[ Page 69 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 12).

Hon. Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading –– 69

Oral questions.

Appointments to human rights board of inquiry. Mr. King –– 69

Sale of Panco facilities. Mr. Stupich –– 70

Extra run for E&N Railway. Ms. Sanford –– 70

Availability of Crown land to realtors. Mr. Lea –– 70

Parimutuel incentive grant. Mrs. Wallace –– 71

Distribution of B.C. Government News. Mr. Macdonald –– 71

Study of Ministry of the Provincial Secretary. Mr. Hanson –– 71

Cowichan estuary. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 71

Budget debate.

Mr. Hyndman –– 71

Mr. Gabelmann –– 75

Mr. Smith –– 80

Mr. Nicolson –– 82

Mr. Strachan –– 85

Mr. Macdonald –– 86

Mr. Brummet –– 87

Mr. King –– 88

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 91

Division on the motion –– 92

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery opposite you this afternoon we have a distinguished young British Columbian. He emerged as the undisputed all-round winner at the British Columbia Winter Games in Kamloops.

On behalf of his MLA, the hon. member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith), and on behalf of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, I would like to introduce Anthony Barker, accompanied by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Byron Barker.

Anthony, sir, is 17 years of age. He lives on Foul Bay Road and he attends Lambrick Park School. In the 1979 Winter Games in Kamloops he earned seven medals — six gold and one silver — in gymnastics competition, and we are very pleased to have him here today, representative of the hundreds of young people who participate in British Columbia's two games, summer and winter, each year.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming two well-known British Columbia sportsmen who are attending the House today. They are Mr. Ted Friesen, president of the Vancouver Gun Club, and Mr. Doug Oliver, general manager.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am advised that in the gallery today is a distinguished former editor of the Kamloops Sentinel, Mr. George Smith, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon is a constituent of Kootenay, Mr. Hank Mayberry. Hank is past president and zone commander of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 44, in Cranbrook. Hank is also a member of the board of directors of the Dr. F.W. Green Memorial Home in the constituency of Kootenay.

Also seated in the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Mayberry's son Kenneth. Ken is retired from the staff of the Commander-in-Chief of the Western Atlantic Canadian Armed Forces. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. Mayberry and his son this afternoon.

MR. SMITH: I'd ask the House to welcome with me today a group of my constituents from Oak Bay–Gordon Head including my wife, Barbara, and my father-in-law, Wallace Courtney.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RESOURCES
INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a misprint in the budget speech statement of last Friday.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This explanation becomes necessary because certain members are not able to follow what is said in the House as opposed to what is distributed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to the statements which explained the anticipated sales of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation shares through June 6. On page 4 of the budget statement, it states: "As of June 6, sales were about 37 million." It fails to show that it's 37 million dollars. It was misprinted. It should have shown $37 million, I believe that the Hansard report of what I've said records that fact. I want to make it very clear to all members that the intention of this statement was to read: "As of June 6, sales were about $37 million."

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENTS TO HUMAN
RIGHTS BOARD OF INQUIRY

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I understand that a board of inquiry was struck under the Human Rights Code to investigate alleged discriminatory pay practices in the fishing industry, and that the panel was composed of a chairman, Jack Bourne, QC, Claire Alcott, who is a management representative on the Labour Relations Board, and C. Lynn Smith. I want to ask the minister what criteria he uses in making appointments to a board of inquiry. In this case it appears that there are two management representatives sitting on an inquiry into discriminatory pay practices.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that the member is not fully or well advised on the matter which is being considered by the board of inquiry. It is not simply a matter of discriminatory pay practices, but a matter of the way in which jobs are alleged to have been assigned in this particular company's operation.

With respect to the appointment of that board of inquiry, because there was a management-union problem — incidentally, a question was raised as to whether or not the union had appropriately represented its member in the policing of the collective agreement — it was determined that there would be one person on the board identifiable from management and one identifiable from labour.

The chairman, Mr. Bourne, was chosen because he is a lawyer of long experience in arbitration matters who has in the course of his practice made it abundantly clear that he is completely impartial in the discharge of that responsibility. I might say that I received telegrams critical of Mr. Bourne and that appointment, because he had served on a previous arbitration board in the fishing industry in 1963. I don't

[ Page 70 ]

consider that criticism to in any way inhibit the manner in which Mr. Bourne would discharge his responsibility as chairman of this board.

MR. KING: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say. First of all, I didn't make any query regarding the nature of the dispute — that's rather irrelevant — but if the minister chooses to score a major point on that issue, fine. Nor did I cast any aspersions upon any member of the board; I simply asked the minister what criteria he used in making such appointments.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat that question, along with the supplementary. Why does he feel it's appropriate to launch into a defence of Mr. Bourne, when it is my understanding that Mr. Bourne has adjourned the committee to determine whether or not it is appropriate for that inquiry board to hear the complaint? It seems to me that the minister is prejudging the decision that the inquiry board has now ceased considering.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to enter into debate or to make public statements.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that even the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke would have been able to understand the nature of the answer to his question. If he wishes it to be abundantly clear, in the appointment of all boards of inquiry, whether they be single members or multiple members, we choose people who have particular knowledge of the circumstances that will be dealt with by the board of inquiry and who, by their actions, have shown themselves to be impartial in such deliberative matters.

MR. KING: A final supplementary. Notwithstanding the sarcasm of the minister, I would ask if he feels that he is appropriate to assess the impartiality of employers and their representatives in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: That question suggests its own answer, sometimes called rhetorical. Does the minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to make it abundantly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was not being sarcastic in my response to the member. If he is sensitive about the inadequacy of his questions, then he must take whatever he wishes from that.

SALE OF PANCO FACILITIES

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday near the end of question period I started a line of questioning to the Minister of Agriculture. He indicated or said that there were four people or organizations that had made offers for the Panco processing plant and hatchery. I'm wondering if he would identify those four individuals or organizations for the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Cargill was one. I may have it here, Mr. Speaker, if I can just take a moment. Lilleydale Cooperative was the second, Intercontinental Packers was the third, and Pacific Poultry Producers' Cooperative was the fourth.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister would go one step further and tell us what were the offers by these four organizations.

EXTRA RUN FOR E&N RAILWAY

MS. SANFORD: My question is addressed to the Premier. A second 85-seat Buddcar has been brought to Vancouver Island to replace the 68-seat Buddcar now in service on the E&N Railway. The Comox–Powell River member of Parliament, Ray Skelly, and I have sent a joint telegram to VIA Rail requesting that the 68-seat car be left on Vancouver Island in order to initiate a morning service on a trial, round-trip basis from Courtenay to Victoria. In view of the Premier's interest in E&N, I wonder if the Premier, on behalf of the people of Vancouver Island, would make the same request to VIA Rail.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Premier is always eager to add weight to the representations made by MLAs and MPs, and if it takes my voice to make it happen, I will be pleased to do so.

AVAILABILITY OF
CROWN LAND TO REALTORS

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. In April the minister said that the government did not intend to make Crown land available to real estate agents. We now find out by an admission of the minister that Crown land is being made available to real estate agents. Yesterday in question period the minister said that the government has no policy to make Crown land available to the private sector or to real estate agents. If there's no policy to make land available to real estate agents, how did Atlin Rentals of Prince Rupert manage to get Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member knows full well that he's abusing the rules of this House by repeating questions that have been taken as notice to which answers will be brought back as quickly as possible.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister if there is a policy dating back to March 6 — where of a total of 1,101 pieces of land classified as residential, recreational and small holdings, 480 of that number are slated to go to the private sector for resale.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a rather detailed question, hon. members. Perhaps it ought to be put on the order paper.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did he say 480 or 481?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it seems to me this is indicative of the validity of an evaluation of this question. It should be put on the order paper.

A separate question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Could I respond to that first? That's a false statement.

MR. LEA: Because of the confusion, I didn't get the minister's answer. Did he say that it was a false statement?

[ Page 71 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're incorrect.

MR. LEA: If I were to say that I have in my possession a government document which says just that, would the minister still say it is an incorrect statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this procedure is rather argumentative and not permitted in question period. Is there another question?

MR. LEA: In April of this year, when the minister made a statement that there would be no Crown land going to real estate agents, was he aware that in his ministry there was already a policy laid down on paper? Did he not know what was going on in his ministry at that time, or did he know that this policy was in effect in his ministry?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There is no such policy.

MR. LEA: Is the minister ready to stake his seat that there is no policy to that effect within the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's a rhetorical question.

PARIMUTUEL INCENTIVE GRANT

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Attorney-General, and it is about the parimutuel betting tax. Will the Attorney-General tell the House whether or not the incentive grant representing 0.5 percent of that tax — which would amount to something like $600,000 I believe — has been paid out to qualified horse-breeders.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take that as notice today, Madam Member.

DISTRIBUTION OF
B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Prior to six o'clock on Tuesday, April 3, in a period of two or three days prior thereto, were employees of the public service of the province of British Columbia dispatched to the city of Vancouver to assist in the bundling or distribution of a publication known as the B.C. Government News?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have no personal knowledge of that. I will take the question as notice and respond to the honourable member at the earliest possible time.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question for the Provincial Secretary. In bringing the information back to the House, would the Provincial Secretary indicate, if this did happen, how many there were, what work they did, whether they worked overtime, whether they were billeted at the public expense in Vancouver and just what work they were doing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I took the question as notice. I assume that what I bring back will assist the member in his question. If he wishes to ask others. he may do so at that time.

STUDY OF MINISTRY OF
THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary. On December 30 you initiated a study to be done by John Bowles into the operations and procedures of the B.C. Building Corporation. Has that report been completed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is somewhat misinformed. The report which was commissioned to be undertaken by Mr. Bowles dealt with the entire ministry as it was restructured. There is the common misunderstanding at large that it was a study exclusively with respect to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, and that is not the case.

MR. HANSON: I have a supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot accept the question; the bell signifies the end of question period.

COWICHAN ESTUARY

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked me a question to this effect: whether or not my ministry had engaged the services of a consultant to look at the needs of industry within the Cowichan River estuary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Shall leave be granted for a reply?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is that I have not. However, the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat has retained the services of a consultant to assess the economic impacts of any possible solutions to this vexing problem upon various people affected, and to look at the feasibility of recommendations relative to log storage options for this estuary.

While the member did not ask the question, Mr. Speaker, I would advise that the name of the consultant is C.H. Anderson and Associates Limited, forestry engineering consultants.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, this being a maiden speech, and having regard to a somewhat abbreviated throne speech, I hope I might have some of your indulgence and some latitude this afternoon in several of my comments touching, perhaps, on matters not directly related to the budget, but of interest at this time.

Obviously, in commencing, I want to join with those who have extended to you congratulations on your re-election to this parliament. It is certainly an honour, Mr.

[ Page 72 ]

Speaker, for the people of Chilliwack. I think it is common knowledge that many of the commentators are expecting great things from this parliament, and that your peers should have elected you to your present position speaks highly of you, sir.

To the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers), a gentleman whom I have come to know somewhat more closely in recent months, I also want to extend my congratulations. Over 38 days of campaigning and in the time you have in a dual-seat riding to share thoughts with a fellow candidate, I have come to have some feeling for his regard for this chamber, and his particular concern for new members in particular. On behalf, I think, of all the new members, I want to add congratulations. His effort to assist us has been much appreciated.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word of congratulation also to the mover and seconder of the throne speech. I say that because the member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) had some very important remarks to make about the collective bargaining process and labour relations. It may not be fully known, and should perhaps be emphasized, that he comes from and represents, as a member of the government benches, a riding with a very heavily unionized population — I believe the count is in the order of 12 sawmills, 5 pulp mills, a number of petrochemical refineries. And I think it terribly important that a government member from such a riding has said the things he said on that topic, and I congratulate him for that.

Mr. Speaker, looking down the order paper today, and given that the government was not to be represented in North Island, I want to say to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that, having regard to his background in labour relations, I particularly look forward to his comments this afternoon and what I am sure will be a contribution to this House. He and the member for Prince George North will, I expect, exhibit to us differing views as to the path to be taken in labour relations.

Now the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) seconded the throne speech. It is of unusual interest, I think, that in he and the new member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) we have, if you will, members fresh from the classroom — I believe both are principals, professional educators. His remarks on education were of particular interest to me, and on behalf of all of us I would say to both that, as education is debated, we look forward to their comments as well.

Now to the Premier — and I am delighted that he is still in the chamber, Mr. Speaker — I extend an obvious word of congratulation. I don't think it has been observed in this chamber, but I think it is in all the textbooks that it is the second election that's always the toughest, and I congratulate him for that victory. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) made the observation the other afternoon that just a few thousand votes here and there and members might be in the aisles opposite. I suppose, to be fair on that theme, one should also observe that, if those same few thousand votes had been cast yet a bit differently, the Premier might be sitting with 40-plus seats. But, more important, I think it is very, very interesting to stop and note that in the 1970s three Premiers have gone into the field facing three parties aligned against them — very tough odds. Only our Premier has been returned, and that's a signal accomplishment. I think one could probably also say that our Premier is the only Premier in our history to, in fact, go into the field with four parties arrayed against him and emerge victorious, and for that I congratulate him.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today because Mr. Gerry Strongman, the former second member for Vancouver South, for very practical and understandable reasons, could not stand for re-election. I think there is no doubt that had he chosen and been able to, he would be here among you today. I want to pay a short tribute to Gerry Strongman by re-echoing something he said in his maiden speech. I think it typifies and represents a very chief concern of Mr. Strongman. He was talking about labour relations and the health of the economy of this province, and he had this to say, speaking in March 1976: "Government must view the prevention of strikes as a top priority. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about survival. Both management and labour must be educated to the consequences and, I repeat, both management and labour must be educated to the consequences of irresponsible action."

You know, if you do a little bit of research into Vancouver South, which has produced some very fine MLAs over the years, you will find that theme echoed. Members will recall that Mrs. Daisy Webster, a very fine lady, sat for Vancouver South from 1972 to 1975. She said something very topical also, and that was this: "Today the strike is slowly becoming outmoded." I'd include the word "lockout" in any reference to strike, but I think it's very, very interesting that as the 1970s have progressed, members on both sides have expressed this kind of concern.

Because Vancouver South is very much a working-class area with many, many people and voters belonging to trade unions, I would like to take a moment and make my view of that issue absolutely clear. First may I reaffirm to members my view that a healthy British Columbia and a healthy economy require a healthy trade union movement and a healthy collective bargaining system — there is no doubt about that — and I associate myself with the words of the member from Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich).

But I think both management and labour should be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that the original collective bargaining system of some years ago is perhaps a little outmoded. It seems to me that society used to say: "If management and labour want to settle a dispute under our collective bargaining system, we're going to erect in effect a boxing ring and give you each a set of boxing gloves. Go in there and have at each other. When you're ready to cry 'uncle' or make a settlement, make it and that's how you can settle your differences."

But along the way both management and labour developed techniques to make that boxing ring not so bad a place to be — for the union the strike fund and for management the stockpile — and all of a sudden there were ways of that boxing fight not being so difficult. The battle was prolonged and it was the public interest which began to suffer. My simple observation is that management and labour should be entitled to go at it hammer and tong, if they wish, but if on either side or jointly their dispute or their inability to settle becomes so severe that the public interest is being jeopardized, then I think it's time, if necessary, for this chamber to act.

Having said that about Vancouver South and the working people there, can I just say a few words about Vancouver South itself? It's been slightly redrawn, and we have some new members with us. I'd like very briefly to sketch a current picture of Vancouver South. There are

[ Page 73 ]

about 30,000 households, substantially single family, but some reasonable rental accommodation, and about 85,000 eligible voters provincially. The boundary is, on the north, 41st Avenue; on the south, the Fraser River; to the east Boundary Road is the division with Burnaby; and to the west East Boulevard, which is close to Kerrisdale.

But perhaps if I sketch the provincial boundaries that surround us you'll understand somewhat better the very cosmopolitan nature of Vancouver South. On the east we are flanked by Burnaby-Willingdon; to the northeast by Vancouver East; on the north by Vancouver–Little Mountain; and on the west by Vancouver–Point Grey. We have a very, very cosmopolitan set of boundaries. I'm happy to observe, Mr. Speaker, that support for the government in the election ranged very broadly across the riding.

We have all kinds of housing. Below Southeast Marine Drive we have some very interesting industry. For a city, for an urban riding, we perhaps are more industrialized than any in the province. We have substantial sawmills, meat packing facilities, light manufacturing and printing, to name but a few.

We have, of course, a very substantial ethnic mix in Vancouver South: a significant East Indian population, a significant German population, a significant Jewish population, a significant Chinese population, all of which makes representation interesting and a challenge.

As part of the city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the budget, it's only proper to acknowledge and congratulate the Minister of Finance for the initiatives in municipal revenue-sharing which Mayor Volrich has so favourably commented upon, and the commitments towards a convention centre and a new sports stadium complex. Speaking as a city of Vancouver member — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance — I say a very large "thank you" for those commitments.

The budget, Mr. Speaker, was a great topic of debate in the provincial election in Vancouver South. I think, substantially because of the content, the vote for the government was increased in Vancouver South. In all parts of the riding the people of Vancouver South were familiar and responded favourably to these programs.

As I went about knocking on doors in Vancouver South with the first member (Mr. Rogers), it recalled to me some of the things that happened. I suspect that because the Deputy Speaker so often must be in a place of impartiality, not many of the members have had the opportunity to fully get to know the first member for Vancouver South. In just a few moments this afternoon, I would like to sketch for the members a brief outline of a little bit of what it's like to campaign with the first member for Vancouver South. Those of you not from dual-seat ridings will not fully appreciate this, but you'll understand that in a dual-seat riding basically you're working in tandem.

Mr. Speaker, if someday something untoward should happen to me and any of you should find yourself about to do battle, together with the first member for Vancouver South, my advice is first of all to take along a good pair of knuckles, not for the alleys but for the doors, combined with about six pairs of shoes and an appetite for Chinese food that is probably matched only by what I understand to be that of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett).

In addition, it helps if you are somewhat handy around the house. Now you probably may know that the first member is a somewhat accomplished electrician and a mechanic. You also will realize that in the spring — and we had a spring election — citizens are frequently in various states of home repair at all hours of the day, as one comes canvassing. I haven't counted the number of homes in Vancouver South that have now benefited from the expert advice of the first member as to the installation of thermopane windows, better ways to paint, the installation of studs and joists, and porch repair, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Vancouver South has been spruced up to a degree that's just remarkable.

The first member, who's a very fine colleague with whom to work, I should tell you, gave me a little memento at the very beginning of the campaign. It was a small mineral object, and he advised me if I would tuck it carefully away in my pocket and always carry it, it would bring good luck. This I did. I got rather curious as to what this mineral object, this good-luck piece, might be. But he advised me that I could not inquire into it until after the election was over. This I wanted to do because the election turned out well and, obviously, this memento, this small piece of mineral, did have some great talent and message. I sent it out to the mineral laboratory and I simply want to report that contrary to popular rumour, the object was not a piece of kryptonite.

Now my good friend, the first member, at the conclusion of the campaign had been a very fine guiding light and veteran upon whom I could lean for support as a new boy. He did not ever criticize me or, in fact, make any kind of suggestion that would make me feel new. So I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when the campaign was over I sat him down and said to him: "Now surely, through all the things you've seen, you must have a suggestion or two. I'd be very obliged if you'd just tell me what you might suggest about better campaigning." He thought a long time and took a lot of prodding and he finally said: "Well, since you've asked, and it's really not because of the postage, you really shouldn't have to write quite so many letters." I'll try to remember that injunction in the days ahead.

Now moving to the budget, Mr. Speaker, on the way, may I make a comment about the environment? One very significant thing has happened since the House last met, and I think it's worthy of great mention.

The British Columbia Wildlife Federation does a very important job for outdoors people in this province. As members may know, the BCWF faced something of a financial crisis earlier this year. They were broke and out of money largely because of two public campaigns, one in respect of the McGregor diversion and one in respect of the Revelstoke Dam. They issued a plea for public support.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), who, notwithstanding the very independent position taken by the BCWF over the years toward several governments, saw fit to provide some much-needed assistance to keep that organization going. Somebody said to me when that was announced: "Gosh, you fellows are pretty dumb. BCWF takes a pretty independent stance against all governments. They certainly ran a campaign with respect to the McGregor diversion and the Revelstoke. And now I see the Minister of Environment has given them a bit of a hand to keep them in business. That's pretty dumb politics."

[ Page 74 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it's dumb politics, I think it's pretty good government. As an outdoorsman I want to thank the Minister of Environment for that contribution.

I want to thank him also for his excellent work on the Skagit. Again, after the House last had a chance to meet, he announced further strong progress in settling the Skagit problem. I think he deserves commendation and the encouragement of this House to continue to settle the Skagit controversy so that those who hike and enjoy the out-of-doors in the Skagit Valley may continue to do so.

Moving to the financial aspects of the budget, can I first say a word about debt reduction? It is axiomatic that governments have no money of their own. If you are the federal government, you can raise your funds three ways: you can borrow it, you can tax it, or you can print it. If you're the provincial government you can tax it or you can borrow it. There's probably nothing worse in government than non-essential borrowing. It's the chicken's way out. When you're thinking about a marginal project and you don't want to raise taxes, the chicken's way out is to borrow the money. It's easy. It's silent. It's insidious. Nobody really complains. Somebody else has to pay it back. How easy it is.

How good it is that this government is prepared to take the lead in reducing some of British Columbia's debt — $26 million to be reduced this year. Winston Churchill is not often remembered for economic matters, but of debt reduction he said:

"There are two ways a gigantic debt may be spread over new decades and future generations. There is the right and healthy way and there is the wrong and morbid way. And the wrong way is to fail to make the utmost provision for amortization which prudence allows, to aggravate the burden of the debt by fresh borrowing, and to live from hand to mouth and year to year. "

I want to congratulate the government for the leadership it has shown in tackling British Columbia's debt during a time when most governments are going in the reverse direction. The yearly interest savings will be substantial. When the debt is eliminated, the available dollars for people services will be increased. Most important, it's the kind of leadership from government that people and households should have and want to see.

The budget reflects a theme and a point of view the people in Vancouver South are happy to endorse. It's a budget which puts British Columbia first and British Columbians first. In terms of putting British Columbia first, let me look briefly at the results of the work of the government in the federal-provincial arena and the effect as seen in the budget.

This government is tied to no federal political party for very good reason and for very good purpose. This government represents a purely provincial political party, which means that the interests of British Columbia come first, and we are not obliged to consider the partisan or policy concerns of any federal party. When the Premier or his ministers go to federal-provincial conferences, they may strike a genuinely independent position with no debts, no obligations and no restrictions because of the government in power in Ottawa, the opposition waiting to come to power in Ottawa, or any third party wanting to make greater strides. The results of that kind of decision and that kind of approach are evident in the budget document.

The heading "Contributions from Canadian Government" on the revenue side projects $947 million — almost a billion dollars of earned and bargained federal money for British Columbia. That's almost double the 1974-75 figure of $478 million. It's about half a billion dollars more for the people of B.C. as a result of an independent approach to Ottawa, a non-partisan approach to Ottawa-provincial relations. This is the result of some hard bargaining, and the happy result of a government which very wisely has chosen to put British Columbia first, be a purely provincial party, and not, for example, worry about the results of the May 22 federal election.

As I listened to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) yesterday, he referred periodically to points of view of the federal New Democratic Party. One has the impression that those members might be something of a branch office for the federal NDP. We'll have to wait and see, but there seems to be a chance that those members might be becoming something of a branch office for the federal NDP.

How great it is to support a government that stands for head offices, chief offices in British Columbia. The head office, the chief office, the only office, the only place of business of this government and the party it represents is right here in British Columbia. That's called putting British Columbia first. If you want to talk dollars and cents it's about half a billion dollars this year that we're going to earn from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I said "putting British Columbia and British Columbians first." Let me say a word about British Columbians as individuals. The great problem today with our society is that we're dominated increasingly by the countervailing power of the big three — big labour, big business and big government. They dominate; they are well able to take care of themselves. And what about the individual? I'll tell you. Institutions are getting bigger; the individual is getting smaller. Whether you are an employee dealing with your company, a worker dealing with your union, a student dealing with your school, a patient dealing with your hospital, the problem is the same. The individual shrinks, and the institution gets larger. So what, then, becomes the job of government?

The job of government becomes on behalf of the individual to do two things — stand up to those three big forces of big business, big labour and big government and, having done that, at the same time to better equip the individual to deal with those large forces. Let's look, as reflected in the budget and the recent actions of the government, at just what the government's done in this regard.

First, in terms of dealing with big business and big labour and big government, what's the government done about the fact of big business? Well, the MacMillan Bloedel–Canadian Pacific Investments Ltd.–Ian Sinclair controversy tells us a couple of things. It tells us the province is not for sale; but more important, it tells us who is running this province. It's the Premier and the cabinet, and that's very important. But more important, if you look through the budget document line by line, you will see nothing for big business, which is as it should be, because big business can well take care of itself. The thing to look for, the contrast, is the aid to small business, and it's there.

[ Page 75 ]

The Corporation Capital Tax Act exempts 3,000 more businesses from those rolls.

I draw your particular attention to the quote of the minister in announcing that further exemption. He said: "...leaving only the larger corporations to pay the tax." And that's as it should be; leave the larger corporations to pay tax of that order, and exempt small business.

In addition for small business there are the low-interest loan program, the expansion of the British Columbia Development Corporation, the new small business venture capital corporation and the special dividend tax credit. So you deal with big business by standing up to it, by providing nothing special for it in this budget, and by providing special assistance to small business, all of which is there.

In terms of big labour the facts speak for themselves. In terms of big government, the record is excellent. The government has put constraints on big government and equipped the individual to deal better with big government. The constraints are the 5 percent ceiling on provincial spending, a balanced budget without the kind of deficit that can go crashing into the marketplace and do violence particularly to small business, establishment of the auditor general and the Ministry of Deregulation, and the announcement of a new expropriation Act. They are all steps taken to constrain and put a lid on big government.

I'm pleased the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is still with us, because when the expropriation Act is brought forward, I will be grateful — and I'm sure he will — if he will make sure that a small but iniquitous piece of legislation called the Mines Right-of-way Act is abolished from the statute books of British Columbia forever. This tiny, tiny piece of legislation, rarely used and largely unknown, and that has sat there for years, on its face can mean, under one interpretation, that a property right of a British Columbia citizen can be taken from him without notice and without hearing. I'm sure if members were aware of it, they would also want it to be exhumed and expunged and sent away. Mr. Attorney-General, I thank you for listening to those remarks. I look forward to the early demise of that particular piece of legislation as part of the assault on big government.

That's only part of the job, putting the lid on big government. The other part is equipping the individual to do something about big government; and, once again this government has moved in that direction. Some legal armament, first of all, and the ombudsman and the forthcoming provincial bill of rights are going to give individuals in British Columbia new chances to stand up and, if necessary, take the offensive against big government and make their own way in this powerful society of big labour, big business and big government. But it's on the economic side that this government has really done something for the individual in the area of economic freedom. Because the only economic freedom working people have left today is that part of the paycheque that's left after all those deductions; after the taxes and the check-offs and everything else. What's left to spend that's really there is the true measure of economic freedom, and it's been shrinking for 50 years. It's time government started to expand that back, and this government should be congratulated for doing that. Sales tax is down; income tax is down; homeowner grants and renter's grants are up. The effect is going to be to increase disposable income, that piece of economic freedom. Also we have a policy that I'd like to call a "second-income" policy, and I hope the government is just beginning what's going to be a very exciting second-income policy for our people. There's got to be something better than work and wages after 40 or 50 years working in British Columbia.

This budget contains three items which for our people can be the beginning of a little savings and investment nest-egg. If it's nurtured and brought along, if trough sound management the government can bring forward year after year more of these kinds of measures, it should be realistic for working British Columbians over time to establish a second source of income.

The BCRIC program is going to get British Columbians started in an investment program, particularly those who prior to this time have not been able to get involved. But there are two other items in the budget to encourage British Columbians to invest and to make sound investments. They are the special dividend tax credit and the tax deduction for the small business venture capital corporation. Taken with the BCRIC program they are going to mean that for the working British Columbian who wants to start to save and invest in British Columbia as a means of building a second income, a second income can be a reality. If the government, as I hope it will year by year, brings forward similar measures in 4, 8 or 12 years, I think there's a very realistic chance that working British Columbians can have something else economically besides work and wages. I particularly congratulate the Minister of Finance for his work in this direction, and encourage him to carry on in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, in summarizing may I simply say that the budget reflects a government that has put British Columbia and British Columbians first — British Columbia first in terms of a non-partisan, provincial approach to federal-provincial relations within a reasonable framework of cooperation with the federal government, but unfettered by any links to other parties. This is a government which has been able to go to these conferences and produce remarkable revenue returns for the people of British Columbia. British Columbia first and British Columbians first. British Columbians are better enabled through this budget to deal with the large, countervailing power of big business, of big labour and big government. The individual is better equipped to deal with big government. The budget offers expanded economic freedom for our people, greater take-home pay and the first step towards a second-income policy. Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I'm more than happy and enthusiastic to join with those who've supported the Minister of Finance.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: In some ways it feels a bit like a maiden speech today for me.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't look like a maiden.

MR. GABELMANN: I never realized that the hon. member for North Okanagan had ever noticed.

I've often wondered about the use of the term "maiden speech." I expect in this day and age we could come up with a word that would be more appropriate than the term "maiden speech." I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to spend some time in the next year or two researching that particular subject.

[ Page 76 ]

I'd like to join with all the other members in congratulating the various people who have assumed a variety of responsibilities in this Legislature. The first group of people I would like to thank and congratulate are the 8,800 people who voted for me. I would like to thank also those 1,200 to 1,500 people throughout the new riding of North Island who worked so hard to make sure that North Island was kept in the NDP fold. As you know, Mr. Speaker, North Island is a new constituency. It's not really North Island unless you want to include all the ridings from Comox, Alberni, Nanaimo, greater Victoria and Cowichan-Malahat as South Island, because all those ridings together are the same size as North Island. We have the responsibility of looking after half of Vancouver Island. Geographically it's a big riding, and it's a difficult riding for an MLA to service. It will be very difficult for me to fill the shoes of the person who previously represented that riding, the current member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). She did a job that, in my experience, has not been matched by very many members of this Legislature over the years. She served larger Comox riding admirably, and a great many people in the new North Island riding are sad that the current member for Comox is not still their MLA. She did a very good job, and people there are very happy with her.

Before getting into a few remarks concerning issues that have been raised during the election campaign, issues concerning the directions we're taking in this province, issues relating to the raising and spending of money in British Columbia, I want first to make a few comments about the Legislature and the role of an MLA. Most members who were here in 1972-75 will remember that I had made a number of speeches about the inadequate resources available to MLAs to properly serve their constituencies. At that time I represented a very small, urban constituency, a constituency that was — in relative terms, at least — quite easy to service.

I now have the other experience of representing a very wide, very large, very diverse constituency — one that in physical terms is much more difficult to service. Based on the two experiences, I would like to say that I think it would be legitimate and very much in the public interest for services to members of this Legislature to be greatly expanded. I would like to be more specific. I think it's absolutely antediluvian to expect MLAs to operate without a secretary. Visitors in the public gallery may be surprised to hear this, but MLAs do not have secretaries. During the session two MLAs are given one secretary for the duration of the session. What we have is half a secretary for those days in which the House is sitting in Victoria. In addition some money is provided to pay some part-time assistance in your constituency. It does not pay for adequate assistance for an MLA. It certainly does not pay for a full-time position. I believe that we should take the lead of other legislatures and parliaments across this country and adequately provide for MLAs in their job of servicing their constituency and their constituents. It's also required because, if you spend all of your time travelling in your constituency, all of your time dealing with constituency casework, as I find I have to do, you get very little time for reading, very little time for research and very little time for thinking. And I think one of the responsibilities of an MLA is to think about society, about government, about the role of legislators in society, about where we are going as a society and as a community, and to be able to add something intelligent to the level of debate in the province about what kind of a society it is we wish to live in. But if we are spending all our time as MLAs scrambling to try to keep up with the phone calls and mail that come in, then we don't get an opportunity to do that kind of work. I would like to be able to be free to do more than just be a social worker or a case worker or, as often happens, a priest to those many people who need counselling and advice and support in my constituency. I think we have a greater responsibility, and that is also thinking about and talking about and discussing the kind of society we live in and the kinds of changes we would like to make in both legislation and in government practice.

So I make that appeal. I will leave it at that for this time; but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be up on my feet many times in days to come and weeks to come, and I hope not in months to come, urging that we in fact do increase the support level for members of this Legislature, not for our purpose, not for our needs, but for the needs of those people we are elected to represent.

I would like to turn to another matter that relates to the Legislature and elates to the way in which we do business and the way in which we involve the public in doing our business. Here we are, on June 12 debating a budget, not even yet debating estimates, really a quarter of which have already been spent. I believe, and I've always believed, that if you are going to adopt a budget that takes place on April 1, you should be finished the debate by April 1. I'm always prepared to vote for interim supply. When we were in government, we had interim supply. Interim supply is a feature of our system; but I think it should be something that happens very, very rarely. If, in fact, we are properly discharging our responsibility to comment upon and to vote upon the ways in which we raise money and the ways in which we spend money, then we should have that discussion and that vote prior to the spending and raising of the money. It's a simple point and I would urge very strongly that in future we set a schedule in this Legislature that enables us to complete these debates prior to April 1 each year.

I would like to suggest one more feature relating to budget and estimates. I think what we should do is move up the deadlines within which budget estimates are prepared. In fact, the government should be prepared to table in this House in the first two weeks of December — table in a brief session; it would only be a day or so — the budget and estimates for the following year, three and a half months prior to their coming into force. Then we as MLAs should take the time between the first of January and the first of February — roughly the month of January — to go with that budget and those estimates and travel around our constituency talking to people about the Legislature's proposals for taking their money and spending their money, so that the public of this province is involved in the discussions and the debates about their money and how it is spent.

I believe that we could do that in this province. MLAs who are conscientious in their job would, in fact, take those budget estimates, put them into some kind of manageable form on mimeographed paper and get them out to public meetings in each community in each constituency. Then we would be able to come back for the spring session of the House, called early in February, knowing what the public feels about the budget, knowing that the public has been involved in the discussions about the budget, knowing

[ Page 77 ]

therefore that they would feel happier with the results of our debates and decisions because it had some involvement and knowing what we're talking about in greater detail when we stand up and debate the estimates in this House. We would then be talking not only about our own specific viewpoint or what we perceived the public viewpoint to be, but we'd also be talking specifically about the public viewpoint as it had been raised in community meetings during the month of January.

I would like the government to think about that procedure. Other jurisdictions have used it — I think Saskatchewan is one. It's a procedure that I think would make a lot of sense. I think it would involve people in government in a greater way than they are now. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, it's a good idea.

I want to talk today about a few of the issues that were raised during the election campaign in North Island. Members will appreciate that I had a bit of a lengthy election campaign. My election campaign started in October and finished on May 10, because I had no sooner been through the NDP nomination contest — and I'd got to Big White for a day's skiing — than an election was called.

So I've been in a continuous election throughout the constituency of North Island since October. During that period of time, I've had a very good opportunity to hear of the concerns of people in that part of the world. There are a great many concerns. I intend during estimates to be more specific and to talk in detailed terms about some of the problems that exist, but here in this general debate I wanted to touch on just a few of the issues.

The major issue for North Island residents is the cost of living: the cost of fuel, the cost of heating oil, the cost of food, particularly, and the cost of transportation. All are extraordinarily high, unbelievably high in that part of the world. One of the problems with fuel, for example, for your motor vehicle in that part of the world is that there isn't enough competition. It might sound strange to members across the aisle coming from me, but if we had a little bit of free enterprise in the service station industry in North Island we would have probably much cheaper gasoline costs.

The only way we're ever going to get competition in this society, where most people in private enterprise don't want any competition, and they seek government intervention in a variety of ways to prevent there being any competition, and they use a variety of other techniques to prevent there being any competition.... It may be that one day we'll have to, particularly in some of these essential services like food and transportation, provide some competition through some cooperative mechanisms that are assisted by the government or in some areas directed by the government itself. If the free enterprisers are unhappy with that kind of competition, then that probably states very clearly their view of free enterprise.

I find it particularly ironic that if you live in Port McNeill or Alert Bay you pay the same price for a case of beer that you do if you live on East Broadway in Vancouver by the distribution centre. Is there no cost to truck that beer up to Port Hardy or Alert Bay or Port McNeill? Obviously there is.

It's also true with postage stamps. It's a little more expensive to send a letter from Holberg to Ottawa than it is from Vancouver to Ottawa, yet the people in Holberg pay 17 cents and the people in Vancouver pay 17 cents. We do have fixed rates, or what is commonly called the postage stamp rate principle, but we only have them in areas that are under government control: booze, postage stamps, and a few others. It's only in areas where there is government control.

I think that food and transportation and heat and fuel are items and services that are at least as important as a case of beer. If we as a society through our governments can subsidize or equalize the cost of a case of beer around this province, why can't we do that for fuel or food or transportation? It costs a lot of money to live in northern and remote parts of this province. Those of us who have been lower mainland residents or perhaps lower Island residents for many years tend to forget and tend not to know just how expensive it is to live in those parts of the world. It's a major concern. I intend to deal much more with it during estimates, both in this session and in future ones.

Health care in general is an issue of prime interest and concern in the constituency of North Island. I want to be very careful about this because there is an issue at the present time in the Alert Bay area that is a very difficult situation, one on which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will be interested to know that I do not intend to comment specifically at this point. I don't believe that I as an MLA would serve any useful point by making direct or even indirect references to the current situation at Alert Bay.

Everyone knows there is a problem. Everyone knows there is a crisis. Everyone knows there needs to be major corrective action. Everyone knows it needs to be done very soon. I'm absolutely confident that the Minister of Health knows that and that he will be doing everything he can do to make sure that that situation is rectified as quickly as possible. It's really only a symptom. It's really only the tip of the iceberg of the problems that exist with health care in that part of Vancouver Island. I assume that that's true in other parts of rural and remote British Columbia.

If you're in need of mental health assistance or mental health counselling in the North Island, you're out of luck. The best thing you can do is get on a plane and go to Hawaii. That's the only way you'll solve your problems. There are very few resources for mental health, either voluntary or government.

Physical health services, just in terms of doctors and hospitals and those kinds of services in that area, are very, very inadequate, to put it mildly. For many people — not for everyone, but for many people — wanting, desiring and needing good medical attention, their answer is to get on the PWA plane and come down to Vancouver. Many people in North Island in fact receive their health care needs elsewhere, and that's very expensive. It's a very expensive proposition.

I want to just read into Hansard, Mr. Speaker, one very brief paragraph out of long letter from the village of Zeballos — it's on the west coast of the Island. Here are just a few sentences that I think touch on the problem that exists in a variety of communities. The letter from the council goes as follows:

"In a remote community such as Zeballos, the necessity of having adequate medical care is vital. Attempting to provide such care with no available facilities has been frustrating and disheartening for visiting doctors who frequently must request that their Zeballos patients fly to Tahsis at the patient's

[ Page 78 ]

expense for diagnosis and treatment of even relatively minor problems."

And then they go on. I could read the entire letter to show in graphic detail the absolute intolerable situation. When the visiting doctor comes to town there isn't even a proper office for the doctor and the patient to sit down in, and that's not unique to Zeballos.

I want to talk about social services in that part of the world, and when I do that in this context today, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about social services to women in particular. In many of those communities jobs are available for men. I can't give you the specific proportions, but most of the workers in those communities are men; most of the women are not able to secure employment as they might be able to in a built-up industrial area like Vancouver or Victoria.

They suffer from isolation; they suffer from the whole community working on a shift basis in many of those communities, not having a regular life. There are virtually no facilities for women in those communities. There are virtually no child-care facilities; there are no crisis lines; and there is no ability for women to seek a variety of resources. I'm not even talking yet about transition houses. North Island transition houses are years away because we haven't even met the basic social needs.

The isolation, the problem of shift work and the problem with lack of contact with resource people in social services lead to a lot of very difficult situations and to a lot of problems, including drinking. If someone were to ask me, "What's the major problem in North Island?" I'd say booze. And one of the reasons booze is a major problem is because of the isolation, the lack of services and the lack of resources.

When I was an MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, I used to think that all the social problems were in the city and that all the rest of the province would send their social problems down to Vancouver, and one group of them would end up on Skid Road and the rest of them would end up in cheap housing in the other parts of the city. But the impression I have now, having served in each kind of riding, is that we have far greater social service needs in the remote constituencies, in the remote parts of this province — far greater social service problems and far fewer resources.

I acknowledge that it's expensive, but I'm not sure it isn't cheaper in the long run to put some money up front to provide social services in those communities so that people can do more than resort to liquor.

A couple of people in the riding, when I said this in a meeting — I think it was in Holberg.... I made that exact point, and a couple of my supporters in fact came to me and said: "Go on, don't talk about that. You'll leave an impression that we're all boozers up here. You shouldn't talk about those kinds of issues." I thought about that and made a decision that I should talk about those kinds of issues because I think people in our society resort to whatever is at hand to ease their frustrations and their difficulties. I just want to make the point now, Mr. Speaker — and I will make it in more detail in subsequent debates — that right now we are experiencing in those parts of British Columbia some very, very serious social problems. In most cases, in my view, they are problems that centre around the home and the housewife, who has no community resources and no community support.

I wanted to talk also about environment. There are a number of issues here that I won't go into in too much detail this afternoon. I want to specifically, though, in one case raise an issue that has been raised by the Nimpkish Indian band, who mostly live in Alert Bay but who have traditionally viewed the Nimpkish Valley, the Nimpkish Lake and the Nimpkish River as their home area.

Relating to Hydro and herbicide permits: that's an issue that I never thought very much about. There were very few applications for herbicide permits in North Vancouver, so I never really thought very much about that in past years. But I have lately, and in doing so, I realize that some of the points made by the Nimpkish band council in a letter to me dated one or two weeks ago are quite valid. I would like to raise those concerns now in general, and later on in specific.

We've a curious situation with Hydro requests for spraying, whether it's herbicides or whatever, in that they get the permit and then somewhere, probably in the Gazette, is a notice saying they've got the permit and anyone who wants to appeal can appeal within 30 days. Most of us never ever hear about the permit being given. In this particular case where a permit was granted the deadline had elapsed and a week had gone by before the Nimpkish Indian band realized that Hydro was going to spray herbicides on areas that fed directly into their river, a river on which they're using several hundred thousand dollars from Ottawa, trying to enhance the salmon species in that river and lake. At the same time, we have the provincial government, through B.C. Hydro, proposing to spray herbicides which could wipe out many of the efforts and many of the dollars that the federal government is providing. They didn't know about the permit application.

This specific case has been solved, and I'm not raising it as a specific, except to say that the procedures are wrong. If Hydro, or Rayonier, or any group in this province, wants to spray herbicides on land or anywhere else, then they should not be given a permit until all affected groups have had a chance to discuss in public the ramifications of such a spraying program. If all the problems are solved, and all the needs are met, then and only then should a permit be granted. I'm saying to you that I think the process is backwards.

Might I add just one more thing? I don't think the burden of proof that there's going to be any damage should rest with the people who are going to be affected. I think Hydro, in this case, should be required to prove that they won't do any damage, not the other way around. But that's just a couple of thoughts for the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), and during his estimates I will be talking more about that.

There are a number of other environmental concerns in general. One I want to raise specifically is a proposal by a consortium to launch a coal mine just outside Campbell River. I want to serve notice again — perhaps his staff will be looking at Hansard, and the Minister of Environment will know that I've raised the question in the House — that I will be raising with him very directly, by letter and by visit, the whole question of coal mine development on salmon-spawning rivers. I hope the minister is not proceeding very quickly with coal mine proposals in and around Campbell River that, in my view, will destroy one of the major salmon hatcheries in that area, in my view. That's an issue we'll hear a lot more about in this Legislature if that proposal goes any further.

[ Page 79 ]

I want to propose that the government establish a Ministry of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GABELMANN: For too long we have had in this province a major industry, a major part of our life, the fishing industry, unrepresented by a minister with ministerial responsibilities. That has led, in my view, to decisions by governments that tend to favour forests over fisheries. I always want to pluralize fish, and it never quite comes out. The Nimpkish River, for example, has been destroyed by forest company activity over the decades. One of the reasons for that is the forest companies have had an advocate in cabinet. Fish and fishermen, whose responsibility is solely that of protecting and enhancing the fishery in this province, have not had an advocate in cabinet. That is a major need when the cabinet structure is amended, as I'm sure it will be from time to time.

My good friend the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is here, and he and I have always had a good time whenever we get together, and I enjoy talking to him about his ministerial problems. I've always found that in dealing with the Minister of Highways he tells me exactly what he thinks, and that's such a rare virtue around here that I find it particularly appealing. I just want to tell him: I hope you get that road paved pretty soon.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — I should remember, I've been here before — has been fighting for years, as have the residents of North Island, for a paved road. The minister's colleague, the Premier, promised us in November that we'd have a road. I think the paving is still going on and I hope sometime soon that we'll have that done.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Nevertheless, it is going to happen and it will be paved this summer. And everyone around this province, and probably around this continent, will now have an opportunity to drive to Port Hardy and Port McNeill and all those places that everyone has heard of but no one knows where they are — so much so that the Vancouver Express, in their first story out of Alert Bay about the inquest, reported that their reporter was reporting from the Northwest Territories, and the story was datelined Alert Bay. I think the road is going to have a bit of an impact in changing that view of communities in the north end of the Island. And those communities up there are going to face some very real problems as they realize the impact of tourism and all us southerners — and that includes Campbell Riverites as far as they're concerned — going up there. So the road, while it is wanted, needed and good, is going to bring in a lot of problems that we are going to have to deal with.

But I want to raise what, for me, is the major roads issue — and you'll hear a lot more from me later on in estimates about the minor roads issues — on Vancouver Island: bypassing Campbell River and Courtenay. It must be done. The member for Comox will probably be speaking on this as well.

We have a road that is narrow, dark and treacherous. It is used by large trucks and logging trucks that are travelling in and around Campbell River and Courtenay, but are also going up to the north end of the Island; and that will increase as we move now from water transport to truck transport in terms of servicing the north half of Vancouver Island. That road is something out of the 1930s. I consider myself a good driver and I like driving, Mr. Speaker, but I am scared to drive on that highway at night in the rain. It is really quite scary. I have driven on just about every highway in this province and I would say that that is the very worst highway. And you should see it in the summer when the tourists come: it's absolutely impossible. People who go to work in the pulp mills and who live along that road sometimes wait 10 and 15 minutes just to get onto the road so that they can get driving down the road to get to work.

It must be a major priority in the minister's plans for next year's work and next year's spending that a bypass of the Campbell River–Courtenay area be constructed. I realize the problems and I'm aware that it is not simple, but I think there must be a decision made to do something very quickly.

As a result of the highway development in that area, there are going to be a lot of other new problems. I just want to raise one of those at this point, and that's the whole question of recreation facilities. There are only several campsites in the North Island, and most of those are logging company campsites; Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach and CFP and some of the other big logging companies have campsites, the government doesn't. We must develop those before that area is absolutely inundated by tourists.

My final point is on an entirely different subject; it relates to the Workers' Compensation Board. And I'm going to sit down and shut up after I've made these comments. Since 1970 I have worked either directly or indirectly with compensation matters — when I was employed by the B.C. Federation of Labour, when I worked as an MLA, and again now as an MLA.

When I worked, between 1970 and 1972, for the Federation of Labour, one of my jobs was counselling and advising compensation claims, and there were an immense number of compensation claims. Everybody was being dealt with badly by the board, which resulted in frustration levels, which resulted in people who were even not eligible to have their claims accepted continuing to persist that they should have their claims accepted because they were treated so badly by the board. Well, during the '72 to '75 period that changed, and I think MLAs would confirm, Mr. Speaker, that their number of requests for assistance from people seeking a claim with the Workers' Compensation Board diminished during the '72 to '75 period. I know it sure did for me as an MLA; there were very few in '74 and '75. I went back to work at the Federation of Labour in '76 after I was defeated, and gradually the number of cases increased. I find now that, as an MLA for North Island, I have more compensation cases than any other category of case. I haven't computed it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I have more compensation cases than every other kind of case put together. It is absolutely astounding the number of people who are claiming, rightly or wrongly — I'm not making that judgment — that they are being maltreated by the Workers' Compensation Board. That is an area that needs to be looked at very carefully and very closely, and some remedies must be undertaken very soon.

I think that's it, Mr. Speaker. I was intending to take 20 minutes, and I think I've taken nearly 40. But I wanted to make one final comment, having listened to most of the maiden — pardon the word — speech from the second

[ Page 80 ]

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). The second member for Vancouver South and I have a bit of a history. We both were active in politics on the north side of Burrard Inlet, and I know he's been dying to make a Progressive Conservative speech to this House, and I finally heard it today. That was a good, honest, Tory speech. I didn't like it particularly, I didn't agree with a lot of it, but it was a good Tory speech. I was watching some of the Liberals over there to see how they responded, keeping in mind the apparently bitter arguments they had during the last couple of months, these Tories and Liberals. And how they manage to get together in here....

MR. SPEAKER: Three minutes.

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't going to take that long on the member for Vancouver South. Anyway, I thought it was a very good Tory speech.

The investment angle in his closing remarks intrigued me. I wish that most of my constituents had an extra $100 or an extra $50 to play the stock market if they so chose, or to make investments as the member for Vancouver South would like. I dealt this morning on the phone with a family who had a total income, as attested by the Ministry of Human Resources, of $633 a month. The father needs dentures. MHR agreed to pay part of it and insisted that he pay the first $100. That family doesn't have any money for these investment schemes, and there are many more like it. Before we start in this House talking about second incomes and disposable income for the rich, let's make sure the poor have enough to buy dentures and buy food and get the basic essentials.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you on your elevation to your position. I know that you will perform your functions as Speaker as I have observed in the last four days, always with patient good humour. I would congratulate also your colleague, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers), who has been of great assistance to me and given me wise counsel when he sometimes sits at my right.

I would like to acknowledge all those new members who join this body with me for the first time. I think there are a dozen of us. There are two, the members for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and Skeena (Mr. Howard), who come to us from another august place but are new boys as well. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that, as a new boy and part of the class of '79, I think that I speak for the others when I say that we are not here to refight old elections from 1966 onward, that we are here to try and deal with the present problems. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, come here for the first time in a spirit of goodwill and with high hopes for the future.

Now the feeling in coming to this House for the first time is certainly one of awe. It is an impressive place, the place that is the legacy of the first elected assembly west of the Great Lakes, a chamber of great events from the past and also a place where great figures from the past stood and took part in the debates — people such as Sir Richard McBride; John Oliver; Duff Pattullo; who was a resident of Oak Bay for many years, W.A.C. Bennett, also a resident of Oak Bay; and characters who adorned this House also, such as the former member for Fernie, Tom Uphill, and the one-time member for Nanaimo, Mr. Jimmy Hawthornthwaite. So we come to the House with great traditions, not only of Premiers but also of members.

Now I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, as a new boy, last week I had great difficulty first of all in finding my office; secondly in keeping my chair from collapsing; thirdly in managing to walk down those carefully polished corridors, when I thought I had a reasonable amount of athletic prowess and found that I was slipping every 10 or 15 minutes. I would hope that the staff that polished those floors could perhaps be a little less assiduous, because I still find that I slip when I walk on them.

The campaign that we recently went through in my constituency, I'm happy to report, was a clean and fair one. I acknowledge both my worthy opponents: Mrs. Overgaard and the former member and occupant of this seat, Mr. Vic Stephens. They were both fair-minded and we had a good personal relationship during the campaign. And it was a hard-fought campaign. I was fortunate to have a workforce of some 800 people and a membership in my party of some 2,700.

It is traditional for new members to extol the virtues of their ridings. I am going to be mercifully short in that regard because the bounties and virtues of my constituency are well known to all of you who visit the capital region and the capital city. The riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head was altered slightly by redistribution so that the boundaries have now been pushed west to Shelbourne, and the riding stretches from Mount Douglas Park in the north to the sedate burghers of south Oak Bay and Beach Drive.

We have a number of things in common in this diverse suburban constituency: we all live reasonably close to the sea and have reasonably close ties with the sea; we either boat or fish or walk on the beach or swim; we also have a number of parks and good recreation facilities; we are very strong in our pride of our homes and our gardens, and also strong in local autonomy. The riding has been well represented over the past years. Such people as Archie Gibbs, Alan McFarlane and Dr. Scott Wallace represented this seat well, to name only three.

I realize that we are here to deal with the budget. As a new boy here, I can say that the budget strikes me as an honest and responsible effort by the government to try and balance fiscal integrity with a social conscience. It is an attempt to join together major tax reductions with greater benefits to people.

I'm particularly pleased with the government's decision to allocate surplus funds to hospitals and to provide write-offs and incentives for contractors and builders who provide buildings that are adapted to the handicapped.

I am also particularly pleased to see that a commitment was made to denticare to relieve the burdens that particularly young families face in looking after the costs of dentistry for their children, and also the burdens that many seniors have when they face the problems of replacing their teeth.

I'm also extremely pleased to see that there were major tax reductions in the budget. While the social services were improved, there were major reductions in the income tax and sales tax. And particularly from my own background in municipal government, I was delighted to see the increase in the homeowner grant, and the further reduction thereby of the tax burden which is supported by property owners, particularly seniors.

The provision of funds for a convention centre in Victoria is also most important to those of us who live in the

[ Page 81 ]

capital region. The government is to be commended.

I was proud to run on this budget in the recent election. I can assure you that from the size of the majority in my constituency, the budget and the government's policies and the Premier personally were very popular in Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A few of the issues that I hope to encourage and projects that I hope to speak on during my time here I would outline very briefly. They have a relation to the budget; namely they involve the spending of money.

First of all, on the subject of ferries, as one of the members for Vancouver Island I can assure you that residents of Vancouver Island, particularly residents of South Vancouver Island, regard the ferry system as an extension of their highways. They do not begrudge the payment by the provincial government for roads and bridges in other parts of this province to serve the northern and eastern areas of the province, but they regard the ferries as an extension of the highway system. They expect to have good service and they expect it at reasonable cost, not excessive cost.

As I did during the election campaign, I will be proposing that the government consider introducing a special commuter fare rate for persons who regularly use the ferries between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. This could be done by the purchase in advance of books of tickets at a reduced rate and would favour those people who have to go to the mainland or come from the mainland to the Island, some of them as often as every weekend.

We have a number of commuters. We also have small businessmen who are forced to go back and forth regularly at considerable cost. The major use of the ferries, though, is by people who unite with families and friends on one side or the other. Many of them do this regularly, and feel isolated if they cannot find cheap and readily available ferry service from Vancouver Island to the mainland. I will be urging some move in that regard. It would not be an entirely dramatic gesture either, because there have been special commuter rates on some of the smaller ferries that serve the communities in the northern Gulf Islands, where the residents of those islands are able to buy commuter tickets in advance. I know that because I regularly use the ferries from Denman Island, Hornby Island and some of those islands.

The second thing that I will be urging the government to do is to provide tax moneys to the municipality’s for the university lands. The government is to be commended for introducing the first comprehensive program in Canada of revenue sharing. That is a program whereby the province is transferring growing resource funds to the municipalities that need it so badly.

The government also has recognized the fairness of paying taxes on provincial lands and buildings and now pays taxes on those lands and buildings to the municipalities of Victoria, the city of Vancouver and other places where there are provincial buildings. But that legislation doesn't yet cover lands and buildings that are not owned by the province — by the Crown in the right of the province — but are owned by some provincially supported non-profit body such as the University of Victoria or the University of British Columbia or Simon Fraser.

The municipalities, Mr. Speaker, as you're aware, are required to provide services to the university buildings. They have to provide the firemen and the policemen and the water supply, and it is only be fair that those taxes be paid. The equity of this proposal, I think, is already acknowledged in government policy and I'm very hopeful that within the next year these payments of taxes for services to university buildings will be extended.

Now the third measure that I hope to do something about during my time in here, Mr. Speaker, is home improvement tax incentives. Quite apart from the mortgage interest deduction program that will be introduced by the new federal administration, presumably later this year, it's been my belief for a long time that there is something quite unfair about the situation of a homeowner who decides that he is going to add on a porch or re-roof his house or do some major improvement or repair. The first thing that happens to him is that a few months later the tax assessor comes around and says: "Gee, you've done a really nice job there. I'm going to make a note of that." And then next year he's reassessed and his taxes go up by a couple of hundred dollars.

It seems to me that what we're doing is directly punishing someone for having the initiative and pride in spending the effort and the money to fix up their home. It should be the other way around; we should be encouraging home improvement. There should be a direct incentive to persons to improve their property or their home once, say, every three years to the extent of about $10,000 deducted from income tax. In addition to that there should be a holiday from reassessment for a period of three years, a moratorium on reassessment.

Now I realize this will cost money and it doesn't grow on trees, but I think you would have a lot of very, very helpful side effects, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would not only increase pride in ownership — something that this government stands for, which is one of the reasons why I support this government and one of the reasons why my constituents support this government — but it would also provide jobs for tradesmen, a climate of improvement for home repairs and a great deal of beautification too. It's something that I hope to speak on further at the appropriate time.

I should also add, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons that I'm particularly proud to be a member of the government benches in this assembly and to support this government is because of the leadership that they have given over the past three years in the field of negotiations with Canada and on the subject of Canadian unity. I have endeavoured to follow with other British Columbians the various meetings of First Ministers and the long series of constitutional meanderings that have taken place on TV and which we've read about in the press.

I have always found from my observation of those gatherings that our Premier and our delegation from British Columbia have not only been well briefed, but that they have produced model position papers and major position papers, whereas many of the other provincial governments have not cared to do so. The Premier and his delegation have approached these conferences and talks not in a spirit of parochialism or hostility to Canada, but have approached them in a positive way and have tried to put forward proposals which are not just aimed at safeguarding and strengthening the rights of British Columbians, but which were designed to hold the country together.

That was not always so, Mr. Speaker. We had Premiers from this province in years gone by who have gone down to

[ Page 82 ]

Ottawa and have done grandstanding. I think of Sir Richard McBride and Pattullo, who walked out of the Dominion Provincial Conference during the Second World War because he wouldn't have this province's share in income tax rental programs. But I am very proud that our Premier, while standing up for the rights of British Columbia and pressing for greater decentralization of decision-making, has taken a positive stance to try and keep the country together. All of us who are elected to this assembly love our province but also, in these troubled times particularly, we love our country and hope to keep it together.

I have decided, Mr. Speaker, that the hallmark of a maiden speech should be brevity, if not the soul of wit, and I will sit down.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join the members who have congratulated you upon being re-elected. It came as no great surprise, and it was an honour well deserved. To the Deputy Speaker, congratulations, and I'm sure that when we get into estimates he will be the centre of the storm. I look forward to that very much.

I'm not going to chastise the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for not being in the House this afternoon, because he has been in here most of the afternoon. But it's just too bad he did step out because in looking into some of the issues that concern me and many of the issues which were brought forward very forcibly during the election period, the matters touching on health seem to touch all of the different areas of my riding.

The new riding of Nelson-Creston has eight organized district municipalities, cities, towns or villages — that's eight mayors. We've got four different school districts, but fortunately just one regional district. I think we have about seven different hospitals, and there are tremendous problems, things which I will bring up during estimates.

I have heard some people get up and compliment this government for imposing the 5 percent spending limitation. I would just like to go through some areas and point out some of the ramifications of such a lock-step policy. I would like some of these new members to dig in to the estimate books for the last couple of years and note the total increase in the advertising budget. I detailed to this House last year a 60 percent increase in the advertising budget. I hope now to bring forward some areas where some very modest expenditures, which might look very high in terms of percentage increases, could do a great deal more good for this province than a 60 percent increase in the advertising budget which occurred last year.

I have a letter which was sent to the director of the long-term care program in Nelson, following one of several incidents at the Willowhaven Private Hospital. Willowhaven is a fine private hospital, and it has intermediate geriatric care under the new long-term care program. But it also provides for 10 or 15 mental health patients. This mixing of geriatric and mental health patients or psychiatric patients has led to some concern in the community. It just happens that this is within two or three city blocks of where I live. The community is quite tolerant of the concept. There are some objectives to be reached in terms of reducing the number of people in Riverview and returning certain people to the community, although a great number of these people never came from our community in the first place.

If this is going to be done, then you can't do it on a two-bit budget. We have some dangerous mental patients who walk up and down our streets all day long. Some of them I welcome. And if they want to come in....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I know that the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) doesn't take such matters seriously. She never has been interested in real health issues. I know you used to be a nurse.

We don't mind that some of these people appear differently, that they are perhaps a little bit different in their behaviour, and that they perhaps pace up and down our street all day long. But when some of them start to exhibit and give the warning signals of dangerous behaviour and there is no mechanism for responding to this, then we are very much concerned. This letter was written on September 12, 1978. I looked into it, took it up with the local head of the Selkirk Mental Health Unit. The Minister of Health was copied in on this, and I would hope that he had acted upon it as well. I've also spoken about this in the Legislature, the concept of just leaving these people and kind of forgetting about them, of coming up with the statistic of having reduced the population of Riverview by shunting these people all over the province.

This is not a thing unique to Nelson-Creston, but this is a story that's being told all over where people are being taken out of Riverview, and they are being dumped and they are being ignored. They are being put into a hospital with geriatric patients, and the mind has to kind of boggle at how in the world these two kinds of people could possibly mix.

What are some of the things that have happened? Recently one patient threatened to burn Willowhaven Hospital down, and he came pretty close to it. He did light a fire; he did destroy one unit and it caused $15,000 damage. And, Mr. Speaker, that is outside a fire protection area. That patient had been threatening to do it; he went ahead and he did do it.

Another fellow was threatening to cut up little children and stuff as many as five into the same coffin. Fortunately this person didn't go ahead and do this, but it was only after local residents objected and heard about this, fortuitously, second-hand that this person was then transferred to a more secure institution. A third fellow has just recently been charged with indecent exposure, and members might or might not think of that as a serious thing. I only throw that in so that it can be looked upon in terms of the total context of what is coming out of a very small group of mental health patients who are basically unsupervised.

Mr. Speaker, this was what was brought up and these were the warnings that were given by concerned citizens. On September 12, as I say, I took it up through my office with the mental health unit. The minister was copied in on this letter, and we were given assurances that these things had been looked into and the matter had been rectified. I was told later by some of the staff at the hospital that in their opinion it was not rectified. I was very disturbed to hear only a couple of weeks ago that since that time there has been a case of physical assault, rape involving a young person. And again, this is all stemming from a very small handful of people who should be properly supervised, who are simply being dumped into the long-term care program, really, and mixed in with them and are not being provided with the proper supervision and proper support services.

[ Page 83 ]

How much would it cost to prevent this type of thing and the possible tragedy of Willowhaven being burned to the ground with all those geriatric patients in it, and further acts of violence? Are those people not worthy of at least one full-time staff person assigned to them at a salary, perhaps, of $25,000?

If it is so noble to hold to a magic figure of 5 percent at the risk of that type of violence towards people, then, Mr. Speaker, I say that we can't afford that kind of economy. I am sure that if the members who are sitting in this House will go into their areas and find out how those mental health patients are being cared for in their areas, they will realize that it is also being done in a totally inadequate way. We can't afford to save money there; we just can't afford it.

Another area with which I've become concerned is the program for children suffering from cerebral palsy. I note in the Vancouver Express of just yesterday that the handicapped program has been hit by a $400,000 grant cut. "Neurologically handicapped children in B.C. may be denied adequate treatment if government funding is not increased," said Paul Grocott, spokesman for the Cerebral Palsy Association of B.C. So this, again, is a problem which touches a few people in every riding in this province. The comment here is: "Most of our money goes to staff." Grocott said: "I wouldn't be surprised if some Outreach program such as Nelson, which is serviced from Trail, would be forced to close." Mr. Speaker, I was kind of alarmed to see that remark, because what we would like to see in Nelson is the extension and some increased funding so that a program could be started in Nelson for the children who are there.

Presently there are eight children getting service from this Outreach program in Trail, but because of transportation difficulties there are at least another eight identified children who are getting no service whatever, children with cerebral palsy growing up without any of the benefits that they are entitled to in this day and age. If they lived in Vancouver, they would get it without question.

How much are we talking about here? In fact, in British Columbia, because of the increase in participation in this kind of a program — and the funding has been increasing but not at a rate great enough to keep up with participation — there has been a drop of funding per child from $870 to $500. So the rate per child has actually been dropping while the participation rate has been climbing. When one considers that an approximate annual budget of $25,000 serves the entire West Kootenay, then I think that a kind of mindless adherence to a 5 percent increase in budget is absolutely primitive.

I have written to the minister on this. I have supported the application of the Cerebral Palsy Association of the West Kootenay. I feel that some increased funding should be made available in order that they could actually expand the program to cover Nelson. The amounts of money required wouldn't be all that great in terms of the 60 percent increase and the millions and millions of dollars voted last year in increased advertising budgets that just happened to coincide with an election year.

I did get a response from the Minister of Health. He said: "Thank you for your letter of March 16 advising me of your support of the appeal for increased funding made by the West Kootenay Cerebral Palsy Association. I've noted your comments and concerns and appreciate you making these known to me." I'm glad he appreciates it, but when I read yesterday in the Vancouver Express that funding is cut $400,000, I say that is the kind of economy we cannot afford.

The minister wrote around to various hospitals and hospital boards, and he asked them to comment on what effects might occur from the arbitrary 5 percent increase in hospital budgets. I wouldn't go through the entire reply of the Arrow Lakes Hospital Board in Nakusp, one of the new villages in my riding, but the chairman of this hospital board points out that last year, in this small hospital, the new small hospitals policy led to a reduction of four nurses in their staff. He says:

"When the effects of that decision, plus a mandatory 5 percent increase, would leave us in a hell of a state, I can only assume that these tactics are solely for the purpose of putting us out of business."

He comments on nursing and he says:

"Medications would not be given on time because of other priorities as a result of the 5 percent limitation. Errors in preparation and drug administration would undoubtedly occur and could prove serious and fatal. IV solutions would run dry or be pulled apart by patients. Nursing observation of patients would be totally inadequate. Vital signs would not be recorded as required, or even not taken at all. There would only be a perfunctory supervision of the nursery. This could result in the loss of an infant under the right circumstances. The hospital's infection control program would be virtually inoperative. Infections would increase considerably due to cross-infection brought about by non-observance of infection control procedures."

That was page 1. Page 2 is all on nursing. Page 3 covers dietary, housekeeping and laundry, and then business, office, and so on, for five pages, outlining in very clear detail the serious problems that arise from a locked-step approach — a blindly administered 5 percent increase in hospital budgets.

I also have drawn to the minister's attention the need for more extended-care beds. In travelling around, and going from house to house, and from hospital to hospital, and personal-care home to personal-care home during the course of an election, it's always brought back very forcibly that we have a very long way to go. In fact, the very opposite thing has been happening. Even the emergency extended-care beds which have been made available in some of the acute-care hospitals are being cut back. I'm assured by people who run homemaker service in places like Nakusp and Creston and Nelson that there are a tremendous number of people for whom they simply cannot care adequately. They are people who should be receiving some form of personal or intermediate or even extended care. And all the while we're cutting back, and cutting back very seriously. So these are a few of the health priorities which I feel reflect not only the needs of the new, large, improved Nelson-Creston constituency, but would probably be pretty fair comment from any rural member in this Legislature, and would, indeed, even be reflected in the concerns of many people in the urban ridings — particularly hospital cutbacks, as have already, been mentioned in this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about another thing, and I'm glad the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is in the chamber. There has been a great deal of concern —

[ Page 84 ]

and I have been very concerned — that reorganization of the Forests ministry has been taking place when, really, the Legislature has not had an opportunity to convene at any length for almost a year. During an election period bulletins were coming out, new steps were being taken, Treasury Board approvals were being given and this reorganization was taking place — and it is a reorganization that can have a tremendous impact on many of the small communities of this province. If Boeing were to completely shut down and pull out of Seattle, it would be a national emergency. But if a little forest ranger station shuts down in a community like New Denver, or Salmo, or maybe Meadow Creek, or in Lardeau, it can have the same magnitude of impact on that small community.

The village of Salmo saw that this was a threat to them — maybe not the magnitude that I have outlined, but it certainly will be a decision of great importance — and they wrote a letter to the minister last December, saying:

"It has come to our attention that the forestry office which is located near the village of Salmo will be moving to the Castlegar area. With mines closing and the sawmill reducing staff, Salmo is becoming a depressed area. Instead of reducing wage-earners, we must do all possible to increase the number of workers in the area, and the village council petitions your department to reconsider the move."

I also concurred with that and sent them a letter. The minister responded to them, said that no decision would be taken until there was adequate input and until small communities had been heard. Yet, during the election campaign, little bulletins were coming out under the signature of the deputy minister. One of them says:

"To all employees:

"Now, after what may have seemed an endless period of studies and reports, recommendations and meetings, a newly designed structure has been received and has received the concurrence of the executive committee of the minister. A structure has also been submitted to Treasury Board for approval, which is expected momentarily. "

This was subsequently granted, I might add.

So this type of thing is coming out, and yet they have never consulted with those small communities. Mr. Speaker, if this government wants to re-examine what it is doing and what went wrong in the last election....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Nothing went wrong! You lost a few seats, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things — and I see they are already becoming arrogant again, arrogant with 31 seats! — that they would do well to re-examine, in their bureaucratic neatness in tidying everything up, is consideration for people. Do you remember what people are? They were those things that you were going out to try and see just a couple of weeks ago. You were trying to get their support you were trying to talk to them and shake their hands. That's what people are. And how do you forget that so quickly?

I would suggest to this government that one of the things they should re-examine is that when they are making bureaucratic decisions here in Victoria, the people in the Interior can be very much affected by them and they should do more than just write a letter to them patting them on the head and telling them not to worry. Where is the consultation? Where are these decisions decided? Is Mr. Apsey acting without authority? Does the minister know what is going on in his department? Does he care? Because, Mr. Speaker, the people are very much concerned about this type of thing and these decisions being made. This is an issue in places like Creston. It's an issue in places like Salmo and New Denver, and if you want to go outside of the riding, it's an issue in places like Fauquier and Rock Creek and other areas.

Mr. Speaker, I might also say that another issue which has been touched upon is the future of the small independent forest enterprise in this province and whether the Forest Service is going to serve the Seven Sisters or whether it is going to serve the true innovative and, many times, competitive and progressive people who can provide jobs. What is the objective of the Forests ministry? Is it to see that with our resource we provide jobs and a good lifestyle, or is it simply to...? Do they even stop to consider how many jobs are produced per cunit rather than how many dollars are produced per cunit, and what the total economic impact of various types of forest allocation could be?

Mr. Speaker, I have pictures of thousands of acres of timber which was destroyed. This was brought to the attention of the ministry quite some time ago. I understand that Mr. Apsey just recently, about a week ago, visited the area to have a look at this first-hand. Small independent operators were not given time to go in there and harvest. They came down here to Victoria. They pointed this out to the ministry, and having pointed it out they were told that some private timber sales were going to be made available to them.

Well, two timber sales were announced. Number one was the sale of LNS 569. Mr. Speaker, this amounted to about one truck of dead-and-down material that was cut four years ago — mixed species of spruce and hemlock on an old trespass. It was pushed aside later by Crestbrook and broken up during construction of a road, and then it was advertised at current stumpage rates comparable to that for green timber. In it there were about six cedars and three white pines of any value and the rest was absolute garbage.

Another, also dead and down, and again a very small amount of timber.... If that is what the minister means when he talks about making small timber sales available, then it is the absolute death of the small forest operation here in British Columbia, and it will mean that there has been a total sell-out.

I think that one of the things that was so unfortunate about the last election and unfortunate about the New Democratic Party not being re-elected was that with another three or four years of Social Credit government — even with another year of Social Credit government — we will have taken an almost irreversible step in terms of timber allocation. If this is evidence of it, and if the wastage of thousands of acres of good, merchantable timber which could put people to work is an example of their priorities, if their philosophy is just "leave it to the big companies and they will solve all of our problems, our employment problems and everything else," then we are going to be in really grave trouble.

These are some of the major concerns which have come up before and during the election, and I would just like to assure the government that these are concerns that will not

[ Page 85 ]

go away and be swept under the table. If there is anything that characterizes this government, it is that it is totally out of control and still totally out of touch with people. We are building highways that people don't want. We are not building highways that people do want. We're making decisions involving communities. The Minister of Forests is obviously not consulting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in terms of what is happening to the affected municipalities and communities.

It is a government that is out of control. There is no direction. There are government bureaucracies which have been left hanging for over a year without any direction. To see such a vacuous throne speech and such a vacuous budget, I think, gives us all cause for concern.

One other omission from this budget which I'm very concerned about is the omission of any funding for water improvement districts similar to what was in the surplus appropriation budget of last year. I think that the program operated very well. I know that in my water improvement district the program operated extremely well, but many people only became aware of the program too late to undertake projects for last year. There is a very high expectation that the program would have been offered again this year. If it is not in place, again there are going to be a great number of dissatisfied people.

The move of water improvement districts into the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is going to prove absolutely disastrous. In many cases two year of work has completely gone down the drain. Again that is a story that will be repeated throughout this province.

These are some of the areas which I feel are very important to bring forward. Things such as 2,4-D in Kootenay Lake, the Kootenay diversion, and other issues will await their time during estimates. I'll be looking forward to that.

MR. STRACHAN: It is with pleasure that I rise for the second time in this House to speak to the outstanding budget that has been introduced by our Minister of Finance and by our government. As I speak for the second time, I am now in a position where I wish to address some of the comments that have been made by the members of the opposition, comments that did not speak to the budget but in fact meandered around discussions of 1975 campaigns, tried to compare highway-taxed beer to food, and spoke to the validity of section 80 ballots.

Parenthetically, I ask you to note that section 80 ballots are indeed valid, and on May 23 of this year my scrutineers watched the Prince George South returning officer open and count 600 of them. It is with delight that I noted that they upheld my majority.

For the most part the debate we've heard from the opposition has been insipid, sadly lacking in flavour and substance. I think the one notable exception to some degree — and I'm sorry he is not here right now — was contained in the comments of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Although that member admitted to a diagnosed myopia, he still in fact demonstrated far more perception, far more investigative qualities and capabilities, than the rest of his colleagues in the opposition were able to demonstrate. With this one notable exception, the opposition has presented a unified and obtuse approach to debate with a certain sameness of mediocrity, the sameness that causes me to ponder the prophecy contained in the eighth verse, thirteenth chapter of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. I think the opposition silence on the real items contained in our budget should cause our government to consider that in fact what we are hearing is tacit approval of this most exemplary budget.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) spoke at great length against this budget on the misguided grounds that the budget does not address the concerns of the unemployed. Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Nanaimo, I say with the greatest respect and empathy that in all likelihood a visit to the ophthalmologist is in order for the member for Nanaimo. For the member's benefit I'd like to draw his attention to the items contained in the budget that deal directly and in a most positive manner with unemployment.

I would submit $10 million for construction of a Vancouver trade and convention centre; $2.5 million for the proposed Victoria convention centre; $25 million for the sports centre in the lower mainland — again construction; $5 million for a low-interest program to help medium- and small-sized businesses in the metropolitan areas; $5 million for industrial research; $25.3 million for an accelerated highway construction program.

At this point I would like to applaud the hon. Member for the Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser). As the member for Prince George South — I'm sure I speak for my colleague in Prince George North and for most of us in the central interior and northern parts of the province — I applaud the hon. member for the Cariboo for the outstanding work he has done for highway development in our respective constituencies. Work, construction and rebuilding were sadly lacking in the 1972-75 administration. I'll carry on enumerating the list for the benefit of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich): $14 million for reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension of the British Columbia Railway; $10 million for a reforestation program — again of tremendous benefit to Prince George South and to the many constituencies that have directly related industries; $5 million for new recreation facilities in British Columbia. The total of just the items I have enumerated is well over $100 million and provides for more than 8,000 jobs in 1979 and more in the future. The member for Nanaimo spoke at great length against this budget, but I have to say to him these programs are building programs: they employ people; they are labour intensive; they have a multiplier effect in the community; they create jobs.

On a further note to our government's concern for the unemployed, I would like to speak about tax reduction, exemptions and how they have a direct bearing on reducing unemployment. We addressed some of these benefits in earlier sessions; however, they seem to be hitting the upper part of the wall across from where we sit. On any occasion when more discretionary funds are put into the private sector and into the hands of the consumer, the general economy benefits. Although this concept might appear unclear to the opposition, as indeed many basic concepts do, I submit that the economic reality of placing trust in the private sector and placing trust in the consumer has a direct, positive and measurable effect on the social and economic well-being of our community. The opposition manifesto does not allow for the people of the state to control their own destiny, and I really have to react in the strongest terms to the opposition as they speak against this budget. In speaking against this budget the opposition is speaking

[ Page 86 ]

against the business sector. They are speaking against the consumer, the manner, the unemployed, the youth, the students, the sick, the needy, the economic sector large and small. They are speaking against the people of British Columbia. I realize that the opposition manifesto has to presuppose that the people, the citizens of the state, are mindless. They maintain that only big government should own business and industry. They maintain we cannot allow any surplus to be given back to the people, and that is why they maintain that the resources of this province cannot be shared by the people of this province.

No doubt the opposition, and in particular the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), has the right to cloud debate and attribute to difference in opinion that which should be correctly attributed to political motives. I'm sure the member for Coquitlam-Moody, in speaking off the budget, was not addressing our government but maybe a smaller body of members. However, these motives aside, the opposition, when they speak against our budget, are in reality using a desperate little political mechanism to discredit and stifle the growth of our economy. Only when there is abundant poverty can the opposition exist, and from a political point of view they cannot allow the economy to flourish.

But our economy will flourish. To the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), we do have a dental plan. I really sincerely think, Mr. Speaker, maybe an ophthalmologist plan or an extension of it might be in order after the dental plan.

We have here before us now a most outstanding budget, a budget which speaks to all elements of our society and to all the people of British Columbia. I urge this House to unanimously endorse this budget. I urge the opposition to recognize that the budget speaks well for our government and for all the people of British Columbia.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you and the Speaker of the House (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) on your election, and all of the new members who have joined this assembly, and take my hands out of my pockets and just rise in this debate for a very few minutes. I'm not going to mention any leadership problems among the government ranks...

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about the opposition?

MR. MACDONALD: ...or an October leadership convention, because, when my friend for...now in the Coquitlam area — and I'll have to get the riding straight — mentioned that the other day, there were loud bursts of laughter from the government benches. And do you know who led the laughter? The hon. minister for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair). "Ho, ho, ho!" he said. Imagine that, that there could possibly be any leadership problems in terms of a Premier who took his party into the election with the Gallup poll ratings way up there, and with every town he visited those Gallups dropped point by point. But they laughed it off, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure there's no trouble in the wigwam, if we can believe all that laughter. It was a little bit like the humming chorus from Madame Butterfly, and methinks some of them did laugh too hard.

While the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is in the House, I want to be very kind with respect to anything he may have said, but refresh the memory of this House with respect to the kind of financial genius that he embodies. The hon. minister is a very good speaker, you know. He's one of the speakers who, in every speech he makes, allows the minds of his listeners to slip into neutral and just idle along. You don't have to strain at anything that he is presenting in his speeches.

He talks about oil and gas in the Peace River country, and this is what the hon. minister said on October 23, 1973, when I had the honour to bring in a bill called the B.C. Petroleum Corporation Act. Here is what this minister said:

"I don't see anything in this Act that says this money is going to come back into general revenue. No way. What in essence will happen is that for a large number of years — 10 to 20 years — the taxpayers of this province will be building up a conglomerate company that will cost the taxpayers of this province millions and millions and millions of dollars out of general revenue, and that millions and millions of dollars out of general revenue will pass into this company without one word from this Legislature, because all those millions of dollars will go into this company by order-in-council."

"Will cost," the minister said. And for that financial genius of prognosis and prescription what more fitting job could be offered to this hon. member in the cabinet of the Social Credit coalition than Minister of Economic Development? Who ever realized that he was speaking of a corporation that, to give the exact figures, has brought $721 million into the public treasury from its inception in 1974 up to the first quarter of 1979? Who would have ever thought that there was a kind of financial wizardry lurking in that hon. member, who could predict of that experiment that it would cost the people of this province hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars? The hon. member's talents are kind of hidden from view when he makes that kind of a prediction, and his economic prognosis has the same relationship to the truth that darkness has to light, or hell has to heaven. He hides his economic genius, Mr. Speaker.

"Full many a gem of purest ray serene the dark, unfathom'd caves of ocean bear." He hides that financial wizardry that went to Japan three times — not a ripple, not a result, nothing, except these big expense accounts — $29,000 in his expense account for one year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three steam baths!

MR. MACDONALD: Steam baths. Nothing else — no steel mill, no sales, no nothing. The Minister of Economic Development keeps hiding that potential that he should share with all of the people of the province.

That minister can't ruin this province. It is too great and rich and forceful. Nothing you can do will ruin it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did it, though.

MR. MACDONALD: No, no, we didn't. I'll go up into the Peace River and debate with you any day. Where did you hide when our candidate Corliss Miller was going to debate with you about these things? You ran and hid from that little lady. You wouldn't debate with her. Why would you be afraid of that little lady candidate in Peace River South?

I just want to say one thing in a more serious vein to the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). You mentioned Panco, and I made some note about what was

[ Page 87 ]

said because I want to give a different perspective to that kind of a problem.

When Panco was under the general managership of Jerry Cohen — I think his name was Ted Cohen — it had four turkey farms and some broiler farms. When that operation, threatened with the loss of some 300 or 400 jobs, was purchased on behalf of all the people of British Columbia, the Natural Products Marketing Board, thinking it a terrible thing that of the people of the province should share in what was really a public franchise granted to the turkey quota holders and the broiler holders, called it a terrible thing that the public should have what private farmer individuals have, in terms of a franchise from the public to divide up the market. This is what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said. He said there was a quickly identified conflict of interest. And the Natural Products Marketing Board of that day, under the chairmanship of the man who is now the member for the Central Fraser Valley, tried to cut back Panco under public ownership from the amount of the quotas that they had had when it was a private firm managed by Ted Cohen.

The Minister of Agriculture said: "I quickly detected a conflict of interest." Now a quota, whether it is a liquor licence or the right to produce so many broilers and sell them, or so many turkeys, or so many eggs, is a franchise granted by the public to a private individual. But when all the people own that industry, when they are working in a public industry for or on behalf of all the people of British Columbia, should they have had their quotas pulled back? And what is a conflict of interest when the public in that monopoly situation have the right, finally, to share in the proceeds of what is a private franchise?

What is good for the private individual out there for his own advantage is one thing. But surely something ought to be said for the general common good of all the people of British Columbia in terms of turkey franchises or anything else, and whether they live in Pouce Coupe, and whether they're farmers, or whether they're school children. And that honourable member speaking said that pressure was brought to bear upon him, not to cut back the Panco quotas when it came under public ownership, but to allow them to remain the same. Was that honourable member then speaking for the quota holders, turkey and broiler? Or was he speaking in the interests of all the people of British Columbia who were sharing in that industry and which industry was bringing back profits into the public treasury of the province of British Columbia and preserving employment for the people? That member forgot he was on that turkey board, not only representing the private turkey quota holders, but he should have been representing all the people of British Columbia. He totally lost and forgot his sense of the public interest, which should have been the main factor in determining his decisions as chairman of that board. If pressure was brought to bear on him to resign, he should have accepted that pressure and resigned, because he wasn't doing his job.

I sit down by saying that the principal reason I oppose this budget is that it does nothing, and in fact shows no concern whatsoever about the sell-out of British Columbia resources to foreign interests.

I see the resource revenue that is capable of coming into this province for the use of all of the people out of our resources being drained off by multinational corporations who, if they were even approached, would be willing to pay a greater share back into the public revenue. I see from Kaiser Resources, an American multinational, which sells our coal to Japan and Korea — $84 million net after all taxes, municipal income tax, sales tax, royalties — $84 million net that that corporation is making, and this government has been abetting and piling up the profits of the international companies — coal, oil, natural gas — all international companies, all using our resources of the best and richest province in any part of the world, piling up the profits in the hands of those who live outside our borders and whose money, when we pile up those profits we never see again as a province.

I say that this government has been totally derelict in the protection of the public interest in resources of the people and province of British Columbia.

MR. BRUMMET: I had prepared some notes for this opportunity to speak again. I will follow these notes somewhat, but I have just been given a beautiful opportunity to speak off the cuff in reply to the second member for Vancouver East.

He mentioned the Petroleum Corporation, and he mentioned that the Minister of Economic Development made a statement that it would cost the people of British Columbia millions of dollars, and it would have. Thank goodness the NDP government was defeated, so that it was a profit-making opportunity. We can be ever thankful that the government changed. Even the Energy Commission, I believe, in the early fall of 1974 came up with some findings that unless something was done very soon to get oil and gas exploration and development back into British Columbia, there would be no product to sell. It was going to run short; there were shortfalls already. So again, I think that's evidence. You can check that Energy Commission report.

It was also rather interesting to note that that same member for Vancouver East came up to the North Peace riding to help the NDP candidate there, and he helped him like this: he opened up the statistics battle, which we had not touched. Certainly that candidate was not about to open it up. So this member for Vancouver East, in helping, came up and opened up the statistics war. To help, we saw that in 1975, I believe it was, the money for exploration and development rights was something like $12.7 million to this province; then in 1978, $177.5 million was paid to this province. Now that was some help! I said this during the campaign: I am certainly glad that somebody like that did not come up and help me in that campaign.

There was another helper — and only one more, I believe — from the province of Alberta, Grant Notley came over. He too tried to help that member by making a comment, something like: "Well, the previous NDP Premier of the province of British Columbia was not very wise at that time, but he has learned a great deal since. Please give him another opportunity." So they quit helping that candidate after that.

To the budget, Mr. Speaker. The budget provides several significant tax reductions. The members of the opposition don't speak against tax reductions. It projects increased revenues which more than balance increased expenditures and they do not speak against that. It introduces new programs. There's hardly any point in reiterating them; they've been talked about by many of our previous speakers, including the BCRIC shares and so on.

[ Page 88 ]

There are a lot of new programs, and they don't speak against these. I believe the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has said that they speak around the budget. So though they speak against the budget, they don't seem to speak against any of the specifics in the budget.

It must be a difficult position being a member of the opposition, being obligated to speak against whatever the government proposes, regardless of how good it can be for the people of British Columbia. I'm not sure whether they are members of the loyal opposition or whether they are loyal members of the opposition. Certainly it must be difficult for them to speak against good services for their people.

I am trying to abbreviate, Mr. Speaker. I did want to make the point that some members of the opposition have said that they picked up a lot of votes during the last election because of dissatisfaction with the Social Credit government. I would like to suggest that they picked up these votes because they create illusions. They do not have to back up what they say because they had full faith that they would not be re-elected to form the government. So they could say a lot of things. They could create illusions that you can get jobs in various ways without having industries functioning, that you can somehow or other provide services for people without getting the money for it. One could go on with the illusions that they have created, and they were illusions.

People like dreams; they prefer dreams to reality. It certainly was not politically expedient for this government to raise taxes in 1975, to raise ICBC rates, to cut back the mushrooming civil service, to cut back excessive government spending and to impose restraints on spending. We've had a lot of complaints about the restraints in spending. Surely the opposition members are not suggesting that there should be no guidelines of restraint. The government has shown time and again that when a real problem exists the needs can be met, and they can be met out of revenue on hand, that it doesn't have to borrowed. I think that's an important point.

I think the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) did point out that it's easy to borrow money and spread it out over time and not have to face it. This government took the courageous approach; they were realistic. They did what was necessary to get this province back on its feet, and then, when the benefits which were promised that would result from that type of economic performance started to arrive, the opposition started calling these election gimmicks. They are not election gimmicks. They are evidence of good and sound management.

We have, perhaps, three things. They say the budget does nothing to create jobs. How they reach this conclusion is beyond me. Certainly we talked about all the industries that are developing, and perhaps I could give you some indication of just one article; again, I'll abbreviate. If any of you want to read what reality is as compared to illusion, I would recommend very strongly the April edition of Trade and Commerce, which gives Fort St. John as the city of the year because of the development there.

The evidence of that is that in May, after the election, when industry was again reassured, the building permits in Fort St. John totalled $8.5 million, which brings the total up to over $18 million for five months in 1979 so far. And you're going to tell us that this does nothing to create jobs? It's the climate that's established by a budget such as this that creates that type of development which creates the type of jobs, many jobs, that are happening there.

They say that the budget does nothing for people when over two-thirds of it, really, is for health, education and human resources.

And then very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we have the other for transportation, communication and highways. We've even heard in the campaign that the Social Credit government is a blacktop government, so they don't care about people. Well, let me tell you, it's easy enough when you are sitting and driving near blacktop, or driving on blacktop, to make disparaging remarks about blacktop. But when you are driving in mud and clay and broken windshields and that sort of thing, then you can believe that paving roads does have something to do with people.

Over two-thirds of this budget has gone into ministries that service people directly, and over three-quarters has actually gone into things for people. I think you could find an awful lot else that helps people.

Then we heard that this budget does nothing to cut inflation; and then we talked about tax cuts; spending restraint by example as well as by suggestion; cash budgeting; the pay-as-you-go policy, which means you don't borrow, you don't pay twice as much for everything that you build — you pay for it in cash. We certainly have the federal government as a beautiful example of what happens when you try and borrow your way out of trouble.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close by saying very briefly that this budget is a fantastic budget. I would like to see everyone support it for the good of the people in British Columbia.

MR. KING: I want, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you and the Deputy Speaker on your election to those relative positions within this Legislature. I do not expect any special treatment for my role in the nominations; I want to assure you of that. Just fairness and equity, Mr. Speaker, will suffice.

I want to also congratulate the new members of the Legislature who were elected for the first time on this occasion, and I want to particularly welcome back to this institution quite a number of my colleagues who were absent for a very short sabbatical, one might say. It's good to have them back.

I'd like also to make mention, as some of the other members have done, of the contribution to the public life of British Columbia made by each and every person who stood for public office in the recent election.

I think sometimes in this institution people forget that the conflict of ideas and the debate regarding policy is the very essence of democracy. One should never become so hypersensitive and so defensive that one believes that it's sacrilege and something terrible to either criticize a government policy or to suggest an alternative. That's the very essence of democracy. Certainly everyone who stood for office in the last election deserves the thanks of the public for the role they played. Many of them, I'm sure, are back in their ridings working and planning for the next time around. I think even some of those who lost the nomination are out there planning and working for the next time around. From what I've heard here this afternoon — I don't necessarily wish them success — I wouldn't be too surprised if they met with success the next time around.

[ Page 89 ]

I too want to be fairly brief this afternoon. I want to say a few things about the budget. I'm disappointed in it. I don't think there's very much in the budget which addresses itself to what I think are the major afflictions besetting our economy today.

We do have a very alarming unemployment situation in the province of British Columbia. While there may be some job creation in certain parts of the province, one cannot ignore the statistics put out by the Ministry of Labour for this government, which showed, I think, an increase in May in the unemployment rate which went against the national employment trend, an increase that indicated that the economy of British Columbia was slowing down, when, in fact, the unemployment rate was dropping throughout the rest of the nation. That's hardly a record to be proud of. I see nothing which directs itself to any exciting program or any aggressive program of job creation in this budget. I believe that the people of British Columbia deserve better.

It's not just a matter of the government spending money to create employment. I agree with that proposition. But it should be remembered — and certainly some of the new people in the House would not know this — that in 1976 we cautioned this government about their unnecessary increases in costs in government services, which disposed of and eroded personal income of people in this province, and which hurt intensely the small business community of the province of British Columbia by drying up disposable income and by centralizing funds in Victoria, rather than leaving it for the economic impact that it has in the community. Naturally there was going to be a slowdown in the economy; naturally there was going to be accelerating unemployment. The chickens have come home to roost. Now, for the new boys to get up and suggest some spending, some handing out of two-bit, penny-ante surplus funds here and there — more to accommodate the political aspirations of this government in the election than to do anything real and dynamic in terms of an infusion of capital to generate the economic pot — is a bit nonsensical. The chickens have come home to roost, and it's directly attributable to the antiquated, archaic economic policies entered into.

But what would you expect from a coalition of old, competing, right-wing economic philosophies with no clear direction and no clearly defined goals? One couldn't expect anything else, Mr. Speaker. I'm surprised you're still with us.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I'm not sure who they are. I'm not sure who's going to end up with the leadership of that party, whether it's going to be a Liberal or a Tory or a real, old, traditional Socred. I can't even find an old, traditional Socred in the ranks over there. Maybe the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is more of a traditionalist — I don't know. I understand the Liberals are running in the lead right now; the money is on the nose of the "Man from Glad." They certainly need leadership help. They obviously need leadership help, because they took quite a licking in the last election — very, very close to the brink. I don't hear any cries now of "Go, go, go!" Not only is Ed Smith waiting in the wings; the people are waiting in the wings for another shot at them.

The other thing that disturbs me about the budget is that nothing is done about the accelerating cost of living, I'm sure that all members of the House are concerned about that, whether they be coalition members, whether they be Socred, Liberal, whatever their stripe. They have to be concerned about the people on fixed incomes, particularly low-wage earners, who are just ill-equipped to keep up with the accelerating cost of living. Study your own government's analysis.

Vancouver has to be one of the hot-spots in Canada for the accelerating cost-of-living. I see nothing in the budget to protect the consumers, to threaten to roll back prices. I've seen a number of members get up in the Legislature and make some apparently reasoned arguments for restraint and for control, restraint particularly by labour in wage negotiations. But I haven't heard very much about some restraint in pricing to protect the consumer. The members of the Social Credit back bench are so concerned about the public interest, on the one hand, that they want working people to restrain their demands and temper their aspirations in terms of keeping pace with the cost of living. But where is your interest and where is your desire to protect the public when it comes to the kind of gouging that some of the big food chains have indulged in? I haven't heard one whisper from anyone about a fair prices commission or any mechanism for rolling back or monitoring the gouging that goes on in the marketplace in isolated instances that are, nevertheless, very damaging indeed.

It seems to me that this outfit, Mr. Speaker, has a fixation with protecting the public interest when they perceive that working people are trying to gain a little more, so that their status on the economic and social rung is accelerating a little bit. "Keep those workers down," seems to be the philosophy. Keep the workers down, because it is detrimental to the public interest if they want a bit more. But allow the big business boys, allow the food chains and the landlords — even sell them Crown land at a premium kind of deal — allow them to gouge and to appreciate their profits. That's great, this crowd says. What a strange, convoluted philosophy these people have. What a queer approach they have in representing the interests of the people in their riding. I can't identify with them; I can't even understand that type of mentality, I doubt whether many of them do either.

Nothing on inflation. Nothing on the cost of living. The inflationary spiral continues. Members have talked about restraint on government spending. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), has laid bare the myth and the sham of that claim. He's laid it bare. All this government has done, in a transparent attempt to demonstrate that they are spending less, is shuttle off services into Crown corporations that were historically always accounted for in the central budget of this province — B.C. Buildings Corporation, ferries and what not. The actual rate of government spending has increased by something like 15 percent, rather than 5 percent as claimed by the government. That's manipulation of figures. The people are not so foolish that they are taken in by that kind of juggling of figures. I don't know whether it is double-bookkeeping, but it is certainly toying with the figures and the actual spending estimates of the government of British Columbia.

We would be in a deficit budget situation if they showed, fairly and accurately, the real spending of the government for the past fiscal year. The auditor-general,

[ Page 90 ]

whom everyone is very proud of, clearly demonstrates that in her report. She gives a scathing indictment of the accounting procedures of this government. Either the new people have not read Erma Morrison's report, or they're not prepared to accept the facts laid before them. They've become so partisan, Mr. Speaker, that they just close their eyes to any factual data that happens to disagree with their inclination, and that's a regrettable affliction for any member of the House.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes, in here — political politics too, the worst kind. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the last election, too, in how the government performed. I had the unusual and unique experience of finding myself in a new riding, a very difficult one. I was in the unique circumstance of facing a fellow incumbent of this House in that election, and I knew it was going to be very difficult. I had the good fortune, of welcoming into my riding the Premier and nine of his cabinet who journeyed up there and went on open-line radio shows. They spent a lot of attention on my riding. I think they like the climate up there; I enjoyed their company, and I enjoyed some of their statements on the airwaves. It was most entertaining. I enjoyed some of the reactions from my constituents, too.

I want to relate a little story. We had had a problem with a community recreation complex in the city of Revelstoke. This problem had been going on for a couple of years. We had applied for a grant to the provincial government under the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Grant Act — how do you like that for a title? The Hon. Samuel Bawlf was the minister who had the matter in hand, and he just somehow kept delaying and delaying approval of this $400,000 grant application. He said: "Oh, I think it will come." And at one point, he said to me: "You never know, Bill, it may help elect you during the next election campaign."

Well, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse, and I kind of got the impression that perhaps the grant would come rolling down the pike during the course of the election campaign. When my colleague, the incumbent candidate for the Social Credit Party, was in Revelstoke, sure enough, down the pike it came. Good old Len Bawtree announced: "You've got your $400,000 that you've been waiting for for a year and a half and King couldn't get for you."

Then I knew what Sam Bawlf meant when he said: "It may help re-elect you." I think he was dead right; it did help re-elect me. I think it did. He was dead right and he was dead politically too; both of them were. There's a message there. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I want to tell you that there are sophisticated people in the Interior who won't be bought by a gang of Liberals and a gang of Tories.

I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker: where is Sam now? He's probably commiserating with Len Bawtree over why they couldn't buy a seat for a $400,000 grant to Revelstoke's community recreational facility. Tough potatoes! I guess you're going to have to go a little bit higher next time, gang. There are other things we need in the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke, and I want to tell you that they're going to cost a million bucks.

Mr. Speaker, this is the government and the party that campaigned on the basis of individual rights. "Freedom," they said. They said: "Those heavy-handed state socialists — stay away from them. They'll oppress you and they'll impinge on your individual liberty." They're the gang that said they stood for free enterprise. They stood for the right of individuals and they believed in property rights. It was those terrible state socialists you had to be aware of.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I hate to relate this to the Legislature, particularly to my good friend the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who has won the laudatory praise of all of the backbenchers who are looking for advancement in the caucus this afternoon into the cabinet. They figure the road to the cabinet is through the Minister of Highways.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of respect your government has for property rights, be it the property rights of business people or the property rights of the little homeowner in the province of British Columbia who wants nothing more than to own his little plot of land and to build a home on it, the kind of thing that the Premier talks about with tears in his eyes, the kind of thing that he says your party represents.

Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to make a submission to the court of revision on taxation on behalf of a group of people in Revelstoke. Some of them owned commercial land; some of them owned individual building lots and wanted nothing more than to build a home on them. Lo and behold, some bureaucrat from the Minister of Highways' department drove by, and out of his automobile window he pointed at this parcel and that parcel and he said: "It looks like avalanche country." He placed a designation on that property that this area might be subject to avalanche. Therefore he put a freeze on that land; he immobilized it. There would be no development, no access roads, no consideration whatsoever to any kind of development.

Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, he lacked even the courtesy to notify the landowner? They didn't know they were frozen. In this particular case here, the property was, I think, purchased for $170,000, planned for commercial development, with an application pending before the regional district board. The real estate agent came to see the owners and he said: "Did you realize that you have a freeze on your property?" They said, "No, we've never been notified." So the owner wrote to the Minister of Highways and asked if it was true. The minister said yes, it was true, but the government hadn't determined the policy on it yet.

Now that was in back in 1976. So my friend, the owner of this property, kept writing letters. He wrote to the minister's deputy; he wrote to the minister himself. He received no reply from the minister, but he did receive three epistles from the bureaucrats on the minister's staff stating that no policy decision had been made as yet. In the meantime the land is immobilized. In the meantime, of course, the taxes continue to grow. The taxes appreciated — I believe I've got it here — from some $800, I believe it was, in 1976 up to $1,136.91 in 1978, an increase of 39.5 percent in taxation on the land which the guy owned but was denied the right to develop, gain access to or anything else, because the minister lacks a policy.

Is that the kind of respect for ownership rights, for land rights, for property rights, for entrepreneurial rights that this government stands for? You all pay lip service to it; you all get up and wax rhetorical about your dedication to private

[ Page 91 ]

enterprise and ownership rights. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be one thing if this were an isolated case; it would be one thing if this were the only case in Revelstoke. It's not this commercial outfit that's pegged and unfairly abused by this government.

I know a young man who was deeded a portion of property by his father — a young married guy who wants to build his home on it — and it got the same kind of arbitrary designation, except in this case it's not avalanche; it's mud slide or something. And my point is not to argue with the designation. Maybe it's appropriate; maybe that's a good thing to do to protect the public interest; maybe that's necessary. But surely if it is, this government must have the commitment and the respect for ownership rights of people to either make a trade in property for Crown land or to compensate them for the loss of the land that the government has had to seize and immobilize in the public interest. It's as simple as that.

This minister, Mr. Speaker, has sat on this issue for over three years now, while the people wait for a policy decision. They've been gouged with ever-increasing taxation in the meantime. They lack the courtesy of even being advised in the first instance, and they've been gouged for three years ever since.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they get up and they talk about their commitment to these things, but time and time again you come before them with specific evidence of where the facts don't match their rhetoric, the facts don't match the statements and the commitments they make to the electorate or to this Legislature, and they sit there like mummies and let it slide off hides that, I guess, have become very thick with the short duration of office that they've enjoyed.

Mr. Speaker, I'm starting to get hoarse because this issue does provoke me. I want to tell you I've just dealt briefly with it. I'm not going to go through the whole chapter and verse of it at this time, because it's a very serious matter, but I want to serve notice on the Minister of Highways that if he expects to get his estimates through this House, he'd better be prepared to come up with a policy decision on this issue before his estimates go through this Legislature.

It's just completely and grossly unfair to sit in your padded chair in that comfortable office and do nothing and say nothing while people are being gouged in this fashion. If that land must be immobilized, then fair enough. Either pay them for it in a fair arbitration fashion, or trade land that may be available through the Crown, or come up with some fair and equitable policy approach. But to sit there for three years in immobile fashion — as immobile as the land that you've put your tender policies to work on — is absolutely unforgivable. I've got no respect for a minister like that or a government that pursues that kind of policy. I say, shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, I think we'd better give the Minister of Finance some time to finish off what should be a debate on the budget. Nevertheless the budget is something that reflects on the total policy of all the ministers of the government, and I just wanted to serve notice on the Minister of Highways that if he doesn't do something before his estimates roll around — and I've done everything I can to persuade him, to write him letters, to make phone calls, to persuade him that he has to move on this issue — there are going to be fireworks in this session.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Threats!

MR. KING: They're not threats; it's a promise on behalf of the people I represent.

I am disappointed that the budget does nothing to deal with the central economic problems that people are facing in the province, and I mean that sincerely. I'm willing to wager with the House that, come this fall, we are going to see unemployment levels at the same approximate level that we've seen this year, or perhaps even higher. We face a situation today where all the predictions are for somewhat of a downturn in the American economy, particularly in home construction, and that has been the one saving grace, in terms of the B.C. economy: the buoyancy of the forestry market. With any slide in that, and with the inattention and the lack of any commitment to any imaginative programs that we see in this budget, we're very disappointed, and we certainly intend to vote against it. It is inadequate to meet the challenge facing the economy of this province of ours today. I wish the Minister of Finance could justify it.

I'm going to sit down now, and I expect that he'll take no more than five minutes to try to justify what is a very threadbare budget in terms of the aspirations of the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's a pleasure to close this brief but energetic budget debate. Until I heard the last speaker — who I see is leaving the chamber — who wanted to have some response, I had every expectation that we might for one time in the history of the Commonwealth have a unanimous vote on a budget. I understand that not since 1793 have the opposition in parliament voted in favour of a budget. This could have been the time. We've come close, but somehow they've missed the message. They haven't read this wonderful document; they obviously haven't read it, I don't know what you'd have to do to cause them to vote in favour of a budget. How could you please them?

As one of our former members, Mr. Stephens, said: "Take all the sales tax off. Take all the property taxes off the homes, so on and so forth, and still they vote against it." I want to compliment them, because they've made a valiant effort under tremendous odds to attack this budget.

I only want to draw your attention to two or three items which, this afternoon alone, do excite me. The very last speaker indicated this budget disappointed him in that it provided no job creation. No job creation? How about the surplus appropriation bill, the acceleration of the highway construction program, the funding of support for reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension? How about additional funding for reforestation? How about the acceleration of the job-experience program for young people? I could go on.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriation of that surplus of the year 1977-78 will account for some 8,000 job opportunities in this coming year. And how about the additional surplus appropriation for 1978-79? The convention centres, the low-interest loan program, the new investments in the British Columbia Development Corporation — there are some 3,500 job opportunities from that additional appropriation of carefully-guarded surplus funds.

[ Page 92 ]

How about the regular appropriation by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) for employment opportunities? Some 13,500 direct jobs accrue from that program, Mr. Speaker.

What about the tax reductions? There are $220 million in tax reductions. You mean to say that won't create any jobs? Just think of the stimulation on this economy! I have an estimate of some 4,000 jobs indirectly created with the injection of these tax measures into the economy.

So, Mr. Speaker, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — I don't know, we might change his mind — says there has been no job creation. I just accounted for some 35,000 estimated new jobs arising from this "sunshine budget" for British Columbia.

He said there's nothing in the budget to attack the cost of living, nothing to try to do anything about inflation: I suppose he's obliged to say that. Mr. Speaker, there's no other budget in Canada which has shown the restraint of the 5 percent increase which you find in the new British Columbia budget. That's far below the rate of growth, including inflation, which would exist in any province in Canada. You really have here an energetic effort to show restraint and therefore try to control the cost of living in this province. Under this government you have the lowest cost-of-living increase in British Columbia of any province in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw your attention to one other matter in which the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) in his colourful attire, removed from the squash racket.... He brought today his annual recording of his views in terms of resource revenues — our giveaway of resource revenues, he said, to the multinationals. He used all the normal cliches — what we've done to resource revenues. What would you call an increase of 75 percent in resource revenues in 1978-79 over the best year under that government? I call that careful management and proper public administration to draw the proper public revenues associated with resource revenues.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: My friend, just read the budget. Mr. Speaker, he should read the budget to realize that what he says is actually a mockery in terms of what the record shows insofar as public revenue derived from resources. That is the prime reason why we have surpluses to devote to extra job opportunities in this province.

We have here a budget which they've tried energetically to criticize, but which we all in our darkest of hearts know has everything. It's a budget which encourages new investment in terms of reductions in the corporation capital tax, in terms....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote for that? He shakes his head. The NDP are against reduction in the capital tax for small business.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm just amazed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get it on the record.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay, we'll get it on the record. Are you against the new type of investment company called the small business venture capital corporation? I gather that they may be opposed to that, Mr. Speaker.

And how about the special dividend tax credit for all British Columbia residents receiving dividends from B.C. public corporations? These are three measures specifically meant to encourage new investment in this province.

I can't sit down, of course, without reminding you of the tremendous concentration in this budget on social services, in terms of the health appropriation of $1.2 billion, 27 percent of the total budget. This is one of the highest proportions devoted to health, hospitals and medicare in this country. We hold a back seat to no one in this category, Mr. Speaker.

I think an important thrust in this budget lies in the new policies devoted to reducing property taxes. There is a substantial increase in the grants to school districts, the removal of all of the colleges from property taxes entirely, and a $100 increase in the homeowner grant. You have in this budget....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would ask the members opposite: are you going to vote against that — the $100 increase in the homeowner grant?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to just shake his head.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Is anyone nodding his head or shaking it? There's a nod over here. They're voting against it.

We have the most substantial tax cuts for the benefit of the people of this province, we have new incentives to create investment and, above all, we have a substantial thrust in terms of social services in this province. This is the best budget this province has ever had a chance to vote on. I see no reason why I shouldn't sit down and allow you an opportunity to vote in favour of it.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 23

[ Page 93 ]

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On vote 100: minister's office, $109,825.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.