 million." Well, Mr. Speaker, up to this point it's been bragging; but in that particular statement it's not just bragging, it's lying. There was no debt when the Social Credit administration arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the hon. member's not attributing an act of lying to any member in the House.

MR. STUPICH: If any member thinks that I am, Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite pleased to apologize to him.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be entirely out of order to attribute....

MR. STUPICH: I'm not attributing it to anyone individually.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: There's no question in my mind that there's no truth to the statement that there was one dollar of provincial government debt when the Social Credit administration arrived in office on December 22, 1975. That story has been told around the province, but not one shred of evidence has ever been produced.

There was a Clarkson Gordon report, when the government told the Clarkson Gordon people to add up some figures and to show that the province was $405 million in debt. They were just given the figures and told to add them up, and they did that. They disclaimed it in their statement; they said it was not an audit.

But even those figures couldn't be made to stand up, even with the profligate spending of this administration in an attempt to make the picture as bad as possible. By the time the end of the year finally did roll around the figure had been reduced to $261 million. What happened to the other $145 million between January and March? They knew that that was not true, those who used these figures.

HON. MR. MAIR: Tell us about ICBC.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asks me to tell them about ICBC. You'll recall that we put a question on the order paper as to what the cash account of ICBC was on the day the NDP walked out of office. The answer was something in the area of $26 million on the day we walked out of office.

If that member wants to talk about Crown corporations as opposed to government accounts, let's talk about B.C. Hydro, let's talk about B.C. Rail, let's talk about the school district financing authority, let's talk about the hospital financing authority. If you want to get into Crown corporations, there was real debt — debt that was built up by previous Social Credit administrations. B.C. Hydro was increased under us, but it was the Columbia River deal that built up the debt on B.C. Hydro to such fantastic heights in such a short time.

I'm not denying that there were debts in Crown corporations. But there was not one penny of debt in government accounts on December 22, 1975. I challenge the Minister of Finance to produce anything from his comptroller-general to say that we were one penny in debt on December 22, 1975.

There was a suggestion by one of their campaigners that the NDP could be associated with the National Socialist Party. As a member of the RCAF during the war, I certainly took offence at that remark. In my mind, anyone who would repeat that would have no difficulty at all in crawling under the belly of a snake. But to associate us — a party with the humanitarian principles and record of this party — with that kind of a party, is pretty low politics. It was the leader of that party who said if you're going to tell a lie, make it a big

lie. If you're going to tell a big lie, tell it often and often, and over and over. Eventually people will come to believe it. That's the way they have made some people in this province believe that there really was a debt on December 22, 1975. But there is no evidence. Just tell a lie. Tell a big lie, and tell it over and over, secure in the knowledge that you are never going to have to prove it.

To get back to the budget, as I say, with the idle braggadocio in the speech, apart from now agreeing to spend sums of money taken needlessly from B.C. taxpayers over the last three years, this government intends to do really nothing about the three main problems of the province that I have mentioned and that I will mention again and again.

There's record unemployment, despite the fact that our forest industry, the most important industry we have in the whole province from the point of view of unemployment, thanks to continued high United States demand and the low value of the Canadian dollar, has never had a better record. In spite of that, to buoy us on, we still have record unemployment that this government seems unwilling and unable to do anything about. Members of the opposition have pointed out in this House, and will be pointing out over and over again, that the record of the Social Credit government in dealing with the problem of unemployment is bad. It is a record of failure — failure to act, failure to care. Indeed, not only has this government stood idly by while unemployment grows, but they've actually participated in creating more unemployment. Remember the shutdown of the Railwest car plant. I believe it was opened up briefly during the election campaign. I'm not sure if it is still open. There was a loss of 260 jobs from that one positive action on the part of this government to create unemployment. A loss of some 420 jobs on B.C. Ferries resulted from a positive act to create unemployment. A loss of some 300 jobs on the BCR extension was one more positive act to create more unemployment.

Ordinary British Columbians had an opportunity to reflect on this budget during the campaign. They became more concerned about it, and must be wondering sometimes about the reduction to 4 percent in the sales tax. Perhaps some of them will remember when this same government increased the sales tax by 40 percent, from 5 percent up to 7 percent. Perhaps some of them will remember that it stayed there until the federal government provided the means for a partial reduction. Now there's a reduction down to 4 percent. Perhaps some of them are going to start wondering how long it is going to take them to recover at the rate of one cent on the dollar for the cost of that political action on the part of that party.

In the original budget — since I've had a little more time on this one — on page 8 and again in the pale version this morning, they talk about some of the changes in tax. I'd just like to mention a couple of them. They have eliminated succession duties and gift taxes. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, which party was it that introduced succession duties and gift taxes in the province of British Columbia? You will recall which party it was, and it certainly wasn't the New Democratic Party. They are going to reduce property taxes. You will also recall that every year but one in which the NDP was in office, the homeowner grant was increased. You will also recall there has not been a general increase in the homeowner grant since the 1975 election until this year. They waited until they were ready to call an election,

Indeed, they waited until the day before they called the election to say that they were going to increase the homeowner grant. There wasn't one general increase in the homeowner grant between elections. That's the conduct of that party. In our case it was increased every year but one.

They raised the personal income tax, and then this year they are proposing to reduce income tax. Mr. Speaker, you remember who it was that increased the personal income tax by 2 points on the anniversary of the date that it is now being reduced. And you'll remember, Mr. Speaker, that when that legislation came in, increasing the B.C. personal income tax by 2 points, the legislation was no trouble at all — it was letter perfect. It was debated in the House and it was passed by the House.

This year, after having had almost four years' experience in office, they bring in a bill to reduce taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, if you had the opportunity to read that particular legislation, I think you would come to the conclusion, as some of us did, that in effect it reduces income tax by only 1 point. I'm told that one of the gentlemen of the press went to the Premier and asked about this, and said: "Well, how come the budget speech says 2 percent and the bill says 1 percent?" And the Premier responded: "Well, we must have made a mistake, because we intended it to be 2."

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to increasing taxes, they like that. They have no trouble at all writing the legislation even when they are brand-new in office. But when it comes to reducing it, it hurts. They make a mistake writing that legislation, so we get only half the reduction. I expect the bill before us will deal with it properly.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Go on to your next point.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll accept that invitation and get on to my next point. My next point is inflation. Would you really like me to talk about inflation, Mr. Minister of Finance? It's a human problem. Maybe you don't appreciate human problems. It's awfully difficult for millionaire car dealers, who may have made a practice of rolling back odometers, to be concerned about a human problem, and inflation really is a human problem. It's a problem for many people in our community — one that you haven't experienced personally.

This minister in this budget gives good evidence that he really hasn't appreciated the problem. It's not one that bothers him at all. The percentage stays the same, so he just jacks up the prices.

This budget equals their own record for inactivity in the matter of unemployment. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, setting aside for the moment their own additions to the problems, this government's response to inflation has been total paralysis.

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you show up at the TV station, Evan?

MR. STUPICH: Well, maybe we should raise that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition. I wanted to discuss this. I spoke in the House and the Minister of Finance spoke in the House, but there was really no opportunity to discuss it then. There might have been had we gone into estimates.

I was invited to appear on TV and to discuss these matters with the Minister of Finance, and I accepted the

invitation. I said: "Well, will he come?" "Oh, yes. He's already agreed to come...." "Well, that's great. I'll come any time at all. Tell me when." And they told me when. On the day before I was supposed to appear there, my secretary was a little suspicious, I suppose — we'd heard absolutely nothing about it and the TV station was saying nothing about it — so she tried to phone them, and couldn't find anybody in authority at the TV station who could say whether or not the Minister of Finance was indeed coming. She tried all day. She tried on the Tuesday again, and just before I was leaving my constituency to catch a plane to attend that TV debate, where the Minister of Finance and myself could sit down together with a chairman, if you like, and discuss the budget, I was told that it was not convenient for the Minister of Finance to appear that day. When my secretary finally got through to someone who could tell her that much, she was asked: "Well, would Mr. Stupich appear on another day?" And without even consulting me, she said: "Oh, yes. You just name the day and he'll be there." Mr. Speaker, I'm still waiting to hear when that day will be.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of debate that I'm sure that the minister likes. He has spoken, and he knows he doesn't have to speak again. He doesn't have to justify any of this stuff; he doesn't have to explain it today. He's spoken once and if he gets to his feet again the debate is over. That's the kind of debate he wants, where there is no opportunity for discussion between us.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get back to what he said, my next topic is inflation. Let's refer again to that famous, or perhaps infamous, report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, and in particular page 155, which reveals that for the first time since 1957 in the province of British Columbia the working people of the province are now experiencing a steady decline in real income. Now that's quite a commentary on this government and its concern about inflation.

That's something against which to measure the economic performance of this particular government, something against which to assess this minister's idle boast about benefiting the people of the province, and finally something against which to compare the Socred campaign slogan — remember it, Mr. Speaker, from the previous election? — "Get B.C. Moving Again." You remember that slogan, don't you, Mr. Speaker? How many British Columbians do you suppose understood what was meant by the slogan of the then Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) when he was campaigning in 1975? I wonder how many British Columbians would have voted for that curious coalition if they had known what that meant when they said they were going to get B.C. moving again.

When he delivered his speech on April 2, in a rare but entirely fitting burst of modesty, the Minister of Finance declined to take credit on behalf of the government for the sustained high world demand for forest products, for recovery of copper prices or for the windfall revenues that have derived from the disastrous decline in the value of the Canadian dollar.

But this minister and this government do have a good deal to do with the health of smaller businesses, because the prosperity of small businesses — retail and professional and the like — relies entirely upon the prosperity of the other British Columbians that I have been discussing. And what is their record there, Mr. Speaker? The hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) mentioned this yesterday during the course of the debate. 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.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Maybe he'd like me to get on to the next part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, to the matter of the ever increasing foreign control over our land, our natural resources and our economy. I believe that the people of British Columbia are profoundly concerned about this very fundamental matter, because unless and until we are able to deal effectively with it, we will be unable to deal in any 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.

What has been the record of this government when it comes to foreign ownership and foreign control? It's repetition but foreign takeovers increased from 9 in 1976 to 26 in 1977 to 39 in 1978. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was this government that put pressure on Ottawa to make it easier for foreign takeovers to become effective. And you'll recall that it has been their attitude to sell B.C. out as quickly as possible to the highest bidder, regardless of the economic consequences for the people of British Columbia.

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

There are other concerns, Mr. Speaker, when you read this budget. Of course, one of them has to be the often repeated boast about staying within some self-imposed limit of 5 percent. The fact of the matter is that this budget does not stay within 5 percent. I gave you some figures earlier. By the time you add to the estimates the $220 million in surplus funds that are also being voted in this session, the $70 million in B.C. Ferries capital, the $55 million in BCBC capital, plus the normal $200 million overrun — at least it's normal under this particular administration — the increase will be much more than 5 percent; it will be much more in the area of 15 percent. I'm sure that the municipalities of this province, the hospitals and the school boards would find it very easy to live within a 5 percent budget increase goal if, when they read 5, it was understood that there could be a 1 in front of that, which is what this government has done in effect.

Others of my colleagues who will be speaking in this debate will be, I'm sure, dealing with other contrasts between the NDP administration and the Social Credit administration. Despite being reviled, Mr. Speaker, our administration year by year invested public money in adding to provincial assets to create more jobs and security for the people of British Columbia. It purchased Can-Cel to maintain employment and to increase employment. It acquired a significant position in Westcoast Transmission that produced revenue that was available to the people of the province on the basis of need, not greed. It created a B.C.-run insurance corporation that.... Although this government fought against it, argued against it and made all kinds of threats, when they actually came to deal with the

problem, they made very little change. We set up the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — again, a move that was opposed violently and vigorously by the Social Credit opposition at the time — a corporation which in some four short years of life produced more revenue for the people of the province than the previous biggest earner in the province. BCBC in 1978 produced more revenue for the people of the province than did the liquor administration branch — the first time it has ever been beaten. But don't worry too much, Mr. Speaker. At the rate at which liquor prices are going up and gas prices aren't, I'm sure that the liquor administration branch will soon produce more revenue than BCPC for the people of the province.

The government boasts about the sales tax cuts. I've already dealt with that. We know that they're cutting the increases that they put into effect in the first place, and now they are going one point further. I notice that with some of these they talk about permanent changes. With respect to the sales tax, they don't talk about that cut being permanent. I wonder just how permanent that particular reduction will be. We warned them at the time of the effect of the increase from 5 percent to 7 percent, but they went blindly ahead with that because they were doing it for political motivations rather than economic.

Income tax. I've already talked about the increases and decreases. The budget now says that no low-income person will pay more B.C. income tax than federal tax, and 65,000 taxpayers will benefit from tax reductions ranging up to $89. The tragedy of the situation here in B.C. and the tragedy of the budget is that there are 65,000 income tax payers to whom the saving of $89 will be extremely important. I don't think the Minister of Finance realizes that. Also, there are many others who are not even paying that amount of tax who would welcome some action on the part of this government to control inflation.

A new type of investment company. Well, I guess we need a new one to do the job that the Federal Business Development Bank is not doing in B.C., to do the job that BCBC is not doing, to do the job that the Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development is not doing. So let's create another corporation, and maybe we can find somebody else who isn't doing anything for the people of the province.

An issue that has always been important in my mind from the time I first entered the Legislature after the 1963 election is reforestation. I've been interested in this topic ever since I read a precis for a book, which was never published, in the mid-1930s. The author was talking about the rate at which we were harvesting the most accessible and best timber in the province and leaving the poorer timber for later generations, and not replanting. I was reminded of it when the Sloan commission on forestry, in two separate reports some ten years apart, tried to warn the people of the province about the danger of not replanting trees in these areas that were being cut. I believe the second Sloan commission report said there were 25 million acres in the province that were not sufficiently restocked.

I spoke on that subject every year when I was in the opposition between 1963 and 1969. I urged my own government and we did much about it. But the budget for the last year under the previous Social Credit administration provided only $5 million for reforestation. It would be nice to spend $100 million on it, but you can only increase at a certain rate. By 1976, some three years later, our budget had quadrupled that figure. The total budget itself had increased by a little over 100 percent, but the amount made available for reforestation went from $5 million to $19.8 million. That was real progress in a period of just three years.

By 1978 under this new Social Credit administration the one that is so concerned about people, so concerned about private industry, so concerned about doing something for the province — our estimate of $19.8 million had gone all the way to $19.8 million. It hadn't changed a cent. But they did provide a special fund. They had some money to get rid of, surplus funds, and they said: "Let's throw $10 million into reforestation." They are doing the same thing again this year.

The estimates for reforestation haven't really changed, from $19.8 million up to $20.7 million — less than a million dollars. There is another $10 million there from this special fund to do an extra job in reforestation. That's great! I'm glad to see that extra $10 million. I'd be more pleased if they'd spend it. I don't think they will. The interim statement we received, dated January 31, 1979, shows the record of spending in 10 months — you know that we don't plant trees in February and March in those areas. The statement shows that the $19.8 million which was provided in estimates was underspent by $5 million and the $10 million from the special fund was underspent by almost $4 million. So they provide an extra $10 million and then don't spend $9 million of it. That's real progress. I think that's perhaps the most pressing problem in this province: to get on with planting some of those 25 million acres that Chief Justice Sloan was worried about some 20 years ago.

I don't expect them to do anything about it. Their record shows they have no real interest in building up anything for the future. Their only concern is to tax to the maximum now and to get away with spending as little as they possibly can. When the next three or four years rolls around, and they feel they have to go to the people, they can once again throw in the surplus from accumulated years of overtaxing and underspending, blow it all in that one short election period, and ask for re-election on the basis of that record.

This budget, apart from returning to the taxpayers a tiny fraction of what was needlessly taken from them by this government, does nothing to solve the three very grave problems that beset the British Columbia economy. It does nothing and attempts nothing to alleviate the disastrous unemployment situation in the province. It does nothing and attempts nothing to alleviate the increasingly severe inflation which so viciously gnaws at the incomes of the elderly and the poor.

It does nothing and it 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 perhaps as an act of deathbed repentance — spend the sums of money which were senselessly taken away from B.C. taxpayers in the earlier years of this government, and which, if spent in an orderly manner over those years, might have prevented some of the problems we have today.

This budget does nothing. After three years of financial strangulation by this government, the people of the province needed a budget with some vision, some imagination and some courage. Instead of that, we have the same old budget that we had on April 2 — a budget of fiscal deceit and economic paralysis.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's my pleasure to rise in this debate today in support of this budget presented by the Minister of Finance. Of course, the first thing I'd like to do is to congratulate the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) for his appointment and election as Speaker of the House, and the appointment of yourself (Mr. Rogers) as Deputy Speaker. I would also like to congratulate all the new members, and particularly those two members who moved and seconded the throne speech yesterday, the member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) and the member for Peace River North (Mr. Brummet), and congratulate them on an excellent motion and the seconding of that motion in the throne speech.

I rise in some surprise about the speech which preceded me because I got the feeling, listening to that speech, that the member opposite, and perhaps some of his colleagues, were planning not to support this budget. That surprises me because it's such a good budget. It also surprises me because I distinctly heard during the election campaign comments from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) that the members of the New Democratic Party, if elected to government, would implement the proposals made in the previous budget. So I don't understand how any member on that side of the House could, in all conscience, without a serious split and defection from the support of the Leader of the Opposition, vote against this budget when that vote should come forward. I expect that it was simply a mistake on the part of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in giving the impression that there was some thought of the members opposite voting against this sunshine budget.

I just comment very briefly on a couple of the things that the member for Nanaimo has said in his address. He seems to be worried about the increases in government spending that this government has had over the past term, and that's included in this budget as well. I'd just like to say that this government is not against increased government spending. What it is against is increased waste, as we saw by the NDP government rule in this province. We're not against investment, but we don't believe that the investment of taxpayers' money should be in things; rather, it should be in people. That's what's reflected in this budget: a great investment in the people of British Columbia and in the needs that the people have for social programs, for health care, for education, for help for those who are in need, from the handicapped to the children of this province. That's what you find in this budget.

The member for Nanaimo talks about all the investment that the previous NDP government had in things like Panco Poultry, Can-Cel, Peace River Dehy and all those kinds of things. He says that's the kind of thing we're spending our money on. That's the kind of thing they spent the people's money on. We'll spend the people's money on the people, where it belongs.

I also picked out one quote that the member for Nanaimo mentioned about "no evidence of any debt." Well, the people of B.C. want to know, if there's no evidence of any debt, how come they're paying interest of something in excess of $20 million a year.

How come they're paying interest if there was no debt? How come they're paying enough interest to pay for our entire Pharmacare program and our entire ambulance service for a year? If there was no debt, how come? I've never heard anything so ridiculous or stupid in my time in this House.

The member for Nanaimo also makes mention about "the great takeover by foreign corporations in this province and the sell-out of British Columbia to foreign corporations." You know, the members opposite have a great habit of using statistics to their own advantage. I suppose everybody is guilty of that to some degree, but that government, and particularly the previous speaker, have a habit of using statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than for illumination.

I had an interesting experience during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, and that experience was evidenced in a newspaper ad that the NDP took out based on this subject that the previous speaker talked about, the great sell-out of British Columbia. I didn't really have the opportunity — and some members may have — to really check all the companies which were listed — and I am sure they were listed in every constituency in the province — these companies which were supposedly sold out and were taken over by foreign investors and all of this kind of thing. But, you know, I did spy two which, because they were in my constituency, I wondered about. One of them was Panco Poultry, which was supposedly sold out to some great foreign firm. But do you know who Panco Poultry's farms were sold to? British Columbia farmers, Mr. Speaker. They were sold to British Columbia farmers, who bid on those farms and are now growing produce on those farms.

One of the other companies was West Fraser Mills Limited, which has its head office for retail sales in Langley, my constituency. They have a number of retail stores around the province. The member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has told me an interesting story about West Fraser. It used to be called Quesnel Forest Products, I believe, when it first came here. And the member for Cariboo informs me that, when they first came to British Columbia, the man who started that company — yes, he came from the United States; a lot of people have come to British Columbia with their money and investment from the United States — came with $15,000 and a desire to invest in what he felt, like many of us, was a great province. Apparently not long ago that company's worth was reviewed, and it was in the neighbourhood of $80 million. That happened in a span of some 20 years, a little better than 20 years since they came to British Columbia and invested in this province.

The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that these were.... Yes, they came from another place to come to British Columbia, but they were great British Columbians in their way, because they invested in our province, they showed confidence in our province, and they helped to make the wealth that allows us now to deliver those services that are needed by our province. It is a disservice to those people to say that they are some kind of leeches on society in coming into British Columbia. They've contributed greatly to our province, and they'll continue to do so, and we'll help them in every way we possibly can. So if those two companies were indications of the kind of research that the opposition used to prepare that ad, then its research is just as bad as it has always been — and that's pretty bad.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the impression I get that the opposition is going to vote against this budget. What are they going to vote against? Are they going to vote against increased health care? Do you know that since this government took office, provincial payments to the hospitals have increased from some $370 million in 1975 to

almost $650 million this fiscal year? That is almost double in less than four years, and that is proof, if there ever was proof needed, of the urgent priority that this government places on the health care of the people of this province. Are they going to vote against that?

Sure, there's some need to look at the increasing costs of health care, and we're doing that very seriously. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are in.... You know, the other day I was reading an article in the U.S. News and Business World Reports which pointed out that last year in New York city 25 hospitals closed their doors, bankrupt. One hospital in Miami city is today $25 million in debt. That is not going to happen in British Columbia, because we have the kind of government which will ensure that the economy will allow us to make sure that that doesn't happen in this province.

Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that British Columbia is continuing to increase social services at a time when every other government in Canada, for sure, is cutting back on services. We're increasing with long-term care programs, with Pharmacare, universal for every citizen of this province, with denticare to be introduced in this fiscal year. It is no accident that we can do that when everybody is cutting back. It is good management, good investment practices, the good husbanding and stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars in this province that allow us, the only province in Canada, to continue to increase our care to the people in need while others are cutting back.

Are they going to vote against long-term care? Is that what they're voting against? For the first time in the history of this province people who were formerly required to dissipate their life savings to provide care in long-term care institutions now have that care at a basic rate of $6.50 a day. Are they going to vote against that? That's what it sounds like.

Do you know that besides providing care for people in institutions now at $6.50 a day, we're allowing people to maintain their own sense of dignity and worth when they reach a certain age and disability by allowing them to stay in their own homes, by providing with the care that allows them to do that. Today we're spending $1.5 million every month to help people stay where they want to be, in their own homes. And they're going to vote against that.

Are they going to vote against dental care for the people of this province? We'll be introducing a dental care program in this fiscal year. It will be a comprehensive program, and they're going to vote against it. Are they going to vote against the largest hospital construction program in the history of this province? It sounds like it. Hospital construction in the years 1972 to 1975 was absolutely neglected. Today we have from one end of British Columbia to the other a massive program of hospital construction. Are they going to vote against the rebuilding of the Vancouver General Hospital, which is underway now? Are they going to vote against the new Victoria General Hospital which is being constructed today? Are they going to vote against the reconstruction of the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria which is about to begin? Are they going to vote against the reconstruction of St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver which is now underway?

Are they going to vote against the rebuilding of a new Grace Maternity Hospital in Vancouver? Are they going to vote against the new hospital in Delta? They voted against it once. I would imagine they'll vote against it again.

I notice neither of the members for Coquitlam-Moody nor Maillardville-Coquitlam. But are they going to vote against the new hospital in Port Moody? They voted against that one once too. Are they going to vote against it again?

Mr. Speaker, are they going to vote against money for the reconstruction of Prince George Hospital? Are they? Are they going to vote against the reconstruction of the Kamloops Hospital which is underway now?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll bet they do.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You bet they'll vote against it. That's the largest construction program in the history of this province, underway right now.

Are they going to vote against income tax reduction, the second lowest in Canada? Are they going to vote against sales tax reduction? I just want to ask what they're going to vote against. The indication is that they're going to vote against this budget. I don't see how they can. Are you going to vote against the increased homeowner grant — $580 for seniors and handicapped, $380 for others? Are they going to vote against that? If you're going to vote against that, just nod your head. Yes, they're going to vote against that.

They're going to vote against the surplus distribution, which includes $25 million to help us to pick up some of the deficits that have built up for hospitals around the province. Nod your head if you're going to vote against that one too, Mr. Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm nodding my head because you're putting me to sleep.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You've been asleep for 20 years, Mr. Member. It's about time you woke up. [Laughter.]

The previous speaker also made mention of some of the things that were said in the election campaign. He pontificated about why certain people voted the way they did. I guess that's all history now. We are government at the will of the people of British Columbia. We will govern to the best will that we possibly can for all the people of British Columbia. There was some talk during the election campaign about Medicare. And there were some people in this province who attempted to say that Medicare was in some discredit in this province and threatened by actions of government at whatever level. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that Medicare in British Columbia is as strong as it's ever been, and stronger than it's been at many times in our history. Our commitment to Medicare in British Columbia is strong and growing and will never change.

It's interesting that the day before the election, with all of the lies that were told during the election campaign, a headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 9 was: " B.C.: Where Doctors Don't Leave Medicare." It goes on to give a glowing report about the situation that we have between our medical profession and the government in British Columbia. It's a good one, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud of it, and it will continue.

The previous speaker talked about low politics. Well, Mr. Speaker, that party invented low politics and during the election campaign it sank to its lowest ever. They used a manure-spreader approach, just spread dirt over everything and no matter how much truth is told, there will be some left, and we'll take advantage of that which is left. That's

the kind of election campaign that was carried on, Mr. Speaker.

Lies, fear, distortion. Lies about hospital care, lies about health care, lies about Medicare, all of them lies and fear. And you know, my phone in the minister's office in Victoria....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. One must not impugn the fact that a member lied, and if you're referring to an election campaign and specific actions there.... But any member who is in this House....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, I understand there were no members during the election campaign, but there were people....

MR. SPEAKER: I know you're aware of that, but you're on the fringe, and I just want to bring it to your attention.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Right, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, and I wouldn't do that to this House. But there were people in the election campaign and there were lies, and I suppose the people of the province will put the two together. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be here to support what I feel is the finest budget ever put forward to this House. I want to ask those speakers on the opposite side of the House if they're going to vote against those things about which we've been talking today. If they are, then they should hide their heads in shame. They should not be calling themselves representatives of the people. This is a good budget; it's a positive budget. We intend to be a positive government, and I'm proud, Mr. Speaker, to support this budget by this government.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to take my place in this debate and especially now since I've been given a copy of the budget which is the subject of our discussions today. I'd say it's very nice to be back after a three-year somewhat forced sabbatical, but I find that on returning nothing that much has changed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're over there; you were over here.

MR. LORIMER: That's one change, a temporary change.

I just don't know where they found this chair, but I have to use it for the time being.

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your election, and also the Speaker on his election.

I'd also like to congratulate the leader of our party who led a very, very strong election campaign, a campaign that discussed the issues that face the people of this province and the problems that face the people. This campaign contrasted greatly with the campaign of the Premier, the hate campaign conducted by the Social Credit Party who continually relied on name-calling in its attempt to stay away from discussing the issues. The only time they tried to take credit for any accomplishments was when they talked about the Marguerite, the SeaBus, the trains or the Royal Hudson, all brought in by, of course, the New Democratic Party. The result of this, of course, has been a substantial increase in the number of seats on this side of the House with a corresponding reduction on the government side.

I just hope that the party on the other side will have no problems regarding leadership, and other matters that often face a party that reduces in size substantially after an election. I hope there is no discussion, because it's a disruptive force. I hope that you are all very, very satisfied with the result of this election and with the leadership thereof.

There have been a number of changes since I last left this House — not too many, but there have been some. The former Liberal and Conservative rump groups are sitting there with the remaining Social Credit members in an unhappy union, each group attempting to look like the willing partner in a coalition, each one secretly blaming the other for the misfortunes and problems that are basic to government from day to day. It's difficult.

There are not too many changes. I note that the Liberal rump group of Friday morning are missing except for the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is going to speak a little later. I would guess that the others are lined up at the AirWest dock. Things do not change that much.

I'm certainly sorry that our old member and friend from the Social Credit Party ranks, Agnes Cripps, the former member for Vancouver South, is not with us. I always considered her to be a very good Social Crediter. She was on her second attempt for a comeback but, unfortunately, she was shut out because she made the fatal mistake of being a life member instead of a new member. I'm very sorry that she is not with us.

I'm somewhat disappointed in the remarks made by the new Minister of Health, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I'm sorry he's not here right now, because I was going to discuss a few things with him. I made some notes, for some reason or other — here they are.

MR. KEMPF: Are they on the budget?

MR. LORIMER: Just about as close to the budget as the Minister of Health was. He was talking about Panco Poultry and the sale of Panco Poultry to British Columbia farmers. I would doubt if Cargill would be really that happy to be called a British Columbia farmer, or that the developers who bought the land of Panco Poultry, those who could buy land provided they had more than $100,000 to put up on the land, would class themselves as farmers as well. The land will be farmed temporarily. It will be farmed until the subdivisions take place.

He failed to mention the sale of Gray Line Tours to Greyhound of the United States, or the change to having the buses driven by American citizens rather than by the people from British Columbia. The bus drivers are now looking for other employment.

I was very disappointed to learn, shortly after the election, about three or four days after, that there will be cutbacks in the hospital financing, and this was to be the policy of the Social Credit government. It was only a few weeks ago that our accusations of the cutbacks that we could anticipate were vigorously denied by the Social Credit Party. A week after the election it was announced that 75 positions, nursing and other personnel, would be removed from the list of jobs at the Burnaby General Hospital. Some

would take effect immediately; others would take effect through attrition.

It is not good enough for the Minister of Health to say that he is not to blame, that the blame is with the local hospital boards. These boards are attempting to do a job without the assistance, sympathy or understanding of this government. Physiotherapists, orderlies, specialized nurses were told their services were no longer required. Some delays in carrying out the cutbacks may take place. In truth, the end result will be the same.

At the present time in Burnaby there is not enough staff to keep the hospital at full capacity. Some of the wards are closed because there's no staff. The minister was talking about building more hospitals; there's not much point in building hospitals if you don't staff what's presently there. The waiting lists for hospital attention are going to increase. History is repeating itself: this government is trying hard to catch up to the former Social Credit government of 1969, when we had the cutbacks in hospitalization, school construction and so on.

On the extended care wing in Burnaby they've done something else: they've cut off the cablevision which formerly was in place. These patients in the extended care wing have limited recreation, and cablevision is a very cheap solution for a way to spend some of these long and boring hours for the people who are confined. I'm sure that even this government, if they tried, could immediately look after this simple problem of giving some help in the way of cablevision to the residents of the extended care wings in the Burnaby hospital.

You are not fooling the people of Burnaby into believing it is the fault of the hospital boards. I've had many calls from residents of Burnaby regarding the reduced health care, and I have told them that the blame is squarely on the head of the Social Credit government. I've told them that this government has had its priorities mixed up. It's a government that wipes out succession duties on millionaires' estates at the expense of health care and a government that has failed to put people first. Burnaby, of course, is just one example. The same thing can be said for hospitals throughout the province.

Looking through the estimates quickly, I regret that there's not a significant sum set aside for the improvement of our transit systems in this province and the commencement of a light rail service on the lower mainland.

There are two ways in the modern urban society to move people. One method is the use of the automobile, which requires more and more highways criss-crossing through the neighbourhoods of our urban centres. This solution has been attempted by many cities in North America. The financial and social costs of such a solution have been far too great: the social costs of destroying neighbourhoods, the cost of construction of new bridges and highways, the widening of streets, and the choking up of the core centres of the cities.

I'm very disappointed with the history of the last three years of this government with reference to transit. Between 1972 and 1975 the bus and trolley fleet was more than doubled in an attempt to get transit off the ground. Services were given to a number of municipalities not only in the lower mainland and Victoria area but in the Interior and the coastal regions of this province. It was a start in getting the transit answer to the movement of people, not only in the large urban areas but also in the smaller areas.

The North Vancouver to Vancouver ferry system was designed, and the SeaBus was basically built and put in place by the time of the election of 1975. The Fastbus services were put in place — a new concept of moving people quickly. Negotiations were taking place with the CPR for a commuter service on their rail lines to Haney, and later on to Mission. The support services for a light rail system were basically in place, and construction of such a service was the next logical step in our effort to have people moved rapidly, economically and efficiently in the lower mainland and Victoria areas. I have no doubt that the initial light rail services would now be in place if our program had been carried on by this government.

Nothing positive has happened since the election with the exception of the completion of the SeaBus terminals. The fares were doubled immediately, and the frequency of service was reduced. Seven minute service was reduced to 10-minute service, 10-minute service to 15-minute service, half-hour service to hour service, and so on. Some routes were redesigned in order to save money, but this resulted in a substantial decrease in ridership and in service to the communities involved. One prime example, of course, is the rescheduling and reoperation of the Coquitlam run.

The number of vehicles in actual operation in the Hydro fleet has been substantially reduced since 1975; the population has increased. The operating deficits due to the loss of riders and poor service have increased. The number of drivers has been drastically decreased. It will take two years of active and aggressive operation in the transit field to bring it back to the level of 1975. It's a terrible record for this government.

Their solution was to create an urban transit authority, a UTA; these initials might mean "unlikely to assist," and that's about what happened. UTA, of course, is an excuse to transfer the cost of transit onto the local taxpayers, to stop the requests and demands from municipalities and regional districts for better transit services, because better transit services would be a cost now payable by the local taxpayer in a substantial measure.

This government has failed to come to grips with the real problems of moving people in a modern world, in our modern urban centres. Not only has there been no progress, but there has been substantial decline. It is now becoming the responsibility of local governments to see what they can do in their small way to assist in the movement of people.

I would like to pass on a warning to the people of this province, to those who rely on transit services in our urban centres, that in the new scheduling which will take effect in about a month's time they will see a substantial decline in the services provided, not only in the frequency of operations but in the hours of operations daily. It certainly may be necessary for them to call upon their friendly second-hand car dealer to make a deal in order to move around in the city and so further the congestion of the city streets in an already impossible situation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, I want to say that the previous speaker said that he wanted to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. I made a note of this, because I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. On election night there was nobody happier in British Columbia than the Leader of the Opposition, because he didn't win the election. He knew that had he won the election, he would have been faced with a task which he could not do. He tried

once and he failed. I watched him on television. That man was so happy that he had lost the election that his smile was from ear to ear. He revelled in the very fact that he had lost the election, so that he didn't have the responsibilities of governing this great province. So I want to congratulate him. As a matter of fact, I was happy for the people of British Columbia, and he was happy for himself.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you as Deputy Speaker, and take this opportunity also — the same as the other members of the Legislature have done — to congratulate the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) on being elected, nominated or given the post of Speaker for a second term in this thirty-second parliament. I think that speaks well for the Speaker, and I'm sorry that he is not in the chair. While the member for Chilliwack has been in the Speaker's chair, and while you've been Deputy, there has been a continual improvement in the decorum in the House. The Speaker and yourself are both fair; you are firm, you're witty and you're pleasant. I have noticed a continual improvement in the members' attitudes and the members' actions in the House. I'm sure that that is going to continue to even greater heights so that British Columbia will be looked on as a model of parliament for the rest of Canada.

I want to congratulate the new members who were elected and who will be serving in this Legislature for the first time. I want to congratulate also those members who have been here before and who are returned. Some of those members were part of the socialist government when they were government from 1972-75. I noticed particularly yesterday that they're carrying on their same attitude, particularly the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). He was very sincere in what he was saying, even though he didn't believe in it. That's the way they used to operate when they were government.

I also want to give my hearty congratulations to the mover and seconder of the throne speech. Certainly the speeches were of very high quality, very well delivered, and shining examples of the type of speeches you are going to hear from this side of the House from now on. I also want to say I'm very happy to be back here representing that great constituency of Peace River South. As the member for Peace River North (Mr. Brummet) yesterday said, it is the area which is maybe not recognized by the rest of the province as it should be. But it makes a great contribution to the economy of the rest of the province. Certainly the area has had good representation in members in the past. The member for Peace River North and myself will continue to see that that area again is well represented for the next 20 years. In that area there was a great sigh of relief on election night. I think it is the first election I've ever seen in my life where projects were set to go ahead but, instead of subject to financing or subject to arrangements or subject to authorization by a board of directors, the agreements were made subject to the outcome of the election. That's right, subject to the outcome of the election to see that good government was returned. That just shows those who are investing in this province did not want a return of socialism.

Now it is not my intention to refight the last election. However, I do want to make a couple of comments. As you know....

MR. MACDONALD: You were awfully nervous.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I was awfully nervous for you, my friend. You came up into my riding and you tried to make some inroads. But the people up there remember, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East. They remember when you were minister in charge of the petroleum industry. They remember how Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and the whole Peace River country.... They remember it. They'll never forget. That's right. It became a ghost town. Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, the whole Peace River country, just became a ghost town. They'll never forget you, my friend. They'll never forget you. I tell you, my friend, when you were in charge of the petroleum industry, you didn't dare be on the road between the Peace River country and Alberta. You would have got run over by things leaving the area, by oil rigs leaving, seismic crews leaving, construction crews leaving.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They don't want you back either. They'll never forget you. I want to tell you how they'll never forget you.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I just interrupt long enough to remind all hon. members that it is traditional to address the Chair during debate. Please proceed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you're back, because in your absence I said what a tremendous job you were doing as Speaker of this House and how you would improve the decorum and the actions of the members. I said there would continue to be a great improvement. I'm glad to see you back, sir.

However, I'm glad to support this budget. I'm certainly glad to be part of the Social Credit Party, who, during the years from 1975 to 1978, took the economy of this province from one on a decline, growing slower than the rest of Canada, people leaving the province, no confidence, to one of the fastest, soundest growing economies of any province in Canada. That is what we accomplished in three and a half years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about bankruptcies?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Member. I intend to talk about bankruptcies in just a moment. I'm afraid you might be eating your words over there when I'm finished. Yes, I'll talk about bankruptcies in just a moment, if you can just contain yourself. You see, you people, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)....

MR. KING: No, member for gerrymandering. You remember.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you're the gerrymander all right. Anyway, you hate to hear the real facts. You tried to spread an aura of doom and gloom over this province during the election. And the people of this province didn't buy it. They didn't buy it at all. Employment in this province is at an all-time high. We have a record of new job creation second to none in Canada. The problem is that the socialist opposition over there do really not want the economy to

function. They want, at every turn of the wheel, to ruin the economy of this province so that they can go around and say we did a bad job.

Their leader, shortly after he became Leader of the Opposition again, said in Halifax: "Things are bad in British Columbia, and I'm happy." Was he speaking for the workers of the province or was he speaking for the socialist party? No, they don't want it. And they have been unsuccessful in painting a picture of doom and gloom.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have a record of improving the economy, improving services to people and at the same time reducing taxes that is the envy of every province in Canada and of every state in the union and of every economic enterprise anywhere in the world.

I noted — and this is typical of the socialist opposition — the remarks of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He's great at criticism, but did not have one single, solitary, positive suggestion as to how we could improve the situation — which is already good — not one positive suggestion. You know, that's typical socialism. They're great criticizers. But ask them what they would do and you've got them stumped, because they have no suggestions. They're great criticizers, great at knocking down, great at tearing apart, but they don't have one single, solitary suggestion.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the workers in this province and we talk about wages. Under the previous Social Credit government the workers in this province became more prosperous than in any other jurisdiction, and unionism flourished. The workers in this province are well off. They have security. They know that there is investment taking place so that their jobs will be there in the future, and they didn't have that under socialism. You know, socialism is great for creating poverty. And that's exactly what it does; it creates poverty.

Now we had a socialist government in Great Britain for a number of years, using basically the same type of policies that that socialist party over there would use. As a matter of fact, they've got a couple of members that came over from the Old Country not too long ago and they're trying to bring those policies and impose them on British Columbia, the same terrible policies that brought that great nation down almost to the lowest in the world. Let's take a look at it. We had a socialist government in Great Britain. Workers' wages in Great Britain under a Labour government fell far behind those in any other nation in the European Economic Community. Now is that good for the workers? Under that socialist government, with basically the same policies as you're espousing here in this Legislature and espousing in British Columbia, they had the greatest labour strife that they had ever known and greater than in any other country in the European Economic Community.

But they're great to criticize, they're great theorists; but when you test their policies in actual government, they just don't work. And they didn't work in the three years that you were government, because you took an economy that was strong and growing and.... You had a couple of good years because decisions had been made that couldn't be reversed. You had a high demand for lumber and good prices and you had a high demand for minerals and good prices — you had a couple of good years. But if you follow all the charts, whether it's employment, unemployment, investment, no matter what it is, it goes well for '73-'74, but then, when the chickens come home to roost in the last year, unemployment in this province jumped from 62,000 to 95,000.

MR. BARBER: What is it today?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Today it's around 99,000. Sure, unemployment went up the first year we were government from 93,000 to 98,000. Then it went again to 99,000. It has remained practically stable since. At the same time that our unemployment has been remaining stable our record of employment has been increasing. In other words.... You understand, Mr. Speaker, and this is the thing that that opposition over there tend to forget.

Now they talk about foreign investment. They talk about takeovers by foreign companies. I think he listed some 76 companies that had been taken over by foreign interests. I want to tell you.... There's their premier. He says he's against foreign investment, foreign takeovers, and yet he travels around the world trying to get investment to come in. But while he's talking about foreign investment, he doesn't tell you the number of companies that are being formed in here and the number of investments that are not takeovers. They try and paint a picture that we are selling out the province.

I want to give you an example, Mr. Speaker. They tried to get investment in the province while they were government, but nobody had any faith in them and nobody had any confidence in them. They talked about foreign investment. "Oh, we don't want it." They went to Japan and tried to get them to build a steel mill; they went to England and tried to get them to build an oil refinery. What did Callahan do in England? He made a deal with Henry Ford. Ford went in there because the workers were lower paid than they were in any of the other countries. They gave them concessions on taxes for years and years and years. If a free enterprise government had done that you would have said: "Oh, a sellout to a multinational corporation." But the Labour government in England did it. You'd do the same thing.

MR. KING: Don't point your finger at me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Aren't you the House Leader? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not pointing at any specific member over there, but I'm pointing about their policies. That's what they do. They talk one thing and they do another. Sure, they got the Ford plant, they got the engine plant in England — special deal, special tax concessions made by the Labour government to a multinational corporation with headquarters in that big, bad United States.

Well, as I say, I don't wish to refight the election, Mr. Speaker, but the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who was their chief spokesman on the budget, talked about tragic unemployment, which is not the truth. Admittedly in their last year of government more people were leaving British Columbia than were coming to British Columbia. That trend has been reversed and we have people flocking to British Columbia, because they have confidence, to seek new opportunities for themselves and their families.

He talked about inflation. Mr. Speaker, I guess he forgot to look at the facts, because inflation in British Columbia during a socialist government rose to be the highest in Canada. If you look under a Social Credit

government in British Columbia, instead of being the highest in Canada, we're now one of the lowest in Canada. And he talks about inflation.

Mr. Speaker, they've got all these suggestions, and they talk about social services. They try and make the people of this province think they have a franchise on social services. What did they do when they were government? Nothing. We've done more for the people of this province, before and after, than they did. You'd better believe it. And now that we're bringing in new social programs in the budget, Mr. Speaker, they're going to vote against it. They're against social services. They talk a good line, there's nothing there to back it up.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, the last six months of 1975. The Caterpillar stopped in the middle of the road because you froze everything in this province. You knew that you were going downhill financially; you knew the financial ship of state was sinking. Your leader abandoned the ship, tried to jump overboard, passed it over to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He knew it was too late. You tried to call a snap election to hide the finances under the rug, but you froze everything. You froze programs.

You talk about the cost of education. They were going to bring in a program to fund the local colleges, and what happened? They didn't have any funds so they cancelled the program in the dying days of their days as government. They don't fool us, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, I don't want to refight the last election, but during the election campaign there was an NDP hack by the name of Friesen running around the province saying that he represented the small business community. Well, I don't know, what did he have — half a dozen NDPers with him or something? He certainly didn't represent the small business community.

Then the socialists were talking about 597 bankruptcies in B.C. in 1978, and only 63 in Alberta, and only 49 in Saskatchewan. "Oh, 597 bankruptcies — the place is going to the devil!" they said. I don't know who did their research for them, but there were some bankruptcies in British Columbia, there were some bankruptcies in Alberta, and there were some bankruptcies in Saskatchewan and Ontario and Quebec. And do you know why? Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you why. Because we were on a trend to make credit too easy.

But what are the true facts? The true facts are that in the province of Alberta last year there were 1,260 bankruptcies. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that nobody actually keeps accurate records of bankruptcies. But these figures are compiled by the past president of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta. But that's the type of fear campaign and misuse of facts that they were floating around during the election campaign.

I want to tell you the small business community in British Columbia is alive and growing, and I want to tell you it's going at a great rate. Last month, the month of May, 1,617 new businesses were formed in the province of British Columbia. Every month these statistics come out there is an improvement because the small business community has confidence in this government. That's why it's improving. Extra-provincial companies: I think that the NDP identified some 78 in three years. There were 138 new extra-provincial companies formed in the province last year. That's people coming from outside the province. We can play with statistics all day, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those chaps over there, or that group over there will never understand them. They'll never understand figures and they do not want to know the truth; they do not want to know the truth, Mr. Speaker.

They say they're great for the small business community. What was the first thing they did? They brought in the Corporation Capital Tax Act, a tax on small business, not only a tax on small business, but hours with accountants filling out the forms, red tape and an impost on the small businessman. That's what they did for the small businessman. They brought in the Public Works Fair Employment Act which forced the small contractor to be unionized before he could do any government work. It broke many of the small contractors and many small businessmen in the province, my friend. That's what they did. That's how they helped the small businessman. Certainly in the first months in this ministry I identified numerous small businesses and small manufacturers that were leaving and had left this province because of that government over there.

Mr. Speaker, what has this government done for the small businessman? One of the first moves we made was to remove the Corporation Capital Tax, which helped 18,000 small business. It relieved them from that burden of not only the extra taxes but the burden of having those forms to fill out every year.

We signed the first DREE agreement with Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, to provide funds in many areas for the small businessman. What did they do when they were government? Absolutely nothing. Their leader went down to Ottawa and was known as the Crown clown, the laughing stock of the Premiers. Did he do one single, solitary thing for the small business community in signing programs in Ottawa? Not at all, absolutely nothing.

We brought in, Mr. Speaker, the Low Interest Loan Assistance Program to help small businessmen and small manufacturers. We set up industrial commissionaires throughout this province to assist the small businessman with the government programs that we were bringing it, taking the small businessman by the hand, pointing out to him what programs were available and helping him. Did they do that? Mr. Speaker, they did absolutely nothing.

We set up business information centres throughout the province to help the small businessman through the chamber of commerce, which is made up of small businessmen. Did they do anything while they were government, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing in that regard.

We recognize the importance of the small businessman, and we set up a special ministry for small business, Mr. Speaker. What did they do? Absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, they created a climate which made it almost impossible for the small businessman to function in this province. We recognized that government red tape was harmful to the small businessman, and we set up a Minister of Deregulation.

The Tourist Industry Development Subsidiary Agreement, Mr. Speaker, helps the small motel operator, helps those in the tourist industry. What did they do? Absolutely nothing.

We set up a special $2 million fund for the food processing industry to help the small person who wanted to process or reprocess our agricultural products. What did they do? Absolutely nothing.

We set up a $2 million fund for aquaculture to help those in the shellfish industry. What did they do, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing.

We set up a special ARDA program to allow those on the coast who wanted to get into the fish-processing industry.

We gave the British Columbia Development Corporation a mandate to bring onstream industrial land so it would be easily accessible to small business and those who wanted to go into business. What did they do? Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker.

We brought in tax relief on production machinery. The British Columbia Development Corporation worked with the Bank of British Columbia to bring in long-term credit for the small businessman. Fifteen programs and more to come, Mr. Speaker.

We've brought in 15 programs, and there are more to come — 15 positive programs for the small businessman in this province. And they say they're for the small businessman.

A lot has happened in the last four years. A lot more will happen. There's a lot to be done. This government has probably ploughed more new ground in the field of economic development and new programs than any other province in Canada. I'm not saying that we've been 100 percent correct. We will analyse our programs. We will look in the mirror, as it were. We will see how we can improve them, how they can mesh together, how we can better help the business community in this province. We're not saying we've been 100 percent perfect. I will say we've brought in new programs, made innovations and brought about a climate of economic stability greater than any other province in Canada. We may have made a few mistakes, but we did something. We have more programs going aimed at economic development in this province than any other province in Canada.

I'm proud of those programs. We'll analyse them, and we'll take a second look. We'll analyse the role of the department. I'm not afraid to look in the mirror at how the department has been functioning: whether we should have more promotion in our overseas trade promotion; whether we should be bringing more buyers; whether we can do more in the development of our overall natural resources. We'll take a look at those. We'll look at how the small business portfolio fits into the overall economic development, tourism, and the whole deal. We'll take a look in the mirror. We'll try to improve them. We don't accept the status quo in this government. We're always looking for new ideas. We will plough new ground and we will move forward.

It doesn't matter what area you look at. The record of this government is outstanding. I don't care whether it's the record of economic development or the record of the tourist industry under our great first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). What did they say about tourism when they were government? "Yankee go home." Here I see an article in the paper this morning: "Tourism Traffic Up 12 Percent." When they were government, what was the record? You'd read the same headline: "Tourist Traffic Down 12 Percent." That's a record of solid achievement.

We're doing great things for the ski industry in British Columbia. In a very few short years British Columbia will be the Switzerland of the world. Europe will take a back seat to British Columbia when it comes to the ski industry. Those mountains were there, the snow was there and the climate was there when they were government. And what did they do? Absolutely nothing. But no matter where you go in this province today there are new developments taking place in the ski industry.

Manufacturing firms are on the increase.

Our agricultural community is growing strong under new policies this government brought in. All they talk about is farm income assurance. But under that government, going the way they were going, if they'd have been in government another two years there'd have been no farm income assurance because there'd have been no money to pay for it. They had it on a contract basis so that the farmer, every three or four years, had to come over and negotiate. Is it going to be a policy, or not going to be a policy? It was this government that made farm income assurance a solid policy of government, so that the farmers don't have to worry about it being taken away. Farmers of this province realized, because we have a strong, sound and going economy, that there will be money to pay for that income assurance program. They won't have to worry about it.

I don't care whether it's our record in developing the petroleum industry; the mining industry; the forest industry — any industry you want to talk about. We have a good, solid record of development, but not only in the industries. Our record in labour relations shows a vast improvement over that government. I'm not going to talk about the statistics, but we have a record second to none of any province of Canada, where we had the worst situation when we became government.

I don't care whether it's new programs in education. Under the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), there's the great new program to bring in high technology industry research development. It's new. We're ploughing new ground. And when that program is finished it'll be the greatest program not only in Canada but in North America. I think the Minister of Education might have something to say about that.

Whether it's our new programs in human resources, programs in education, our new programs in health; whether it's our record in protecting the environment; whether it's our record of sound fiscal management — regardless of what it is, we do have a good record of government. They don't like the facts. They don't like us saying that. But that is the truth.

If you listen to their speeches, all they do is harp and criticize — not one solid suggestion. I think somebody over there this morning mentioned the British Columbia Railway. When they were running the railway, it was being run into the ground. What's our record there?

MR. BARBER: How about the plywood?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, he talks about the plywood. If they'd have been government there wouldn't even have been a rail line there to put plywood under. They take one piece of plywood.... I'll tell you why that piece of plywood is there. It's because of new industry going into Fort Nelson with heavy, heavy loads, because of economic development.

The workers on that railroad do not appreciate the carping criticism that that opposition give. The workers there are proud. Management has a high morale. The

railway is running well and it's making money. I won't even tell them. Oh, maybe I should tell the new members the financial picture of the railway. The last year your leader was president it lost $23.8 million. Last year, under a new independent board of directors with a little bit of business sense, free from political interference, the railway made a profit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I tabled the financial statement in the House. Do you want me to do your research for you too? If you did it, you wouldn't be able to understand it anyway, my friend, so we'll let it go at that.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that an occasional outburst, although out of order, might be tolerated; but constant interruption cannot be tolerated.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the House is going to improve under your great guidance and leadership.

I don't want to refight the election campaign. What we're interested in on this side of the House, particularly in this ministry — and I mean this sincerely — is to hear some good, positive suggestions as to how we can improve it. If I hear any good, solid, positive suggestions, or the members want to come to my office and sit down with a particular problem, I'll welcome them. But I can't stand this continual, harping criticism. We maybe haven't done everything right, but we have a good record. If you have any suggestions for improving it, if you can help me to improve the economy of this province, if you're really sincere as MLAs and sincere in representing your own constituency, you're only too welcome to come to my office or to give me suggestions across the floor, and I will certainly listen. You are not doing the province any good, you're not doing your constituency any good, by refighting the last election and by trying to pour doom and gloom over the economy. Bring you’re suggestions.

You say you want to improve things; tell us how you're going to do it. Give us your suggestions; tell us how you would improve things. I'll tell you, we'll listen. But I'd like to hear some suggestions. Tell us what you'd do and we'll take a look at it; we'll analyse it. That's what we should be doing in this chamber, sitting down and having some constructive debate. If you want to debate the economy, sit down and give me your suggestions. We'll analyse your suggestions, and certainly we'll make the final decision because we're government. I'd like to hear from you what you would do, but not political suggestions. Let's get down to some concrete, solid debate. Tell us how you would do it, what the results would be, and we'll take a look at it. But I'm sick and tired of you just harping and carping and not having your facts straight.

I want to see that the workers of this province have a secure future. I want to see that there are jobs available for our young and growing labour force. You're not going to help them, and I'm not going to help them by dickering back and forth across the floor and not having any positive style of debate. I hope that during my estimates you come to me and give me some concrete suggestions because, as I said before, I'll listen. Some of the members opposite have come, from time to time, with a positive suggestion, and I think you've been well received, and I've tried to help you. I hope that you will take that attitude in this, the thirty-second parliament of British Columbia, so that we can work together for the good of the workers in this province, and not for our own political rhetoric.

MR. BARNES: Since charity begins at home, I will congratulate myself and my colleague upon our return to the Legislature.

Following that, I will congratulate you, sir, and your Deputy Speaker on your return. Having said that, I would like the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Alan Passarell of Atlin, who, I understand, has won by a landslide of one vote over the former member. It just goes to show you, Mr. Speaker.

The former speaker suggested that if we had any suggestions, they would be glad to listen and cooperate. I merely suggested that we all join in congratulating a member who has won by a desperate battle with the former member for Atlin, and not a single hand moved on those tables. Just incredible! I can't believe this. [Applause.] Okay, that's better.

I think, with respect, that we should wish the former member well in his new ventures, whatever they may be. And I mean that sincerely.

Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I just can't speak without commenting on your attire. As all of us, Mr. Speaker, must realize that the former Liberal member looked more like a pallbearer in the old days as a Liberal, and now he's gotten rid of his black suit. I'm wondering if the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) will be following him next. It's very colourful.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I would suggest that perhaps any debate on attire might better fall under a motion to be introduced in that regard. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand that we do have an agreement with the Whips, so that some other matters can be taking place.

I'm not going to be able to get into the text of the comments I had hoped to make. However, I would like to just suggest to the former speaker that the last time this side of the House made some suggestions, the Premier jumped up irate and ran out and called the election. So I don't know how he expects us to cooperate with him. Every time we suggest something they get excited and run out.

Now the budget, of course, that we have before us has been before us before. We wanted to debate it, and had some criticisms to make, and the government didn't have enough confidence in us to accept our comments at that time. That was prior to the calling of the provincial election. So they tried to use the promises of the budget as a means of convincing the electorate that these so-called "sunshine goodies" would be forthcoming. Now we're back, after having gone to the public under those conditions, to find that the government's majority has been reduced significantly. The opposition has been increased, and we have a

budget that had been dubbed the "dead-duck budget" by the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Now, I guess, we can call it the "re-sunshine-cloudy budget. "

It is significantly reduced in size, and it was not very enthusiastically presented by the Minister of Finance. Nor have any of the speakers in support of the budget been all that enthusiastic. In fact, everyone seems to be talking about everything else except the budget. At this stage, I'm not going to get into some of the suggestions that I would like to make. They're quite significant. They're very important. Certainly there has been no attempt in this budget to deal with the serious problems of unemployment. Despite what the minister may have said about their concern in ensuring that small businesses can compete successfully in our free enterprise system, I have documented evidence of a number of small businesses in the constituency of Vancouver Centre, in the downtown area along Robson Street and on Denman Street, which are all marginal, and have virtually no protection whatsoever in terms of their ability to compete. In fact, they are being gobbled up by the day by larger capital interests.

Certainly we'll be talking about their concern about small business, the survival of small business, and their ability to compete without having to pass on inflationary costs to the public in trying to sell their services.

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 3 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PARI MUTUEL BETTING TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pari Mutuel Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1977-78
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979.

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA TRADE
AND CONVENTION CENTRES FUNDS ACT

Hon, Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act.

Bill 8 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LOWER MAINLAND STADIUM FUND ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SPECIAL PURPOSE
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1979.

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY (1964)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 11 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. McGeer presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:47 p.m.