[ Page 41 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978, Vols 1 to 6. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 41

B.C. Cellulose Co. annual report. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 41

Oral questions.

Attitudes of human rights commissioners. Ms. Sanford –– 41

Availability of Crown land to realtors. Mr. Lea –– 43

Diversion of traffic from Second Narrows Bridge. Mr. Macdonald –– 43

Cowichan estuary. Mrs. Wallace –– 44

Medical services to outlying areas. Mr. Hall –– 44

Sale of Panco facilities. Mr. Stupich –– 44

Budget debate.

Mr. Passarell –– 44

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 45

Mr. Lockstead –– 48

Mr. Kempf –– 50

Mrs. Wallace –– 52

Mr. Segarty –– 55

Mr. Leggatt –– 57

Mr. Ritchie –– 60

Mr. Levi –– 62

Presenting reports.

Milk Board annual report at December 31, 1978. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 67

MONDAY, JUNE 11, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, members, before we proceed with any business, even of an informal nature, I would like you to hear this.

CLERK ASSISTANT:

Office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.
June 11, 1979

Mr. Ian M. Home,
QC Clerk of the Legislative Assembly
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

RE: General Election, May 10, 1979.

Enclosed herewith is a letter dated June 8, 1979, in duplicate from the chief electoral officer and registrar-general of voters, setting forth the name of the member who has been elected in the general election for the Atlin electoral district.

Yours very truly
Gerald H. Cross
Deputy Provincial Secretary

Province of British Columbia
Ministry of
Provincial Secretary and
Travel Industry
Chief electoral officer and
Registrar-general of voters

Mr. Gerald H. Cross, QC
Deputy Provincial Secretary
Deputy Minister of Government Services
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

RE: General Election, May 10, 1979

Pursuant to my certificate of June 6, 1979, I now present my certificate for the Atlin electoral district.

This certificate was delayed due to a judicial recount before the county court of Prince Rupert, followed by an appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

I now certify that Alan Lawrence Passarell has been elected to represent the electoral district of Atlin.

Yours truly
K.L. Morton
Chief electoral officer and
Registrar-general of voters

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would be so kind, sir, on behalf of members of this House, to convey our deep sympathy to the family of Fred "Cyclone" Taylor, who passed away this weekend. Others more eloquent than I have spoken on the weekend of his death at a fine age; but British Columbia, Canada and sport in general are poorer as a result of his death.

I would like the House to welcome a group of students from Stelly's Senior Secondary School in the Saanich Peninsula portion of my constituency, Saanich and the Islands. They are accompanied by Mr. Rees.

MR. SKELLY: I ask the members to welcome two hard-working constituents from Alberni, Gerard Jansen and Mark Deseur.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Some people who have worked very hard during these last several months are the returning officers throughout the province. I would particularly like to welcome a very hard-working returning officer in a difficult area, Mrs. Lois Gendron, the returning officer for Surrey, and Mrs. Hilda Felton, the election clerk, who is visiting today with her. I ask the House to extend them a welcome.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming Merryan Townsend and Russell Uren, two visitors from Rotorua, down under in New Zealand. They are touring the United States and Canada. I ran across them by accident. I liked their accent; it made me feel like we had something in common. I had them out for dinner and we had a good time. They are now in the gallery. I hope everyone will wish them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: I ask this House and its members to join me in welcoming two constituents from Prince George: Mr. Ken Vance, a graduate of Prince George's College of New Caledonia and of late a legislative intern; and Mr. Don Morberg, a reporter for the Prince George Citizen, one of B.C.'s outstanding newspapers.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very pleased today to have in the gallery my sister-in-law, Mrs. Elizabeth Gildea, who has recently returned to Victoria. She is accompanied by a more frequent visitor to this gallery, my husband Robert. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Today we have two guests from Merritt, in the heart of the Nicola Valley. I ask the House to welcome Jim and Joyce Mynott.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like to welcome my mother, who has flown in from Windsor, Ontario. This is a special day for her for a number of reasons; today is her birthday too.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented volumes 1 to 6 of the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Cellulose Company.

Oral Questions

ATTITUDES OF
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONERS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister has stated that no members of the Human Rights Commission will be fired. How can he justify keeping on commissioners who have violated, through their actions and through their statements, the principles and aims of the Human Rights Code? I wonder, in view of the fact that the attitude of some of those

[ Page 42 ]

commissioners on human rights issues is very clear, and in view of the fact that telling them to keep their mouths shut is not going to alter their attitude, if the minister will reconsider his position not to fire some of those commissioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, Beauchesne provides that we should not be anticipating future performance of a minister. If you need the reference for that it is section 171(c)(c).

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the minister will at this time — not in the future — reconsider his actions not to fire some of those commissioners.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary. In view of his public statements calling for dismissal of some members of the commission, I am wondering if he is satisfied that the present commissioners, who are anything but advocates for human rights, will not be removed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the hon. member would know that the matter lies within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.

MS. SANFORD: I do recognize that the decision rests with the Minister of Labour as to whether or not he is going to retain the present commissioners. But the Provincial Secretary has stated publicly that he would call in cabinet for the dismissal of some of the human rights commissioners, and I'm wondering if the Provincial Secretary is satisfied at this stage that no human rights commissioners will be dismissed. Is he satisfied?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've already answered your question, Karen.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Would it be fair to assume that the Minister of Labour's silence on this matter indicates his full approval of the statements of the members of the commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It wouldn't be fair.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, if it is not fair to assume that the minister supports the statements, can the minister indicate that he is opposed to the statements made by the members of the Human Rights Commission?

AN HON. MEMBER: That wouldn't be fair either.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary question, is the minister aware of the statements in question that have brought public criticism on the members of the Human Rights Commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm aware of the press reports that have been issued with respect to the statements made at a Human Rights Commission meeting.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, is the minister satisfied that the press reports were accurate?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot ask about the accuracy of press reports in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister satisfied that the statements attributed to the members of the Human Rights Commission were indeed made by the members of the Human Rights Commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister, who now acknowledges that he is aware of the statements, satisfied that the members of the Human Rights Commission did, indeed, make those statements? Can the minister offer an explanation to this House as to why he did not fire the members of the Human Rights Commission, in light of the negative, anti-people statements made by those members?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The question is argumentative, Mr. Speaker, and therefore not in order, as the member well knows.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to use parliamentary devices to avoid his responsibility in detailing why he is keeping this Human Rights Commission on? And would the minister tell us what method of personnel selection he used to pick these particular members of the Human Rights Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think, hon. members — and this is particularly for the benefit of new members — in question period we can ask questions, we can expect answers, but we cannot insist on answers. Therefore you would have to leave it to the discretion of the Chair to determine how long we can continue questioning and seeking the same answer.

Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Labour if he approves or disapproves of the statements attributed to the members of the Human Rights Commission.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question.

MR. BARRETT: You disapprove or you approve?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Have you a further question?

MR. BARRETT: I asked the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he approves or disapproves of the statements made by the members of the Human Rights Commission. Yes or no.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no. Do you approve or disapprove?

[ Page 43 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Let the record show, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is avoiding his responsibility on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Let the record also show, Mr. Speaker, that I've already answered the question.

MR. BARRETT: You're not kidding anyone. Shame!

AVAILABILITY OF
CROWN LAND TO REALTORS

MR. LEA: This is a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Now that the minister has admitted that land is being sold to realtors to resell on speculation, I wonder if the minister would let us know how long this government policy has been in effect.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a matter of public record?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be bringing a full response to the question, which the member is asking again — he asked it last Thursday — back to the House in a day or two.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask this question the other day. I asked the minister whether or not that was policy. He said he didn't know. Now he's admitted it's policy. How long has this new government policy been in effect? Has it been, for instance, as long as six months?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there is no new government policy.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, is the minister then saying that there is no policy within the government to sell land to realtors for speculative purposes, for resale?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker. there is no such policy.

MR. LEA: Could the minister tell me then why he is going against government policy and selling land to the realtors for resale?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious the member for Prince Rupert is twisting facts.

MR. LEA: It's much more fun twisting necks. Will the minister tell the House whether this non-policy of the government, of selling land to realtors for resale, has been going on in the Vancouver region for over six months?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member last Thursday, I will be bringing a full answer to the questions that he posed last Thursday, which he is repeating today.

MR. LEA: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister now tell us what the percentage of commission is that is being paid to real estate firms for selling Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, as I said before, a full statement will be coming.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister gives assurance that the question is taken on notice and he will reply to the House at a future date.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I asked the other day to have information brought back here. He said he would and then he gave the answers on a television show. Is that where we have to go as members of this House to get answers to questions? Now that the minister's memory is refreshed, could the minister now let us know at what date he or his ministry spoke to the B.C. Real Estate Association about paying commissions to them and allowing them to buy Crown land for resale?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There was no such discussion by the minister.

MR. LEA: I didn't ask that, Mr. Speaker. I asked him whether it was he or his ministry. Or did it happen by osmosis? Who actually went to see the real estate people and made the deal and when?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Prince Rupert is suggesting there is a deal. I indicated last Thursday there is no deal, and there is no deal today.

MR. LEA: If there is no deal, then can the minister assure this House that the lots that have already been sold to the real estate firms will not be sold?

DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC
FROM SECOND NARROWS BRIDGE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways. There is a proposal for a cloverleaf on Cassiar Street at Cambridge in Vancouver which would allow the diversion of traffic from the Second Narrows Bridge into residential areas, and I understand an agreement was signed by the minister; I'm asking the minister now if the government will reconsider that proposition in view of the imminent destruction of neighbourhoods both in north Burnaby and Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the second member for Vancouver East: that is a city project that our ministry is definitely involved in. They initiated it. I believe they've had public hearings on it, and I don't know where it is at the present time, but I want to emphasize it's city initiative in the project.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary to the minister. Did the provincial government, through your ministry, sign an agreement with the PNE and the city with respect to that cloverleaf?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure they signed an agreement, but we've certainly been in on all the negotiations and discussions with the various bodies. We said we'd financially support the city when they got their proposition resolved.

[ Page 44 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Will the minister then reconsider the financial support and check as to whether or not an agreement has been signed, so that the provincial government can make its position clear that it is not pushing for this particular cloverleaf?

HON. MR. FRASER: Here again, as I said, it's a city initiative in the first place that we've gone along with cooperatively, and we will certainly look at your question of withdrawing financial support.

MR. MACDONALD: A final supplementary. Would the minister mind reporting back to the House? Because it's a matter of great concern to the residents in that area.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think this has already happened, as a matter of fact.

COWICHAN ESTUARY

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of the Environment about what else is in the Cowichan estuary. Can the minister tell me whether or not his ministry has engaged the services of a consultant to look at the needs of industry within the estuary?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MEDICAL SERVICES
TO OUTLYING AREAS

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread public concern about the quality and the quantity of medical services in outlying areas, can the Minister of Health tell the House whether the report on this subject which was commissioned by the government to be prepared by the former Social Credit cabinet minister Wesley Black has been delivered to the minister yet?

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

MR. HALL: Would the minister then table the report so it can be discussed at this session?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, the report will be tabled. The report will be released. There's no requirement to table it in the House.

MR. HALL: When, Mr. Speaker? I asked if it would be done at this session.

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

SALE OF PANCO FACILITIES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell us how many bids were received for the Panco facilities that were sold to Cargill — the processing plant and hatchery?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Four.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I would like to yield to the member for Atlin, if that is agreeable to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The member defers, and loses his position in the debate.

MR. PASSARELL: It is with great pleasure that I rise to take my place in the debate. I would like first of all to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment as Speaker of the House. I know you will fulfill the obligations of your position with the able help of the Deputy Speaker. It is indeed an honour to be seated in the Legislature as the member for Atlin and it is my intention to work diligently to represent the concerns of my constituents.

I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the former MLA for Atlin, Mr. Frank Calder, who represented that constituency ably for over 20 years. The closeness of the final vote in Atlin is testimony to the personal popularity that he enjoyed. I feel that during his years as MLA he made a significant contribution and I wish him well. His one mistake, I believe, was to run under the banner of Social Credit, a party which lost the respect and trust of the native people in British Columbia when it failed, during its three-year term in office, to place any importance on the needs and concerns of the native people.

Mr. Speaker, I am here in this House today because of the native people of Atlin, who felt that they have been betrayed by the Minister of Labour, and the Socreds who promised them in 1975 that they would sit down with them and negotiate issues which were of concern to native people. The Nishga Tribal Council members had not been unreasonable in their position regarding land claims, and it is apparent now that their decision to support the New Democratic Party was based on our willingness to sit down and talk to them and to understand their concerns. Mr. Speaker, the Indian people of British Columbia, both status and non-status, must have restored and protected their economic base and their cultural and educational self determination. Their aboriginal heritage must, once again, become their own, and they must be supported in their attempt to achieve social equality and economic justice.

I would like now to address the House on a number of issues which are of concern to my constituents in Atlin. Atlin, as you may know, is a vast northern territory and suffers many problems which are unfamiliar to the urban constituents. I note that in this budget there is reference to substantial expansion of funding for employment opportunities for the young people. I am pleased that this matter is being given some attention, but it is my concern that it will not be significant to alleviate the serious problem of unemployment in the northern part of this province.

In my constituency I am deeply concerned about the high level of unemployment, which last month stood at 10 percent. This figure, of course, does not include the many native people who have no opportunity for unemployment, and therefore are not included in the unemployment statistics of those actively seeking employment.

[ Page 45 ]

This budget talks of a new transportation policy which will make a maximum contribution to the economic development of all parts of British Columbia. I would like the opportunity to remind the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), that the only highway which services my riding, Highway 37 which winds northward from Terrace, is a mess. I hope that he will see fit to make the upgrading of this highway a priority. Bridges and roadbeds are caving in due to the increased freight loads hauled on this road. While the large transport trucks can negotiate the perilous section, it is certainly not passable to ordinary traffic. We have heard so many promises in our area about the tourist potential that exists, but let me say that tourists are being driven out of the area because of the extremely poor condition of the road system.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard in the press about the increased cost of living, but nowhere in the province do the people suffer from the high costs like the people of the Atlin constituency. Food costs are extremely high — $1.25 for a loaf of bread and $2.50 for a dozen eggs are standard. Fresh milk and fresh fruit are unavailable at times. This, to me, is unacceptable, and I hope that some consideration will be made to alleviate this situation.

Atlin, as you know, is a large and poorly accessible riding. We need a ferry system which will link Prince Rupert and Stewart, British Columbia's most northern ice-free port. This would help significantly with our transportation problems.

I would like to touch briefly on one other problem which is of enormous concern to the residents of my riding. That is the lack of adequate medical facilities. There is one hospital in my constituency; it is located in Stewart, which is in the southern part of the riding. The next general hospital is some 500 miles away in the Yukon. In between there are only first-aid stations. The main one is in Cassiar, which serves a majority of the constituency. Dease Lake, with a population of 300, does not even have a first-aid station to provide medical aid. The only medical services available are weekly visits from a public health nurse, who provides services from a teacher's desk in the school. The children of Dease Lake may not appreciate my raising this matter because at the present time the school closes down whenever the public health nurse comes to Dease Lake to provide medical services. The store in Dease Lake, which dispenses minor medical items such as aspirin, is closed when the owner goes fishing, and the local residents must rely on each other for help if an emergency arises.

This is a totally unacceptable situation and I will be working to see that it is alleviated, Mr. Speaker, so the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) can expect to be hearing from me about this.

There are some other issues which are of concern to me and the people who live in Atlin. I look forward to representing my constituency diligently, and I thank you for the opportunity to raise some of these issues, which are of importance to me and to my constituency.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to support this great budget that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) reintroduced last week.

Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you and the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) on your appointment to the office of Speaker. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of this House who has served one term now, your guidance, your humour and your understanding are most appreciated by the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, the previous speaker mentioned Frank Calder, the former member for Atlin, and I would also like to mention Frank. Frank Calder was MLA for Atlin for some 25 years. During that time he was a member for the opposition party, the NDP, and then he became a member of the Social Credit caucus. That gentleman from Atlin, the former member for Atlin, was, in my opinion, a very great spokesman for the Indian community of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. that in the Social Credit caucus Frank Calder — or as he was affectionately known to all members of this House, "The Little Chief" — often spoke out, and spoke out well, on behalf of his brothers not just in Atlin but in all areas of this province, and for all Indians across Canada and, I would hazard a guess, across all nations of the world. He spoke out for those races that sometimes are not given proper consideration and not given the opportunities that others are.

I would like to say that I, as a member of this House, look back on my association with the former member for Atlin as a very rewarding experience. He was of great assistance to new members of this House, myself included. Because of his term of office he had an understanding of some of the problems that we face in here. Sometimes the debate gets heated, but Frank Calder often had the sense and the ability to give you a little bit of insight into the real reason why we are here.

I would just like to say. Mr. Speaker. that I wish Frank Calder and his lovely wife, Tami, all the best in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the mover of the throne speech and the seconder — the members for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) and North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) — on giving their first speech in this House. They gave excellent speeches when moving the throne speech.

I would like to congratulate those of us who were re-elected. We've made it again. Sometimes we wonder why, but here we are. And I'd like to congratulate those who have been elected for the first time. You know, in 1975, I came into this House as a new member. The new member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) arrived today and I'm sure he sits in his chair and looks up and wonders just what it is all about, and I'm sure sometimes he'll question what it's all about. It comes as quite a shock. We get carried away, and we have debates in this House that get heated, and we have remarks thrown across the floor. and the people in the gallery say: "Isn't it terrible, the way they are acting down there."

But, Mr. Speaker, we are here for a purpose: we are duly elected by the people of our constituencies, and we are here to try and do a job for the public good. There is a real world outside, a world of laughter and a world of sadness, a world of suffering, a world of unemployment, but a world of opportunities. There are needs for our youth and our aged, and our purpose here is to try and develop good,

[ Page 46 ]

sound debate so that government can bring in proper legislation, policies and programs that are in the public good, not to restrict individuals in this province but to provide more freedom and opportunity for all.

The budget talks about such policies and programs, but I think they indicate that this government is committed to providing opportunities for all British Columbians. They are committed to the protection and the assistance for those who are not as fortunate as others, and we're committed as a government, and have been committed since 1975, to responsibility and accountability of government. I'd just like to read a few items from the budget highlights to give you an indication of some of those commitments. We have a provincial budget of $4.5 billion this year, a lot of money. But it is a balanced budget, balanced by revenues; and when we came into office in 1975 the Minister of Finance stood up and said: "We will operate within balanced budgets." We have for the last three years, and we will continue to do so. That is a commitment of this government.

We have limited provincial spending to only 5 percent over the previous year — leadership of a government to try to hold down the cost of inflation, the price of inflation in this province. And then we look at some of the things we've been able to do. The economy of this province is — if I can use the probably overworked phrase — "moving again." We have reduced the sales tax to 4 percent, and all through the election campaign the opposition candidates kept coming out and saying: "You increased it to 7." That was the bad thing, because three years ago the people of the province recognized that we increased it to 7 percent only because we didn't have the revenues coming out of the economy of this province. But now that they are, it's not gone down to 5; it's gone down to 4 percent.

As former Minister of Agriculture who has now been appointed as Minister of Agriculture again, I am very pleased with that statement in the budget where the school assessment on farm and agricultural and reserve lands have been reduced by 50 percent, effective December 31, 1979; and that's to reduce the school taxes on farms. The agricultural land reserve is there to save the farmland. That reduction of the assessment on agricultural land will give some relief and assist the farmer in this province. I'm very pleased to see that.

The Corporation Capital Tax Act is an act that taxes the capital of a corporation and the borrowings of a corporation. That exemption has been increased from $500,000 to $1 million. In my riding, Boundary-Similkameen, in the tourist mecca of this province — Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Keremeos, Greenwood, Grand Forks, Christina Lake — I have a lot of motel operators and tourist operators who have a limited company. Their investment is well above the half-million dollars, and they were attacked with this corporation tax. Now that we've raised that exemption limit to $1 million, that has given relief to a lot of the constituents in my riding.

There are a number of other things in the budget; other speakers will be talking about them, but the permanent increase of $100 for an annual homeowner grant to all homeowners in British Columbia raises the homeowner grant to a basic grant of $380 to those under age 65, and $580 for those over age 65. I'm not sure — maybe the Minister of Finance could tell me — what percentage of the senior citizens in their own homes by getting that $580 homeowner grant would actually be relieved of property taxation on the property they own. But I an suggest to you that it's come a long way since we were first elected. It's now up to $580, and that would relieve them of a good portion of their total tax bill, if not all; and it's an excellent move.

Those are some of the items in the budget; there are many more. It does give an indication that we've reduced the sales tax; we've provided assistance to homeowners; we've reduced the personal income tax effective July 1 by 2 percent — for the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not sure whether it's1 percent or 2 percent, or six months or a year. He's an accountant, and he knows as well as I do that it's 2 percent effective July 1, 1979; and that is only because the economy in British Columbia is sound and is growing.

The programs, the policies, the legislation that are being put into place and will be put into place by this party are to stimulate that economy, that private sector — to assist them. The difference in philosophies is that the opposition party believes in direction and control of the private sector, holding down initiative and opportunity. This government believes in encouragement and support of the private sector; and that's why the economy is moving in this province. If you want to see some statistics, in the Ministry of Mines since 1975 we know there's been a substantial turnaround, because in the previous administration, when they were in office, they brought in legislation that literally curtailed the mining and gas and oil exploration in this province. Since that time there has been a considerable amount of activity, and it's going on with announcements being made almost daily.

Let me give you some examples: Placer Development Ltd. and the Sam Goosly copper-silver property near Houston in that great constituency of Omineca — there is now $85 million under capital development, with projected employment of 200 people at that mine; Esso Minerals are reopening the Granduc Mine at Stewart with $20 million in capital development, and a projected employment of 330; Teck Corp. just recently announced Highmont Copper in the Highland Valley with $110 million in capital development and projected employment of 200 people; Newmont Mines Ltd. at the Similkameen mine in Princeton in Yale-Lillooet — $50 million to employ another 100 people in additional expansion in that area.

Those are the announcements that are being made. More are going to come. Since this party has been re-elected to office, they have further confidence in the fact that they can plan, develop and spend the capital to explore the mining industry and the oil and natural gas industry in this province to create employment and to create revenue in order that government can provide the people with services.

Yesterday I received the Trade and Commerce magazine. I'd like to quote from it. It's a magazine that deals with Fort St. John, the City of the Year. I'm going to read a few paragraphs:

"The city languished in a state of mild depression in the early 1970s as the provincial NDP government policy sharply reduced exploration activities in the northeast. The impact of this decision was felt throughout the Fort St. John economy as jobs were lost and payrolls shrank. But a change in government in late 1975 brought renewed hope and a promise of new policy stimulants to get the oil industry rolling again. The beneficial effects of this accelerated effort

[ Page 47 ]

were felt almost immediately, as oil companies once again shifted into high gear. Drilling programs were stepped up dramatically, and oil service and supply firms were hard-pressed to keep up with the demand.

"More than three years have gone by since this sharp about-face. And this black gold of northeastern British Columbia continues to lubricate the wheels of the Fort St. John economy, this time at a record pace.

"'Fort St. John is really now in a sort of catch-up state,' said regional economic development director Bill Anderson. 'When the NDP government controlled the investment dollars, the majority of exploration companies withdrew from the area, and there was little or no growth or development in the service sector. The return of the oil rigs, however, changed all that. There is a constantly increasing demand for goods and services,' he added, and he confidently predicts a record year in all sectors for the local economy in 1979."

This is a magazine, not a party brochure or pamphlet. It's a statement of fact that's coming from the economic regional coordinator or director of that area to indicate the growth in Fort St. John in our northeast, again resulting from government policies in programs and legislation that do not interfere with the private sector but give it support, that do not bring in regressive taxation on the private sector but give it legislation where it can see that it has an opportunity to expand and grow and create jobs. These are not programs or policies of uncertainty for that sector where you have withdrawal of capital, but programs that encourage the private sector and the investment dollars to come into the province.

During the election, the question was, and has been for years: is it government direction and control, as that party advocates, or encouragement and support, as this party advocates? I think the mining announcements, and the oil and natural gas activity, and the growth of Fort St. John and other communities in the northeastern part of British Columbia indicate that encouragement and support are what is needed. Governments are elected to govern, not to compete in the private sector.

I want to touch on another matter which comes under my jurisdiction — the energy policy. I spoke on this during the throne speech debate before the election. I'm not going to repeat it all at the present time, but will just say, however, I'm hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we'I be able to present the energy policy that we are working on to the people of British Columbia. It will be a comprehensive energy policy. The main thrust of it, of course, is the concern for an adequate supply of energy in this province, and the security of supply of that energy.

We have, as you know, hydroelectric power; natural gas reserves are being discovered all the time; there are some oil reserves, but the future is not too bright. We have adequate coal supplies in this province. We are doing exploration work on geothermal energy. We are doing research on solar energy. One of the main thrusts of that energy policy will be, of course, conservation of energy. In my opinion, the cheapest source of energy is conservation, because you are saving 100 percent.

We just signed, a month ago, a $27 million federal-provincial agreement on energy conservation, a joint effort by the federal and provincial governments to assist in the research and development of those alternative sources of energy and energy conservation. These are programs that will save not only energy but dollars for the consumer.

I hope to have the opportunity to meet with my federal counterpart, the new Minister of Energy, in Ottawa in the not-too-distant future. Again, we are somewhat curtailed through the House, but after we recess, I hope to have the opportunity to go down and visit with him. Because I really feel very strongly that you cannot have an energy policy for a province.... If you have an energy policy from British Columbia, one from Alberta, one from Saskatchewan, et cetera, but each one different, and then you try to attempt to have an energy policy for Canada, it won't work. You must have a coordinated energy policy — coordinated throughout the provinces of Canada, coordinated with the federal government — and that's what I hope to discuss with my federal counterpart in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Speaker, I've been honoured with another portfolio since the election, the Ministry of Agriculture. I just want to make a few comments about agriculture, dealing with one thing in particular, because the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who was in the House — he's not here now — raised the issue of Panco Poultry. My good friend the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), asked a question today about bids on Panco Poultry, and other people have raised that question. But every time I get up to speak the press gallery is all gone and the members are all gone. I have really wanted to tell this story; I have wanted to tell it for many, many months. So maybe if they could bring their members back, I could start and tell it.

Nevertheless, I'm going to tell it anyway. Panco Poultry — "Pinko Panco," the chicken-plucking plant, whatever you want to call it — has great history. But the interesting thing, of course — and I'll try and describe it so that the opposition members will fully understand what we attempted to do.... First of all, Panco Poultry was a vertically integrated company. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) knows what a vertically integrated company is. It had land; it had farms; it had a hatchery; it had a feed mill; it had a processing plant. From the time that little egg was laid to the time it hit the store, it was Panco Poultry 100 percent wrapped up and put on the shelf — Panco Poultry. They purchased it in 1974 or thereabouts. The reason, I believe, at that time was to save jobs. That was the reason. Now I think it went a little beyond that. However, here's the story.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, I'd like to know how much time I've got because I don't want to lose out on this debate. Could you tell me how much time I've got?

MR. SPEAKER: We'I try to get the information to you while you're in flight. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have eight minutes.

We took that company and we put the farms up for sale. The interesting thing about the farms is that the Minister of Agriculture has the responsibility for the Natural Products Marketing Act, which controls quota. The farmers, the broiler producers and the turkey producers in this province have opted for the quota system. A farmer can only have, I believe, some 40,000-odd pounds of broilers and some 500,000-odd pounds of turkey. I think that works out to about 18,000 birds. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is going to correct me on the figures because I just pulled this out today. I'I use the figure of 40,000

[ Page 48 ]

broilers or thereabouts, and about 18,000 turkeys. If I'm wrong in those figures I apologize, but that's all they can produce. I'll use those same figures to give you the comparison.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Panco Poultry had four broiler farms. That's four times 40,000 birds; that's 160,000 birds. They had seven turkey farms — seven times the 18,000 birds. The Minister of Agriculture had the responsibility of saying to the producers through the marketing scheme that they could produce only so many birds. However, the company that he was in control of, the company owned by the government, could produce four times as many broilers and seven times as many turkeys. That is a conflict of interests, and as Minister of Agriculture, there was one thing I found out very quickly: how the rules changed for government as opposed to the private sector.

So we sold those farms to four broiler producers and seven turkey producers. We took the feed mill, and instead of it being a vertically integrated feed mill in a vertically integrated company, we sold that feed mill. There were two bids on it, Mr. Member — one from Cargill and one from Heppell Brothers. For your information, although you should have read it in the paper, Cargill was the highest bidder on that one. And we sold it to Heppell Bros. of British Columbia because the attempt was to keep it in British Columbia, and there it is and there it stays to date.

Then we took the famous processing plant that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is all concerned about — and I guess the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) is all concerned about because he raised it — and we sold the processing plant to Cargill. Shame, shame, shame, the opposition said, we sold it to Cargill. But let me tell you one thing which has never been raised by the opposition, although they must know it: the broiler producers and the turkey producers endorsed the sale to Cargill. And it's interesting to know that if Cargill is so bad, the NDP government in Saskatchewan sure likes them, because there are a lot of elevators out there owned by Cargill. They're there; they don't mind that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, don't they? That isn't what I read in Hansard from Ottawa, Mr. Member.

Nevertheless, let me give you the reasoning behind the Cargill purchase. Cargill is reinvesting Panco's earnings back into the Panco operation. They're initiating a three-year plant-improvement program for expansion and modernization amounting to approximately $3 million, primarily equipment, labour and materials, to stabilize the long-term future of 350 jobs — the jobs that you were all so concerned about over there when it was purchased in 1974 — and that's one of the things that maybe you weren't aware of. They're retaining the existing Panco management and introducing advanced technology and marketing programs into Panco's development plans to optimize existing expertise and experience available in the Cargill organization. They're cooperating fully with the broiler and turkey boards to increase the utilization of turkey and fowl meat produced in British Columbia. They're initiating aggressive marketing programs to permit the production of new products at the Panco plant, while straining to increase production from the current 75-percent capacity to full capacity, and perhaps adding a second shift. That is the background of the Cargill purchase endorsed by the broiler boards, endorsed by the turkey association, because they wanted to see an improvement of that industry in the Fraser Valley which is represented by both members for Surrey, but represented much better on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, that's the short story on Panco Poultry. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I acquired the responsibility for it. First of all I quickly identified a conflict of interest. Then I turned it back to the private sector to create an environment out there where it's not owned by government. It is now working with the producers and it's going to bring in further processed turkey meat and chicken meat, and I think it's a bright spot in the Surrey area.

In closing I'd just like to say that I support this budget. It's been called the "sunshine budget," but I'd like to call it a building budget, and I'll tell you why. I think that in the last three and a half years this party in government has built a foundation out of the ruins that we inherited in 1975. We've got the economy on a sound footing today. The people endorsed the policies of this government on May 10, 1979, and now we can help the private sector, we can help the individual, we can provide more opportunities to further expand the economy in this province in order that we can generate revenues, not by taxation of people, but by revenues generated out of an expanding economy, a growing economy, a sound economy. We can generate those revenues to place British Columbia in a leadership position in Canada.

This will ensure that we can provide the best health programs in Canada, in the world, and the best education programs. Our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has, I think, taken it far beyond his core curriculum in developing new programs, new opportunities for those who are blessed with learning abilities. And for those who have difficulty with learning, he's developed the programs to give them assistance.

And we can also look at social services in this province, Mr. Speaker. A dental care program cannot be provided out of an economy that is not growing, that can't create the revenues to pay the cost. Home care programs and hospital construction, to name a number of them, come from a growing economy as opposed to further taxation of people. And we've proved it, because we were able this year to reduce sales tax, to reduce personal income tax, to increase homeowner grants and at the same time provide those people's services to the people who are less fortunate than we are.

So "sunshine budget," "building budget," whatever its name is, indicates a sound economy; it indicates encouragement by a government for the individual, for his opportunities in this province, for the private sector. It indicates that British Columbia is in a sound position and is ready and able to expand in the decade we're going to call the 1980s.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I too would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Chilliwack on his election as Speaker of this assembly and to congratulate yourself as the member for Vancouver South as Deputy Speaker. You might be interested to know that I voted for

[ Page 49 ]

you although I didn't have any lawn signs out or anything like that. I also would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the members who were re-elected and particularly the new members who were elected for the first time to this assembly. I can promise them it will be a fine and rewarding experience.

Mr. Speaker, you know the overwhelming impression given by this budget is one of a cynical government that is patting itself on the back for giving back to B.C. residents a small part of the huge tax increases they slapped on the people in 1976 when they were elected on a platform of freezing taxes to alleviate inflation. I refer to an article very briefly in the Vancouver Express of April 4, 1979:

"The truth is, of course, that the Socreds are able to offer all this relief only because they have collected too much money in the first three years in office. They have deliberately and cynically distorted the financial economic realities for political gain. When they should have been reducing taxes or spending more to alleviate hardships, the unemployment, the soaring education and medical care costs, they were socking the money away for an election bribe."

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, some of those increases: ferry rates increased 100 percent and more in some cases — they came back with a 20 percent reduction some time later but it didn't help a great deal; increased ICBC rates — 100 to 300 percent; a 650 percent increase in extended-care hospital rates; a 650 percent increase in the intermediate care hospital rates; a 50 percent increase in Medicare premiums. The list goes on and on. And while I'm on that subject....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How much?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have the ear of the Minister of Health. I was going to discuss this later, but I would like to just mention one item from my local community of Powell River. The minister keeps insisting that there were no cutbacks in hospitals and staff in British Columbia. I have before me an article and correspondence from the Powell River hospital. The hospital is considering an overall reduction of five beds, a reduction in the extended care unit by 10½ hours daily and asking relatives to come in and work with people in the hospital. They're also suggesting an end or reduction in the activation of the physiotherapy program for elderly patients, one small program. I will be discussing this further under estimates.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, we're not proud of that. No, I don't think that's a record to be proud of. That's a very, very cynical budget, Mr. Speaker. I see nothing in the budget that will alleviate inflation or provide jobs for the 120,000 people unemployed in this province. In my riding of Mackenzie the jobless rate is about 10.8 percent, but the real figure is probably between 14 percent and 15 percent. This includes people looking for work but not registered, people who have given up looking for work, native Indian people and young people. It may be interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada Employment and Immigration department indicates that 42 percent of those seeking employment in my riding are under 25 years of age.

I wish to pursue for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, another topic of great concern to me. This is the matter of Ocean Falls and the future of that community. The thoughts I am about to express are shared by most people in that community. We have heard from press reports that the corporation is considering a transaction with an eastern based pulp company to sell Ocean Falls Corporation out of the province. I would like to know, when the minister has the chance to reply in this debate, if these reports are correct. If so, what is the bait? What's attracting Kruger to Ocean Falls? What is of great interest in that area?

I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, that what is attracting that eastern-based company to our coast of British Columbia is the possibility of obtaining some huge blocks of uncommitted timber that is now available in the central coast area. Is that the bait? I don't know. I haven't seen the terms of agreement. But I understand the Kruger Corporation is presently negotiating with the Ocean Falls Corporation for the sale of that community. Or is it possibly the four million acres that have been removed from tree farm licence No. 1, from the Can-Cel operation? Is that part of the bait? I don't know. I hope the minister will answer these very important questions during the course of this debate or in estimates.

The morale in that community, Mr. Speaker, has never been so low. I visited that area recently, and in spite of Mr. Williston's protestations that he is interested in keeping that community alive, he places full responsibility for the decision of the future of that community squarely on the cabinet and on the government. And that government has been unwilling to make a decision with regard to Ocean Falls in spite of recommendations that were made by the Symons report and presented to this government in 1976. The government should, in my view, if nothing else, be considering a joint venture in that community. But what the government should be doing right now is assuring the people in that community that that community will not be allowed to die and that those people living there will have a future in that community. Ocean Falls, as you well know, affects the well-being of other central coast communities such as Bella Bella and Bella Coola as well.

Another topic that is of great interest in the Sunshine Coast area. particularly of my riding, is the proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line. This has been in the works now, Mr. Speaker, for some 18 months that I am aware of, and Hydro has been doing a number of studies and has sent people into the area, and there have been large community meetings of people protesting that fact that Hydro is contemplating building this transmission line through one of the most beautiful parts of British Columbia.

I want to make it very clear at the onset that we do not wish to deny the residents of Vancouver Island their much-needed energy needs for the foreseeable future. But the fact is that we have asked for a two-year moratorium to be placed on construction of that 500-kilovolt proposed transmission line until a public inquiry. We'd like to see a public inquiry into the whole thing, because we question Hydro's figures. We question the projections which were given us by Hydro, as they are at variance with the figures given to us by the B.C. Energy Commission. I think that while that moratorium is in place we should be looking at energy alternatives such as the use of waste woods, as the minister mentioned a short time ago in this House, the use of thermal coal, but, more importantly, the possibility of constructing a natural gas line from the Interior of British

[ Page 50 ]

Columbia across the Georgia Strait over to Vancouver Island, which would be a very viable alternative to the proposed transmission line.

Not long ago the B.C. Energy Commission was asked to compile a study on a proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. That study was completed some time late last winter and forwarded to the office of the minister about two or three months ago. But that study has not been made public, and I don't know why. What has the government got to hide, Mr. Speaker? Why couldn't the minister make that study public? I've asked him for it. Why should we hide the contents of that study from the people of Vancouver Island or theSunshine Coast? Are they recommending a southern route for that pipeline? A northern route? Is the pipeline feasible at all? The B.C. Hydro study of the case thought the pipeline is feasible, and it may be a viable alternative to that 500-kilovolt transmission line.

I was going to delve into my annual speech about B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, but I think I will forgo that for the moment. The minister shakes his head; he is very familiar with that speech. Let it suffice to say that everyone in this Legislature is aware that Hydro is out of control. It really has no control by the government any more, obviously. Every once in a while the Premier gets up and says: "Well, we'll put another member on the board of directors of Hydro, and that will solve the problem." Well, it won't solve the problem, Mr. Speaker. Hydro is far too big and it should be broken up and brought to heel by this Legislature.

I was a bit concerned, too, over the Premier's announcement about getting in touch with the Prime Minister of this country and asking him to dismantle PetroCan. I'm not going to go into that in detail. But quite frankly, I think it would be one of the biggest mistakes that could be made in Canada today, to dismantle PetroCan at this time or any other time. It is the only Crown agency in the whole nation which gives us, as Canadians, at least a smidgen, a mite of control over our energy and future energy requirements of the province, and at least gives us some input into what the huge multinational oil companies are doing in this nation — or to this nation, whichever way you want to put it.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, on a topic dear to my heart, I'd like to discuss for a few minutes the problems of coast transportation. I think all members who live on the coast of British Columbia are very much aware that rational economic growth is directly linked to proper transportation, particularly water transportation links to the central and north coast of the province — there's no question about it. I tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that in some areas of the central and north coast of this province the transportation has never been worse. I hope to have further discussions with the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) on these matters during his estimates. But the fact is that at the present time prices for delivering goods to the communities that have any kind of services at all have doubled and tripled and quadrupled over the last couple of years, since British Columbia signed that terrible deal with the federal government, assuming full responsibility for transportation on this coast. I've tried to talk to the government many times before about the type of service that people up there are asking for and is required. The government has made no moves, no commitments. It has said: "Well, perhaps we'll stick a ferry in here — perhaps we won't. Perhaps we'll build a terminal somewhere — perhaps we won't." And no clear transportation policy has come out of that government in the last three and a half to four years.

Last but not least, I think I would like to just mention two or three words about the B.C. Ferry Corporation, not so much on what they've been doing, but a little bit about what they haven't been doing. Had the New Democratic Party been elected in the last election, there are a few things we would have done immediately to make that a better service. We would have had free service for people who have to use that system for medical reasons, and for handicapped people. We would have had a free service, or at least reduced rates, for the many, many groups that depend directly on the ferry system to travel from one area to another in the coastal areas. There's nothing wrong with that. For five months of the year and for at least 30 percent of the day the ferries are underutilized in any event. We would have had reduced or free fares for youth groups: scouts, guides, school bands, you name it. Right now — and I've got correspondence along this line — there are some groups in this province, and on this coast, who simply cannot afford to pay the exorbitant rates. It's more than a matter of just travelling back and forth for these people. It's a matter of communication for school bands from Powell River to Sunshine Coast, or theSunshine Coast to Courtenay and these areas, and particularly during the winter months. There's no reason why a policy like that couldn't be implemented.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, on one route serving Powell River and Courtenay we have a reasonably good vessel, very old but trustworthy. I've written to the minister about this, and I'm sure I shall receive a reply in due course. On all areas of theSunshine Coast we have what are called resident commuter cards. In other words, if you are a registered voter in the area, during certain days of the week you can receive a reduction on your ferry fares. But this resident commuter card is not recognized on that particular route, on the Sechelt Queen serving Powell River to Comox, and the minister by his own order-in-council has said that route is comparable to the three other major routes in British Columbia. The fact is that all it would take from the minister is a single memo right now, down through the ministry, authorizing the use of those resident commuter cards by Sunshine Coast residents on that vessel. That's all it would take, and I ask the minister again now to send that memo. Send it tomorrow, write me back and say you've done it, and I'I give you full credit for it, Mr. Minister, up in my riding. It would be much appreciated and it would be good politics on your part as well.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think I've spent enough time up here talking about this stuff. I hope to get further into it in estimates.

Once again, let me congratulate the new members over there, and tell you right now I have no intention of supporting this budget, because the government has not provided the means of providing employment for our people in this province, or any way to combat inflation.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, just prior to getting into debate on this budget, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) for having been selected as Speaker and Deputy Speaker in this House, for this session of the thirty-second parliament. Let me say that in both cases it is

[ Page 51 ]

my profound belief that the choice could not have been a better one.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that it is good to be back, to stand once again in my place, to speak on behalf of those whom I represent, the people of Omineca, and in so speaking, speak in favour and in support of this budget. But before I do, Mr. Speaker, I would say just a few words to those people who once again have elected me — with a comfortable majority, I might add — and have sent me here to speak on their behalf. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to represent such people, and I pledge myself once again to them in their service.

Mr. Speaker, to the budget. I've listened with interest for some two days now to the members opposite — I'm going to talk about you for a while — speaking in debate not on or to this budget but all around this budget. I'm astonished, because they sure had a lot to say about this budget during the election campaign.

They went around this province telling everyone that it was purely an election budget and that if re-elected we would withdraw this budget, that it would not be introduced. You know perfectly well, hon. members, who said that. And that's not all. They went around this province leading the people to believe.... I wouldn't say "lies," Mr. Speaker. Never would I say that, because it is unparliamentary. I wouldn't say they went around this province telling lies, but they went around this province spreading their fear tactics and, among other things, telling British Columbians that this "sunshine budget" would never see the light of day.

Well, it has now been reintroduced into this House, and here it is, a budget for all of our citizens. And it is not the last of its kind. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is only the beginning of the kind of budget put out by a responsible government, and it is the kind of budget that you will see for this province many times in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite went around this province saying that it would not be done, that it could not be done, for those members opposite knew full well that if we were re-elected, with this administration's record of fiscal responsibility, it would be done. They went around this province saying that it would not be done, and some people, misguidedly, even believed them. I'm sure many of their new candidates did. I'm positive that those of their new candidates who are now new members in this House did believe them, because if they did not why was it that they said what they did during that campaign? Surely they would not have lied, especially those who are now new northern members. I can almost see it of someone from the south, but surely not someone representing a northern constituency.

I'd like to ask those new members now: what will you now tell your constituents about this budget? What will you now tell them, and how will you vote on this budget in this House on behalf of those people whom you now represent? Will you vote against a budget which balances expenditures by revenues? Will you vote against a budget which has increased spending only 5 percent from the last fiscal year? Will you vote against a cut in the provincial sales tax from 5 percent to 4 percent? Will many of you, as rural members in this House, vote against the assessment reduction on agricultural land for school tax assessment purposes to 50 percent? Will you vote against a reduction in the corporation capital tax; a reduction in personal income tax; a reduction in the parimutual betting tax; a reduction in the British Columbia income tax to low-income people? Will you vote against an increase of $100 in the homeowner's grant, an increase in the renter's tax credit? It would be interesting to see just how these members, new and old, do vote on this budget and on these issues that are so very vital to so many of their new constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I can forgive the old members opposite, and even some of those we categorize as old-new members that we now see over there — that we again see over there — for not understanding this budget, and for voting against it. I can forgive them because, as you know, a good deal of this "sunshine budget" is devoted to, and made up of, surpluses. That is an area — and the members sigh — that they have absolutely no understanding of. They certainly didn't when they were government. They didn't know what a surplus was when they were government, and they still don't.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I venture to say they never will know. They will vote against this budget which, from surpluses, will provide British Columbians with, besides the increase in the homeowner grant, much-needed facilities and programs. I read from the budget highlights: $10 million for the proposed Vancouver trade and convention centre; $2.5 million for the proposed Victoria convention centre; $25 million for a sports stadium on the lower mainland; $5 million for a low-interest loan program to help small- and medium-sized businesses in the metropolitan area in British Columbia; $5 million for industrial research; $7.5 million for the purchase of additional British Columbia Development Corporation shares; $26.1 million as a first of ten payments to reduce the debt. The debt incurred when? The debt incurred from 1972 to 1975 on the backs of British Columbians.

There's $25.3 million for an accelerated highway construction program. I saw the new member for Shuswap (Mr. King) over talking to the minister. Surely he wishes money for roads in his constituency, or why would he be talking to the Minister of Highways? Yes, $25.3 million for an accelerated highway construction program — and I'm sure you're interested in that, Mr. Member. Fourteen million dollars for reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension of the British Columbia Railway. Ten million extra dollars — and I heard the members opposite debating this just last Friday — for an intensified reforestation program in the province of British Columbia. Five million dollars for a job-experience program to prepare our young people in this province for work. Twenty-five million dollars — and again I hear the members opposite debating this question — for the stabilization of health and hospital operating costs in our province. This is money you've been talking about, hon. members. Five million dollars for new recreation facilities in British Columbia communities.

Mr. Speaker, the surplus fund project will meet another need that I hear emanating from that side of the floor, the need for more job creation, because the surplus fund projects will create more than 8,000 new jobs in this province in 1979.

The members opposite went around this province during an election campaign spreading their doom and gloom, and I hear them here again in this session spreading their doom and gloom, instilling their fear tactics into the hearts of our

[ Page 52 ]

citizens in an attempt to satisfy their hunger for power. It didn't work during an election campaign and it will not work now. Their rhetoric, the innuendo about this budget, a budget that has forgotten no one in this province, did not gain them the so-badly-sought-after power that they wish, and it will not. And they find themselves once again where they will always remain — on the opposition side of this floor.

As such, Mr. Speaker, I call upon them as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I call upon the new members in particular, for I fear what their constituents will think should they vote against this budget. I would direct this particularly to the new member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), should he be in the House. His chair is once again empty, as it was 66 percent of the time in the 20 years that he represented Skeena in the federal House in Ottawa — 66 percent of the time. It's again empty in the provincial House. I'd like to direct this to that member, should he be here, to think when voting on this budget what his new constituents will think. I call upon that loyal official opposition on behalf of all British Columbians to bring swift passage and to stand and vote in favour of this budget.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to add my congratulations to you the same as the other members have extended — not just on your election as Speaker, but on your return to this House. You bring a certain quality to this Legislature that would be sadly missed if you weren't here and I'm very glad to see you back; also the Deputy Speaker, who is not in the House at the moment. Again, he is a valuable asset to this House and performs his duties very well, and I'm very pleased to see him returned.

I think rather than congratulating those of us who are returned to the House, I would like to do something just a little different. I would like to congratulate those who were unsuccessful in this recent election campaign. Democracy can only operate when we have two opposing parties where the voters have a choice. They have played a very important role in the democratic process of this province by letting their names go forward and standing for election. I would like to extend my congratulations to all those people who were not successful but fought a good fight in the recent election.

I have a couple of major topics I want to deal with today. Just before I turn to those, I'd like to make a couple of comments about some of the things that have been said this afternoon. One of them has to do with the 50 percent tax on agricultural land. You look up, Mr. Minister of Agriculture and everything else, but I'm not going to talk about Cargill or Panco; I'm going to leave that to my colleague. We're having a little division of labour here. That is going to be brought up, but I'm not going to discuss it.

I want to talk about the 50 percent assessment. I wonder if you realize, Mr. Minister, how unfair that is to the agricultural community. I was talking to a dairyman and his wife last night. Their land is peanuts, as far as their assessment goes. It's quite different from your fruit grower, Mr. Minister. It means absolutely nothing on their tax bill — just a very infinitesimal bit — to have the agricultural land portion reduced, because their tax load is on their improvements. That is true of many of the agricultural industries. Every agricultural industry is different. That 50 percent of land assessment is not a fair solution to the tax situation as far as farmers are concerned.

You spoke also, Mr. Minister, about the homeowner grant. There again we have an inequity. The homeowner grant is a $100 increase across the board. Of course, it's more than that if you happen to be a senior citizen. It doesn't matter what your income is; it doesn't matter what your assets are. But it's a different story when it comes to renter's grants. The maximum you can get there is a $50 increase, and only if you have a very, very small income. That is an injustice in the tax area of this particular budget.

We've heard a lot of talk this afternoon, particularly from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and on Friday we heard a great speech from that very loud speaker from the Peace River about the fiscal responsibility of this government, about their good business management and about their sound economic concepts. I think it very worthwhile to read into the record today some of the things that that government has been doing, some of the things that they have undertaken in the name of good, sound business management.

It's very important that we have an auditor-general in this province. It's very important that we have this person here. She is doing her job as an independent watchdog on the government. She brought down her report just before the election was called. I think it is important for the citizens of British Columbia to be completely aware of what the auditor-general has had to say about this good business-minded government that we have here in British Columbia. How well are they doing their job? How well are they doing it now?

It's interesting to note that since April 1 they have been in a position of having to pass special warrants for moneys that are not included in the great 5 percent "sunshine budget." What they can't get by 5 percent, they get by special warrant. That's a great way to go — a great way to mislead the people. That's what this budget seems to be doing: indicating that we're maintaining our....

AN HON. MEMBER: The new members are confused.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they are. They don't realize that. But this so-called "sunshine budget...." And yellow is indicative of something else. Maybe it's a budget that doesn't have the courage to face the facts; maybe that's why it's yellow. Be that as it may, I think it should be recognized that they are already in the position of going for special warrants for funds that are not included in this budget. They are already over expended.

That's the government that has the greatest overruns on record. That's the government that has continued to embark, in this current year, on a policy of special warrants for moneys that are not in the budget. Is it any wonder then that the auditor-general has seen fit in her report to say: "Based on the findings, I'm of the opinion that the system of internal control over the disbursement of provincial funds fails to meet generally recognized standards. I recommend that corrective action bring controls to adequate levels"?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, there's a lot more than that, Mr. Member; it goes on. It says: "The function of the voucher-processing section of the comptroller-general's

[ Page 53 ]

office is to evaluate propriety of transactions," and so on. "For the year under review the voucher-processing section had no systematic and reliable method of ensuring that signatures on vouchers were those of persons to whom the approval authority had been delegated." In other words, Mr. Speaker, vouchers were being paid without proper approval. That is what the auditor-general says.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Between 1972 and 1975 too.

MRS. WALLACE: Just a minute. I'm coming to that, Mr. Member.

It goes on to say: "Segregation of duties is a method of control employed to reduce risk of fraud and to detect errors. A purchase payable payment should be designated so that the same individuals do not participate in both purchasing and receiving of goods." They purchase the goods, they receive them, and then they account for them. There are no checks whatsoever.

An internal audit. "During the period of our review this division performed no audits on expenditures due to commitments of revenues, statutory and other matters. I consider that internal audit of expenditure is essential for adequate internal control." There are no internal audits being done. This is the good business government; this is the sound business management.

As of March 31, 1978, the payroll bank account had not been reconciled beyond August 31, 1977. That is not good business management. That payroll account is a very large account, Mr. Speaker, and there have been no controls over it.

The auditor-general says — and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and everything else is listening: "In order to properly manage their ministries, senior officials need adequate financial information. The necessary additional information was recognized some time ago, and a financial management reporting system was introduced in 1975." The problem was pinpointed and a reporting system was introduced in 1975, Mr. Minister. It goes on to explain what that is, and then it says: "Few of the ministries are using the financial management reporting system effectively." And you are the good business managers.

The Revenue Act, Mr. Speaker, sets out very specifically how funds are to be handled and how they are to be accounted for. It says that "all public moneys shall be paid to the credit of the Minister of Finance, through such banks or persons as the Minister of Finance may direct and authorized bank accounts." This list of authorities so authorized has not been updated. It is incomplete, and there are various government bank accounts which are not even listed. That's not a very impressive record for good business managers, Mr. Speaker.

The Queen's Printer, for example, is governed by the Public Printing Act. Now that Public Printing Act is a law. It is a piece of legislation passed by this Legislature. Ordinary citizens, if they break the law, find themselves in trouble. The Act says: "The Queen's Printer shall prepare a statement of account, made up to the 31st day of March in each year, and at such other times as the minister may direct, and shall submit the same to the comptroller-general for his certification." That statement was prepared, Mr. Speaker, but according to the auditor-general the comptroller-general refused to sign it because it was not adequate. That is the record of this government.

MR. LEA: Don't tell the new members. They don't believe it.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm quoting from the auditor-general's report. Certainly she was the unanimous choice of this Legislature. She is trying to do her job, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the job is being made very difficult by this government.

There is just one more thing that I want to mention and that relates to the lottery fund. The lottery fund, again according to legislation, is to be a separate account. Now all other accounts of that size are kept separate. They have their own separate account. The lottery fund has simply been paid into general revenue. Books have been kept, that's true — the amount of money in, the amount of money out — and those records show that the average balance for the year in the lottery fund was $10 million. Where did the proceeds of the interest on that fund go? Back into general revenue. I suggest, as the auditor-general does, that that is most unfair to the people who are buying lottery tickets, to have that money returned to general revenue. The interest should be credited to that account, using the money that is designated for cultural and sports activities, using the money that is provided by the purchasers of those tickets, using that money to add to general revenue rather than to add to the lottery fund.

Those are the kinds of things that have been going on, Mr. Speaker. And I suggest that that does not speak well for this government or for what we can expect the future to hold for this coming year. And certainly the very fact that we have warrants issued already — one as large as $1.5 million, a special warrant not included in that budget — indicates that the financial minds of that government are not doing the job, that they are not providing to this Legislature the kind of information that should be provided.

We've heard from the other side of the House — and we certainly heard it during the election, and we heard it this afternoon — that government must keep out of the business of the province, that to paraphrase, business is business and government is government and that never the two shall mix. Well, just what is happening in this province as a result of that attitude? You know, we're faced with tremendous unemployment; I think everyone agrees with that. We all know people who are looking for work and can't get it. We all see those figures rising to double-digit figures and we're all concerned. And I don't think that concern is only on this side of the House. I think the people over there are concerned too. But what are they doing about it, Mr. Speaker? They are suggesting that they will make the climate right for industry to come in and invest and that will solve the problem of unemployment.

Certainly the biggest industry in our province is the forest industry. That's the industry that is the big employer; that's the industry that brings the big returns to this province. I have some very interesting figures here about industry and employment. These figures are taken from the financial reports of some of the larger forest companies in British Columbia.

Weldwood, for example, had net earnings in 1977 of $31.1 million. They had 5,285 employees. They increased their earnings to $74.2 million, an increase of 119 percent. They increased their employees by 332, or an increase of 6.2 percent. Now that's an employer that employs between 5,000 and 6,000 employees in this province. And while

[ Page 54 ]

their profits went up sizably, the number of employees increased very slightly. And do you know that was the best performer in all of British Columbia? Crown Zellerbach came next. They increased their employees by 200, or 3 percent — they employ some 6,700 employees. And at the same time they increased their profits nearly 50 percent, by 47 percent.

B.C. Forest Products have had a tremendous increase in profits, 96.6 percent. They employed 7,888 employees in British Columbia in 1977. In 1978 they increased that by the total sum of seven employees and yet they doubled their profits. That's where we're going to leave the job-making, in the hands of the big forest companies. And that's what they're doing. And I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) scowling. I'm taking this from their own report, Mr. Minister — an increase of seven employees, that's all.

As far as that goes, it's even worse than that because B.C. Forest Products in Youbou are now in the process of installing an automatic green chain, and why not? Who wants to work on the green chain? But it's deleting 35 employees. They're going to be down to a minus situation.

The problem is that there is no involvement by this government to ensure that when those things happen, jobs are stabilized or increased, that subsidiary manufacturing goes in. Believe me, those companies want our trees and they would be quite prepared to listen.

But the record gets even worse. MacMillan Bloedel — their employees went down by 83, and they're the largest employer of all. They went from 23,948 down to 23,865. Their profits increased 162 percent. I know there were problems there. They were low in '77, and that increase is perhaps a bit dramatic. But the fact remains that they are not creating jobs; they're reducing jobs.

Then I get to one very close to home, Doman Industries. They went from $5.96 million to $11.08 million — an 86 percent increase in their profits. Their employees dropped from 835 to 742 — a decrease of over 11 percent.

We're leaving our employment programs in the hands of companies, and they're only doing the thing that one would expect them to do — trying to maximize profits. We had promise of great construction projects going ahead. There was a little attempt at blackmail during the election to indicate that those wouldn't go ahead if there was a change of government, but certainly they were already going ahead. In Alberni the project was half finished. The same is true of Fraser Mills. The Rayonier improvements up the coast are going in because the Pollution Control Board says they must go in. You know, that was a question of ethics that I would like to raise. I think it's something we should consider — that those kinds of facts were tossed around with far more than a tacit suggestion that they would only go ahead if the Social Credit government was returned, when they were already well in progress or else demanded by the Pollution Control Board.

So we have a government that is leaving our job creation program in the hands of the industry, and I have read into the record what industry is doing about job creation. They're reducing the jobs. That will continue because these programs that are in effect now are going to result in more automation; they're going to result in fewer employees rather than more.

I was reading in B.C. Market News just the other day: "Fibreboard Plant for the Philippines." That's going in, and it's being handled by a firm from Vancouver, Norman Springate and Associates International Ltd., a Canadian-owned, Vancouver-based, consulting engineering firm. It's going in the Philippines but it should be going in here in British Columbia. It's going in the Philippines because the project is considered one of the forerunners of fully utilizing the forest resources, and is an integral part of the Philippines' Minister of Forests' policy. It's complete utilization and a job-creating program. But this minister and this government say: "Hands off. Leave it to industry." So we're exporting jobs along with our logs and our raw materials. And our logs are getting scarcer. We're all concerned on both sides of the House about the shortage of timber. We're reaching a point where one mill that employs some 320 people in the Cowichan Valley may be facing a closure. I'm pleased that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has agreed to meet with me to discuss some possible alternatives there.

But these are the problems, and if we let that mill close and don't come up with further processing, don't come up with lumber and timber-related projects that will absorb that slack a little better to make up for some of the young people who are coming on stream, and for the great 10 or 11 percent that are sitting there unemployed, looking for work; and if governments do not get involved in ensuring that industry creates the climate that will provide those jobs, we are going to continue in a very stagnant economy and in an area of very high unemployment.

We've heard a lot of talk about help for the small businessman. We're setting up the high-risk loan corporation with venture capital to help small businessmen. If we get this going I am afraid that what it's going to accomplish is increase the bankruptcy rate, because it's simply going to put more people into business with no opportunities for market.

The Ministry of Economic Development puts out a little bulletin once a month and it lists all the export opportunities and the import opportunities. The last one, in June — that's this year, this month — has five export opportunities, five items which you can export. And do you know how many imports it has? Seventy-seven. And that's going to stimulate our B.C. economy? Unless we have a government that is prepared to take some steps to ensure that we have more processing, more manufacturing here in B.C., we are going to continue in this. situation of no opportunities for our young people when they graduate. We are going to continue with high unemployment; we are going to continue in economic stagnation.

I was talking about small businesses, and as a final remark I want to read into the record parts of a letter that I had from a small logging operator up in the Interior. This relates to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), of course, but I think it also relates to the whole attitude of this government. This chap says:

"We have elected to stay small, and have been operating in this area for 28 years. Our reasons for remaining a small operation are...to conserve timber and to employ local workers. We hope we will be able to continue our operations and to continue to use the close-utilization methods we have practiced before the Forestry thought about or felt they needed to practice close utilization. By staying small we have been able to diversify our operation and have built a market for siding, paneling, special orders, et cetera.

[ Page 55 ]

"We find that it has been a mistake to remain small, as the new Forest Act lumps us in with large operations cutting upwards of 80 million board feet. Apparently we could surrender our cutting licence, but we feel that we cannot do that."

What they are protesting about is the small business program, because that small business program will not make money available to them. It will only make money available to new operators. They say further on:

"We are not opposed to small businesses in the sense of the word, but we've been trying to conserve timber from the time we began operating in this area. We have logged blowdown, bug-kill areas, beetle infestations, et cetera, and we would like to be able to continue to bid on this type of timber. These sales have allowed us to keep our operation viable for ourselves and for our employees. We employ ten men, with eight or nine being native people.

"We now find that if this legislation is passed we will be at a disadvantage, and will not be able to bid on this type of sale."

He's speaking of the Forest Act.

"This is discrimination against small, established operators now in business. They should have the right to bid on salvage-type sales if they are close to, or in, their timber-cutting areas.

"We are also concerned that this Act will be an ideal opportunity for people who once held quotas and timber-cutting rights to get back into the lumber business. Many of these people elected to sell their quotas, timber sales, et cetera, to larger companies when the going was a little tough, and now they would like to go back into the lumber industry on an equal footing with the companies that have worked to keep their operation going."

I suggest that those kinds of moves, Mr. Speaker, are not in the best interests or are not about to encourage small businesses to struggle to exist, and believe me, they do have to struggle. The government has its sights set on the large corporate sector. They are prepared to turn our heritage of the forest over to that sector and to let them move ahead with the development of it.

That, Mr. Speaker, is no answer for our employment situation here in British Columbia. It's going to worsen; it's going to simply mean that we have lost complete control of that forest resource. The budget should be prepared to recognize the tremendous gap that exists in the forest industry; we just do not have enough wood to keep our operators going, and we just do not have an economic base that is going to continue as it is now constituted. It's the responsibility of government to ensure that that resource is utilized, not in the best interests of the major corporations, but in the best interests of the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I notice that some of the speeches being made are various members' first speeches. Let us give them all the courtesies of the House.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise for the first time and take part in a debate in this assembly. I am proud to be part of the Social Credit government team, under the capable leadership of Premier Bill Bennett.

May I also extend, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to you on your election to the position of Speaker of this parliament. I would also like to congratulate the first member for Vancouver South, Mr. Rogers, on his election as Deputy Speaker. We are indeed fortunate to have two such dedicated and capable members in a position of authority and trust in this parliament.

I would also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the people of the Kootenay constituency for electing me as their representative in this Legislative Assembly. This is the second time in the history of our party that the Kootenay constituency has elected a member on the Social Credit government team. The first member, George Haddad, was elected by the constituents of Kootenay in 1975. I would like to commend George Haddad for his hard work on behalf of the people of the Kootenay constituency. George served his constituency well for the past three and a half years.

Not only did we elect a Social Credit member from the Kootenay constituency in December 1975; we elected a government that for the first time responded to the people and the needs of the Kootenay constituency. In Sparwood we have the new $2.7 million hospital built, and it's providing a good level of health care services to the people of Sparwood. It is a credit to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), to the board of trustees, and the administrator who planned its construction from the start. In Elkford a new diagnostic treatment centre was built, and an estimated $2.1 million expansion to the Cranbrook hospital is scheduled to start this spring. The Minister of Health opened a new alcohol and drug centre in Cranbrook last fall, and earlier that spring the minister opened a hearing and speech centre in Cranbrook.

January 1, 1978, saw a new era in health care services in British Columbia. The long-term care program offers universal subsidization of health care services at virtually all levels outside the acute general hospital. The new program was aimed at three main sectors in our society: the handicapped; the elderly people who need some help to enable them to stay in their own homes; and the mentally disabled. Coverage includes care in an institution and use of homemaker service at a daily direct charge of $6.50. The provincial government continues to pay other costs as well as providing a comfort allowance to those who cannot afford it, and children in extended care continue to pay $1 a day.

An individual receives care back upon needs as assessed by long-term care assessors in each health unit throughout British Columbia. Long-term care administrators have been appointed in 17 health units throughout the province, together with nursing and support staff. The program has created more effective utilization of our tax dollars by enabling the province to reduce the ratio of acute-care beds. However, the emphasis on the program is to keep individuals in their own homes and communities as long as reasonably possible for the provision of homemaker service.

In the field of education, although we still have a lot of catching up to do in upgrading facilities in the Kootenay constituency, I am pleased with the response of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). A new elementary school was opened at Wasa, and Highlands Elementary School was opened in Cranbrook, and the Steeples Elementary School is currently under construction and is due to open this year.

[ Page 56 ]

In Fernie the Max Turyk Elementary School was opened last year and the Fernie Secondary School has been renovated at a cost of approximately $3 million. A school for those with impaired hearing was located at the Highlands Elementary School in Cranbrook. No longer do these children have to travel long distances to receive the special education they need.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has done much to improve the quality of our neglected roads. A new bridge has been built across the Kootenay River at Wasa. This 574-foot, two-lane bridge will cost approximately $2.4 million, and is scheduled to open in August 1979. In Cranbrook, a new Cranbrook-Kimberley airport access road is scheduled to start construction this spring at a cost of $6 million, including a $2-million bridge across the St. Mary River. The Ministry of Highways will pay 75 percent of the cost of the Brewery Bridge situate on a municipal street in Fernie, the Corbin Bridge situate on Crowsnest Highway just east of Sparwood, and the Boivin Bridge situate on a municipal street in Elkford for a total estimated cost of $400,000. Last year the Elko-Wardner paving project cost $1.7 million for 27 miles of road, and the Elk Valley paving project cost $1.5 million for 37 miles.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) announced last spring a 20-unit expansion to the Cranbrook Lions senior citizens' housing project. When completed, this complex will provide 22 double units and 43 single self-care units; and plans are underway for 10 in the community of Jaffray and 15 in Fernie, being the first phase of a 30-unit complex.

The Ministry of the Provincial Secretary announced that the 1980 Winter Games will be held in Kimberley.

Mr. Speaker, great challenges face the Kootenay constituency in the 1980s with the increasing world market for coal. I have listened to Mayor Rick Grieve and the Elkford municipal council discuss the challenges facing that community with the construction of a new mine north of Elkford. This mine will create approximately 2,000 new jobs. The company has suggested the construction of an instant town at Forsyth Creek, 22 miles north of Elkford. Believe me, if there's one thing the Kootenays don't need it's another instant town. A feasibility study is currently underway on the diversion of Forsyth Creek and the townsite. I trust that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will make a wise decision, a decision that will have the support of the people at Elkford, Elkford city council and the regional district of the East Kootenays.

Fording Coal Co. are expanding their operation to create 400 new jobs in the community of Elkford as well. Kaiser Resources are also expanding their operations to create an additional 400 new jobs in the community of Sparwood.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Kaiser Resources in Sparwood for their wonderful reclamation program that they have currently underway. It's really marvelous.

This government has created investor confidence in the province. It is true that there are more people moving into British Columbia, and particularly the Kootenays. This was evident during the recent provincial election when I was on a door-to-door canvass of our constituency. I found people in our constituency from Newfoundland, from Quebec, from Prince Edward Island and from Ontario. The majority of those people who were working in the mines in southeastern British Columbia lived in our neighbouring province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians should welcome orderly and responsible development of our natural resources. We must preserve our clean air, clear water, natural beauty and wildlife habitat. The East Kootenays has an abundance of wildlife, but we must move with caution and avoid disrupting the delicate ecological balance of this region.

I support the East Kootenay Wildlife Association and their president, Carmen Purdy, in their bid to establish a heritage fund for the preservation of our wildlife resource, because I believe it will cut down on some of the conflicts that currently exist between different users of the land base.

Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), although he has only served for such a short period of time in his new portfolio, has made a concentrated effort to familiarize himself with the problems facing the environment.

I believe in the preservation of agricultural land, Mr. Speaker. I further believe that land that has no agricultural potential should be removed from the freeze so the individual citizen is not burdened with the trouble and cost of removing non-agricultural land from the land reserve.

I would like to commend our Premier for taking the leadership in Canada in establishing the first Ministry of Deregulation to oversee the removal of red tape from government services. The individual citizen has the right to expect fair, just and reasonable treatment at the hands of the bureaucracy within a reasonable time, and government agencies should coordinate their activities and give a clear statement for their reason for any regulation in plain language.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit commitment is to ownership for all the people on an individual basis, as opposed to big government. We want people to own and feel their ownership in the form of tangible share certificates. This share ownership will bring home to everyone, and particularly to those who have never owned shares before, the value of ownership — particularly that which pays rich personal dividends.

The Social Credit government has made a commitment to home ownership as a priority by the development of a First Family Home Assistance Act. A $2,500 grant is available upon the purchase of a first family home. Recognizing the high cost of land, I was pleased when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) announced his intention of releasing for sale Crown land for residential and recreational purposes.

I was pleased when the minister responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) made a commitment to end discrimination in auto insurance, particularly that aimed at younger drivers, by basing auto insurance strictly on the driver's record with no penalty because of age, sex, marital status or geographic location.

The Social Credit government is the only government in Canada that has been able to provide a major health initiative in the Seventies in the form of a long-term care program. I was pleased when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced in the budget that we are getting ready for another first in Canada — to provide a dental care program for British Columbians not presently covered under the existing plan.

[ Page 57 ]

The people of the Kootenay constituency welcomed the announcement by the Minister of Finance which came into effect on April 2, 1979. The social services tax was reduced by 1 percentage point to 4 percent. This will come as a welcome reduction to merchants who are competing with their counterparts on the other side of the Alberta border.

The increase in the homeowner grant by $100 to $380, and for senior citizens to $580, will be welcomed by all British Columbians. This is part of the Social Credit government promise to continue a policy of reduction of taxes on property.

The reduction of the 50 percent assessment on agricultural reserve land, to reduce school taxes on farms effective December 31, 1979, will be an incentive to all farmers and ranchers in British Columbia.

I was pleased with the proposal to provide developers or building owners to adapt buildings to the needs of the handicapped with an accelerated write-off or income tax credit.

The residents of the Kootenay constituency will also welcome the announcement that the operating costs of regional colleges will be taken off the shoulders of the local taxpayers.

At a time when working people in British Columbia need all the help they can get, I was pleased when the Minister of Finance in his budget reduced the personal income tax from 46 percent to 44 percent, the second lowest in Canada.

I am pleased with the proposals in the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance, with tax cuts amounting to $205 million that will benefit British Columbians in all regions of this province. I urge all members of this assembly to support the budget.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to do the usual thing first, and congratulate you on your election to that exalted office. I might say that the reputation of this place across the country is a reputation of a very robust forum for debate. You, Mr. Speaker, have a very fine reputation elsewhere in this country for keeping that debate under reasonable limits and making very fair rulings. I must say I'd like to associate myself with those who have congratulated you. Also, of course, I'd like to congratulate your Deputy Speaker on his election to that office.

MR. SPEAKER: You're very kind.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to also say a word of congratulation to the member for Kootenay, who gave his maiden address today in a legislative forum. I think it was a first-class and fine effort. I can see that a long and successful career in the world of politics awaits that gentleman.

I would like, however, to point something out to him. In the course of his remarks he spent a good deal of time talking about the money that had been allocated in this budget with regard to health services — this $25 million figure, for example, which is going to be sort of allocated from the government down. But when you are talking about money for health services, you have to also talk about people in health services and what the impact of that money is and what purposes you are going to use it for.

To try to illustrate that, I'd like to read into the record the report of the inquest into the death of Jenny Aleda Cherry held at the Vancouver coroner's court before Coroner Glen McDonald on March 1 and 2, 1979. I don't know how much of that allocated funding is going for staffing, but I think it would be wise if we in this Legislature listened pretty carefully to the decision of the coroner in that particular case.

"Testimony was given by nurses Grant and Raine that on the day of Mrs. Cherry's fall, they were understaffed. Testimony was given that extended-care facilities are inadequate. Mrs. Helen Raine, assistant supervisor, nursing staff, said: 'There are 33 patients on that ward C1 and C2. They are patients that are within the hospital, and they are old and what we call acute-bed or a placement problem. They don't have anywhere to go. There isn't a place in the community for enough of these patients. If there were adequate staffing, restraining jackets might not be needed.'"

I just want to explain to you that in that particular case this lady was under restraint. Because there was no staff in the area to remove those restraints she died in a very unfortunate fall.

We can sit in this place, and we can talk in this place about money, but it is time we talked about people and the people who have really been suffering, the people who have been suffering excruciatingly under those health services. I am not going to deal with the Alert Bay case. but I know that the medical services throughout the north need a very serious examination. It is not an isolated question, Mr. Speaker, that this unfortunate incident occurred.

I listened with some care, I think, to the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who gave a very long justification in this House for the sale of Panco Poultry. The justification he gave was that his ministry was concerned about the problem of vertical integration — in other words, ownership all the way down the line, from the farm through the processor right up to the retail level. Therefore the justification for selling it was to break up what appeared to be a monopolistic situation. How did they go about doing that? Well they took the key part of that operation, the processing, and they sold it to a firm called Cargill Grain. Now Cargill Grain isn't just your average grain company. Cargill Grain is a larger food processing company than Kraft. It is just about the largest food processing company in the world. When someone tells me that they're concerned about vertical integration, I listen, and I think, oh, you must be concerned about the consumer, you are concerned about the price of the product. The integration is too internal, if it's totally vertical. Correct. There is a problem in getting some competition into that particular product.

Well, let's have a look at this new operation, run by Cargill Grain, and how much the consumer is going to get protection from that particular multinational corporation. First of all, Cargill has to date been fined $66,000 by the Canadian Wheat Board, with more than 100 violations of the Wheat Board by that operation. I heard someone over there say they liked that particular operation in Saskatchewan. I can tell you that the Members of Parliament from Saskatchewan whom I sat with know Cargill Grain, know about Cargill Grain enough to wish they would get out of this country and stay out.

Let's have another look at Cargill Grain. Concern for the consumer? Worried about vertical integration? That company has been taken to court by 12 U.S. states. Now

[ Page 58 ]

why did they bother taking Cargill to court? The charge is conspiracy to keep poultry prices high — not low, but high. That is exactly what we can expect in the province of British Columbia when that multinational starts moving its tentacles out and gets control of the farms, and gets control of the product. That is exactly why Cargill came into the market, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to listen to someone justify that sale on the basis of vertical integration.

Another item is short-weighting grain to India. They've been accused of taking grain sales, that were gifts to the children of India, and short-weighting those particular gifted grain sales. Some government, to take Panco Poultry and put it into the tender hands of that particular multinational.

I want to say a few words about foreign ownership. I happen to have some people involved in the poultry business in my own constituency. They run a very successful operation called Pan Ready Poultry Limited. They wanted the opportunity to obtain that particular processing plant. They tried to get all the information they could to put in a bid, but they found they just couldn't get enough information. And admittedly their bid was just slightly under the bid that was presented by Cargill. And Cargill winds up in the chicken business; a local B.C. operation winds up with nothing. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, through you, to give some consideration, when sales take place, that those sales should go to B.C. firms. Those B.C. firms have to be given some special advantage. Otherwise all the rhetoric and the talk about B.C. not being for sale is just so much rhetoric, just a joke.

I listened, also with some interest, to the member for Boundary-Similkameen tell us about this terrible record of the NDP in mines and minerals, how the industry is now booming, how there is obviously going to be processing taking place. Not once did he mention metal prices in his remarks. How dumb do you think the people of the province of British Columbia really are? They know that metal prices are the basic determination of the industry of mining, no matter which government you have. And I can tell you that the mining industry itself understands that. The mining industry itself is no longer conned by this particular government.

Now the member for Omineca said: "Come on, speak on the budget. You new fellows will obviously want to vote for this budget." People in my constituency recognize this budget for what it was. They recognized that they paid for it. They paid for it; they were overtaxed. I won't go through the long litany of taxation that was imposed by this government. But they were overtaxed and naturally expected that somewhere down the line they might get a couple of bucks back. That's what this budget is all about. It's got nothing to do with supposedly good government, good business management. It's a case of overtaxing at the beginning, and all the way down the line the plan was in, the plot was there: the sunshine budget would come at the end. Then we'd run an election.

This sunshine budget, for example.... If you want to look at education, in 1975 when the NDP government was there, the province paid 48 per cent of the cost of education. The local taxpayers paid 52 per cent. Now with the sunshine budget, 1979, the province's share has dropped to 39 per cent; the local share is now up to 61 per cent. What kind of a sunshine budget is that? It's that transfer of responsibility onto the local taxpayer. At the same time, we hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs talking about the county system. It's another word. It's another word for saying: "Let's give all the taxes to the local taxpayers in the municipalities but let's take away their responsibility and don't let them have any decision-making." That's what the process has been with this government.

But it's not all bad news, Mr. Speaker. There are some things, I'm sure. We in our party have welcomed the references to handicapped in the throne speech; the idea of improving access to public buildings is worthwhile. I wish there was enough imagination shown in terms of the other areas of handicapped that really need help as well as that, other areas that are important.

Do you know that in this province there are many many handicapped people who cannot get life insurance because the risk is too high? Now put yourself in the position of a handicapped person who has dependents and would like to see some protection in the future for them. There is no way the private system will ensure, for example, serious epileptics and other people seriously handicapped. It's time for the government — I know that's not a very popular thing across the aisle — to have a look at guaranteeing handicapped people the right to life insurance in the province of British Columbia.

We have some recognition of senior citizens in terms of the homeowner grant. They have an additional fund in the homeowner grant. I can see no reason, Mr. Speaker, why we can't also apply that same principle to handicapped homeowners in the province of British Columbia so they too can have the same opportunity.

Certainly we welcome the moves on ICBC concerning rates, to have some fairness built into the rates. I notice the principle, however, of government car insurance remains intact. In fact this government seems to want to run around all across the country boasting about government car insurance. It's a principle that you can't get rid of. All this talk about free enterprise, you know, becomes a bit rhetorical when you will find if you examine the things that the New Democratic Party did while they were in office, they're still in place. They're still in place and they will remain in place and there will be more of them. You want to get rid of car insurance? Just tell us. Go ahead, tell us you want to get rid of government car insurance.

I'd like to also welcome the mention concerning nuclear energy. During an election campaign this government seems to have a much faster response to issues than it does outside an election campaign. I think they should be in a permanent election campaign, perhaps, because then they will be sensitive about things like nuclear energy. To say you're concerned, however, doesn't say it all. I'd like to hear this government's policy as being opposed once and for all to nuclear energy in the province of British Columbia. You haven't said that yet. You have said you are concerned.

You know, the Sedro-Woolley nuclear reactor: there have been hearings going on in the United States and the U.S. nuclear regulatory agency since 1975. It's 1979 this year. They've been going on four years. Just during an election campaign the Premier suddenly found out that there are nuclear hearings in the United States, that there is some risk to the people of the province of British Columbia as a result of that nuclear station. That doesn't sound to me, Mr. Speaker, like good management of the province, and it

[ Page 59 ]

doesn't sound to me like a government that is aware of what is going on in regard to its borders.

The Eckardt report will be tabled. But it is not any mystery that people have been disfranchised all over the province of British Columbia because of an archaic Elections Act, one which doesn't see voting as a right but as a privilege — if you are lucky enough to be around at the time in order to get on that list. Now I'm hopeful — and I see the Premier is somewhat sympathetic — that we can agree on some very severe changes to that particular legislation. I can tell you that all over this province people were receiving cards...their neighbour would receive a card to say they were on the list — you were too late to get on the list. There is no court of revision, no way of reopening the list. I can't see any reason why a person can't come into the poll and swear that he is entitled to vote, and also vote as a result of that declaration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was really bad in '75, and it was even worse in this one.

MR. LEGGATT: I don't think, Mr. Speaker, there is any point in arguing about how bad it was before and how bad it was last time. I just know that the number disfranchised in the last provincial election was the highest on record. That speaks for itself. We did have the opportunity to examine the federal Elections Act and the provincial Act, and we found that the federal legislation is, in fact, much more effective in making sure that people are enfranchised. So some consideration, perhaps, should be given. We may have to expand the time of the election to make sure we have an enumeration, or else we are going to have to reopen that section 80 provision so that it makes some sense. Right now section 80 is similarly a way of stopping riots at the polls. It's for people who get in there and find they're not on the list. Then they think they've got a vote, but very few of those section 80 ballots are ever counted, as you probably know.

I wanted, though, to deal in a little more detail with the subject of foreign ownership which, in a sense, was inspired somewhat by the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), and also by the member for I think North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). I hope I have the hon. member's riding correct.

I listened with some interest last week to what sounded dangerously close to a continental energy policy and a continental resource policy. If we're going to do something in this country in terms of foreign ownership, in terms of contributing something unique in the Canadian experience, then we're going to have to have the courage to say that we are nationalists about the development of this country. We can't continue to say that we'll take the first buck that comes, that we'll take the highest price for any resource that we have, that an American bidder is just like another bidder. All of that trends towards the situation we have today, where 90 percent of our oil industry is owned by multinationals — by the Seven Sisters — and 60 percent of our manufacturing.

The Premier is going to say: "B.C. Is not for sale." That doesn't mean anything. He's got to do more than say it; he's got to put some performance behind it. Perhaps what is more important is that he's gone and sold the only resources that he has direct control over. Gray Line of Victoria is a classic example. We have his Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Phillips) running around with a permanent smile, trying to attract tourism throughout British Columbia. And do you know what Gray Line is in the business of doing? Trying to make sure that Canadians go down to the States and don't spend their money here in Victoria. That's what Gray Line is all about when it's sold.

And what are we going to do with the BCRIC shares, another corporation that the Premier has some influence and control over? Are those going to wind up in New York, in the markets of London and Zurich?

Those industries over which this government has direct control have been sold out and sold down the river, We can't make this country a U.S. franchise country and still claim to have a Canadian identity and a Canadian nationality. You know, someday, I'm beginning to believe, perhaps we'I be replacing the Peace Arch with a couple of Golden Arches. Do you know that McDonald's are now serving 24 million Canadians? How are we going to get a handle on this thing? You know, McDonald's every year — and I choose McDonald's not because I have any particular dislike of McDonald's; they make a fine hamburger; it's a very good hamburger — offer us, the people in this chamber, a special deal. If you'll come out and sell our hamburgers, we'll provide the proceeds to the crippled children. And that's a very worthwhile endeavour. I'll come, if they'll take those proceeds and provide them to the small businessmen they've driven out of business all over the province of British Columbia. That's important. We've got to help small business to compete with U.S. franchise operations. Those U.S. operations are market-tested in Los Angeles, in New York, and it's almost impossible for the small, Canadian businessman to compete effectively without government help. Because that isn't competition at all; that's the elephant dancing around the chicken saying: "Whoopee, let's have free enterprise, folks." It isn't free enterprise.

Our small businessmen have to have the resources to compete with the most effective marketing techniques all around the world, and we're not going to have small hamburger operations and small restaurants. All of those interesting, unique and feisty small businesses are going to go down the drain unless this government gets out of its ideological straight-jacket and says: "We, as a government will come and help small business, and we will help small business because we understand that their interests aren't the same as the multinational. We understand that big business and small business are not the same at all." Quite often they're on a direct collision course.

Let's have a look at the small retailer of gas and how we used to think Imperial Oil was just a wonderful operation. We just were all friends together in the business of selling petroleum products until the day self-serve came along. Ask the small, independent marketer of petroleum products now what he thinks about multinational corporations. They put them right to the wall; that's what they did. Not only that but they got control of the self-serve market, and once they got control of the self-serve market up went the price of that product.

There have been a lot of things happening in Canada about takeovers. You know, we've got the interesting situation where Brascan has been trying to take over one of the largest companies in the world, Woolco. Thompson's attempted to take over The Bay, and there's a whole series of them. I asked myself why is this happening? Why is it

[ Page 60 ]

suddenly now that the big boys are playing "Monopoly" with each other to see who's going to take over which corporation? Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's for one reason. It's a direct result of wage controls in Canada. The profits have been so immense in the private sector of Canada that they've got so much money they don't know what to do with it. So they're going to play with each other in the stock-market instead of creating jobs for Canadians, which is what they should have been doing all along. That was a direct result of a federal government policy which has simply meant that the purpose of that policy was to create employment. In fact, it's simply created more capital acquisitions which aren't creating employment at all.

I have to give some credit to one man in this country who understood the unfairness of wage controls, who understood that you can't just control wages and leave prices alone. That man is the former Premier of the province of British Columbia, Dave Barrett, who did freeze prices — the only Premier in Canada who did. There is a real indication of some sensitivity on the subject.

Now I haven't talked about two subjects, and I haven't largely because the government hasn't talked about them. They seem to think that unemployment and inflation are going to go away. We continue in British Columbia to have the third-highest unemployment in the country, the third-highest region. Quebec and the Maritimes continue to be slightly ahead of us. Today there are 112,000 people in the province of British Columbia to whom we have said: "You belong in the ash can." That is what this government has said to 112,000 people in British Columbia. Now that's a lot of people, and if you're interested in the question of small business, only purchasing power in the hands of those people can keep those small businesses operating. That's the key. You can't continue to argue that as long as we put in enough money at the top of the business cycle it will filter down to the bottom. It never happens. The purchasing power must be in the hands of those people, and we must find meaningful work for them to do.

Inflation is going to be with us for a long time. It's going to continue to go up. The degree to which it goes up will depend to some extent on how serious any particular government is about the subject. What can we do about it? The federal policy of the New Democratic Party, it seems to me, is one that should be adopted right here in the province of British Columbia. That is a price commission to investigate selective profiteering and selective prices, and with the power to roll those prices back. But inflation won't go away as long as we keep the inflationary psychology. That will break the psychology and do something meaningful.

I've spoken long enough, Mr. Speaker. I do thank you. I'm sure my friends would agree. I do appreciate the opportunity of participating in the debate in this House. I hope that in the future we will have more interesting sessions.

I would like to close by simply saying that we want to be something different and unique in Canada. We want to be different than our brothers, our friends across the border. Let's be serious about Canadian ownership, control and management.

MR. RITCHIE: I am proud to take my position on the floor here today. My congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and to our Deputy Speaker, on your re-election to those high offices. To all other members, may I say congratulations on your election or re-election. I look forward to some constructive debate and the opportunity to get to know you all better.

As the first member elected in that great new constituency of the Central Fraser Valley, I can be humbly grateful for two honours, Mr. Speaker: one, the honour of being the first member for that constituency; and two, the honour of being elected a member of the finest government that this province has ever experienced.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that my role will not be an easy one because I am sure that my constituents will expect me to do as fine a job as was done by our member to the west, who not only gained the confidence and the respect of his constituents as an MLA but proved himself as a very effective and very capable Minister of Health for the entire province of British Columbia.

The eastern portion of my constituency was served by yourself, Mr. Speaker — I should say, is served by yourself — and without any question of doubt, you have proven yourself to be a first-class Speaker. I am going to have difficulty filling your shoes in that part of my constituency.

For those who are not totally familiar with my constituency, we are basically an agricultural community which I consider to be the bread basket of our province. We have within our bounds the finest farmers in the world involved in the production of meat, milk, eggs, small fruits and vegetables, so we do rely very heavily on agriculture for a healthy economy. The spin-off benefits from our agricultural industry are great since we have also located within our constituency some of the major suppliers of goods and services to agriculture. However, we cannot be satisfied with what we have, because as producers of these food commodities, we want to encourage further processing within our boundaries and create the much-needed jobs for younger people as they graduate and wish to put their roots down in our community.

Speaking of our young people, Mr. Speaker, I want to express on their behalf their appreciation to this government for the proposed changes in the automobile insurance rates. These changes will eliminate the discrimination which was penalizing innocent drivers before they were found guilty. I am also greatly encouraged by the fact that this government has committed itself to lessening its size and burden on the taxpayer and will be paying close attention to spending restraints, to efficiency and to responsiveness, and will be removing some of the costly and unnecessary forms of government regulation.

Unfortunately, too many in our midst are of the opinion that the more money government spends, the better job they are doing. This, Mr. Speaker, has to be one of the most dangerous and costly attitudes that we as politicians could adopt. I am proud that our hon. Minister of Finance will be placing a great deal of emphasis in the areas of efficiency and accountability.

I am also encouraged by the vigorous efforts being carried out by our Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I note with real interest the emphasis that he will be placing on further processing, because as a representative of an agricultural area, further processing becomes a very important addition to our economy. Since we are proud producers of many raw materials such as meat, milk and eggs, that is very important to us.

[ Page 61 ]

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to concentrate my remarks in the area of food production, and hopefully impress upon the members of this House the importance of our total agricultural industry to the economy of our province. I am encouraged to note that our Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) will be placing special emphasis on new programs which will expand our efforts into the areas of food processing. I know that farmers throughout this province, and particularly those farmers in my constituency, will be very pleased indeed, as will those people who will find employment as a result of this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great need for leadership and assistance in the development of new techniques in the areas of production and marketing, a need which that ministry has recognized and is prepared to act on. So I hope that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is listening. I hope that all members of this House will cooperate fully.

As I speak of marketing, Mr. Speaker, producers of this province who are now part of a national management supply program do have a problem, a problem which prevents them from producing up to what our market will possibly absorb. In my opinion, this discourages maximum utilization of facilities and equipment. It takes away that initiative to get out and vigorously develop a larger share of a market region which can be best supplied by B.C. producers. I know this is a problem that can be solved and with our government's assistance and leadership in convincing other provincial agencies that policies developed yesterday aren't necessarily good today. Unless flexibilities are incorporated into our national supply-management programs, we can expect unrest that may just bring about their failure.

I'm encouraged, Mr. Speaker, and, I'm sure, so are the producers of this province, by the position our Premier has taken with respect to the federal system — his commitment to work towards a review of the mechanisms which will have some regard for the realities of Canada today so that all regions will benefit fairly.

Our Minister of Agriculture can be commended for his firm and wise leadership over the past few years as he set the stage for what is becoming the most advanced agricultural industry in Canada. In his wisdom, and in keeping with our government's dedication to the free enterprise system, he successfully returned to the producers of British Columbia and to the independent market system B.C.'s largest integrated poultry enterprise, which is now proving that government ownership deprives the people of the opportunity to excel, because today, Mr. Speaker, that processing facility has increased its volume by approximately 30 percent. Staff attitude has changed to one of enthusiasm, and producers relying on those facilities are now reaping the benefits.

As new products and markets are being vigorously explored, we also see that those employees of Panco Poultry not only enjoy greater job security, but will see more jobs created. I was hoping that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) would have been in his chair now, because I would like to repeat that employees of Panco not only enjoy greater job security, but will see more jobs created.

We know that many exciting things are happening in our north country. As those developments take place, agriculture will play a major role because we have the potential to build the greatest beef farming industry in Canada through range development and improved grassland management.

Also, Mr. Speaker, with the development of major grain exporting facilities, cattle finishing could take place on location utilizing elevator byproducts, which would then lead to further processing facilities, creating new jobs, fulfilling a domestic market and opening up great opportunities in far-eastern markets.

As we talk about ranching, we are also blessed with the richest feeding grounds in the world for fish production, because in our ability to become a major producer of freshwater fish, we also have along our coastline ideal locations for the development of a salmon ranching industry which would prosper from the vast feeding grounds of the Pacific Ocean. I believe the development of such an industry would require some changes in federal legislation, but I am very optimistic that those changes could be accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, this whole area of food production is exciting. The tremendous opportunities we have to become the world's most diverse producer of food is very real indeed.

But I would be remiss if I did not turn my attention briefly to the need for land to carry out these functions. In an effort to preserve our agricultural land, we must apply a great deal of common sense, and recognize that in preserving our agricultural land we are actually preserving our ability to produce food. Since a major portion of our food production is in the area of biological farming, soil classification should not be the only criterion used to determine what lands should be preserved. Nor should we forget that as we produce all this food, Mr. Speaker, we must have consumers who, in turn, will require residential development, resulting in the need for jobs and industrial and commercial development. Therefore our responsibility in the preservation of our agricultural land is one of plain common sense. We must have respect for the needs of all our people and be realistic and not permit political philosophy to govern our actions or our decisions.

I am proud to support this exciting budget, and I hope you will forgive me for dwelling so much on agriculture. I guess it is simply because agriculture is the basic economy of my constituency and because I am just a simple farmer, a farmer at heart. More important, it is because I understand the problems and the risks inherent in farming. I am so pleased that under the fine administration of our Ministry of Agriculture, farmers are about to be recognized as highly skilled people with a great deal of pride, independence and capital investment. They don't want government handouts or agricultural welfare. They want the opportunity to get their fair return from the marketplace. This government and this budget, I am certain, will assist them to do just that.

I look forward to my future in politics, a future, Mr. Speaker, which will give me an opportunity to assist our government in its continuing determination to provide a better life of comfort and dignity to those seniors who built this province, and an opportunity to assist our government in providing for those who are less fortunate. Mr. Speaker, I will always be mindful of the needs of others but at the same time will recognize the importance of working very hard to assist our government and its ambitious plans for a vibrant economy, That will, through independent initiative, provide the funds necessary to fulfill our responsibility to the needy, to the sick and to the aged. And I will continue to work to prevent this province from ever again falling into the hands of a socialist party which is committed to the socialization

[ Page 62 ]

of our province, and indeed our country. I am proud to support this exciting budget, and I doubt very much that the opposition would change their minds again and vote against it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the end of my notes, but I just couldn't help, as I was sitting there listening to some of the debate, to make a few extra notes, and if you will just bear with me, I would like to comment very briefly.

You know, every now and again we hear all this nonsense and comments and so forth about Panco Poultry. Poor old Panco Poultry, you know, was blamed for everything. Well, I would like to mention here first of all to the new member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) that the producers of this province were offered an opportunity to get into Panco Poultry by Pan Ready, and they chose not to do so, because they felt of the possibility of Cargill Grain purchasing Panco Poultry that they may be better off as an industry. That was their decision. The other thing I would like to say very briefly about Panco Poultry was that Panco Poultry was offered for sale by Federal Industries, not because they were losing money and they wanted to shut down, but only because they wanted to get out of the food processing industry. And if I remember correctly, they were talking with the producers of British Columbia, and some of the producers got together and put a price on it, and that price, we have good reason to believe, would have been acceptable by Federal Industries. But lo and behold, if the government of the day didn't come along and bid them out of it. That was, Mr. Premier….

HON. MR. WOLFE: Who was that?

MR. RITCHIE: That, Mr. Premier, was the government of the day at that time. That was the NDP government, and I'm sure that those of you who are not involved in agriculture will not have heard, but in those days the star of the show was better known as the Colonel Sanders of the socialist party. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the very important part of this whole purchase was the fact that that government of the day totally ignored the regulations laid down by the board, and the regulations that they endorsed. Instead they fought the board to try and retain the quota that they took over, without going through the board. They just walked in and bought it and said: "That's it." That represented more than 50 percent of the turkey production in the province. They ignored it, but the board fought it. The board fought it on the grounds that the government should be treated just as anyone else. That was the NDP government.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: No. They just wanted a greater number of turkeys under their control. [Laughter.]

They continued to fight that board on several occasions through their NDP-elected or appointed superboard, as it was known then. They fought them and they continued to fight them. Then the superboard threatened to dissolve the marketing board if the marketing board didn't agree to do exactly what they were told. Various meetings took place. This went on until finally it was agreed that we should go to the entire producers of our province and ask them what they wanted to do. The meeting was held; it was a 100 percent vote, unanimous, again standing firm and telling the government they had no business in that field. "We want to retain our freedoms in agriculture. Stand firm."

This was not sufficient because one of the then superboard members went forward to the podium and said: "We as the representatives of government know better what's good for you. This is what you're going to do."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Which government was that?

MR. RITCHIE: That was the NDP government. They were still in power.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind hon. members this is a maiden speech and perhaps not to be interrupted. Please proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: I really don't mind a little heckling at all. Feel free. It's fine.

I left off at the point where they threatened to dissolve the board. Well, that wasn't working. Then they said to the chairman: "If you don't do what you're told, we will fire you. We will kick you out of your position." That is a fact.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: I notice that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is quite familiar with all these doings.

I think I will close by just briefly saying I think it's time we stopped trying to mislead the public, and talk about the facts. I would hope that those of you who are not involved in agriculture, who don't understand what's going on, get the facts; because obviously you don't have them now.

These are the facts: that chairman they threatened to fire, if he didn't do what he was told, was myself.

MR. LEVI: It was a delight to listen to the previous speaker. He did make an observation that he would have some trouble filling your shoes. I'm only curious as to what he intended to fill them with. We've had an opportunity to listen to him. We've found that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has a bosom buddy. The only thing is that it's quite obvious they are not going to agree on farming policy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Where did your hair go?

MR. LEVI: Part of it's on your face.

It's very pleasant to be back here. I should congratulate you. In the four Speakers I have experienced in this House you are certainly a delight. You are the moments of sanity we need when we don't get them from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), which is almost never. It's really delightful.

It's also delightful to see that the three people who had their ridings dismantled are all back in the House, safe and secure. I know you are going to have some trouble remembering the new names and will want to refer to the old ones, but that's okay.

What I want to deal with in the budget speech is to call the minister's attention to the budget amended statement itself. I have some trouble with that minister. We know that on a previous occasion in 1976 he had to rewrite the budget. You remember that, Mr. Speaker. He came into the House and made what I thought at that time to be the most

[ Page 63 ]

obnoxious and terrible speech in respect to the budget and realized it afterwards so much so that the comment was made that we'd better rewrite this because, after all, how can we send the budget abroad and expect people to have confidence when we write such a document? Well, he has now written a second document. I just want to call the minister's attention to a section of the document, and maybe he'll be able to nod or his face may blush. I'm on page 4. He's got a statement here which says: "As at June 6, about seven million shares have been applied for by British Columbians, on the basis of five free shares to each citizen." Now I gather that that is sort of accurate. He then goes on to say: you know, citizens of this province also have the right to June 15 to purchase additional shares. As of June 6, sales were about 37 million."

Now I want to ask the minister or the Premier, because this is his baby, the BCRIC share thing, what that section in the book refers to. Is he saying that about 37 million shares under the prospectus have been sold, or should the 37 million be $37 million? I did have an opportunity to phone BCRIC just before I came in here to speak, and I'm informed by BCRIC that the actual number of shares that have been sold at $6 is some 7 million for a total of $42 million. Now if the minister is going to produce these facts in the book — and we had a little discussion before about facts, or, as the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is often pleased to talk about, the "true facts" — the minister is going to have to tell us during these estimates just what the situation is in respect to the BCRIC shares.

In terms of the previous election, the BCRIC shares, as I recall, were going to be the Premier's basis for not only calling the election but for winning the election. We've heard some of the speakers talk already, and what we seem to have is that they want to keep going back into history. I would remind the new members and the old members that the present government was first elected in December 1975. They spent three and a half years talking about what the NDP did. But we don't intend, as we did last time, to talk about what the NDP did. We want to talk about what the government did from 1975 to 1979, and that's exactly what we did in the election, Mr. Speaker.

We talked about fiscal policy and economic policy and their ability or inability to develop jobs, to create a viable economy. That's what we went to the people on. We did not go to the people in the election on BCRIC shares, because we found that when we went to the doorstep nobody wanted to talk about BCRIC shares. They were not interested in the ultimate con; what they were interested in was jobs. They weren't interested in bottom-line financing; they weren't interested in the Minister of Human Resources, who beat the hell out of people who were on welfare. They weren't interested in that; they were embarrassed. They were embarrassed by a Premier who would allow this kind of thing to go on. In terms of fiscal policy all we could see....

The Premier has got a frown on his face, and if we don't let him say something, he's going to have a baby. Now what is it, Mr. Premier? Are you upset? You spent five weeks going around this province trying to dig up an issue, and you couldn't dig up an issue. You went around talking about BCRIC shares, and what is the ultimate end? You've got 31 seats and we've got 26; 600,000 people voted for the Socreds and just under 600,000 for the NDP. Where are we after three and a half years of what you said was the kind of policies the people wanted?

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear it correctly — perhaps it's the way the member said it — but there was a statement he made about the Minister of Human Resources; The way I heard it, he said: "The Minister of Human Resources beat the hell out of kids." I'd just like.... Is that what you said?

MR. LEVI: No, no. No, I never said that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh. Well, I just want you to clarify it, because I didn't quite hear.

MR. LEVI: Oh, no. I said "beat the hell out of people on welfare." But I will withdraw "hell." I mean, after all, it's improper. But not "kids;" I never said that. Read Hansard. I never referred to kids.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would ask him, on behalf of the minister, to withdraw what you consider to be an ample correction.

MR. LEVI: Withdraw what?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The part about beating the hell out of people on welfare.

MR. LEVI: Well, I think it's correct, but if it's unparliamentary I'm quite prepared to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I think....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of fact that it's untrue.

MR. LEVI: It's not untrue. Don't tell me it's untrue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, may I just interrupt the proceedings long enough to refresh the minds of all hon. members — it's been a while since we've been together [laughter] — that statements made in this House are made by individuals who have assumed their place in the debate, and they must assume complete responsibility for veracity or otherwise of the statements that they make. There are certain unparliamentary phrases which, of course, we reject out of hand. And then I would also remind hon. members that perhaps moderation should be the hallmark of all language used in this chamber.

I'm happy to have the member withdraw the phrase "beat the hell out of people." Please proceed.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps the Speaker could tell us later on if that four-letter word is on the proscribed list. I wasn't aware that it was, but that's quite all right.

I want to go back to just before the Premier started to get upset. He originally went to the people on the basis of the BCRIC shares, because that's what he said was the great issue, the issue whether people should own a piece of the rock or whether the government should administer some of the assets of the province for the benefit of all of the people. That was his major issue, and it failed. It failed because nobody was convinced of what he was saying. One of the reasons they weren't convinced was that he wasn't really prepared to talk about the things that they were concerned about. I know, because I spent six weeks canvassing in the

[ Page 64 ]

riding on the kinds of things that people are concerned about in nearly all the ridings, whether they're up in the north or in the lower mainland, and it came down to the issue of, for instance, what is going to happen to the young people who are coming out of school, what is going to happen in terms of employment, and what is going to happen in terms of transit.

We have a Premier, Mr. Speaker, who talked three or four months ago about revitalizing the board of B.C. Hydro. And that needs revitalizing, needs shaping up. First of all, it needs some more members. At the moment it's only got five and it should have about twelve. That is an important decision for that Premier to make, because decisions made by that board have a direct effect on the economy of this province. One of the decisions being made — because there is no control over that monster operating down there — is that there be a slow dismantling of the transit system. Yes, we heard the government's answer to the transit system. They were going to bring in a bill, create an authority — which they did — and then they were going to convince the local authorities that they should take over the administration. But nobody would buy it and the reason they wouldn't buy it is that they weren't prepared to accept the financing formula offered by the government. In fact, things got so hot that about four weeks before the election they called the whole game off and said we're backing out of it, we're leaving it, it's on the back burner, we'll wait until after the election. In the meanwhile the transit system is being reduced. There is no service to people that require it. We would almost think that it is being done in such a way the people are being driven into cars. There is no basic policy about that. We've had no basic policy thrust from that government in terms of economics or finance.

What we have now fortunately, to some extent, is not quite as many car dealers there. I'm happy to see that we actually have a real live farmer on that side of the House. I only hope that what could happen is that he could move up about three seats and sit next to the minister who is the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). Maybe something would rub off from the bottom of his boots and that would be useful. The important thing is that you're going to have to talk to the minister, because very few people in this House know anything about farming. You're going to have to talk to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). You should have a little chat to him about his feelings about marketing boards. He has some very interesting ideas about marketing boards.

You should talk to some of the people who are pro-developers that know what they would like to do with some of the land out at Langley. You're going to have your hands full, isn't he, Mr. Speaker? I think it's delightful because he's a very engaging man, and I think he's going to give them a lot of agony.

It's the first time that anybody has had the temerity on that side to really stand up and talk about Panco Poultry. I mean, we've had a Minister of Agriculture who's not only had one go at it, but he's had two goes at the ministry, and he still hasn't talked about Panco. Today he started a little bit to talk, but that member over there, that's the man who's a true blue Socred. He gets up, says what he means, means what he says. You've got to be careful because I've noticed that the Premier, Mr. Speaker, has taken to swinging around in his chair, and we know what that means.

I would predict, Mr. Speaker, that sometime in October when the Socred convention comes around that there's going to be a leadership challenge. He keeps swinging around, yes, keeps swinging around. He's wondering whether it's the member for where? From West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams)? It could very well be. He's wondering whether it's the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), or whether it's the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). I don't know about the new people, what kind of ambitions they've got. Oh, but there's the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) ; he also is a candidate. They've got lots of troubles over there, Mr. Speaker, and we intend to add to their troubles somewhat.

You know, the Premier went into the election, swaggered in on the BCRIC shares, and he came out of it with less seats, less representation, and worried, really worried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Still the government.

MR. LEVI: Still the government, yes, still the government. That's the main action — got to be the government and you are the government. I have trouble now because I don't see too well, but looking all the way down to the bottom of this line here I see it's full of NDPers, except the member at the bottom who occasionally disappears and then it's all NDPers except two people. Well, that's a bit of a change from the last House.

It's indicative of the kind of thinking that's gone on out there with the electorate. You got a message, Mr. Speaker; they're on their own now. Never mind talking about what the NDP did from 1972 to '75. You've got to do a heck of a lot better than you did from 1975 to '79. You're on notice from that electorate out there that they were not happy with your performance. They are not happy with the way you talk about bottom line. They are not happy with welfare-bashing. They are not happy with the kind of thing you do in terms of farmers. They're not. We saw the wiffle-waffling that was going on in terms of that agricultural thing. We've seen that kind of wiffle-waffling.

You know, I just want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), in terms of finance.... We've heard him say since we've been back just before we went into the election...he keeps protesting; that everything is fine in the health care system. Well, we've had a chance to catch up on our mail, and we see an ad in the B.C. Medical Journal. It says:

"The medical staff of the Royal Jubilee Hospital has resolved that the public should be made aware of a deteriorating level in patient care which has resulted from government measures of cost control. We would therefore, appeal to the Minister of Health to make moneys available immediately, without prejudice for future planning and in consultation with hospital authorities, to hire sufficient staff at the hospital to restore the excellent and uniform standards of care that the citizens of Victoria have enjoyed in the past."

It's there; it's an ad. It has been put in by the staff of the hospital — never done before, right out on a limb — complaining about the standards. And we have a minister over there who keeps getting up and telling us there are no complaints, there are no cutbacks, everything is fine. Well, everything is not fine. And we're going to have to spend

[ Page 65 ]

some time during the estimates, particularly in his estimates, talking about what actually goes on with our hospital system.

The medicare system that has been in operation in Canada for 12 years is now under a desperate attack. It is not all the fault of the provincial government. There are some serious problems in terms of the federal government as well. Well, we don't see this government taking some kind of direct action now that they've got to meet with a new series of ministers in Ottawa, and a new Prime Minister who is committed to the idea of the bottom line, the kind of bottom line that you people were committed to, that almost got you defeated, that showed a complete indifference to the welfare of people in terms of their health, in terms of their lifestyle, and which drove staff to produce that kind of an ad that they put into their professional journal, making an appeal to the minister.

We know what the minister said: everything was fine. And then suddenly he found $25 million, because he was under a lot of pressure, getting ready to go into an election. Then in the middle of the election he threw a little more money into the pot. That's complete ad-hockery in terms of a health care system.

We would hope that, apart from the document that is produced under the authority of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), they would do something about quietly enunciating some positive directions they intend to go in that are possible to be accomplished, so people can understand where they are going. In three and a half years we have not received that kind of thing from any government. We had the Minister of Economic Development in 1976 talk about free enterprise and Railwest, and he couldn't wait to close it down, because he didn't know how to handle his portfolio and made a complete mess of trying to get some contracts. Then, just before the election, almost from the back door, they decided to open up Railwest. Well, when the minister's estimates come up he'I tell us, presumably, just what is happening up there in Railwest now. How many jobs has he created? How many of the people who left Squamish have come back? How many people went broke when he closed it down because they had to leave and sell off their houses? That is the kind of economic policy that government had. They couldn't wait to close things down. They wanted tremendous revenge and to show examples to people that they mustn't vote for the NDP. They didn't care one hoot about what kind of hardship they created on people. Then, just before an election, they've got the temerity to say: "All is forgiven; we're going to open up Railwest."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you sincere with what you say?

MR. LEVI: I'm very sincere, and I'm saying the true facts, Mr. Minister, and you'I have an opportunity in the debate to get up, to flap your arms and to take off into the wild blue yonder, and you can tell us all about your economic policies.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You can tell us exactly what it is you have in mind in terms of economic policy. You can stand up and you can say to us that during the three and a half years of theSocial Credit government, we were able to create this number of jobs....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Right now?

MR. LEVI: Later on you are going to get an opportunity, Mr. Minister. We are going to let you have lots of opportunity. I am going to recommend to that minister that before he gets up in his estimates he has an opportunity to take a memory course — very important for that minister. He has to be able to remember. We are going to make sure he can recall everything, and in his sense of recall he is going to tell us exactly what he did for the economy in the past three and a half years. We'd like to know. What he was doing in Japan. Testing Jacuzzis? He went over there three times, wasn't it? We don't know what you did. The Premier went to Europe. He travels all the way round, and we haven't seen one development that has come out of all the travelling. You know who used to travel like that before? Waldo Skillings was a great traveler. He used to travel all over the place, looking to create jobs. He never created any jobs. He gave lots of trade to the travel agents, but didn't create any jobs at all. The Premier went to Europe, but never created any kinds of jobs after he came back. In the speech here they are talking about jobs. That's okay and it's important if we can create jobs for young people.

One of the questions that we want to ask the people who are going to be responsible for creating the jobs is: how long are the jobs going to last? How long is the funding going to be there for? What are we looking at? Six month jobs and then they're out of work again? What kind of permanence and what kind of planning goes into the development of these kinds of jobs?

Because it is the budget speech we can range rather widely over the kind of things we want to do. But I do want to make some mention of a program that I was responsible for introducing some years ago as the Minister of Human Resources. That was Pharmacare. Then when the Socreds came in, they produced another program. They called it Universal Pharmacare. Now we will have an opportunity during the course of these estimates to find out from the minister responsible just what took place in terms of Pharmacare.

I would like just to quote for you, Mr. Speaker, a paragraph from the 1978 report of the Ministry of Human Resources, which is up to March 31, 1978.

"Universal Pharmacare, introduced in June 1977, provides partial protection against major drug and other expenses for all citizens not receiving benefits on a fully paid basis. Universal Pharmacare will provide 80 percent of reimbursements for all eligible expenses exceeding $100 in the calendar year. In 1978 a total of 2.2 million people were eligible for this benefit, at a total cost of $3.2 million and 200,000 claims. In total, 2.5 million people were eligible for Pharmacare benefits costing $33 million in 1978."

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about a universal program, as is understood by most people that deal with the phrase, it applies to a category of people in which all of them get the program. When Mincome came in, it became a program for people over the age of 65, and there were certain things that you had to do to become eligible. In the Universal Pharmacare program, in order to be eligible you

[ Page 66 ]

had to spend more than $100, and then you would be able to get 80 percent back of anything above $100.

One would gather from the paragraph in there that somehow 2.5 million people were on the brink of participating in this program. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, this is not a universal program. This is in fact a program in which $3 million was paid out by the government to approximately 150,000 people. That's a long long way, Mr. Speaker, from the over two million people that one would get the impression are covered by such a program.

They talk about 2.5 million people being eligible for Pharmacare at a cost off $33 million, but they don't say that Pharmacare over the age of 65 is $17 million; medical benefits to welfare people another $7 million; the handicapped benefits come to another $6 million; and then we're left with $3 million. That is the kind of statement that is made to exemplify the kind of programs that they have brought in for people. This program is not universal. In fact, the basis of the program, because it has a deterrent fee, keeps many people from being able to participate in it in the first place.

One would have thought, as we said when they introduced the program, that you would not get this level of participation, and they have not received this level of participation. But yet they go to the trouble, in almost every speech, whether it's the throne speech or the budget speech, to talk about Universal Pharmacare. And it's not Universal Pharmacare. It's a Pharmacare program that's been available to people on a deterrent-fee basis.

Two of the reasons that this government was so hardly dealt with in the election were that the people were not prepared to accept the kind of bottom-line thinking that these people do, and some of the representations they made which people knew, in terms of some of the programs they talked about, were of no benefit to them, no benefit whatsoever. Why should it be that you have to spend $100 before you get some assistance from the government? What about the people who spend $90 and $80? If you talk to the pharmacists they'll tell you that you are talking about average, useful people who have a need for such a program and are probably using between $40 and $80. Those are the kind of people that should be able to be eligible for a program like this, but they are not. There used to be a program they could apply for, but that, of course, was all wiped out when they were able to introduce their so-called Universal Pharmacare program.

That is the kind of representation that the government makes, but once people get a taste of what the program is, it's of no value to them. It's a slipshod kind of effort. It's part of the idea that somehow you can produce a program in which you don't have to spend any money and then you can go out and tell people that you have a Universal Pharmacare program. What's shocking, though, is that for the programs that were in place $30 million would have had to be budgeted, yet they're able to get away with the suggestion that somehow they have a Universal Pharmacare program and their total contribution to it is $3 million. There are over two million people who should have an opportunity to come under such a program. That's the kind of thing that we've been getting from the government, these short, sharp little deals which people had an opportunity to see through, had an opportunity, in many respects, to reject.

I want to just say one other thing. Again, it's for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and whatever else he's responsible for. Sometime during the estimates I would hope that the Minister of Highways would be able to explain to me, along with the Minister of Finance, what exactly is stated on page C-9 of the public accounts, 1977-78.

I find in perusing it that, as the minister may know if he's looked at it — or the Finance Minister may know — that minister and myself have a little bit in common. I see that in that particular statement it says that that minister had an overrun in his ministry in 1977-78 of $96,164,000. I can telegram that I have some very special interest in this kind of thing. What I am quite mystified about is that if you spend $100 million on people, you can make headlines; but if you spend $100 million over your budget on highways, it appears in the books quietly — in rather heavy type — under a column which says: "expenditure over and under main estimate." What we have is an overexpenditure of $93,171,000. Then by magic you are able to remove this. How are you able to remove it? You have another column which says: "other authorization." You lump in $96 million. And then what does it say? "Net overexpenditure." Do you know what it is? It's $2.9 million. It's magic! The $100 million disappeared. It's only $2.9 million.

That minister knows. He's been around this place longer than I have. He knows what I'm talking about. That Minister of Finance knows. Right after the experience of the former Minister of Human Resources, that government gets itself into such a bind that they are shoveling money out of the back of a gravel truck.

When we get to the BCRIC shares, baby, you are going to be one unhappy man. You've been taking money, you've been printing it and you've been throwing it away trying to promote that scheme.

It's incredible. I'I tell you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you've got to get hold of that Minister of Finance and you've got to get him to stand up in the House and tell us that his budget statement, the amended budget statement on page 4, is inaccurate.

I make the charge now: that minister has presented to us in that budget an inaccurate statement. I wouldn't say it's false; it's inaccurate. What I suggest he do when he leaves here tonight is to get on the phone, phone up the BCRIC share people, speak to Mr. Helliwell and say to him: "How many shares have we sold under the prospectus?"

I don't think, because I started to cover this in the beginning.... The minister seems to be a little bit more attentive now than he was before. It is not, Mr. Minister, as you've got it typed in here — 37 million shares. You're going to have to straighten it out; we're going to have to debate this thing. We need to have the actual facts, Mr. Speaker. There is a procedure, I understand, by which we can bring to your attention that there should be corrections, and I hope that the minister will come in tomorrow and ask leave of the House to amend the statement of the reintroduction of the British Columbia budget, and correct the misstatements that appear on page 4. That's important.

MR. KING: He's used to it.

MR. LEVI: Yes. I mean, he rewrote the budget in 1976 and he has reintroduced the budget this time. He's a very expensive minister. He has a terrible editor in his department. I don't know who writes all this.

[ Page 67 ]

Mr. Speaker, it's been very pleasant. I would trust that now that I've finished my remarks somebody from the other side is going to jump up and adjourn the debate or something. Can I get some assurance that that's going to happen? I don't want the debate to end right here because we haven't got a speaker.

Mr. Hyndman moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented the annual report for the year ended December 31, 1978, for the Milk Board of the province of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the house.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.